20040929 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20070831

imap:Hdebbie. edwards%40dwq. [e-mail]:143/...
U, - C?<<-i CI
Subject: Gregory Site Construction Schedule
From: "jhutton" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:08:04 -0400
To: "'John Dorney"' <[e-mail]>, "'Debbie Edwards"' <[e-mail]>
CC: "Kevin Tweedy" <[e-mail]>, "Tara Alden \(E-mail\)"
<Tara@B lackoakusa.com>
John/Debbie,
Per the conditions laid out in our 401 certification, I am informing you that we are within 10 days of
beginning construction on the Gregory Site Stream and Wetland Restoration project. We will be mobilizing
equipment to the site next week and hopefully beginning rough grading of the site by the end of that week.
Let us know if we can be of any further assistance concerning this project. Thanks again for your help on
this and the South Fork Restoration Site in Catawba County.
John Hutton
Buck Engineering
8000 Regency Parkway, Ste. 200
Cary, NC 27511
919-459-9006
1 of 1 11/2/2004 2:51 PM
?0F WATF9P Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
O G North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director
-I Division of Water Quality
O `C
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
October 26, 2004
DWQ Project # EXP 04-0929
Halifax County
Page 1 of 4
Tara Disy Allden
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200A
Cary, NC 27511
Subject Property: Gregory Site Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project
Black Spring Creek (Tributary to Marsh Swamp [03-03-04, 28-79-30-
1, C; Sw, NSW (nutrient sensitive water)]
Revised Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions-
EXPRESS REVIEW PROGRAM
Dear Ms. Allden:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed
below, to place fill within or otherwise impact 3,670 feet of perennial streams for the
purpose of compensatory mitigation totaling 6,725 linear feet of stream restoration and
75 acres of wetland restoration at the subject property, as described within your
application dated June 14, 2004 and received by the N.C. Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) on June 17, 2004 and additional information submitted and received on July 1,
2004, July 6, 2004, July 9, 2004 and August 27, 2004. After reviewing your application,
we have decided that the impacts are covered by General Water Quality Certification
Number 3399 (GC3399). The Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit 27
when issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In addition, you should
obtain or otherwise comply with any other required federal, state or local permits before
you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Erosion and Sediment
Control and Non-discharge regulations. Also, this approval to proceed with your
proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your application
shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit. This 401 Water Quality
Certification replaces the Certification issued on July 12, 2004.
This approval is for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If
you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new
application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this
Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all
conditions. If total fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre of wetland
or 150 linear feet of stream, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands)
Tara Disy Allden
Page 2 of 4
7/12/04
15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in
the attached certification and any additional conditions listed below.
The Additional Conditions of the Certification are:
Changes to Plan Required: A final monitoring plan that incorporates the
following changes shall be sent to DWQ by September 1, 2004:
a. Monitoring well (MW) #8 needs to be relocated out of the "staging area", or
the "staging area" needs to be moved. This area will experience compaction
and is therefore not suitable for monitoring.
b. Two additional ditch plugs are needed on the ditch that flows north-south that
is parallel to Marsh Swamp.
c. An additional monitoring well needs to be installed near Reach 1, on the east
side of McCulloch's Ditch. This monitoring well should be south of the
vegetation monitoring plot within the same transect as MW's 1 & 2.
2. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as\long as all of the other specific
and general conditions of this Certification (or Isblated Wetland Permit) are met.
No other impacts are approved including incidental impacts:
Amount
Approved (Units) Plan Location or Reference
Stream 3,670 feet Sheets 4-9
3. Erosion & Sediment Control Practices
Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all
specifications governing the proper design, installation and operation and
maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to protect surface
waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be
designed, installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning
and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and
erosion control measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the
requirements specified in the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices shall be maintained on
all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects, including
contractor-owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project.
Tara Disy Allden
Page 3 of 4
7/12/04
4. No Waste, Spoil, Solids, or Fill of Any Kind
No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian
areas beyond the footprint of the impacts depicted in the Pre-Construction
Notification. All construction activities, including the design, installation, operation,
and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices,
shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality standards, statutes,
or rules occur.
5. No Sediment & Erosion Control Measures w/n Wetlands or Waters
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters
to the maximum extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control
devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the
natural grade restored within six months of the date that the Division of Land
Resources has released the project.
6. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification
or applicable Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is
required to return the attached certificate of completion to the 401 /Wetlands
Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650.
7. Notification of Construction
The applicant and/or authorized agent shall contact the DWQ Express Review
Program in writing at the letterhead address within 10 days of the
commencement of construction.
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification
and may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. The authorization to proceed with your
proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your application and
as authorized by this Certification, shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA
Permit.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this Certification (associated with the
approved wetland or stream impacts), you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You
must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing,
send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you
ask for a hearing.
Tara Disy Allden
Page 4 of 4
7/12/04
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Cyndi Karoly at 919-
733-9721 or Debbie Edwards at 919-733-9502 in the Central Office in Raleigh
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
AWK/dae
Enclosures: GC 3399
Certificate of Completion
cc:
Kevin Tweedy, Buck Engineering, 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200, Cary, NC 27511
Kevin Yates, USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Mike Horan, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
DLR Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Filename: 040929Gregory(Halifax)EXP401
? W A TF Michael F. Easley, Governor
O
9
? p William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
G
O North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
7
CO
Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director
W
"I
O ? Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
July 12, 2004
DWQ Project # EXP04-0929
Halifax County
Page 1 of 4
Tara Disy Allden
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200A
Cary, NC 27511
Subject Property: Gregory Site Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project
Black Spring Creek (Tributary to Marsh Swamp [03-03-04, 28-79-30-
1, C; Sw, NSW (nutrient sensitive water)]
d Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions-EXPRESS
REVIEW PROGRAM
Dear Ms. Allden:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed
below, to place fill within or otherwise impact 3,670 feet of perennial streams for the
purpose of compensatory mitigation totaling 6,725 linear feet of stream restoration and
75 acres of wetland restoration at the subject property, as described within your
application dated June 14, 2004 and received by the N.C. Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) on June 17, 2004 and additional information submitted and received on July 1,
2004, July 6, 2004 and July 9, 2004.?After reviewing your application, we have decided
that the impacts are covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3399
(GC3399). The Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit 27 when issued by
the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In addition, you should obtain or otherwise
comply with any other required federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with
your project including (but not limited to) Erosion and Sediment Control and Non-
discharge regulations. Also, this approval to proceed with your proposed impacts
or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your application shall expire upon
expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
This approval is for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If
you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new
application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this
Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all
conditions. If total fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre of wetland
or 150 linear feet of stream, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in
15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in
the attached certification and any additional conditions listed below.
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address) AS
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands)
Tara Disy Allden
Page 2 of 4
7/12/04
The Additional Conditions of the Certification are:
1. Changes to Plan Required: A final monitoring plan that incorporates the
following changes shall be sent to DWQ by September 1, 2004:
a. Monitoring well (MW) #8 needs to be relocated out of the "staging area", or
the "staging area" needs to be moved. This area will experience compaction
and is therefore not suitable for monitoring.
b. Two additional ditch plugs are needed on the ditch that flows north-south that
is parallel to Marsh Swamp.
c. An additional monitoring well needs to be installed near Reach 1, on the east
side of McCulloch's Ditch. This monitoring well should be south of the
vegetation monitoring plot within the same transect as MW's 1 & 2.
d. You must locate a nearby off-site, relatively undisturbed channel with the
characteristics similar to the proposed Reach 2 to use as a reference reach
for macrobenthos monitoring. This reference reach should be located and
submitted to this office for written approval by September 30, 2004.
2. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved aslong as all of the other specific
and general conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met.
No other impacts are approved including incidental impacts:
Amount
Approved Units Plan Location or Reference
Stream 3,670 feet Sheets 4-9
3. Erosion & Sediment Control Practices
Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all
specifications governing the proper design, installation and operation and
maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to protect surface
waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be
designed, installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning
and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and
erosion control measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the
requirements specified in the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices shall be maintained on
all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects, including
contractor-owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project.
Tara Disy Allden
Page 3 of 4
7/12/04
4. No Waste, Spoil, Solids, or Fill of Any Kind
No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian
areas beyond the footprint of the impacts depicted in the Pre-Construction
Notification. All construction activities, including the design, installation, operation,
and maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices,
shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality standards, statutes,
or rules occur.
5. No Sediment & Erosion Control Measures w/n Wetlands or Waters
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters
to the maximum extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control
devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the
natural grade restored within six months of the date that the Division of Land
Resources has released the project.
6. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification
or applicable Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is
required to return the attached certificate of completion to the 401/Wetlands
Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650.
7. Notification of Construction
The applicant and/or authorized agent shall contact the DWQ Express Review
Program in writing at the letterhead address within 10 days of the
commencement of construction.
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification
and may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. The authorization to proceed with your
proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your application and
as authorized by this Certification, shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA
Permit.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this Certification (associated with the
approved wetland or stream impacts), you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You
must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing,
send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 1508 of the North Carolina General
Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you
ask for a hearing.
Tara Disy Allden
Page 4 of 4
7/12/04
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Cyndi Karoly at 919-
733-9721 or Debbie Edwards at 919-733-9502 in the Central Office in Raleigh
AW Kldae
Enclosures: GC 3399
Certificate of Completion
cc:
Kevin Tweedy, Buck Engineering, 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200, Cary, NC 27511
Kevin Yates, USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Mike Horan, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
DLR Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Filename: 040929Gregory(Halifax)EXP401
imap:Hdebbie.edwards%40dwq. [e-mail]:143/...
Subject: Re: Gregory Site
From: Debbie Edwards <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:49:39 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], "John Dorney ]" <[e-mail]>, Staci Ricks
<sricks@buckengineering. com>
John,
We have reviewed your comments on the Gregory Restoration Site, specifically comment
#4. If Buck Engineering and Environmental Banc & Exchange are confident that you do
not need another reference reach for Macroinvertebrate sampling for the Reach 2
section then the DWQ will eliminate this requirement. I will make the revisions to
the WQ 401 and mail to you, hopefully by the end of this week.
Debbie
jhutton wrote:
Debbie,
I am contacting you to check on your final decision to our response to
required items on the Gregory Site (Halifax County) 401 certification.
Specifically, we were asking to be released from the requirement of finding
and surveying an off site macroinvertebrate reference stream. We appreciate
your assistance on this project and will notify you concerning construction
as specified in the permit requirements. Thank you.
De_ bol, ll) Edw?,,i-" s
Envirotmi i0 ,,, l Spcci-alist: III
,101%6t?cLlancls Unit.
.321 ('raht.ree Blvd.
Raleictr,, NC 27004
(919) t33--QY)2
1 of 1 9/13/2004 11:50 AM
.w
.111- 11 11 1 1
ENVIRONMENTAL BANC & EXCHANGE, LLC
Management, Banking & Trading of Environmental Rights
"Finding Environmental Solutions through Economic Incentives"
Transmitted via email and Certified Mail
August 26, 2004
Mr. John Dorney
10055 Red Run Boulevard, Suite 130
Owings Mills, MD 211174860
410 356-5159 FAX [phone]
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200A
Cary, NC 27511
919 459-9039 FAX [phone]
www.ebxusa.com
reel fre- "'l l rJ7 Itd }tits.,,
WETLANDS / 401 k6p
k-rr s '-p" SCC 04A ,(V fJ&"f H+(,aw
?ko SA'? d WC ? l'IE ?.i ?ltt? IL
AUG 2 7 20U w
AP_
NC Division of Water Quality - Wetlands Unit y? .4 wi„j y" ;1K 4"
1650 Mail Service Center 0 WATER QUALITY SECTION
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 U( off.
Mr. Dorney:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to comments made in the July 2, 2004 letter of certification for
the 401 permit for the Gregory Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site. DWQ comments are paraphrased
and listed in order with responses following each issue.
DWO Comment: Monitoring well (MW) #8 needs to be relocated out of the "staging area", or the
"staging area" needs to be moved. This area will experience compaction and is therefore not suitable
for monitoring.
Response: Monitoring well # 8 has been moved out of the staging area. See attached
grading/monitoring plan sheets.
DWO Comment: Two additional ditch plugs are needed on the ditch that flows north-south that is
parallel to Marsh Swamp.
Response: Two additional ditch plugs were added in this ditch. See attached grading/monitoring plan
sheets.
DWO Comment: An additional monitoring well needs to be installed near Reach 1, on the east side
of McCulloch's Ditch. This monitoring well should be south of the vegetation monitoring plot within
the same transect as MW's I & 2.
Response: This monitoring well has been added. See attached grading/monitoring plan sheets.
DWO Comment: You must locate a nearby off-site, relatively undisturbed channel with
characteristics similar to the proposed Reach 2 to use as a reference reach for macrobenthos
monitoring. This reference reach should be located and submitted to this office for written approval
by September 30, 2004.
DWQ Response - 8/26/2004 - page 1
Page 2 of 3
Response: Based on our experience in searching for reference reaches near the Gregory Site, Buck
Engineering feels that it is unlikely that a more appropriate macrobenthos reference site will be located
than that offered by the reach upstream of the project site. As described in the previous response letter,
an extensive search for reference reaches was conducted for this site to no avail. As stated in Section
6.5 page 6-3 of the restoration plan and copied below in italics, most streams were dominated by beaver
activity, occurred in a different geologic setting (the Roanoke River Drainage begins less than one mile
to the east of the project), were of significantly larger drainage area, or were found in a different valley
type. Figure 1 (attached) depicts the search area, constraints, and the sites investigated that were
considered inappropriate as project reference reaches. As much as EBX and Buck Engineering would
like to locate and provide a stream that is relatively undisturbed with similar characteristics to Reach 2,
we feel that it is not feasible for this project.
"The NCDOT database contained no reference reaches near the project site so a search was conducted
within close proximity to the Gregory Site. No appropriate pattern reference reaches were located
within the search area for several reasons. Every stream examined within the Tar River basin near the
project site was dominated by beaver activity. These systems were determined to be inappropriate as
reference reaches. For clarification, this section describes the search for reaches to be used for pattern
reference data. Reference reaches discussed in Chapter S were surveyed for the purpose of verifying
bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships within this watershed.
The Roanoke River Drainage begins less than one mile to the east of the project site. This area was
determined to represent a significantly different geologic setting than that surrounding the project site.
Streams in this basin were typically gravel bed streams with constrained valleys of greater than one
percent slope. This entire region was determined to be inappropriate for developing reference data.
West of I-95 the Coastal Plain slopes upward towards the fall line. Although several streams were
located and surveyed for verifying bankfull dimension in this basin, no streams were located with
appropriately similar valley conditions and slope to the project site for use as reference reaches. "
EBX and Buck Engineering propose that the reach upstream of the project site be used as the reference
sampling location for both project reaches. This stream is in moderately good condition geomorphically
and contains a relatively diverse macrobenthos population (based on DWQ input during site visit). We
feel that this site offers the most appropriate sampling location for comparison to post-construction
sampling of both project reaches.
We will call and send an email during the second week of September to inquire about this issue. If, at
that time, DWQ feels that an additional reference site is required, Buck Engineering will conduct further
searches to locate an appropriate reach. EBX and Buck Engineering will submit any appropriate
reference reaches to DWQ by September 30, 2004 for approval before proceeding with a marobenthos
survey.
DWQ Response - 8/26/2004 - page 2
Page 3 of 3
Please feel free to contact us with any questions at 919-459-9039. We look forward to continuing to
work with DWQ on this and other restoration projects.
Respectfully,
C
Tara Disy Allden
Southeast Regional Manager
John Hutton, Project Manager
Buck Engineering
DWQ Response - 8/26/2004 - page 3

N
CIE

???
?O
A
??Py C?
?'O
a ?' mod
/`
A

90 0
y?
alp o
?
?i NS
O
JS Pope Rd
y Gregory Site

tSj ?a
0O
561

d
561
G
O
77-

0309*0 b
7
J
k
?p
ac
et Sw tp
O

* Tributary to Jacket Swamp
Figure 1. Reference Reach Search Map
* Tributary to Beaverdam Swamp
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC Reference Reach Watershed
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200A
Cary, NC 27511 '•-•-
• _ Easement Area

1 0.5 0 1 2 V Sites Determined to be Innapropriate Reference Reaches
Miles River Basins

PROJECT WCMEEt
PRE-RES7044TJON AND
POST RESTW4TJOW
YApLZERTE94ATE
PERMAMEMT STREW CROSSMG SAYPLAIG aa?Kw
SEE DETAIL SREEr 26 PRELIMINARY PLANS
fa 00 mr un pm ?t=m
L / r a
PAE#STQRAT(xl STOCK PILE
M MACROINVERTEBRATE INSTALL !FRCP
BL Cn ima 11
SAY%AIC LLCATgM?QL '
CATAW( BUCK Ol"HO
O .. ?ccrr /j ' T?? P : arr. xam " 4E
SAWVW d S $L?ES wrTR
Fa IPN361G0
RA°RW
CLASS B
z EST. 125. TONS
25 Sr OF E?FABRIC
?,?, .,,,,,^.. N MOMlrpt w PLOT AIgN
pNCE _
DISTURB _ -^^ ftGRAIDE DITCHES TO Far POST RES?aur"
S OF TOWrDS YARSR SIUWP
AIM rRVF?, r
CRY IT??? oa,WA"
I p,fir =y`YvEl j?'? -' -??-?' "" 1t p/EL I BOULDER
Gunimictmw
'1V? "; ????" ?. X - 1 STOCKPI
` `moo
0?? CI4_ ? p
?? R?i rLA?"r z°R"G
I
EL
,
1 EL - JrCmp
. ? WEl1 DCA1 TqM l?? '
EL
\'.
,r
-b
<'?
urAi Drr ?`•,,
? .yy
JOILM
9
WMIG
a
so S \ REMOVE BERM AND CHANNEL BE=
?l GRACE MATERIAL
o INTO FIELD DITCHES V
x / y
E Q \ MONOMAMG PLOT VEGETATION
m ? FRIED CIWrrEI AREA
r'±
¢O TRW?yIsmac
F ' GREGORY SITE
GRADfNG LAN
M EL
MOIIIITOR7NGLANS
100 50 0 100 200
MATCHLINE SHEET 11
SCALE (FT)

PROJECT FEFEFUEHCE N0. SNEET N0.
MATCHLINE SHEET 10
p PROJECT ENGMEI
` i-IIF- -iii IF.-i 1 is
j
PRELIMINARY PLANS
t - m Nm ORR FOR coeRnoa+m+
? STAGING ARFA
I AFAMVE BERM AND
GRACE MATERIAL
eYTOFIELD DITCHES BUCK eooonPAw Fw??rvNkwFy27511
I i r NaMOrukati5fl
? 9,FaWdIFF
if +0
-V%°" 1 I`
I z- Imm
J I #°m
I ? ucAr? B, ?
M T rv I I a
Go L
? -r I I a?
Q 'i 1 I ? Q
Z 1 I ??
E I f a
, 1 1 I
_ J I I 'v
r_-.- -?
r I ? t
Q?? r 1
REMM BERN AND
MATER
EET?O FIELD DITIALCHES
j
1
F:
POST 4WSTWATCN
AM VINVERTEBRATE ti
SAMfLNG LOGITION '
i
( ?Q
=. WpL IXNI 11
28X W VECETATJar `_ - ?A r r
IIdH1g4MC PIDT _
i1 . IR+ETdAY A f
o? GRADING f
m I
i /m 7]S W
f
?A
t STING REFERENCE a EX)
E WETLAND AgY N:MRAEG 1
m r WELL L6CA 1 Om l - t f TENPORAAr -
SILT CHECK
- r' EXISTING REFERENCE iTl
m WETLAND MONITORING TEMPONARJ' ,
i - WELL LOCAT/W 2 0 SILT CHECK FILLED CHARNEL AREA
GREGORY SITE
GRADING PLANS
CHANNEL BLGU MONITORING PLANS
loo so 0 too 200
SCALE (FT)
o?oF wnrF9QCyC
? y
o ?
Win-nrG Rom lr., bLenory
Nm9t CNN?u., 1)ep.u rmm nl f+nvi,t?uinn w; VaWrvl Nndreec
Nb,n W. K;a+cb, PA, fti'n.iu
U rininn n# Wm-?wrq
('stun H. sYwl/. Dewy llllaalrc
U •weo Yf W'lu?gwbry
EXPRESS PERMIT REVIEW PROGRAM
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Unit
Street Address:
Moiling Address:
Contact Infortu 0013:
Fax To: 'Cara Disy Allden and/or John
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 276114-2260
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Phone 4: 919 733-0203
Fax #: [phone]
Hutton Fax #: [phone]
Subject: GregoryRestoration Project Date: 7/13/04
Number of pages including cover sheet: 5
Notes or special instructions:
The mlgirnsl will be sent in the mail. If you have questions please call Debbie Edwards at 919.733.9502.
N C Iavi-td W-Q ly,- WeWM C( fi-Ilvll,
1650..-.S-.tl -Rakish-27499111 (N.,LmyN ,)
5131",-Nlvp.,R tt, NC 77601-J(La' .I
i:?19, -17#6(I?b•neJ.VIV.+i76tl4.: (fnl. OMIp rmzV pl woexnyllev.tauw
Jim
Nwra
•••a3ZZIFISNVdJ, ItMfIDOG INH03d 30 Sf)Vd ZS2IIa
NO, : SIIfISRLi
WON : SCION
.,LC ,TO : HKIS GSStIaas
TZ:80 £T-rlnr HNIs ILUVIS
5/5 S20Vd
06fiS£9V6 : SNOHd
£689££L6T6 ZHZ
SGNFlaMb4-6MIG SWVN
£Z:80 af1l 'b00Z-£T-IJ1f : SIV(I
NOIZVEM03 ONIMS
\ NA
T ?qpG
0
o -c
EXPRESS PERMIT REVIEW PROGRAM
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Unit
Street Address: 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Mailing Address: 1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Contact Information: Phone #:
Fax #:
Fax To: Tara Disy Allden and/or John Hutton
Subject: Gregory Restoration Project
Number of pages including cover sheet: 5
Notes or special instructions:
919-733-0203
919-733-6893
Fax #: [phone]
Date: 7/13/04
The original will be sent in the mail. If you have questions please call Debbie Edwards at 919-733-9502.
t4 t-
A
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
F.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Managers. RanWrs and naders of Environmental Rights
-nixir)o Dil! ft"Ylenwi solutlans 1wowl El C?llt5f?1fG fnc ritres,
Transmitted via email and Certified Mail
July 8, 2004
Mr. John Dorney
NC Division of Water Quality - Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Mr. Dorney:
10033 Red Run Boulevard, Suite 1:10
Owing% Milk, M:U 2111740560
410 iSfr-5159 FAX 111) 3W582.2
8009 Regency 'arway,. Suite 200A
Cwry, North Cnmlinu 275-11
914 419AN)19 FAX [phone]
kvww.ehxusa.e(sm
WET??NpS I V QR( )UFO
JUL 0 9 2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
We are in receipt of your correspondence of July 7, 2004 wherein you provided
comments regarding the mitigation plan for the Gregory Site in Halifax County. As
requested, and in accordance with the express review process, we have prepared the
following responses to your comments. Each of your comments has been addressed
individually with additional information provided as needed.
DWO Comment 1: Watershed of Reach 2 - Please provide a copy of a USGS
1:24,000 scale map (or smaller scale) which depicts the watershed for Reach 2 of the
restored stream so we can be certain that the watershed size is accurate.
Response: Figure 1 (attached) depicts the watershed boundaries for the design channels,
Reach 1 and Reach 2. The original design and Restoration Plan contained an oversight
concerning the watershed size for Reach 2. The watershed size was based on the
McCulloch's Ditch watershed delineation (Figure 1-2 in the Gregory Restoration Plan).
A portion of McCulloch's Ditch will remain open following project construction that will
intercept water from a portion of the project watershed. This was not accounted for in the
original Reach 2 design. The watershed size has been revised from 0.8 mil to 0.4 mil.
This change in watershed size resulted in the need for a change in design channel cross
sectional area for Reach 2. The new watershed size was plotted on the NC Coastal Plain
Regional Curve along with the Black Spring Creek existing condition and reference
reaches (Figure 2 attached). The design drainage areas for both reaches are smaller than
the smallest drainage area used for the Ecoscience curve development. However, three of
the reference reaches drainage areas are also below the Ecoscience curve limits. These
reference reaches provide additional confidence in the prediction of bankfull cross
sectional area versus drainage area at this low end of the curve. A bankfull cross
sectional area slightly larger than that predicted by the regional curve best fit line
regression equation was chosen due to the fact that the project reference reaches plot
slightly above the extrapolated regression line. The design cross sectional area is still
i) J

well within the 95% confidence intervals if they are projected down below the curve
prediction limit.
The new design cross sectional area was used with the same design ratios to develop a
revised typical cross section and design parameters (see attached Table 1). The design
profile was also updated to reflect the change in design riffle and pool maximum bankfull
depth for Reach 2. The design pattern was reviewed to determine whether any changes
would be required as a result in the design parameter changes. All pattern data is based
off bankfull width ratios. Because the design bankfull width changed only a small
amount, the pattern design parameters also changed very little. A review of the pattern
data indicated that no curve radii, meander widths, or meander lengths fall outside of the
new design parameters, therefore no changes to stream pattern were made.
DWO Comment 2: Ditch plugs - Please add two more ditch plugs in the center of
the bypass ditch in addition to the plugs proposed at the uppermost and lowermost
portion of the ditch in order to ensure that the ditch does not drain adjacent restored
wetlands.
Response: We assume that this comment is in reference to the northernmost ditch that is
labeled as Black Spring Creek in Figure 7-1 of the mitigation plan, and runs from east to
west across the northern end of the site. This ditch must be left open to avoid hydraulic
trespass and allow for drainage of the upper field. EBX does not control the field to the
north of the project site that is still farmed by the current landowner. The boundary of the
proposed restoration area was placed a minimum of 50 feet from this ditch to account for
the predicted drainage effect.
DWO Comment 3: Macrobenthos monitoring - DWQ believes that you should
locate a nearby off-site, relatively undisturbed channel with the characteristics similar
to your proposed Reach 2. The proposed reference (while appropriate for Reach 1) is
likely not to be appropriate for Reach 2. It may also be useful to install several flow
gages in Reach 2 in order to be able to show that the restored stream retains flow.
Response: An exhaustive search for reference reaches was conducted during the design
phase of this project that yielded no usable sites for developing pattern ratios within the
surrounding region. The reference reach used, in combination with other methods, to
develop design pattern ratios was identified from an internal reference reach database and
is far south of the project in Johnston County. As stated in Section 6.5, page 6-3, most
streams were dominated by beaver activity, different geologic setting (the Roanoke River
Drainage begins less than one mile to the east of the project), and different valley type.
The reference reaches that were located within the Tar-Pamlico river basin were used for
bankfull verification only. These streams were steeper than and of similar size to the
Design Reach 1. As much as EBX and Buck Engineering would like to locate and
provide biological sampling from a stream that is relatively undisturbed with similar
characteristics as Reach 2, it is not considered feasible for this project.
0

Crest gages that record the highest surface flow between monthly site visits, were
originally proposed for project monitoring. These will be replaced with pressure
transducer at automatically record stream stage at specified intervals each day.
hese stream gages will be installed at the upstream and downstream ends of the project,
at approximate restored stream stations 15+00 and 50+00, respectively.
DWO Comment 4: Monitoring wells - Two additional monitoring wells will need to
be installed - one near Reach I and the second near Marsh Swamp along the second
transect of monitoring wells. The second well will enable you to determine the effect
(positive or negative) on wetland hydrology of Marsh Swamp.
Response: A monitoring well will be installed along the second transect of monitoring
wells near Marsh Swamp as shown in the attached revised grading plan sheet (Sheets 10
and 11). Figure 7-1 in the Gregory Site Restoration Plan illustrates that no wetland
restoration is proposed for the area around Reach 1, therefore we do not feel that a
monitoring well is necessary for that location. The stream gage installed in Reach 1 will
monitor overbank events in this reach.
DWO Comment 5: Vegetation Plan -Based on our site visit and review of Shafele
and Weakly (1990), we believe that the target wetland should be a Bottomland
Hardwood Forest (Brownstream type) rather than Coastal Small Stream Swamp as
proposed in Section 8.3 of the report. Therefore the planting plan should be adjusted
accordingly and should also reflect the tree species present in the reference wetland
(namely larger quantities of green ash). We also believe that it is appropriate to plant
fast-growing species such as willow adjacent to the new stream channel to get quicker
plant growth and thereby streambank stability. Also please propose general
percentages by species of your proposed plantings. We understand that availability
may be an issue so please qualify the proposed plantings accordingly. Finally two
additional vegetation monitoring plots will be needed to have a more even distribution
of monitoring plots across the site.
Response: The targeted wetland will be a mix of Coastal Small Stream Swamp and
Bottomland Hardwood Forest. The species selection generally follows tolerance cited in
WRP Technical Note VN-RS-4.1, Species Match Ensures Conversion of Wet
Agricultural Fields to Bottomland Hardwood Wetland, March 1997. We will add 10,000
more green ash trees to the vegetation list based on wetland reference vegetation data.
These were not originally included due to past agency reluctance to plant these fast
growing species. We agree that scientific literature supports the contention that planting
a mix of slow and fast growing tree species yields the best overall survivability results.
Percentages of species proposed for bare root planting are shown on the attached
vegetation selection sheet.

As shown in the attached Vegetation Selection Table (Table 2), silky willow and
buttonbush will be live staked along the streambanks. Past project experience indicates
that silky willow has similar survivability rates to black willow but is not so aggressive as
to out-compete all other vegetative species.
DWO Comment 6: Extent of jurisdictional wetlands - From out site visit, it is clear
that an area immediately adjacent to Marsh Swamp will likely not become/
jurisdictional wetland due to the past dredging of the Swamp. You should be prepared
to show which areas become jurisdictional based on monitoring and modeling of
groundwater on the site as the site is monitored over the next several years.
Response: We will be prepared to show which areas become jurisdictional based on the
monitoring well data.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions at 919-459-9039. We look forward to
seeing you in the office Wednesday July 14.
Respectfully,
Tara Disy Allden
Southeast Regional Manager
John Hutton, Project Manager
Buck Engineering
Figure 2: NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve with Project Existing and Design Conditions and
Reference Reaches
1000
0
.

?
w+
W
L
a 1
00
0
.

ILL
*PW O
I i
CO
10
0
.

ca

m

1
0
.
0

• Ecosdence Curve Data
95% Cl up
95% Cldown
X Project Reference Reaches
¦ Buck Reference Data
• Black Spring Creek
t Design Reaches
mower (Ecoscience Curve Data)
. 01

I
.01 0.1 1 10 1 0 10

Watershed Area (Sq. Mi.)

y = 9.4624x 0.739
R2 = 0.9565 00
i
'
j
?? ? u 7 1 T,; -? s

t
f ? P?t 7 f Yob' )l 4 '?
? 1 Y
r yid

.t
{.
'2
•

T

?v "T
e
-1
1
? c
lack

. ?
t
}µ, 7 M1

4 ,? ? 5
1 {
Y . E
i

1 S _ t ) 3?

r) fir. ? ?.? )

- 4v

T t
1.

Figure 1: Project Watershed Map Reachl Watershed

EnvronmentM Banc and Exchange
LLC Reach 2 Watershed
,
8000 Regency Parkway, S ufle 200A
Cary, MC 27611 Streams and Ditches

0 250500 1000 1,500 2,000 Easement Area
?
J
Feet .........

16-
f
i a, t ? f ? 1
?b
i
I
.1.

1 1b?

4
!' n F F

G
n r?
( ?
?
? Q? 1
Y?yy

1 tty

w
'
L
yYY V.y
y_L
fir's h. - M1 a

Figure 1: Project Watershed Map Reach9 Watershed

Envimmentat Banc and Exchange, LLC Reach 2 Watershed
WW Regency Parkway, SuRe 200A
Cary, MC V511 Streams and Ditches

plamgr? w.w.w•w.w
?
?
Feet w._._._.w
th
P 0 250500 1,000 1,500 2,000 y Easement Area
Table 1 - Gregory Site
Reach 1
Design Values Reach 2
Design Values Rationale
Parameter MIN MAX MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 0.2 0,4
Stream Type (Rosgen) C5 C5 Note I
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs) Note 2
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) V=Q/A
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 4.5 0 rote 2.
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf(ft) 7.3 9.2 Abkf*W/D
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.6 0.7 d=A/W
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 12.0 14.0 Note 3
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) Ail 900 500 1200
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 40.8 122.5 54.6 130.9 Note 4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.9
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.2 1.4 1.2 1,4 Note 5
Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft) 0.9 0.9
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 Lo Note 6
Meander Length, Lm (ft) 59 96 46 110
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf * 8.0 13.0 5.0 119 Note 7
Radius of Curvature, Re (ft) 18 29 18 37
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf * 2.5 4.0 2.0 4.0 Note 8
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) 22 37 27 73
Meander Width Ratio, Wbit/Wbkf * 3.0 5.0 3.0 810 'Note 9
Sinuosity, K l .20 1.5 TAI length/
Velley fen
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0122 010011
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0102 0.0007 Sval / K
Slope Riffle, Srif (f /ft) 0.011 0.02 0.0006 0.0015
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.1 2.0 0.9 2.2 Note 10
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft) 0.0050 0.0000
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.49 O.dO Note 10
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft) 1.0 1.5 1.1 1.4
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 1.7 2,5 1.7 2.2 Note 11
Pool Area, Apool (sq ft) 8.4 14.6 10.2 15.0
Pool Area Ratio, Apool/Abkf 1.9 3.3 1;7 2' 5
Pool Width, Wpool (ft) 8.1 9.6 10.1 11.9
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 1.1 13 1.1 1.3 Note 12
Pool-Pool Spacing, Lps (ft) 48.0 84.0 22.9 55.0
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 4.0 7:0 2.5 6:0 Note 13
d16 (mm) 0.22 0.22
d35 (mm) 0.33 0.33
d50 (mm) 0.41 0.41
d84 (mm) 0.78 0.78
d95 (mm) 1.19 1.19
Note 1: A C5 stream type is appropriate for a wide, alluvial valley with a sand streambed. A C5
was used rather than an E5 based on relationships of W/D ratio to slope in NC Coastal Plain
reference reach streams and to provide a more conservative design.
Note 2: Bankfull indicators on Black Spring Creek and the NC Coastal Plain regional curve were
the most reliable source for obtaining bankfull discharge and dimension information.
Note 3: A final W/D ratio was selected based on relationships of W/D ratio to slope in NC Coastal
Plain reference reach streams.
Note 4: Required for stream classification
Note 5: This ratio was based on past project experience.
Note 6: A bank height ratio of 1.0 ensures that all flows greater than bankfull will spread onto a
floodplain. This minimizes shear stress in the channel and maximizes floodplain functionality
resulting in lower risk of channel instability.
Note 7: Values were chosen based on reference reach database analysis and past project
experience.
Note 8: Facet slope ratios were developed by holding the pool slopes at 0.00001. Riffle slopes
were then calculated mathematically.
Note 9: Values were chosen based on reference reach database analysis and past project
experience. It is more conservative to design a pool wider than the riffle. Over time, the pool
width may narrow, which is a positive evolutionary step.
Table 2 Vegetation Selection Table
BARE ROOT/CONTAINERIZED VEGETATION
NOTE: CONTAINERIZED AND BARE ROOT VEGETATION SHALL BE
INSTALLED RANDOMLY AT A RATE OF 680/ACRE FROM THE TOP OF
THE STREAMBANK OUT TO THE EDGE OF REVEGETATION LIMITS
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME QUANTITY Percentages
WILLOW OAK QUERCUS PHELLOS 9700 14.2
SWAMP CHESTNUT OAK QUERCUS M/CHAUXII 9700 14.2
LAUREL OAK QUERCUS LAUR/FOLIA 9700 14.2
OVERCUP OAK QUERCUS LYRATA 9700 14.2
BLACKGUM NYSSA SYLVATICA 9700 14.2
SWAMP BLACKGUM NYSSA BIFLORA 4850 7.1
GREEN ASH FRAX/NUS PENNSYLVANICA 10000 14.7
BALD CYPRESS TAXOD/UM D/STICHUM 4850 7.1
Total 68200 100.0
STREAMBANK PLANTING
NOTE: LIVE STAKES SHALL BE INSTALLED RANDOMLY 2 TO 3 FEET APART ALONG
THE STREAMBANKS FROM THE TOE OF THE BANK TO THE TOP OF BANK.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
BUTTONBUSH CEPHALANTHUS OCC/DENTAL/S
SILKY WILLOW SAL/X SERICEA
TEMPORARY SEED MIX
NOTE: ALL DISTURBED AREAS WILL BE STABILIZED USING MULCH AND TEMPORARY SEED MIX
COMMON NAME RATE DATES
ANNUAL RYE (COOL SEASON) 130 LBS/ACRE SEPTEMBER TO MARCH
MILLET (WARM SEASON) 45 LBS/ACRE APRIL TO AUGUST
RIPARIAN SEED MIX (PERMANENT)
NOTE: RIPARIAN SEED MIX SHALL BE SEEDED AT A RATE OF
'/2 LB PER 1000 FT2 ALONG THE STREAMBANKS FROM THE
TOE OF THE BANK TO THE TOP OF BANK.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
VIRGINIA WILDRYE ELYMUS VIRGINICUS
SWITCHGRASS PANICUM V/RGATUM
FOX SEDGE CARE)( VULP/NOIDEA
AMENDMENTS
NOTE: ALL DISTURBED AREAS WILL BE STABILIZED USING MULCH AND TEMPORARY SEED MIX
COMMON NAME RATE
LIME 50 LBS PER 1000 FT2
10-10-10 FERTILIZER 10 LBS PER 1000 FT2
MULCHING 10 BALES PER 1000 FT2

.'? PRELDUNART PLANS
/
, ? / ?
/
hoac 4
B

_ LIMITS OF - ?f. n,?r?..
ERFt tKY - _? f msm? 4
GREGORY SME
GRADING PLANS
c - - - EROSION CONTROL
WITCHLME SHffr » igo w o tqo zao
SCALE (FT)

- _ NIATCHUNE SHEET 10
?ncr eom
c
-?= _ ? d
?
? ? 1 l , - ^ ? ,?,, ?' PR?LIMRiAAT PLANS
..
v }

•' lQpTO BUg;
65
115 FAa{
?
-

a -

al m wmm&s

006
91

' S
4t 10GVo
J
7
3?'

t
sac,a[nwL-
a

GREGORY SITE
- -
' GRADING PLANS /
- _ EROSION CONTROL

?QF W A T?Rp Michael F. Easley, uovernor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Gv North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
[ Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director
-I Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
July 7, 2004
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
DWQ Project EXP. 04-0929
Halifax County
Page 1 of 2
Tara Daisy Allden
Environmental Banc and Exchange LLC
8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
Subject Property: Gregory Site Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION-EXPRESS REVIEW PROGRAM
Dear Ms. Allden:

On June 17, 2004, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your application dated June 14, 2004 to
impact 3,670 feet of stream to construct the proposed Gregory Site `Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Project. The DWQ has determined that your application was incomplete and/or provided inaccurate
information as discussed below. The DWQ will require additional information based on our review as
outlined in the Express Review process in order to process your application to impact protected wetland,
streams and/or buffers on the subject property. Therefore, unless we receive the additional information
requested below, we will have to move toward denial of your application as required by 15A NCAC 2H
.0506 and will place this project on hold as incomplete until we receive this additional information. Please
provide the following information so that we may continue to review your project.
Additional Information:
1. Watershed of Reach 2 - Please provide a copy of a USGS 1:24,000 scale map (or smaller scale) which
depicts the watershed for Reach 2 of the restored stream so we can be certain that the watershed size is
accurate.
2. Ditch plugs - Please add two more ditch plugs in the center of the bypass ditch in addition to the plugs
proposed at the uppermost and lowermost portion of the ditch in order to ensure that the ditch does not
drain adjacent restored wetlands.
3. Macrobenthos monitoring - DWQ believes that you should locate a nearby off-site, relatively
undisturbed channel with the characteristics similar to your proposed Reach 2. The proposed reference
(while appropriate for Reach 1) is likely not to be appropriate for Reach 2. It may also be useful to install
several flow gages in Reach 2 in order to be able to show that the restored stream retains flow.
4. Monitoring wells - Two additional monitoring wells will need to be installed - one near Reach 1 and the
second near Marsh Swamp along the second transect of monitoring wells. The second well will enable
you to determine the effect (positive or negative) on wetland hydrology of Marsh Swamp.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/
Tara Daisy Allden
Page 2 of 2
July 7, 2004:
5. Vegetation Plan - Based on our site visit and review of Shafele and Weakley (1990), we believe that
the target wetland should be a Bottomland Hardwood Forest (Brownstream type) rather than Coastal
Small Stream Swamp as proposed in Section 8.3 of the report. Therefore the planting plan should be
adjusted accordingly and should also reflect the tree species present in the reference wetland (namely
larger quantities of green ash). We also believe that it is appropriate to plant fast-growing species such
as willow adjacent to the new stream channel to get quicker plant growth and thereby streambank
stability. Also please propose general percentages by species of your proposed plantings. We
understand that availability may be an issue so please qualify the proposed plantings accordingly.
Finally two additional vegetation monitoring plots will be needed to have a more even distribution of
monitoring plots across the site.
6. Extent of jurisdictional wetlands - From our site visit, it is clear that an area immediately adjacent to
Marsh Swamp will likely not become jurisdictional wetlands due to the past dredging of the Swamp. You
should be prepared to show which areas become jurisdictional based on monitoring and modeling of
groundwater on the site as the site is monitored over the next several years.
Please respond within three days of the date of this letter by sending this information to me via e-mail or
fax and a follow-up copy in writing. The Express Review Program is a process that requires all parties to
participate in a timely manner. If the DWQ feels the Express Review Program is the incorrect review
program for your project, then we may have to return your application and have it reviewed through our
regular 401 Water Quality Certification Program.
This letter only addresses the application review and does not authorize any impacts to wetlands, waters
or protected buffers. Please be aware that any impacts requested within your application are not
authorized (at this time) by the DWQ. Please call John Dorney at [phone] if you have any
questions regarding or would like to set up a meeting to discuss this matter.
S
JRD/jrd
iey,
401 UnJDW
cc: Kevin Tweedy, Buck Engineering, 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200, Cary, NC 27511
Kevin Yates, USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Steve Mitchell, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Larry Eaton, DWQ
Filename: 040929Gregory(Halifax)EXP(2)
O?O? N NA
T ?RpG
o ?
'tw
EXPRESS PERMIT REVIEW PROGRAM
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Unit
Street Address: 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Mailing Address: 1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Contact Information: Phone #:
Fax #:
Fax To: Buck Engineering
Tara Disy Allden and/or John Hutton
Subject: Gregory Restoration Project
Number of pages including cover sheet: 3
Notes or special instructions:
919-733-0203
919-733-6893
Fax #: [phone]
Date: 7/7/04
The original will be sent in the mail. If you have questions please call Debbie Edwards at 919-733-9502.
94
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwctlands
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Managers, Bankers and 'readers of Fnvironmental Rights
"Finding Enuironmental Solutions rhrough Economic Inca relives"
Transmitted via email and Certified Mail
July 6, 2004
Mr. John Dorney
NC Division of Water Quality - Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Mr. Dorney:
101155 tied Item raoulcvard, Suitc 130
Owings Mills, MD 21117-4860
410 356-5150 I-AY 410.456-5822
8000 Regency Yarway. Suite 200A
Cary, North Carolinn 27511
919 459-9039 FAX [phone]
www.ebxusn.com
The purpose of this letter is to respond to comments made during the July 1, 2004 field
visit to the Gregory Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site. DWQ comments are
paraphrased and listed in order with responses following each issue.
DWO Comment: Explore possibility of increasing lengths of ditch plugs. Show
location of all ditch plugs on grading plans.
Response: After discussing this issue with Buck Engineering staff engineers, a decision
has been made to increase the length of all ditch plugs to 100 feet. All ditch plug
locations are shown on the attached, revised grading plan sheets.
DWO Comment: Show pre- and post- restoration macroinvertebrate monitoring
locations on plan sheets.
Response: Two pre-restoration and three post-restoration macroinvertebrate monitoring
locations are shown on the attached, revised grading plan sheets. Macroinvertebrate
sampling will follow the protocol discussed in the previous response letter dated June 28,
2004.
DWO Comment: Install one additional monitoring well in the reference wetland
location. Provide locations of both monitoring wells on plan view sheets
Response: One additional automated groundwater monitoring well will be installed in
the reference wetland as discussed during the July 1, 2004 field visit. This well has been
ordered and will be installed during the week of July 5, 2004. Locations of both the
existing and proposed reference wells are provided on the attached, revised grading plan
sheets.
DWQ Comment: Provide approximate locations of proposed groundwater
monitoring wells that will be installed on the project site following completion of
restoration activities. Monitoring wells should be located in such a way as to be able to
show whether the area next to the still-opened part of McCulloch's Ditch actually
gains enough hydrology to become wetlands.
Response: Approximate locations of proposed groundwater monitoring wells are
provided on the attached, revised grading plan sheets. Locations were selected to most
accurately represent the range of conditions across the entire wetland restoration area.
Two wells will be installed within 50 feet of the portion of McCulloch's Ditch that will
remain open following restoration.
DWQ Comment: Provide additional detail on the revegetation plan including
planting density, timing of installation, and variation in species across the site.
Response: The Halifax County NRCS WETS table lists the dormant season as
beginning on November 4 and ending March 30. Reforestation of the entire site will be
conducted between the last week in November 2004 and the first week in March 2005 in
order to avoid natural variations in dormant season timing. Bare root vegetation will be
planted throughout the site at a density of 680 stems per acre. Live stakes will be
installed on the stream banks at a spacing of two to three feet.
Buck Engineering will have a construction supervisor on the project site during
construction. The construction supervisor will assess hydrologic variability across the
site during and at the completion of grading activities. The supervisor will then direct
that the wetter portions of the site be planted with higher percentages of obligate and fac-
wet tree species while the drier portions of the site are planted with higher percentages of
fac-wet and drier species. All woody and herbaceous vegetation specified for site
planting are adapted to wetland conditions but some are more tolerant than others of
flooded conditions.
DWQ Comment 2B: Show locations of the proposed berm breach areas along
Marsh Swamp and provide additional detail on construction methodology.
Response: Locations of proposed berm breaching zones are provided on the attached,
revised grading plan sheets. The berm running along Marsh Swamp prevents floodwaters
from accessing the proposed restoration site except during extreme flooding events in all
but one location currently. An excavator will be used to remove this berm at the
locations shown on the attached grading plans. This material will be stockpiled and later
used to backfill lateral drainage ditches.
DWQ Comment: Provide additional clarification on generalized approach to
grading plan.
Response: Grading equipment will be used to grade the entire site according to proposed
design contours shown on the attached grading plan sheets. Tillage practices will be used
to remove any field crowns or spoil piles, restoring a more natural topography to the site.
Excess soil generated from on site grading, excavation of the new channel, and removal
of the berm along Marsh Swamp will be used to fill in lateral field ditches and construct
the berm along McCulloch's Ditch. A micro-topographical pattern will be restored to the
site by disking in a crisscrossed pattern across the site. The final topography of the
restored site will be patterned after natural wetland sites and will include the restoration
of minor depressions and tip mounds that promote diversity of hydrologic conditions and
habitats. These techniques will be instrumental to the restoration of site hydrology by
promoting surface ponding and infiltration, decreasing drainage capacity, and imposing
higher water table conditions across the restoration site.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions at 919-459-9039. We look forward to
continuing to work with DWQ on this and other restoration projects.
Respectfully,
Tara Disy Allden
Southeast Regional Manager
John Hutton, Project Manager
Buck Engineering

MATCHUNE SHEET 10

.. ." r
-....:
s .. _ n
?
r PRELIMINARY PLANS
r per vs ?a m.nveev.

orrws
BUCK

m
O

}

gga

510[i NWP

"ArIll

r

O

r
"
? any o ?,
? ,
. ?F1L (QATP

... , Mt .a.rme.c _ . r
GREGORY SITE
GRADING PLANS /
EROSION CONTROL
y
MATCHLINE SHEET 11

Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Managers, Bankers and 77aders of Environmental Rights
-Finding Enuironmentol Solutions through Economic lncentlues"
10055 Red Run Boulevard, Suite 130
Owings Mills, MD 21117-4860
410 356-5159 FAX [phone]
8000 Regency harway. Suite 200A
Cary, North Carolina 27511
919 459-9039 FAX [phone]
www.obxusn.com
Transmitted via email and Certified Mail
July 6, 2004
Mr. John Dorney
NC Division of Water Quality - Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Mr. Dorney:
?" t4te
The purpose of this letter is to respond to comments made during the July 1, 2004 field
visit to the Gregory Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site. DWQ comments are
paraphrased and listed in order with responses following each issue.
DWO Comment: Explore possibility of increasing lengths of ditch plugs. Show
location of all ditch plugs on grading plans.
Response: After discussing this issue with Buck Engineering staff engineers, a decision
has been made to increase the length of all ditch plugs to 100 feet. All ditch plug
locations are shown on the attached, revised grading plan sheets.
DWO Comment: Show pre- and post- restoration macroinvertebrate monitoring
locations on plan sheets.
Response: Two pre-restoration and three post-restoration macroinvertebrate monitoring
locations are shown on the attached, revised grading plan sheets. Macroinvertebrate
sampling will follow the protocol discussed in the previous response letter dated June 28,
2004.
DWO Comment: Install one additional monitoring well in the reference wetland
location. Provide locations of both monitoring wells on plan view sheets
Response: One additional automated groundwater monitoring well will be installed in
the reference wetland as discussed during the July 1, 2004 field visit. This well has been
ordered and will be installed during the week of July 5, 2004. Locations of both the
e provid
ed on the attached, revised grading plan
existing and proposed rW77
sheets.
t"?p

v\A +-

DWO Comment: Provide approximate locations of proposed groundwater
monitoring wells that will be installed on the project site following completion of
restoration activities. Monitoring wells should be located in such a way as to be able to
show whether the area next to the still-opened part of McCulloch's Ditch actually
gains enough hydrology to become wetlands.
Response: Approximate locations of proposed groundwater monitoring wells are
provided on the attached, revised grading plan sheets. Locations were selected to most
accurately represent the range of conditions across the entire wetland restoration area.
Two wells will be installed within 50 feet of the portion of McCulloch's Ditch that will
remain open following restoration.
DWO Comment: Provide additional detail on the revegetation plan including
planting density, timing of installation, and variation in species across the site.
Response: The Halifax County NRCS WETS table lists the dormant season as
beginning on November 4 and ending March 30. Reforestation of the entire site will be
conducted between the last week in November 2004 and the first week in March 2005 in
order to avoid natural variations in dormant season timing. Bare root vegetation will be
planted throughout the site at a density of 680 stems per acre. Live stakes will be
installed on the stream banks at a spacing of two to three feet.
Buck Engineering will have a construction supervisor on the project site during
construction. The construction supervisor will assess hydrologic variability across the
?l vsite during and at the completion of grading activities. The supervisor will then direct
that the wetter portions of the site be planted with higher percentages of obligate and fac-
wet tree species while the drier portions of the site are planted with higher percentages of
Y yj-fac-wet and drier species. All woody and herbaceous vegetation specified for site CA I planting are adapted to wetland conditions but some are more tolerant than others of
oil flooded conditions.
t? v? DWO Comment 2B: Show locations of the proposed berm breach areas along
Q eel
Marsh Swamp and provide additional detail on construction methodology.
Response: Locations of proposed berm breaching zones are provided on the attached,
revised grading plan sheets. The berm running along Marsh Swamp prevents floodwaters
from accessing the proposed restoration site except during extreme flooding events in all
but one location currently. An excavator will be used to remove this berm at the
locations shown on the attached grading plans. This material will be stockpiled and later
used to backfill lateral drainage ditches.
90 'Y S
agK a

DWQ Comment: Provide additional clarification on generalized approach to
grading plan.
Response: Grading equipment will be used to grade the entire site according to proposed
design contours shown on the attached grading plan sheets. Tillage practices will be used
to remove any field crowns or spoil piles, restoring a more natural topography to the site.
Excess soil generated from on site grading, excavation of the new channel, and removal
of the berm along Marsh Swamp will be used to fill in lateral field ditches and construct
the berm along McCulloch's Ditch. A micro-topographical pattern will be restored to the
site by disking in a crisscrossed pattern across the site. The final topography of the
restored site will be patterned after natural wetland sites and will include the. restoration
of minor depressions and tip mounds that promote diversity of hydrologic conditions and
habitats. These techniques will be instrumental to the restoration of site hydrology by
promoting surface ponding and infiltration, decreasing drainage capacity, and imposing
higher water table conditions across the restoration site.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions at 919-459-9039. We look forward to
continuing to work with DWQ on this and other restoration projects.
Respectfully,
Tara Disy Allden
Southeast Regional Manager
John Hutton, Project Manager
Buck Engineering
SEE BUM " ,
PRELIMINARY PLANS
m [
7• Off- f-11/fIM--- f r/,'/ ! :/ rawer
j OF _ - / /! _ 1 >," _ ???'? r,(t%??r,?' _ 1251-' i ?S•r
N\t
- PROPER :t( S [V _ l T?; /r _-.
t ? JOB 4 V 2f ?-?` ..? ?-S ", l^- ,! ? \ L ^7- t? ?r\? ?`'1????i ?111t / r!! /. %/ ? -/ 1•.
t-
fir
/-
m '_ , - .r: ''. id3` !` \ t- ? 'rd :??. Jannsc nar C,- t• ,? - 1 .,:, 1 -? ./??°;
GREGORY SITE
GRdDIIYG PLANS /
EROSION CONTROL
mATCH W sir Ti '4° 50 4 l4° 2
scuF ?

MATCHUNE SHEET 10 ru lY
MELDmiART PLANS
mm?
_ t '//' 4?/ • ?'.^ `?? ?_. tl fir/ '? ` 4 ?__
\ V r'- t? v t rr
-lift
. "tr^J ? A tF i `t V / i ` l? ? ? ` .,?\- ? ( `?/1 ?\'J hr..,. ?? rl i ?A' ? v
' ? ?5 o Jv `r
1,15
J l =_ s ?. - ? r1 ?? ?. rl? ? : ,'z ?:? ?? ?? ? '`\ { `Fj i, `t y rrjK -\5??? ?., ?~' ,rx.
qoc"
? `, 1, , : ,as Y ? '' +os
Dow
'IZ
46 1
t ,\ _ / -t05 ' ' x%05'705 stnsOWN.
i,5
iM&• t ?y ???s__ ?s l???
ig?
mu low=
/ -I1p?? ,`frfFMf L' Er6T*4yF.'RA??n ( 7 r ;i7:45
ML "c d \ 'TTY t - - l f / l .,^?G \ r _ '
GREGORY SITE
GRADING PUNS /
- i r 35 _ EROSION CONTROL

Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Managers, Bankers and -fYaders of Environmental Rights
"Finding Enuironmenral Solutions through Economic Incendues"
Transmitted via facsimile and Certified Mail
June 28, 2004
Mr. John Dorney
NC Division of Water Quality - Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Mr. Dorney:
10055 Red Run Boulevard. Suite 130
Owings Mills. MD 21117-4860
410 356-5159 FAX [phone]
8000 Regency Yarway, Suite 200A
Cary. North Carolina 27511
919 459-9039 FAX [phone]
www.ebxusa.coni
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
IUL. 0 1 2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
We are in receipt of your correspondence of June 25, 2004 wherein you provided
comments regarding the mitigation plan for the Gregory site in Halifax County. As
requested, and in accordance with the express review process, we have prepared the
following responses to your comments. Each of your comments has been addressed
individually with additional information provided as needed. Please note that the
mitigation plan for the Gregory Site is a wholistic plan to restore a wetland and stream
ecosystem. As such, the plan cannot be separated into two distinct plans.
1. Stream Restoration Plan
DWQ Comment IA: Is it possible to restore the main channel from the end of the
restoration reach to Marsh Swamp rather than tie into the existing modified channel at
the lower end of the site?
Response: The restored stream will tie into the swamp system at the southern end of the
project. This area is entirely covered by shallow standing water during the wetter
portions of the year. This represents a stable aquatic system to tie the restored reach into.
Extending the restored reach through the low point of the valley to tie into Marsh Swamp
could impact jurisdictional wetlands that exist below the currently proposed tie-in point.
This approach (tying the restored stream into an existing swamp area) has been used on
previous projects and has worked well. The swamp system offers natural grade control at
the lower end of the project, greatly reducing the potential for headcutting.
DWQ Comment 1B: How will flow be diverted into the new channel from
McCulloch's Ditch? Please provide a plan for the design of any proposed structure.
Response: McCulloch's Ditch will be plugged for a distance of at least 50 feet on both
sides of the restored channel as it crosses the existing McCulloch's Ditch alignment.
Ditch plugs will be constructed by compacting fill material within the channel. Rootwads
will be installed in areas of fill that are subjected to stream flow to deflect energies. In
low slope, low energy systems such as the Gregory Site, there is very little potential for
channel avulsion. The method described above has been used on numerous Coastal Plain
projects of similar nature and has remained stable even during large storm flows.
DWQ Comment 1C: Please provide approximate locations for the stream
monitoring sites.
Response: As discussed in section 11.4.1 of the mitigation plan, cross-sections will be
established at a spacing of one per 20 bankfull widths, beginning at the upstream end of
the restored stream and extending to the downstream terminus of the restored stream.
Cross-sections will alternate between riffles and pools. A complete longitudinal profile
will be conducted for the entire restored stream.
Crest gages, which record the highest surface flow between monthly site visits, will be
installed at the upstream and downstream ends of the project, at approximate restored
stream stations 15+00 and 50+00, respectively.
DWQ Comment 11): DWQ believes that macrobenthos monitoring will be required
for this project in accordance with our stream monitoring policy signed on December
2001.
Response: EBX will conduct macroinvertebrate sampling on Black Spring Creek.
Sampling points will be located upstream of and within the project site. At least one
sampling will be conducted prior to construction and sampling will continue for three
years following construction of the project. All sampling methodology will follow the
Qual-4 protocol listed in the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Protocols for Compensatory Stream Restoration
Projects.
2. Wetland Restoration Plan
DWQ Comment 2A: The proposed wetland mitigation plan is very incomplete and
sketchy in notable contrast to the stream mitigation plan. Please carefully review the
wetland mitigation plan guidance and checklist provided on the US Army Corps
website to be certain that a revised plan completely addresses all of the items listed in
that manual. The following points should also be addressed in a final wetland
mitigation plan.
Response: To make sure that all information has been provided, please see attached
copy of the USACE checklist, which has been filled out for this project.
DWQ Comment 2B: Are there existing jurisdictional wetlands on site? If so, please
locate them on a map signed by the Corps of Engineers.
Response: The entire restoration area is mapped as Prior Converted Cropland (PC) and
therefore automatically considered non jurisdictional with no vegetation greater than five
years in age. The southern end of the site has been allowed to regenerate in recent years
due to the inability to farm this wet portion of the site. This area was delineated as
jurisdictional wetlands based on the presence of wetland vegetation in excess of 5 years
of age. No land disturbing activities will take place in the jurisdictional wetlands since
these areas are outside the project limits.
DWQ Comment 2C: Can the levee along Marsh Swamp be removed or breached to
increase wetland hydrology on this site and provide additional filtering functions for
this site?
Response: As discussed in Section 7.1 of the Mitigation Plan, the levee along Marsh
Swamp will be breached in several locations to allow more floodwater to access the site
during overbank events. This will improve hydrology on the project site as well as
provide nutrient and sediment retention benefits to Marsh Swamp.
DWQ Comment 2D: With respect to the wetland mitigation plan, you have not
provided any details on the grading plan (existing and proposed), a planting plan,
location of the proposed ditch plugs and their design, any proposed land scarification
plans, planting schedule, grading schedule and similar measures.
Response: The grading plan was provided in plan sheets 10 and 11, attached as
Appendix 6 of the mitigation plan. The grading plan includes both existing contours
(dashed gray lines) and design contours (dashed black lines).
The planting plan is provided in plan sheet 18 of the plan sheets in Appendix 6, and
discussed in section 8.3 of the mitigation plan. Section 8.3 describes the species to be
used, the basis for their selection, planting procedures and quality assurance, and site
preparation for planting.
Ditch plugs are discussed in section 7.1 of the mitigation plan. If possible, all ditches will
be completely filled if there is sufficient fill material. If there is insufficient fill, ditches
will be completely filled at the plug locations and partially filled and sculpted in areas
away from active stream flow. At a minimum, 50 feet of fill material will be placed at
plug locations and compacted. In areas where stream flows will contact fill material, root
wads will be installed to provide additional protection and deflect stream energies. Due to
the small size of the restored channel and the low energy nature of the system, these
practices will be sufficient to prevent erosion and channel avulsion. These practices have
been used on numerous other projects with excellent results.

Land scarification practices are discussed in sections 7.5 and 8.3. Disking will be used to
break any hard pans and restore a natural wetland topography. Disking will be applied to
all proposed restoration areas.
Schedules for the site will depend on permit review times and the contractor bid process.
In general grading of the site will begin during the fall of 2004 and be completed by
February 2005. Planting of the site is scheduled for February 2005 during the dormant
season.
Additional measures and information are provided in the attached USACE checklist for
wetland mitigation projects.
3. Conservation Easement
DWQ Comment: In general, the conservation easement for this site should allow
additional stream and wetland mitigation if it becomes possible (perhaps with the
cooperation of adjacent landowners in the future). Please address these deficiencies.
Response: The conservation easement for the site covers only those areas that are being
restored, therefore, no additional mitigation credit will be available in these areas.
However, there are agricultural fields to the east of the project that are not included in the
conservation easement that may have potential for future wetland mitigation efforts.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions at 919-459-9039. We look forward to
seeing you at the site Thursday morning, July 1.
Respectful jy,
Tara Disy Allden
Southeast Regional Manager
John Hutton, Project Manager
Buck Engineering
300ctO2
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Considerations WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
1J11L, p 1 2004
Action ID: DWO project No. 04-0929 WATER
QUALITY SECTION
Site/Bank Name: Gregory Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Location: see section 1. 1, page 1-1.
Coordinates (decimal degrees): Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 36.320 Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -77.661
Method location determined (circle): GPs opo Shee Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIs Other
USGS Quad Sheet: Darlington
Soil Survey Sheet No.: Halifax Co.
Prepared By: Kevin Tweedy 6-28-04
Date
1. Introduction
A. Is a permit required for this project?
YE NO
B. Type of Mitigation (circle): estorat o' / Creation / Enhancement / Preservation
C. Identify Wetland Community Type (Shafale and Weakley): see section 1.2, page 1-1 for
proposed restoration community type. In their existing condition, all areas proposed for restoration
are agricultural fields (no wetlands).
D. Will Threatened or Endangered Species or designated
Critical Habitats be impacted? see section 4. 1, page 4-1 YES /
E. Do any Cultural Resource issues exist on the site? see section 4.2, page 4-4 YES /®
see section 4.3, page 4-4 YES
F. Do any Haz/Tox issues exist on the site?
G
as a weuana determination peen unaertaxen ana verlnea-r 3E- " -L fN V
All jurisdictional wetland areas exist outside of the proposed work and restoration areas. All proposed
restoration areas have been designated PC (prior converted) cropland (see section 2.3).
300ctO2
II. Foundation of the Mitigation Plan
A. Describe GOALS: see section 1.2, page 1-1
B. List Target FUNCTIONS: targeted functions are those associated with the targeted
targeted restoration type and include overbank flooding functions, improved wetland and stream
habitats, flood attentuation, and sediment deposition.
re these S ecific/Measurable/Attainable/Reasonable/Trackable? YES)/
C. Vegetation
1. Was a Reference Ecosystem (RE) report prepared?
ES NO
Describe comparison between the RE and the Mitigation Site: RE report is provided as section
7.3, page 7-5 of mitigation plan. RE is a functional wetland site, Mitigation Site is cropland.
2. Are plantings listed to species? see section 8.3, page 8-5 YES / NO
3. Are local (200 miles north/south) propagules to be planted
and verified by nursery certificate? if available <! / NO
4. Have diversity and density of species within the Reference
Ecosystem been considered in the plan? (E5)/ NO
5. Has consideration been given to planting the wetland upland
interface with suitable transition zone species? (GN)/ NO
Describe the Planting Quality Control Plan: Designer will provide on-site planting supervision
during the planting process. Planting will be conducted by a qualified contractor who has experience
with mitigaiton sites and local soil conditions. Designer will be able to approve or send back
plant materials if necessary.
300ctO2
D. Soils
1. Have site soils been mapped? 0/ NO
2. List Soil Series and Textures: see section 2. 1, page 2-1.
3. Are soils types appropriate for the target wetland?
( /NO
Describe: see section 2.1, page 2-1.
4. Fertility sampling undertaken in the RE? (Attach Report) YES /®
5. Fertility sampling undertaken in the mitigation site? (Attach Report) YES /®
6. Are the fertility results within the standards for the plantings? N/A YES / NO
Describe results/amendments required: see section 7.5, page 7-5. Soil samples from site will be
collected prior to beginning construction to determine if amendments are needed.
7. If PC Cropland, has site been evaluated for plow pans, field crowns,
tile drainage system? 0/ NO
Describe findings: see sections 7. 1, page 7-1 and 7.5, page 7-5. Proposed tillage practices will
break any hard pans, no field crowns or tile drainage present on site.
8. Is disking proposed after grading and/or prior to planting? (E?)/ NO
9. Is there a grading plan? (Attach) ®E / NO
Describe: proposed disking activites are described in section 7.5, page 7-6 and will be gpplied
to all proposed restoration areas. The grading plan is provided in Appendix 6, plan sheets 10 and
I I.Existing contours are shown in dashed gray, design contours shown in dashed black.
300ctO2
E. Hydrology
1. Was a Water Budget prepared for low, average and high conditions
per WETS data? (Attach Report) YES / NO
Describe and justify type of water budget model used: Water budget analyses were conducted
using DrainMod, as described in section 7.2, page 7-1.
2. List the hydrologic inputs: hydrologic inputs to the site include rainfall, overbank
flooding and groundwater discharge.
a. For groundwater driven systems, will monitoring wells be installed pursuant to the
most recent ERDC Technical Note? (g?)/ NO
b. For surface water driven systems, will flood gauges be installed? YE / NO
Describe type/methodology: crest gages will be installed at the upstream and downstream
ends of the restoration site. Gages will record the highest water level between monthly site visits
during the post-restoration monitoring _period.
5. Were the principles of HGM or other classification system considered?(?D/ NO
Describe: consistent with the principles of HGM, the proposed restoration types are
appropriate for the soils (hydric floodplain soils), valley type (broad alluvial valley, and
geomorphic setting (typical setting of a small stream swamp and bottomland hardwood system).
6. Will the hydrologic regime predicted by the water budget be appropriate
for the target wetland? YES NO
re these S ecific/Measurable/Attainable/Reasonable/Trackable? YES NO
300ctO2
111. Success Criteria
A. Vegetation: see section 11.3, page 11-2.

B. Hydrology: see section 11. 1, p age 11-1.

C. Soils: none proposed - hydric soils present throughout site

re these S ecife/Measurable/Attainable/Reasonable/Trackable? E / N
IV. Monitoring
A. Name and telephone number of person responsible for the success of this project:
Tara Disy Allden - [phone].
B. Is there a monitoring plan? YES NO
1. Describe Vegetation monitoring plan: see section 11.3, page 11-2.
2. Describe Hydrology monitoring plan: see section 11. 1, page 11.1.
re these Specific/Measurable/Attainable/Reasonable/Trackable? YES NO
300ctO2
C. As-Built Report to be submitted within 30 days of project construction? YE NO
D. Date Annual Monitoring Report to be submitted: no later than November 30
V. Consideration of Factors of Failure
A. Describe how the following have been considered for this project:
1. Elevations/biological benchmarks: detailed existing topo and proposed contours have
been developed for the site,based on model analyses, site conditions, and past experience.
2. Provisions for Drainage: artificial drainage on the site will be eliminated and a natural
drainage regime restored through the restoration of the stream channel.
3. Erosion: erosion concerns should be minimal due to the low slope land surfaces of
the site. A sediment and erosion control plan will be submitted to NC Div. of Land Quality for
review and approval at the 90% plan stage.
4. Human Impacts: site is located in a secluded bottomland area, and gates will
be installed to keep out vehicular traffic.
5. Noxious species invasion: noxious species control will be included in the 5 year
monitoring period.
6. Herbivory: herbivore will be assessed quarterly during the monitoring period
and control mechanisms will be implemented if necessary.
B, Are there Contingency Plans built into the proposal to address the above
factors? YE / NO
C. Describe how and when the contingency plan(s) will be implemented: if during the monitoring
period it is determined that the site is not on trajectory for meeting success, contigency plans will
be implemented.
re these S ecific/Measurable/Attainable/Reasonable/Trackable? 67EM
NO
300ctO2
VI. Site Management
A. Describe Final Disposition of the property: permanent conservation easement will be
held by the NC Wildlife Habitat Foundation.
B. Who will manage the site after the mitigation effort is deemed successful?
NC Wildlife Habitat Foundation.
C. Describe proposed Financial Assurances: EBX Neuse-I. LLC has obtained bonding
for the project in accordance with EBX Neuse-I's contract with the NC Department of Tranporation.
D. Will wetland functions be impacted by current or future land use patterns? YES'
Describe: Site is located in a secluded bottomland area. Design takes into account a rig cultural
fields adjacent to the site which will remain in agriculture.
E. Describe how this site rates ecologically: site should rate high ecologically, will connect with
adjacent wetland and natural areas and there is a high likelihood that success criteria will be met.
NOTES:
**Highlight and address all problems and or inadequacies with the mitigation plan/site as
indicated by this checklist**
W A r? Michael F. Easley, Governor
OF
R
Q William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
?O G North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r
j
Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director
p 7 Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
June 25, 2004
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Tara Daisy Allden
Environmental Banc and Exchange LLC
8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
Subject Property: Gregory Site Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION-EXPRESS REVIEW PROGRAM
Dear Ms. Allden:
DWQ Project No. 04-0929
Halifax County
Page 1 of 2
On June 17, 2004, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your application dated June 14, 2004 to impact
3,670 feet of stream to construct the proposed Gregory Site Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project. The DWQ has
determined that your application was incomplete and/or provided inaccurate information as discussed below. The
DWQ will require additional information based on our initial review as outlined in the Express Review process in
order to process your application to impact protected wetland, streams and/or buffers on the subject property.
Therefore, unless we receive the additional information requested below, we will have to move toward denial of your
application as required by 15A NCAC 2H .0506 and will place this project on hold as incomplete until we receive this
additional information. Please provide the following information so that we may continue to review your project.
Additional Information:
Stream Restoration plan:
A. Is it possible to restore the main channel from the end of the restoration reach to Marsh Swamp rather than tie
into the existing modified channel at the lower end of the site?
B. How will flow be diverted into the new channel from McCulloch's Ditch? Please provide a plan for the design of
any proposed structure.
C. Stream monitoring locations - Please provide approximate locations for the stream monitoring sites.
D. Stream monitoring - DWQ believes that macrobenthos monitoring will be required for this project in
accordance with our stream monitoring policy signed on December 2001. Please see our website at
h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands for details or contact Mr. Larry Eaton at 919-715-3471 for details on developing
a macrobenthos monitoring plan.
2. Wetland Restoration plan:
A. The proposed wetland mitigation plan is very incomplete and sketchy in notable contrast to the stream
mitigation plan. Please carefully review the wetland mitigation plan guidance and checklist provided on the US
Army Corps website to be certain that a revised plan completely addresses all of the items listed in that
manual. The following points should also be addressed in a final wetland mitigation plan.
B. Are there existing jurisdictional wetlands on site? If so, please locate them on a map signed by the Corps of
Engineers.
C. Can the levee along Marsh Swamp be removed or breached to increase wetland hydrology on this site and
provide additional filtering functions for this site?
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
Tara Daisy Allden
Page 2 of 2
June 25, 2004:
D. With respect to the wetland mitigation plan, you have not provided any details on the grading plan (existing and
proposed), a planting plan, location of the proposed ditch plugs and their design, any proposed land
scarification plans, planting schedule, grading schedule and similar measures.
3. In general, the conservation easement for this site should allow additional stream or wetland mitigation if it
becomes possible (perhaps with the cooperation of adjacent landowners in the future). Please address these
deficiencies.
Please respond within three days of the date of this letter by sending this information to me via e-mail or fax and a
follow-up copy in writing. The Express Review Program is a process that requires all parties to participate in a timely
manner. If the DWQ feels the Express Review Program is the incorrect review program for your project, then we may
have to return your application and have it reviewed through our regular 401 Water Quality Certification Program.
This letter only addresses the application review and does not authorize any impacts to wetlands, waters or protected
buffers. Please be aware that any impacts requested within your application are not authorized (at this time) by the
DWQ. Please call John Dorney at [phone] if you have any questions regarding or would like to set up a
meeting to discuss this matter.
JRD/jrd
incerely,
Dorn ,
tlands/401 Unit, .W
cc: Kevin Tweedy, Buck Engineering, 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200, Cary, NC 27511
Kevin Yates, USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Steve Mitchell, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Larry Eaton, DWQ
Debbie Edwards, DWQ
Filename
OF WATF9 Michael F. Easley, Governor
O p William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
7 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
C Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director
-I Division of Water Quality
p <'
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
June 25, 2004
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Tara Daisy Allden
Environmental Banc and Exchange LLC
8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
Subject Property: Gregory Site Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION-EXPRESS REVIEW PROGRAM
Dear Ms. Allden:
DWQ Project No. 04-0929
Halifax County
Page 1 of 2
On June 17, 2004, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your application dated June 14, 2004 to impact
3,670 feet of stream to construct the proposed Gregory Site Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project. The DWQ has
determined that your application was incomplete and/or provided inaccurate information as discussed below. The
DWQ will require additional information based on our initial review as outlined in the Express Review process in
order to process your application to impact protected wetland, streams and/or buffers on the subject property.
Therefore, unless we receive the additional information requested below, we will have to move toward denial of your
application as required by 15A NCAC 2H .0506 and will place this project on hold as incomplete until we receive this
additional information. Please provide the following information so that we may continue to review your project.
Additional Information:
Stream Restoration plan:
A. Is it possible to restore the main channel from the end of the restoration reach to Marsh Swamp rather than tie
into the existing modified channel at the lower end of the site?
B. How will flow be diverted into the new channel from McCulloch's Ditch? Please provide a plan for the design of
any proposed structure.
C. Stream monitoring locations - Please provide approximate locations for the stream monitoring sites.
D. Stream monitoring - DWQ believes that macrobenthos monitoring will be required for this project in
accordance with our stream monitoring policy signed on December 2001. Please see our website at
h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands for details or contact Mr. Larry Eaton at 919-715-3471 for details on developing
a macrobenthos monitoring plan.
2. Wetland Restoration plan:
A. The proposed wetland mitigation plan is very incomplete and sketchy in notable contrast to the stream
mitigation plan. Please carefully review the wetland mitigation plan guidance and checklist provided on the US
Army Corps website to be certain that a revised plan completely addresses all of the items listed in that
manual. The following points should also be addressed in a final wetland mitigation plan.
B. Are there existing jurisdictional wetlands on site? If so, please locate them on a map signed by the Corps of
Engineers.
C. Can the levee along Marsh Swamp be removed or breached to increase wetland hydrology on this site and
provide additional filtering functions for this site?
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
Tara Daisy Allden
Page 2 of 2
June 25, 2004:
D. With respect to the wetland mitigation plan, you have not provided any details on the grading plan (existing and
proposed), a planting plan, location of the proposed ditch plugs and their design, any proposed land
scarification plans, planting schedule, grading schedule and similar measures.
3. In general, the conservation easement for this site should allow additional stream or wetland mitigation if it
becomes possible (perhaps with the cooperation of adjacent landowners in the future). Please address these
deficiencies.
Please respond within three days of the date of this letter by sending this information to me via e-mail or fax and a
follow-up copy in writing. The Express Review Program is a process that requires all parties to participate in a timely
manner. If the DWQ feels the Express Review Program is the incorrect review program for your project, then we may
have to return your application and have it reviewed through our regular 401 Water Quality Certification Program.
This letter only addresses the application review and does not authorize any impacts to wetlands, waters or protected
buffers. Please be aware that any impacts requested within your application are not authorized (at this time) by the
DWQ. Please call John Dorney at [phone] if you have any questions regarding or would like to set up a
meeting to discuss this matter.
incerely,
ftiands/401 n
Unit, W
JRD/jrd
cc: Kevin Tweedy, Buck Engineering, 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200, Cary, NC 27511
Kevin Yates, USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Steve Mitchell, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Larry Eaton, DWQ
Debbie Edwards, DWQ
Filename
?F:WA7??, war.a rNr kt?, uo.•rKO<
t;nnn ('arolina fwlsnnr,ml.? ti,v?r.?utuut and Ivaweu'? Rauu+a+
Y ?wl Yr.lirmclur
' _ •1w lAV Srnu r?\Vaav'Qwlirr
Cd i C?Irtu n. SlJlll+. [hl.rry Climua
UM1i+; Wl d Wa1M Q.all{r
EXPRESS PERMIT REViF.W PROGRAM
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Unit
Sld .t Addresq: 7321 Cn,Nwe Buulavurd, Suite 2S0
Raleieh. NC '?7604-2260
Malting Addrew 1650 Mail Service Cenlcr
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Cantnet Inrorndation; Pl.ne 0: 919 733 020.4
Fun #: 919 713 6893
Fax To: Tara Dist' Alidrn Fax #: 919-463-j490
Stacy Ricks
Subject: Gregory Sticam anti'Nctlwid Restoration Date: 6/25/04
Number of pages including cover sheet: 3
Notes or special instrnetions:
The ontanal will he vent in the Inwl. 11 you have questions please call rXhhie hdwards at 919-73.i-95Cr.
Asa
?- c..wennwaer Grwiy. dot welroa. c<mncuin<nnll
Ie err MAI S<nica Crnm. Ra!rriFl. M'!:e'++•le)V iMJMN Add,-,
.1.! 11'rrnr« nl\d . Rak:dir. 6 W M '?M; rl.yanN!
+ !1 rtle ?pnuec+. al9' 33 b§>d'n.). rLnp nn.'n.:nr rtau n..Wu?ucWnan
-(IHJ,=WSNK2LL ZNadnOOQ INSOHE dO HOVd ZSUI3
xO : s,Lrinssd
wOa : SCOW
.TO,TO : HHLL G9SdVI51
ZS:ZT SZ-NI]P aII,L JIUVLS
£/£ SaDVd
06iVS£9b6 SNOHd
£689££L6T6 Mail
SGNWIILSM-6MQ HKVN
bS:ZT I213 VOOZ-SZ-Nf1f HIVO
NOIROBOO ONIQNSS
O"'O? WAT FRpG
C
EXPRESS PERMIT REVIEW PROGRAM
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Unit
Street Address: 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Mailing Address: 1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Contact Information: Phone #: [phone]
Fax #: [phone]
Fax To: Tara Disy Allden
Stacy Ricks
Fax #: [phone]
Subject: Gregory Stream and Wetland Restoration Date: 6/25/04
Number of pages including cover sheet: 3
Notes or special instructions:
The original will be sent in the mail. If you have questions please call Debbie Edwards at 919-733-9502.
FA
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
T' v t ?L
AOUR
,c
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Managers, Bankers and Traders of Environmental Rights
"Finding Environmental Solutions through Economic Incentives"
10055 Red Run Boulevard. Suite 130
Owings Mills. MD 21117-4860
410 356-5159 FAX [phone]
8000 Regency Parway. Suite 200A
Cary. North Carolina 27511
919 459-9039 }'AX 919 463-5490
www.ebxusa.com
June 14, 2004
Mr. Kevin Yeats
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Department of the Army
Raleigh District, Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
Ms. Debbie Edwards
NC Division of Water Quality
401 /Wetlands Unit -
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
WETLANDS / 401 GROUP
JUN 1 7 a o4
WATER QUALITY SECTION
04-09Z9
Re: Express Permit Review of Gregory Site Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project
401/404 Pre-Construction Notification Application
Dear Mr. Yeats and Ms. Edwards:
Enclosed for your consideration and approval is the Pre-Construction Notification for the Corps nationwide
permit 27 and the Division of Water Quality's general certification 3399 for Wetland and Riparian
Restoration and Creation for the Gregory Site Stream and Wetland Mitigation project. Also enclosed are
copies of the revised Gregory Site Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan for your reference in reviewing the
PCN application. Please note that we have submitted this project in the express permit review of this
application to enable site preparation to take place during August so that the wetland plant species may be
planted during the appropriate dormant season at the end of this year. Thank you in advance for your
assistance.
If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone]
Very truly yo?ujr?s,
u/
Tara Disy Allden t "'• v
rr.?
Enclosures fI ?' `

x
401/404 NCDWQ EXPRESS REVIEW
CHECKLIST
Section I & 2 - PROCESSING & APP INFO
V PCN form filled out completely GWATrPktlr"D
4 L N 'G09L.AN1
Section 3 - PROJECT INFORMATION Q? tlt F_ 10
t/ 1:24,000 USGS Topo with boIn nes delineated
'? Quandmnglename TA4.U%\)L1(U1'0
L-' NRCS Soil Survey Map with site boundaries delineated?1(1 Z'I
Vicinity Map with location and approx. boundaries of the
property and project Ft G (-%
North Arrow and Scale ALL GtoAQflz -t QudV SRE"Ts
? Road name or State road numbers F10
!-1
_V"' Full Size plan sheets 1 SET ; 0JW V_ ?LkN9 M-L-
2*M D II) MITI. RAN
PRE-CONSTRUCTION / PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS
INCLUDING:
? Jurisdictional and non jurisdictional wetlands, streams,
Water features, and state regulated buffers 06 1- Z
? Topo contours with elevations LIS(:)S ' S10 M h0
Nature of cover of land (forest, field, impervious,etc) FI(1 1 - Z
Existing structures and impervious areas
Existing utility lines QLA-A) SA W5
Existing easements 4-11
Existing roads, culverts, and other pertinent tures
BUCK
E N (i I N E E R I N <,
CULVERTING. We (` (ALVF,(LT tX1 V N 'MI.S STP #V/APb-rUkN
Indicate Inlet and outlet elevations and stream bed elevations ?160
Widening of stream must be shown with elevations
Extent of and plan details for all dissipation or grade control
devices should be shown with elevations
Shorter culvert: -1.10 C u(+V 457Q-T S
Longitudinal cross section with stream bed invert at inlet and
outlet, and outlet.
Existing stream bank elevations
Inver of the inlet and outlet of the pipe
Vertical cross section with stream cross section at the inlet and
outlet overlain with the culvert and fill cross section
Bottomless culvert: Nei CUl,VVRI- 5
vertical cross section showing minimum distance from each
span to each stream bank
stream cross section
height of the span above the stream
minimum distance from the edge of each footer to each stream
bank
plan view showing location of the spans and stream banks
PROPOSED CONDITIONS:
t
? Longer culverts: N o w\x) Ei? S
4 1
Show existing jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional S t plan detail showing discharge velocity/energy dissipation
wetlands, stream, water features and state regulated, buffers are sill needed?
? final grading contours with elevations 4di)o (UIL(%
CJI t S
1? 5
ili
i
'
Ut
t
es and easements
( (0 •1?
ft"M NO uT1UTItFS / FRRNA STREAM RELOCATIONS
r(E
-L
LIST OF L AYERS ON PLANS: t'rIQ l'? l e
APP * (d Z
t/ Morphological measurements
? typical stream cross sections Q UV S N T 2
-
Drainage ,- NOT psWLk(/ 6L6 10 TtW5 Qtt2.l66CT plan view of proposed with stationing and existing stream
?
Final drainage plans
locations and pertinent elevations bankfull contours, flood prone area contours, in stream
,
i structures PW S VkCa5 4-t 1
and s
zes of collections system and drainage ways
Inlets and outlets with elevations bank revetments/stabilization, channel plugs
planting plan Rt'V 50' 1la
Stortnwater BMPs to scale
:JE vegetation conditions ILO 9 N r 1%
Plats stormwater outlets, grade control, bridges, culverts, sewer lines,

?
i roads, fencing NONCE O Q 't kk kS V267isc(
Locat
on and layout of all sub-divided parcels with lot ID ? longituditional stream profile indicating TWG, BKF and TOB
? Proposed Impacts FI(1 Z- 2 for design and reference streams QW S 4VT(S 12- 1-4--
all impacts must be labeled aWb 4, 1 Z Ow SWT1) ? planting plan indicating the extent, density, and species of plants
-
(excavation, fill, flooding, stabilization, etc) to ? Typicals for in-stream structures, bank stabilization, and $??T 1-A
jurisdictional and non jurisdictional wetlands, streams, stormwater outlets PLN S*T' Z-743
water features, and state regulated buffers (materials and specifications as well as relative lengths,
40Q,6 gfgdr 1WI S
ly rfU
W
l
d I positions, and angles)
et
an
m pacts
precise grading and final elevation contours Vt.N S *% 10-11 ? Sediment transport analysis %_-rlo" C? 1: MI rl 4 a'MN aw 41+
_V permanent conservation easement or similar means of protection
specify existing veg. and any clearing 11/g1U141- eyt; IrJ FA4p r4g-L4) PfDpn b00uoku ?? wr kk h2& CC.
? location of anti-seep collars NON I
flooding and draining impacts ft (a 2 5
Stream Impacts
t/ impacts must be clearly shown on plans
center line and banks of channel PLAN S ACeTS 4-11
r
Section 4 - PRIOR PROIFC,T HISTORY 5CAJ5- POVA
Section 5- FI1TU F PRO TECT PLANS WA,
Include copies of all 401 water quality certification
Future project plans- future and present impacts must be
indicated
MBRT plan submission site eval, and comment dates
Section 6 - PROPOSED IMPACTS Tn WATER OF THE IS
include signed delineation map from USACE NO (,7C1sT1?1(7 W b'CI?cN D S W ILk
map locating the stream origins signed by DWQ staff if -?? ISTII(LfSL- I7
applicable 141(k
label each wetland impact on plans: type, temp or
permanent
fill out tables with wetland and stream impactssg PoJ GOQm
Section 7 - IMPACT iI1STIFICATION !AVOID) AND MIN)
justifiy impacts to wetland and streams -G CC PO(L/A
Section 8 - MITIGATION
? include final mitigation plan wwoxr)
Section 9 - EN RONMENTA DO t IMENTATION
? answer 3 questions on PCN form Sg -k.t)(L An
_L/_ must have an approval letter from NEPA or SEPA if the
project requires an environmental document JJOT AW-
BUCK
ENGINEERING;
Section 10 - PROPOSED IMPA ON RIPARIAN AND WATER H FFER S'(Q6hM -,?Wl:vovjD mmo:rtm IS V)L6t ?T-PUAI TW5 &AKEV- Q,( L6' -
N IN answer question and fill out table if necessary
P/1 A (stream and wetland mitigation are exempt from the buffer
rules)
Section II - STORMWATER NIA
is diffuse flow of stormwater through riparian buffers met?
stormwater outfalis must be clearly shown and labeled on '
plans for pro. In Buffered watersheds.
REFER to Addendum for express review
Section 12 - SEWA .E n? PO AL MIA
state if sewage is being disposed of in project
Section 13 -VIOLATIONS " ?JD
if the answer is YES to these 2 questions then an
express review is NOT APPLICABLE
Section 14 - SIGNAT F
sign and date application
61.1 fill outlines 1-18 on bottom of ADDENDUM
can NOT use N/A SCi5k )DE DUM
Fort C?(tl"? F ((Nno n1 ? 33? ?
r
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
44 -0929
USAGE Action ID No. D o.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 fori GRO"Phere: ?
II. Applicant Information JUN I ,, 2 004
Owner/Applicant Information WATER QUALITY SECTION
Name: Tara Disy Allden
Mailing Address: Environmental Banc and Exchange LLC
8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
Telephone Number: 919-459-9039 Fax Number: 919-463-5490
E-mail Address: tars a(_,ebxusa.com
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Kevin Tweedy, PE
Company Affiliation: Buck Engineering, PC
Mailing Address: 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
Telephone Number: 919-463-5488 Fax Number: 919-463-5490
E-mail Address: Ktweedy(&Buckengineering.com
Page 6 of 13
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: The Gregory Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 3993-00-67-2041
4. Location
County:_ Halifax County Nearest Town: Enfield
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Take 1-95 North, take exit 160
(HWY 561) turn to the right. Take a left onto Grapevine Road: take a left onto Gregory Road.
Protect is located on this road.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 36,19'12"N / 077,39'40"W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): Work area totals approximately 85 acres.
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Black Spring Creek
8. River Basin: Tar - Pamlico
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Property has recently been in pasture land and
agricultural production. The existing conditions are further described in the attached
mitigation plan.
Page 7 of 13
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Site will be restored for the purposes of providing compensatory stream and wetland
mitigation as described in the attached Gregory Site Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Proiect. Work to be conducted with pans, dozers, track-hoes, and other equipment
typically used for restoration projects.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work:
Perform compensatory mitigation totaling 6,725 linear feet of stream restoration and 75
acres of wetland restoration.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
Mitigation Plan was submitted to NCDOT/NCEEP in March 2004.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 8 of 13
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The proposed impacts are necessary
to restore pattern, profile and dimension to a channalized stream.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Located within
100-year Floodplain**
es/no Distance to
Nearest Stream
linear feet
Type of Wetland***
None

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at.http://www.fema.Lzov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:
Total area of wetland impact proposed:
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
linear feet
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
leasespecify)
Reach 1 & 2 Mitigation 3670 Black Spring Creek 6.5 perennial

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgss gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 3670
Page 9 of 13
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Proposed impacts are required to restore stream functions. as described in The
Gregory Site Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan. Proiect will result in the an overall
increase in stream length on the site from 3.670 feet to 6.725 feet.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 10 of 13
'r
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
htip://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/newetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
See attached mitigation plan; The Gregory Site Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Project.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wip/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 11 of 13

IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ? No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 12 of 13

If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
Stream and wetland mitigation is exempt from the Buffer Rules
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
The applicant requests that review be completed by July 15, 2004 to
ensure adequate time for site construction work, followed by site planting during the
_coming planting season.

Wd,-z1.
? / /V/Z(fv/
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 13 of 13
bwN ?0(5 14 WMM-D W(WON
Addendum to the Pre-Construction Notification and "Buffer Rules" Application Required for
Projects Submitted Under the
"Express Review Program"
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Version 3.0
January 7, 2004
Email Address: [e-mail]
Purpose: To provide a detailed explanation of the information required by the Division of Water Quality
in order to expedite the review of applications for 401 General Water Quality Certifications, Isolated
Wetland and Stream Permits, and Buffer Rule and Minor Variance Approvals.
Please do not leave any questions unanswered or use terms such as "N/A" without an explanation.
Fees:
Total stream impacts of less than 150 feet and/or total wetland impacts of less than or equal to 1 acre -
$1,000.00.
Total stream impacts of greater than or equal to 150 feet and/or total wetland impacts of more than 1 acre
and projects that include any kind of Buffer Rules Approval -$2,000.00. For stream origin determinations
as required by the Buffer Protection Rules the fee is $200.00 for one or two streams on the same
property, $500.00 for three to six streams on the same property, or $1,000.00 for more than 6 streams on
the same property.
Please read the entire document before attempting to determine the proper fee. Fees are additive for a
particular project.
Things to keep in mind when filling out the application:
A specific answer must be provided for each question. For instance, if a numerical answer is requested
then a numerical answer must be provided along with the supporting information necessary for DWQ staff
to verify that the number is accurate. Likewise, if explanations are presented to justify certain responses,
the explanations must be completely supported by documentation. DWQ staff cannot assume that
unsupported or undocumented information is accurate. "N/A" is not an acceptable answer for any
question since the DWQ Staff reviewing the application must have an opportunity to determine whether or
not any requested information is pertinent.
All forms, guidance, worksheets, applications, etc. used must be the current versions as posted on our
web site at http:h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. There will soon be a web site specifically for the express
review program. Please note that it will be the applicant's or applicant's consultant's responsibility to
verify that the current versions are used. The versions posted on our web site will be considered to be
the current versions.
You are a very important part of the success of this program, if you have suggestions or clarifications
please send your comments to the Wetlands/401 Unit of the DWQ (via email at
401 [e-mail]).
Filling Out the Pre-Construction Notification Application:
The Corps of Engineers (USACE)/DWQ official, joint Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Application
must be used as a basis for the expedited review process. The completed application should be
presented first the supporting information tabbed and collated in the same order. collated in the same
order. Using a custom format is not recommended. All supporting documentation should be presented
as tabbed appendices in the same order as the application. The open squares ( ) are checklist items.
The following items correspond to the numbering system on the Pre-Construction Notification Form
(PCN):
USE CHECK BOXES TO TRACK PROJECT INFORMATION
SECTION I. PROCESSING
1 &2. The USACE determines which Nationwide, Regional, or General Permit is
required. If you have verified with the USACE which permit they intend to use for
your project or if you already have written approval from the USACE, please
indicate by adding "verified" or "verified, attached", respectively, in the blank next
to the Permit number requested.
Attach the USACE Approval if you have it.
3. It is not anticipated that the expedited process will be requested for this situation.
4. If you propose to impact 150 feet or more of perennial stream or 1 acre or more
of wetland and onsite mitigation is not proposed, it is recommended that you
either locate an acceptable private bank with available credits (with
documentation to show that the bank can and shall provide the credits needed)
or obtain approval from the NCWRP for the entire amount of stream and or
wetland as DWQ will make the final determination as to whether or not mitigation
applies. Please note that the USACE may have different mitigation requirements
and thresholds.
5. State whether your project will require a CAMA Minor, Major or General Permit
and give the status of the permit.
SECTION II - APPLICATION INFORMATION
15 NCAC 2H.502(o reads as follows: "Who Must Sign Applications. The application
shall be considered a "valid application" only if the application bears the signature of a
responsible officer of the company, municipal official, partner or owner. This signature
certifies that the applicant has title to the property, has been authorized by the owner to
apply for certification or is a public entity and has the power of eminent domain. Said
official in signing the application shall also certify that all information contained therein
or in support thereof is true and correct to the best of his knowledge."
Please indicate how the applicant meets the above definition and provide
supporting documentation.
Please provide all of the requested contact information including a fax
number and email address.
2. Please attach the agent authorization letter if the application is not signed by the
applicant. The agent authorization letter must be signed by the applicant. The
applicant's name and position must also be spelled out as many signatures are difficult
to read.
3. Please provide all of the requested contact information including a fax number and
email address.
SECTION III - PROJECT INFORMATION
The following is the most critical of all the information that you must provide. The quality and detail of the
information will often determine the expeditiousness of the review. The following is a checklist of the
types of pertinent information required at a minimum:
3
Maps and Plans:
The most recent version of the 1:24,000 USGS Topographic Map- Please cleanly
delineate the site boundaries, etc. on the map. If the delineation obscures any of the
features, it is recommended that a clean copy be provided. Please indicate the
quadrangle name. You can go to the USGS web site (http://mac.usgs.gov/maplists/) to
verify the most recent version.
The most recent version of the NRCS Soil Survey Map - (required for projects within
the use River Basin, Tar-Pamlico River Basin and Randleman Lake Watershed and
recommended for all projects) - Please cleanly delineate the site boundaries, etc. on the
map. If the delineation obscures any of the features, it is recommended that a clean copy
be provided. Please indicate the page or map number from which the copy of the map
was made. Copies of the current soil survey and/or soil survey map sheets can be
obtained from the local NRCS County Office (http://www.nc.nres.usda.gov/).
Vicinity map - Please clearly mark the location and approximate boundaries of the
property and project on the map. Please indicate north and scale. Please include
applicable road names or State Road numbers.
The Site Plan - The most critical map to be provided is the site plan. You must provide
full sized plans. The following is the minimum list of plans that are typically needed.
Pre-construction/Pre-existing conditions - This sheet must be scaled and
include all jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetland, stream, water features,
State regulated buffers, topographic contours with elevations, approximate extent
and nature of forest, field, landscaped, or other cover. Any existing structures and
impervious area must also be shown. Existing utility lines and easements must
also be shown. Existing roads, culverts, and other pertinent features must be
shown. North arrow and the scale must be shown. Please note that the impact
boundaries on the maps should correspond to the flagged impact boundaries in the
field.
Proposed conditions - These sheets must be scaled and show all existing
jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetland, stream, water features, and State
regulated buffers must be underlain on the site plan(s). The plans must show all
built-out structures and impervious cover. The plans must include the final grading
contours with elevations. The plans must indicate all utilities and easements. It is
likely that several versions of the final built-out site plans will be necessary. The
following is a list of layers:
Drainage Plans - Final drainage plans must be included. The plans should include
the locations and pertinent elevations and sizes of the collection system and
drainage ways. All inlets and outlets must also be shown with pertinent elevations.
Scaled stormwater BMPs must also be indicated as required by DWQ rules and
policies. In certain cases, final stormwater management plans must also be
provided, but that will be addressed later in this document.
Plats - The plans must show the location and layout of all sub-divided parcels with
lot identifications. Platted parcels must be developable without further impacts to
jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands, streams, water features, and State
regulated buffers.
Proposed Impacts - All impacts to jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetland,
stream, water features, and State regulated buffers must be shown and labeled on
the site plans. All excavation, fill, flooding, stabilization, and other impacts that will
be conducted in or near jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetland, stream, water
features, and State regulated buffers must be indicated.
5
Wetland Impacts (on the site plan):
Precise grading and final elevation contours must be provided. Existing vegetation and
any clearing must be specified.
All subsurface utility lines must indicate the location of anti-seep collars. Construction
detail for anti-seep collars must be provided.
Roadway or other crossings of riparian wetlands may require floodway culverts to
maintain existing hydrological conditions.
When surface drainage features or groundwater recharge areas that feed or would
reasonably feed wetlands that are not to be filled are made impervious, it may be
necessary to direct some stormwater runoff to those areas in order to maintain hydrology.
You must identify these areas and address them. Supporting explanations and discharge
information must be provided to show that the wetland would not be eroded or receive
too much or too little hydrology. In many cases this could help satisfy part of a
stormwater management plan.
Flooding
Draining
Stream Impacts:
Stream impacts must be clearly shown on the plans. The centerline as well as the banks
of the stream must be surveyed or located by GPS for the portion of the stream to be
impacted.
Culverting:
The inlet and the outlet of the culvert should be aligned with the stream as much as
possible. Inlet and outlet elevations and stream bed elevations should be indicated.
Any widening of the stream must be shown with elevations.
The extent of and plan details for all dissipation or grade control devices should be shown
with pertinent elevations.
For shorter culvert sections, such as for road crossings, a longitudinal cross section that
shows the stream bed invert at the inlet and outlet, the existing stream bank elevations
and the invert of the inlet and outlet of the pipe(s) must be provided.
For shorter culvert sections, such as for road crossings, a vertical cross section must be
provided that shows the stream cross section at the inlet and outlet overlain with the
culvert and fill cross section.
For bottomless culverts or other spans, a vertical cross section should be provided that
shows the minimum distance from each span to each stream bank, the stream cross
section, the height of the span above the stream and the minimum distance from the
edge of each footer to each stream bank.
For bottomless culverts or other spans, a plan view must be provided that shows the
location of the spans and the stream banks.
For longer culverts or culverts that will pass beneath substantial impervious cover, it will
be necessary to provide adequate plan detail to show that discharge velocity/energy will
be adequately dissipated.
Aquatic life passage through culverts is typically achieved by placing the invert of the
culvert below the existing bed of the stream per the USACE or North Carolina Wildlife
Resource Commission guidelines. Other methods such as baffles may also be used.
Please be aware that such placement may require the use of grade/velocity control
measures up or down stream of culverts on steeper streams to prevent head-cuts or
stream bed erosion. The culvert placement relative to the stream bed can be indicated
on the longitudinal profile. Grade and velocity control measures must be indicated on the
plan view and typical designs should be provided.
Multiple culverts, wide culverts or sectioned box culverts typically require the use of sills,
off-setting or other means to match the cross section of the existing stream (in order to
maintain stream stability and provide aquatic life passage). A vertical cross section of the
culverts should be shown overlain with the up and downstream stream cross section
including the stream flood-prone area.
Impacts associated with dam construction must indicate and enumerate all fill associated
with the dam foot print, spillway and any bank stream bank stabilization. The length of
stream impounded must also be indicated and enumerated.
Stream Relocations:
Stream relocations must be conducted as specified in General Certification numbers
3402 and 3404 (available on the Wetlands Unit web site). Stream relocation plans must
include:
Morphological measurements (see Appendix B of the Internal Technical Guide for Stream
Work in North Carolina available on the Wetlands Unit web site) - not all of the
measurements are applicable in every instance.
Typical stream cross sections - Typically, a riffle cross section and a pool cross section
that includes the entire flood prone area. The bankfull and flood prove area elevations
should be indicated. Similarly, a riffle cross section of the reference stream(s) should be
provided.
Plan view - Provide scaled plans that show the location of the proposed (preferably with
stationing) and the existing stream. In most instances, the bankfull contours and flood
prone area contours, in stream structures, bank revetments/stabilization, channel plugs,
7
planting plan, vegetation conditions, stormwater outlets, grade controls, bridges, culverts,
sewer lines, roads, fencing, and easement lines should also be provided.
Longitudinal Stream Profile - A scaled profile that indicates the thalweg , bankfull, and
top of bank elevations should be provided for the design and reference streams. In many
cases, it will also be necessary to show the existing land elevations for the design
stream.
Planting Plan - A planting and/or vegetation management plan should also be provided
that makes use of appropriate native vegetation. The plan should indicate the extent,
density, and species of plants to be provided.
In-stream structure, bank revetment/stabilization, and stormwater outlet typicals -
Detailed, typical plans should be provided for all in stream structures, bank revetments or
stabilization, and stormwater outlets. The typicals should include materials and
specifications as well as relative lengths, positions, and angles.
Sediment transport analysis - A sediment transport analysis should be provided based
on the current, relevant, accepted practices. The sediment transport analysis should be
relevant to the stream bed load type and should predict bed load transport equilibrium.
Permanent conservation easement or similar means of protection must also be provided.
Other Information:
1. The project should always be referred to by this name in all correspondence as well
as the DWQ # once it is provided.
2. This only applies to DOT projects which are not expected to utilize the Express
Review Program.
3. This should be the size of the project as identified by the USACE for 404 Permits or
by the Division of Water Quality for Buffer Approvals and Isolated Wetland Permits.
4. Please provide the name (as depicted on the USGS topographic map and DWQ
Stream Classification Lists) of the nearest water body(ies) to which your project is a
tributary to (e.g. "Neuse River (Falls Lake below normal pool elevation)"). (Do not
simple state "stream", "river", "ocean", "sound" or "lake".) Please provide the "stream
index number" of the named water body or water body section (e.g. "27-(1)"). Also,
please provide the full water quality classification (e.g. "WS-IV NSW CA") of the water
body. This information can be obtained from the DWQ web site
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/Reports/reportsWB.html.
5. Please state which river basin and sub-basin that your project is in (e.g. "Neuse River
Basin, NEU01"). This information can be obtained from the DWQ web site
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/Reports/reportsWB.html.
6. Conditions should also be indicated on the existing site plan where applicable.
Photos (including aerial photos) can be helpful in describing the existing conditions.
7. You must provide an attachment that explicitly describes what the proposed project
will entail from the planning stage to final construction.
8. This can be a simple explanation, but it is critically important because the purpose
dictates how the no practical alternatives is reviewed.
SECTION IV - PRIOR PROJECT HISTORY
8
Please include copies of all 401 Water Quality Certifications, Isolated Wetland
Permits, Buffer Approvals, USACE Permits, CAMA Permits for the site as well as a
copy of the final approved, site plan.
SECTION V - FUTURE PROJECT PLANS
For projects utilizing the express review process, all impacts both present and
potential future must be indicated. For instance, the location or configuration of
platted lots sometimes suggests that future impacts will be necessary to build,
access, or otherwise develop such lots. Failure to account for such potential impacts
could delay or disqualify a project from the rapid review process. If you believe that
the lot can be developed without impacts, but you anticipate that your assertion may
be questioned, it is recommended that you provide a potential building foot print
and/or grading plan to show that future impacts could be avoided.
SECTION VI - PROPOSED IMPACTS TO WATER OF THE US
It is recommended that the individual impacts be described if there are special things
to note about the impacts. Typically the most important thing is to have detailed
accurate site plans as described above. Please make sure they are clearly labeled.
Please include all proposed temporary impacts.
Also, a current, signed delineation map from the USACE should be provided (if
available) and a map locating the stream origins signed by the appropriate DWQ
Staff must be provided if applicable.
2. Each impact to a wetland must be clearly labeled and identified on the site plan. The
type of impact must be clearly stated. If the impact is temporary, a specific plan must
be described or shown as to how the wetland will be restored. Keep in mind that the
USACE delineates some features as wetlands that DWQ calls streams. Please do
not list any impacts in this table that DWQ would identify as a stream. If there is any
doubt, it is recommended that the impacts be listed as streams.
3. Each impact to a wetland must be clearly labeled and identified on the site plan. The
type of impact must be clearly stated. If the impact is temporary, a specific plan must
be described or shown as to how the wetland will be restored. Keep in mind that the
USACE delineates some features as wetlands that DWQ calls streams. Please list
any impacts in this table that DWQ would identify as a stream. If there is any doubt, it
is recommended that the impacts be listed as streams. Please follow current DWQ
policy with respect to whether a stream is perennial or not. It is recommended that
you assume that a stream is perennial (unless you are positive that it is not) so if
mitigation is required then the appropriate amount of mitigation would be anticipated
or requested from the WRP or private bank. If the WRP or private bank has pre-
approved too short of an amount of stream or if inadequate mitigation is proposed,
then that situation will result in delays.
4. Sometimes it is difficult to determine whether a feature is a modified natural channel
or a ditch, especially in the eastern part of the State. Soils, drainage features,
topography, and similar factors, all are important for making that determination.
5. Other items to address not specifically requested in the application include
downstream sediment starvation, thermal pollution, low flow releases from dams, and
aquatic life passage. Other important considerations are buffer reestablishment or
mitigation around ponds on buffered streams. The site plan should include the
precise elevation contour of the normal pool as well as the dam foot-print. Mitigation
is required for wetland flooding of an acre or greater and for stream fill (if over the
150 foot threshold) under the dam foot-print and any outlet stabilization.
SECTION VI - AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Avoidance and minimization are critical aspects of an application particularly if you desire the application
to be processed expeditiously. The following is a check-list of avoidance and minimization questions that
DWQ Staff often look for in applications.
Are there any stream crossings at angles less than 75° or greater than 105°?
Are there any stream crossings that cross two streams above or at the confluence of those
streams?
Are there any stream, wetland, water, and/or buffer impacts other than perpendicular road
crossing near the edges of the property?
Can the stream be relocated as a natural channel design as opposed to culverted or
otherwise filled?
Is any single stream crossed more than once?
Can property access routes be moved or reduced to avoid stream, wetland, water, buffer
impacts?
Can a building, parking lot, etc. be realigned to avoid impacts?
Can the site layout be reconfigured to avoid impacts?
Can headwalls or steeper side slopes be used to avoid/minimize impacts?
Can a retaining wall be used to avoid/minimize impacts?
Can cul de sacs be used in place of a crossing?
Can lots be reshaped or have shared driveways to avoid impacts?
If based solely on the practicable physical possibility, the answer is "yes" to any of the above questions
then you must have to provide substantial and convincing justification as to why the impacts are
necessary. If the impacts are required by a local government or other agency the claim must be
supported with appropriate written documentation from the local government or other agency. Most
projects typically involve the need to justify avoidance and minimization. If this information is not readily
available, then the express review process may not be the appropriate venue to use because the project
may be put on hold at the end of the process. Providing alternative plans (such as plans that avoid the
impact, minimize the impact and the preferred plan, similar those used in environmental assessments)
and explanations as to why the preferred plan is needed and why the alternative plans won't work are
many times helpful in the no practical alternatives review.
SECTION VIII - MITIGATION
Mitigation for the Express Review Program, final mitigation plans must be presented up front. The final
plans (except for plans that propose payment into the Wetlands Restoration Fund, Riparian Buffer
Restoration Fund, private mitigation banks, or similar banking instruments) must contain detailed plans,
specifications, calculations and other supporting data that show that the appropriate mitigation will be
achieved at the ratios required. The design plans must be developed to at least the "90%" level.
Monitoring plans must be final and specific. Any means of permanent protection, such as a permanent
conservation easement must be provided. If you elect to use the WRP or a private mitigation bank, it is
10
recommended that you request the maximum possible mitigation amount that DWQ may require so that
you will not have to get further approval from them on short notice. The WRP and private banks are not
part of the expedited review process and cannot be expected to meet any such deadlines. There will be
no conditional expedited approvals that require final plans at a later date. It is not recommended that
innovative mitigation techniques or greater than 10% preservation be requested as part of an expedited
process.
SECTION IX
If your project requires the preparation of an environmental document under NEPA or SEPA and an
approval letter has not been issued by the State Clearinghouse, then you cannot apply under the
expedited review process. I t is your responsibility to find out if such documentation is required.
SECTION X
There are many aspects of the Buffer Rules that must be addressed in every application, if applicable.
The first and most important thing to keep in mind is that allowable activities that require written Approval
from DWQ triggers a review of the entire project for compliance with the Buffer Rules.
Diffuse Flow & Stormwater Management:
The most common issues that arise involve the requirement for diffuse flow of stormwater
through riparian buffers. Basically one of three things must be indicated in regards to all
"new" stormwater that is collected and subsequently discharged. First, provisions for
diffuse flow through the protected buffer must be made. This usually involves the use of
level spreading devices designed to the latest DWQ guidance on level spreader design,
which is available on our web site. Please keep in mind that it does not matter how far a
discharge point is from a buffer. The stormwater must be flowing in a diffuse manner at
whatever point it eventually reaches the buffer. If the stormwater will not be flowing in a
diffuse manner through the protected buffer at the point it reaches the buffer, then one of
the following options may be allowed:
You may provide a nitrogen removing measure such as a forested filter strip,
grassed swale, stormwater wetland, etc. The measure employed should be
designed according to the NC DENR Stormwater Best Management Practices
Manual or other DWQ Guidance available at http:
//h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/mitresto.html. After the nitrogen is treated, the
stormwater can be directly conveyed through the buffer with written DWQ approval.
You may discharge the stormwater to an existing man-made conveyance that
currently conveys stormwater through the protected buffer (assuming the
conveyance was not constructed in violation of the Rules) as long as that
conveyance does not need to be altered to convey the flow. Please remember that
there are no other choices. The following checklist is intended to help insure that
your application will not be deemed incomplete as a result of improper stormwater
design.
Stormwater Management (for Buffer Rules c m lance only - Also, see Section XI
All stormwater out-falls must be clearly shown and labeled on the site plan for projects in
Buffered watersheds. List each out-fall as labeled:
Option 1: Level spreading devices designed to the latest DWQ Guidance, and
devices that merely control velocity but do not provide diffuse flow such as rip rap
dissipators are not proposed. List each of these out-falls as labeled on the site
plan and provide a DWQ worksheet available at
http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/mitresto.html: ____
-----------
11
Option 2: Nitrogen removing measures designed to DWQ Standards are
proposed for discharges for which diffuse flow through a protected Buffer cannot be
met. List each of these out-falls as labeled on the site plan and provide a DWQ
worksheet available at http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/mitresto.html:
Option 3: The stormwater will be discharged to an existing man-made (not
including modified natural channels) conveyance that carries the stormwater
through the Buffer. The conveyance was not constructed in violation of the Buffer
Rules. List each out-fall as labeled: -
All stormwater out-fall must meet one of the options above. (Note: if you cannot check this
box your application will likely not be accepted into the express review process.)
Site Plans:
All applications on properties with DWQ protected buffers must clearly depict the buffers
and any impacts to the buffers on the site plans. The impact maps should clearly depict
both zones of the protected buffers and the proposed impact areas (provided in square
feet).
Surface Water & Buffer Delineations:
Any surface waters subject to DWQ protected buffers must be field located and accurately
depicted on the site plans and impact maps. The width, dimensions and pattern of the
surface water must be delineated. The surface water location must not be taken simply
from a USGS map, soil survey or local municipality's map. The buffers must be measured
from the surface water as required within the applicable buffer protection rule (e.g., all
buffers along streams subject to the Neuse Buffer Rule must be measured from the "top-of-
bank" of the stream and not the centerline of the stream). All streams must be surveyed or
located by GPS and shown precisely on the site plans.
Impact Table:
Please provide additional impact tables that clearly state the area of impact for each
corresponding impact site.
Variances:
Projects that require the Minor and "General" Variances may be eligible for the use of the
Express Review Program. However, Major Variances are not eligible. If your project
requires a Minor or "General" Variance approval, then be sure to attach a completed Minor
or "General" Variance application.
Mitigation:
As opposed to applications that are submitted under our regular process, final mitigation
plans must be presented up front (see requirements for Section VIII above). The mitigation
plans must comply with the applicable buffer mitigation rule.
SECTION XI - STORMWATER -S (Tt?? 1 S ?-A?R-lyl(lt/ b / NO sir) WAt,9-
Please provide the following information in regards to potential stormwater requirements:
The total acreage of the site. _______ (acres)

12
The total built-out impervious acreage -_------(acres)
The total area that will be disturbed - -- (acres)
If the total area exceeds 20% imperviousness, the development on the site is uniform in
density, and you are claim that the total impervious area is less than 30%, you must
provide a complete, detailed breakdown of the assumed built-out conditions. The
breakdown must be detailed enough to show that all potential impervious areas are
accounted for.
If there are concentrated areas of development such as multi-family, commercial, cluster,
club houses, etc. that exceed 30% imperviousness and the total imperviousness for the site
does not exceed 30%, a stormwater management plan will likely be required for those
areas that exceed 30% imperviousness.
Stormwater management plans must be complete with a final design and an executed
Operation and Maintenance Agreement. There will be no conditional stormwater approvals
for the express review process that allow for approval of the final plans at a later date.
Worksheets must be provided that are available at
http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/mitresto.html.
SECTION X11- SEWAGE DISPOSAL
Response must be clear and detailed. Any disposal method that suggests further impacts
may be required other than those shown must be clearly addressed on the site plans.
SECTION XIII
Answering yes to either of these responses automatically precludes you from the express
review process.
SECTION XIV - SIGNATURE
The name, position and/or title of the applicant must be in type or long hand script here with
the signature. It should be the same person as described in Part II.
When applying to use a General Certification it is important to review every condition of the Certification
to determine whether or not your project can and will meet all of the conditions. For each Certification for
which you have applied, you must list the number of each condition and specifically where the information
is provided in the application or how and why the condition will or will not be met if not otherwise
described in the application. The following format is provided for GC 3402 as an example:
33?tq
GC 3492 for Nationwide Permit
10.E 0i?N T _ SStV!:-.D W _Ot? s Me
11._NU?1?igc? _- ------------ - -----

13
12._W?LIC?MP11
13._(H f t'?c 10^) 4??I (,? ?2 3 ??'A(1S OA!1 ISS41?a DAT(;;
17
Remember, N/A by itself is not an acceptable answer. You must explain why you think something does
not apply.
If you have any questions about these requirements, please email the Express Review Program at
[e-mail] and include your question and phone number and the appropriate staff will
respond as soon as possible.
'UN.-)11tt? vIf-tm,V VvC?Wu 1J till k lgf"Lv(v
WQC #3399
STREAM RESTORATION, ENHANCEMENT AND STABILIZATION AND WETLAND AND
RIPARIAN RESTORATION AND CREATION ACTIVITIES CERTIFICATION
GENERAL CERTIFICATION FOR STREAM RESTORATION. ENHANCEMENT AND
STABILIZATION PROJECTS AND WETLAND AND RIPARIAN RESTORATION AND
CREATION ACTIVITIES INCLUDING THOSE ELIGIBLE FOR CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 13 (BANK STABILIZATION) AND 27 (WETLAND AND
RIPARIAN RESTORATION AND CREATION) AND REGIONAL PERMIT 197800080
(CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BULKHEADS)
This General Certification is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401, Public
Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality Regulations in 15A NCAC 2H .0500 and 15A NCAC 213.0200 for the discharge of fill
material to waters as described in 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B) (13) and (27) of the Corps of
Engineers regulations (i.e. Nationwide Permit Numbers 13 and 27) and Regional Permit
197800080. The category of activities shall include stream bank stabilization or stream
restoration activity as long as impacts to waters or significant wetlands are minimized. This
Certification replaces Water Quality Certification (WQC) Number 1663 issued on September 8,
1983; WQC No. 1272 issued November 10, 1978; WQC No. 2665 issued on 21 January 1992;
WQC No. 2102 issued on February 11, 1997, WQC Nos. 3256, 3257 and 3258 issued on
November 22, 1999 and WQC No. 3353 issued on March 18, 2002. This WQC is rescinded
when the Corps of Engineers reauthorize Nationwide Permits 13 or 27 or Regional Permit
197800080 or when deemed appropriate by the Director of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
The State of North Carolina certifies that the specified category of activity will not violate
applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217
if conducted in accordance with the conditions set forth.
Conditions of Certification:
Wetland and/or riparian area restoration and creation projects which are for
compensatory mitigation or compensatory mitigation credit (and not including
projects that only involve stream restoration or enhancement work described in
condition nos. 2 and 3 below) that are proposed under this General Certification
require written application to and approval from the Division of Water Quality. All
applications for written DWQ approval will be reviewed and a response will be
prepared within 30 days of stamped receipt of the application in the Division of
Water Quality's Central Office in Raleigh. This 30-day period does not include time
spent by the application or DWQ's response within US Postal Service or North
Carolina's Mail Service Center mail systems;
Wetland and riparian area restoration and creation projects (not including projects
that involve work in or impacts to streams) which are not for compensatory
mitigation or compensatory mitigation credit proposed under this General
Certification do not require written application to and approval from the Division of
Water Quality. In these cases, the applicant is required to notify the Division in
writing with three copies of project specifications before the impact occurs. If the
Division determines that the project would not result in an ecologically viable wetland
and riparian area, then the Division shall prepare a response to notify the applicant
in writing within 30 days of DWQ's receipt of the notification. In such cases, the
applicant will be required to submit a formal application and pay of the appropriate
fee, and DWQ will be required to process the application through normal
procedures;
WQC #3399
2. Proposed stream restoration projects (as defined and limited below), that do not
disturb wetlands and that are not being conducted for compensatory mitigation or
compensatory mitigation credit do not require written application to and approval
from the Division of Water Quality, and, therefore, do not require payment of an
application fee to the Division of Water Quality.
Stream restoration is defined as the process of converting an unstable, altered or
degraded stream corridor, including adjacent riparian zone and floodprone areas to
its natural or referenced, stable conditions considering recent and future watershed
conditions. This biological and chemical integrity, including transport of water and
sediment is produced by the stream's watershed in order to achieve dynamic
equilibrium. The applicant is required to notify the Division in writing with three
copies of detailed restoration plans and specifications before the impact occurs. If
the Division determines that the project does not meet the above definition of stream
restoration, then the Division shall notify the applicant in writing within 30 days of
receipt of the application. In such cases, the applicant will be required to submit a
formal application and pay of the appropriate fee, and DWQ will be required to
process the application through normal procedures;
3. Stream enhancement projects (as defined and limited below), that do not disturb
wetlands and that are not being conducted for compensatory mitigation or
compensatory mitigation credit and do not include any stream channel relocation, do
not require written application to and approval from the Division of Water Quality,
and, therefore, do not require payment of an application fee to the Division of Water
Quality.
Stream enhancement is defined as the process of implementing stream
rehabilitation practices in order to improve water quality and/or ecological function.
These practices must only be conducted on streams that are not experiencing,
severe aggradation or erosion. Stream enhancement does not include the relocation
of the stream channel. Stream enhancement bank stabilization techniques include
the use of woody vegetation as the primary means of long term stability, and "soft"
techniques such as root wads that encourage the establishment of dense woody
vegetation. Stream enhancement techniques do not typically include the use of
stream bank or bed hardening techniques such as rip-rap or other rock, gabion,
block or concrete structures. However, enhancement activities may also include the
placement of in stream habitat or grade control structures such as cross vanes, j-
hook vanes, and wing deflectors that do not affect the overall dimension, pattern, or
profile of a stable stream.
The applicant is required to notify the Division in writing with three copies of detailed
enhancement plans and specifications before the impact occurs if the stream
enhancement project disturbs greater than 500 feet of stream bank or if the project
proposes the use of in stream structures. If the Division determines that the project
does not meet the above definition of stream enhancement, then the Division shall
notify the applicant in writing with an explanation within 30 days of receipt of the
notification to require application and payment of the appropriate fee;
4. Stream stabilization projects that include the use of any structure or fill in the existing
stream bed or disturb greater that 500 feet of stream bank that are proposed under
this General Certification require written application to and approval from the
Division of Water Quality.
Stream stabilization is defined as the in-place stabilization of an eroding stream
bank using measures that consist primarily of "hard" engineering, such as but not
1
WQC #3399
limited to concrete lining, rip rap or other rock, and gabions. The use of "hard"
engineering will not be considered as stream restoration or enhancement;
5. Impacts to any stream length in the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico or Randleman River Basins
(or any other major river basins with Riparian Area Protection Rules [Buffer Rules] in
effect at the time of application) requires written concurrence for this Certification
from DWQ in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0200. Activities listed as "exempt"
from these rules do not need to apply for written concurrence under this
Certification. New development activities located in the protected 50-foot wide
riparian areas (whether jurisdictional wetlands or not) within the Neuse and Tar-
Pamlico River Basins shall be limited to "uses" identified within and constructed in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0200. All new development shall be located,
designed, constructed, and maintained to have minimal disturbance to protect water
quality to the maximum extent practicable through the use of best management
practices;
6. In order for the above conditions to be valid, any plans not requiring written
concurrence to use this Certification must be built according to the plans provided to
the Division of Water Quality. If written concurrence is required, then the project
must be built and maintained according to the plans approved by the written
concurrence and Certification from the Division of Water Quality;
Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or exceed those
outlined in the most recent version of the "North Carolina Erosion and Sediment
Control Planning and Design Manual" or "North Carolina Surface Mining Manual"
whichever is more appropriate (available from the Division of Land Resources at the
DENR Regional and Central Offices) shall be designed, installed and maintained
properly to assure compliance with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard
(50 NTUs in streams and rivers not designated as trout waters by DWQ; 25 NTUs in
all saltwater classes and all lakes and reservoirs; 10 NTUs in DWQ-classified trout
waters);
8. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands or waters shall be
removed and the original grade restored after the Division of Land Resources or
delegated program has released the project;
9. Any rip-rap shall be of such a size and density so as not to be able to be carried off
by wave or current action and consist of clean rock or masonry material free of
debris or toxic pollutants. Rip-rap shall not be installed in the streambed except in
specific areas required for velocity control and approved by the Division of Land
Resources and Water Quality. However rock vanes, wing deflectors, and similar
structures for grade control and bank protection are acceptable;
10. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into contact
with freshwaters of the state until the concrete has hardened;
11. If an environmental document is required, this Certification is not valid until a Finding
of No Significant Impact or Record of Decision is issued by the State
Clearinghouse;
12. Additional site-specific conditions may be added to projects which require written
concurrence under this Certification in order to ensure compliance with all applicable
water quality and effluent standards;

WQC #3399
13. Concurrence from DWQ that this Certification applies to an individual project shall
expire three years from the date of the cover letter from DWQ or the notification sent
to DWQ.
Non-compliance with or violation of the conditions herein set forth by a specific project shall
result in revocation of this Certification for the project and may also result in criminal and/or civil
penalties.
The Director of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality may require submission of a
formal application for individual Certification for any project in this category of activity that requires
written concurrence under this certification, if it is determined that the project is likely to have a
significant adverse effect upon water quality or degrade the waters so that existing uses of the
wetland or downstream waters are precluded.
Public hearings may be held for specific applications or group of applications prior to a
Certification decision if deemed in the public's best interest by the Director of the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality.
Effective date: March 2003
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
By
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Director
WQC # 3399
4

`J
Gregory Site

lA
USGS Topographic Map
(Darlington Quad)
® Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200A
Cary, NC 27511
0.5 0.25 0 0.5 1
Miles
6?1"
Jl?

IF
4?I

rixi
tt/..//11111%]
M/¦///P"aa
/w/?.2or,0119
?t)??1?. rte:
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Managers, Bankers and 71raders of Environmental Rights
10055 RcJ Run Boulevard, Suite 130
Owings Mills. MD 21117-4860
410 356-5159 I;AX 410 356-5822
8000 Regency Parway. Suite 200A
Cary. North Carolina 27511
919 459-9039 FAX [phone]
"Finding Environmental Solutions through Economic Incentives"
www.cbxnsa.com
June 14, 2004
Mr. Kevin Yeats
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Department of the Army
Raleigh District, Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
Ms. Debbie Edwards
NC Division of Water Quality
401 /Wetlands Unit -
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
D h.. 09 Z4
EX?
Re: Express Permit Review of Gregory Site Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project
401/404 Pre-Construction Notification Application
Dear Mr. Yeats and Ms. Edwards:
Enclosed for your consideration and approval is the Pre-Construction Notification for the Corps nationwide
permit 27 and the Division of Water Quality's general certification 3399 for Wetland and Riparian
Restoration and Creation for the Gregory Site Stream and Wetland Mitigation project. Also enclosed are
copies of the revised Gregory Site Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan for your reference in reviewing the
PCN application. Please note that we have submitted this project in the express permit review of this
application to enable site preparation to take place during August so that the wetland plant species may be
planted during the appropriate dormant season at the end of this year. Thank you in advance for your
assistance.
If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone]
Very truly yours,
Tara Disy Allden
Enclosures
WETLANDS 1 401 GROUP
JUN 7 2004

WAi tk QUALITY SEC11ON
.916
T_
401/404 NCDWQ EXPRESS REVIEW
CHECKLIST
Section 1 & 2 - PROCESSING & APP INFO
Le? PCN form filled out completely Srg-q.TTA(MLM
V L N r-ORM
Section 3 - PROJECT INFORMATION Q dt
1:24,000 USGS Topo with bour1nes delineated
Quandtangle name "PWNC1() N
l/ NRCS Soil Survey Map with site boundaries delineated?)(9 tl
Vicinity Map with location and approx. boundaries of the
property and project R G 1.1
North Arrow and Scale ALL GIL,t kK14 4 P" Sheen
? Road name or State road numbers FI C7 f `I
-L Full Size plan sheets SVr j OTHER QLkN9 hf-L-
'k6tJ.)`1'D I/) MITI. fL"
PRE-CONSTRUCTION / PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS
INCLUDING:
? Jurisdictional and non jurisdictional wetlands, streams,
Water features, and state regulated buffets FI C-r 1- Z
Topo contours with elevations u50S '(Up 0 M kO
? Nature of cover of land (forest, field, impervious,etc) FI(T 1- 2
Existing structures and impervious areas
Existing utility lines 90CA) SHEET S
Existing easements 4- II
Existing roads, culverts, and other pertinent tures
BUCK
ENGINFFRING
CULVERTING. ?p CUL,VGP-'9N61 D N TlkL5 5T"#*tAP6- Rf.N
Indicate Inlet and outlet elevations and stream bed elevations FIZA73,64
Widening of stream must be shown with elevations
Extent of and plan details for all dissipation or grade control
devices should be shown with elevations
Shorter culvert: - 00 C uLV 5 Q'TS
Longitudinal cross section with stream bed invert at inlet and
outlet, and outlet.
Existing stream bank elevations
Inver of the inlet and outlet of the pipe
Vertical cross section with stream cross section at the inlet and
outlet overlain with the culvert and fill cross section
Bottomless culvert: N0 Cuwb-R--cs
vertical cross section showing minimum distance from each
span to each stream bank
stream cross section
height of the span above the stream
minimum distance from the edge of each footer to each stream
bank
plan view showing location of the spans and stream banks
PROPOSED CONDITIONS: Longer culverts: PA o CU \A) 6- l-1 S
? Show existing jurisdictional and non jurisdictional "S tTS
4-0
Plan detail showing discharge velocity/energy dissipation
wetlands, stream, water features and state regulated, buffers are sill needed?
? final grading contours with elevations (Udj (t
C0kA0At S
Li 5
Utilities and easements( 10 ? 1?
?
No LtTll_MtES / FRRN1 STREAM RELOCATIONS ,'d Z ?I ht C¢-L -' ?"
LIST OF LAYERS ON PLANS: t'rl? ? Morphological measurements ApP
typical stream cross sections Q LN S WT 2
Drainage - NOT A'PV(,L(>A$C6 '1U TIN) QIQtG V(.'C plan view of proposed with stationing and existing stream
Final drainage plans
locations and pertinent elevations bankfull contours, flood prone area contours, in stream
, structures PL.N S t}e--tTS 4- L I
and sizes of collections system and drainage ways
Inlets and outlets with elevations bank revetments/stabilization, channel plugs
planting plan PLAJ SIFT IId
Stonnwater BMPs to scale
vegetation conditions hN 9 WT 1%
Plats a.? stormwater outlets, grade control, bridges, culverts, sewer lines,
'

? PROr(EL-t
roads, fencing NONCE G N 't *L5
Location and layout of all sub-divided parcels with lot ID ? longituditional stream profile indicating TWG, BKF and TOB

/ Proposed Impacts (1 '-'L
?
for design and reference streams PL4 S ilTS (Z' I _'
V all impacts must be labeled QrACH 1 P_(;IAA Z. ON S11T,,) ? planting plan indicating the extent, density, and species of plants
(excavation, fill, flooding, stabilization, etc) to Typicals for in-stream structures, bank stabilization, and 5µt 1.q
jurisdictional and non jurisdictional wetlands, streams, stormwater outlets PUN SH'V Z- Z6
water features, and state regulated buffers (materials and specifications as well as re ative lengths,

W
l
d 40°)o 5(44711? 1utS
?f D positions, and angles)
/
et
an
I mpacts
10-11 t
_ Sediment transport analysis $tC1-101,j C1 ti r- P^I n (%MVtj W
precise grading and final elevation contours OLN S IF7S _V permanent conservation easement or similar means of protection
specify existing veg. and any clearing I1MUA'- Ryg IN GAr4g' P(DpR-`a t? bou1JkCt ?I Wr ik 1 CE.
? location of anti-seep collars NON( t
? flooding and draining impacts VkL, Z 5
Stream Impacts
impacts must be clearly shown on plans
center line and banks of channel PLAPJ S ACCTS 4-11
A%
Section 4 - PRIOR PROtEC T H[ TORY 5g7 Pof-AA
Section 5- F ITI IR E PROD C'T E A Ne WA
Include copies of all 401 water quality certification
^ Future project plans- future and present impacts must be
indicated
MBRT plan submission site eval, and comment dates
Section 6- PROPOSED IMperTS T WATER OFT US
include signed delineation map from USACE NO t XtSTI 6 W IPRA/"J'D S `rJ I L%,
map locating the stream origins signed by DWQ staff if ISTU Q?S? (7
applicable NIPS
label each wetland impact on plans: type, temp or
permanent
fill out tables with wetland and stream impactss'E PoJ Poem
1M T T
- V (AVOID AND MIN)
justifiy impacts to wetland and streams `6C PO(LA
Section 8 - MITIGATION
? include final mitigation plan INCU Ixi)
Section 9 - ENIRONM> NTA DOC•r IMENTATIoN
? answer 3 questions on PCN form Sg jr,,W M
V must have an approval letter from NEPA or SEPA if the
project requires an environmental document 1J0 T W-
Section 10 - PROPOSED IMPA TS ON RIPARIAN AND WATER
Jrn ?
Q6hMfillyW?1'tableif wer question and out neceNDssary
ream m and wetland mitigation are exempt from the buffer
rules)
BUCK
E N G I N F F R I N G
Is fr eArv 91 F-U M TW5 NAFV ER- RU Le S
Section I I STORMWATER NIA
is diffuse flow of stormwater through riparian buffers met?
stormwater outfalls must be clearly shown and labeled on '
plans for pro. In Buffered watersheds.
REFER to Addendum for express review
Section 12 - SEWA ,E DISPOSAL MIA
state if sewage is being disposed of in project
Section 13 - VIOLATIONS ?D
? if the answer is YES to these 2 questions then an
express review is NOT APPLICABLE
Section 14 - I .NATURE
sign and date application
t/ fill outlines 1-18 on bottom of ADDENDUM
can NOT use N/A? A?DDU/V)
Fo?L C?R.TI F((?+no?1 ? 33??

Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
YP 04.0 929
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 27
If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Tara Disy Allden
Mailing Address: Environmental Banc and Exchange LLC
8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
Telephone Number: 919-459-9039 Fax Number: 919-463-5490
E-mail Address: tara(i?ebxusa.com
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: Kevin Tweedy, PE
Company Affiliation: Buck Engineering, PC
Mailing Address: 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
Telephone Number: 919-463-5488 Fax Number: 919463-5490
E-mail Address: KtweedyABuckengmeering.com
Page 6 of 13
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: The Gregory Stream and Wetland Mitigation Proiect
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 3993-00-67-2041
4. Location
County: Halifax County Nearest Town: Enfield
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Take 1-95 North, take exit 160
(HWY 561) turn to the right. Take a left onto Grapevine Road: take a left onto Gregory Road.
Prolect is located on this road.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 36,1911211N / 077,39'40"W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): Work area totals approximately 85 acres.
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Black Spring Creek
8. River Basin: Tar - Pamlico
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application:-- -Property has recently been in pasture land and
agricultural production. The existing conditions are further described in the attached
mitigation plan.
Page 7 of 13
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Site will be restored for the purposes of providing compensatory stream and wetland
mitigation as described in the attached Gregory Site Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Project. Work to be conducted with pans, dozers, track-hoes, and other equipment
typically used for restoration projects.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work:
Perform compensatory mitigation totaling 6,725 linear feet of stream restoration and 75
acres of wetland restoration.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
Mitigation Plan was submitted to NCDOT/NCEEP in March 2004.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 8 of 13
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The proposed impacts are necessary
to restore pattern, profile and dimension to a channalized stream.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Located within
100-year Floodplain**
es/no Distance to
Nearest Stream
linear feet
Type of Wetland***
None

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at htty://www.fema.izov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:
Total area of wetland impact proposed:
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
linear feet
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
leasespecify)
Reach 1 & 2 Mitigation 3670 Black Spring Creek 6.5 perennial

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usP,s.L,ov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.tol2ozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 3670
Page 9 of 13
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Name of Waterbod
(if applicable) y Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Proposed impacts are reauired to restore stream functions. as described in The
Gregory Site Stream and Wetland Mith!ation Plan. Proiect will result in the an overall
increase in stream length on the site from 3,670 feet to 6,725 feet.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 10 of 13
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/ncwetlands/strrnszide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
See attached mitigation plan: The Gregory Site Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Proiect.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wry/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 11 of 13
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ? No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 12 of 13
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
Stream and wetland mitigation is exempt from the Buffer Rules
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XII1. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
The applicant reauests that review be completed by July 15, 2004 to
ensure adequate time for site construction work, followed by site planting during the
coming planting season.

yrd,&Z,
? //Vbovy
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 13 of 13
(aP-?o?y 5 ?r? 5-rn-?M . w? ?p m c-?tc?
Addendum to the Pre-Construction Notification and "Buffer Rules" Application Required for
Projects Submitted Under the
"Express Review Program"
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Version 3.0
January 7, 2004
Email Address: [e-mail]
Purpose: To provide a detailed explanation of the information required by the Division of Water Quality
in order to expedite the review of applications for 401 General Water Quality Certifications, Isolated
Wetland and Stream Permits, and Buffer Rule and Minor Variance Approvals.
Please do not leave any questions unanswered or use terms such as "N/A" without an explanation.
Fees:
Total stream impacts of less than 150 feet and/or total wetland impacts of less than or equal to 1 acre -
$1,000.00.
Total stream impacts of greater than or equal to 150 feet and/or total wetland impacts of more than 1 acre
and projects that include any kind of Buffer Rules Approval -$2,000.00. For stream origin determinations
as required by the Buffer Protection Rules the fee is $200.00 for one or two streams on the same
property, $500.00 for three to six streams on the same property, or $1,000.00 for more than 6 streams on
the same property.
Please read the entire document before attempting to determine the proper fee. Fees are additive for a
particular project.
Things to keep in mind when filling out the application:
A specific answer must be provided for each question. For instance, if a numerical answer is requested
then a numerical answer must be provided along with the supporting information necessary for DWQ staff
to verify that the number is accurate. Likewise, if explanations are presented to justify certain responses,
the explanations must be completely supported by documentation. DWQ staff cannot assume that
unsupported or undocumented information is accurate. "N/A" is not an acceptable answer for any
question since the DWQ Staff reviewing the application must have an opportunity to determine whether or
not any requested information is pertinent.
All forms, guidance, worksheets, applications, etc. used must be the current versions as posted on our
web site at http:h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. There will soon be a web site specifically for the express
review program. Please note that it will be the applicant's or applicant's consultant's responsibility to
verify that the current versions are used. The versions posted on our web site will be considered to be
the current versions.
You are a very important part of the success of this program, if you have suggestions or clarifications
please send your comments to the Wetlands/401 Unit of the DWQ (via email at
401 [e-mail]).
Filling Out the Pre-Construction Notification Application:
The Corps of Engineers (USACE)/DWQ official, joint Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Application
must be used as a basis for the expedited review process. The completed application should be
presented first the supporting information tabbed and collated in the same order. collated in the same
order. Using a custom format is not recommended. All supporting documentation should be presented
as tabbed appendices in the same order as the application. The open squares ( ) are checklist items.
The following items correspond to the numbering system on the Pre-Construction Notification Form
(PCN):
USE CHECK BOXES TO TRACK PROJECT INFORMATION
SECTION I. PROCESSING
1 &2. The USACE determines which Nationwide, Regional, or General Permit is
required. If you have verified with the USACE which permit they intend to use for
your project or if you already have written approval from the USACE, please
indicate by adding "verified" or "verified, attached", respectively, in the blank next
to the Permit number requested.
Attach the USACE Approval if you have it.
3. It is not anticipated that the expedited process will be requested for this situation.
4. If you propose to impact 150 feet or more of perennial stream or 1 acre or more
of wetland and onsite mitigation is not proposed, it is recommended that you
either locate an acceptable private bank with available credits (with
documentation to show that the bank can and shall provide the credits needed)
or obtain approval from the NCWRP for the entire amount of stream and or
wetland as DWQ will make the final determination as to whether or not mitigation
applies. Please note that the USACE may have different mitigation requirements
and thresholds.
5. State whether your project will require a CAMA Minor, Major or General Permit
and give the status of the permit.
SECTION II - APPLICATION INFORMATION
1. 15 NCAC 2H.502(o reads as follows: "Who Must Sign Applications. The application
shall be considered a "valid application" only if the application bears the signature of a
responsible officer of the company, municipal official, partner or owner. This signature
certifies that the applicant has title to the property, has been authorized by the owner to
apply for certification or is a public entity and has the power of eminent domain. Said
official in signing the application shall also certify that all information contained therein
or in support thereof is true and correct to the best of his knowledge."
Please indicate how the applicant meets the above definition and provide
supporting documentation.
Please provide all of the requested contact information including a fax
number and email address.
2. Please attach the agent authorization letter if the application is not signed by the
applicant. The agent authorization letter must be signed by the applicant. The
applicant's name and position must also be spelled out as many signatures are difficult
to read.
3. Please provide all of the requested contact information including a fax number and
email address.
SECTION III - PROJECT INFORMATION
The following is the most critical of all the information that you must provide. The quality and detail of the
information will often determine the expeditiousness of the review. The following is a checklist of the
types of pertinent information required at a minimum:
3
Maps and Plans:
The most recent version of the 1:24,000 USGS Topographic Map- Please cleanly
delineate the site boundaries, etc. on the map. If the delineation obscures any of the
features, it is recommended that a clean copy be provided. Please indicate the
quadrangle name. You can go to the USGS web site (http://mac.usgs.gov/maplists/) to
verify the most recent version.
The most recent version of the NRCS Soil Survey Map - (required for projects within
the use River Basin, Tar-Pamlico River Basin and Randleman Lake Watershed and
recommended for all projects) - Please cleanly delineate the site boundaries, etc. on the
map. If the delineation obscures any of the features, it is recommended that a clean copy
be provided. Please indicate the page or map number from which the copy of the map
was made. Copies of the current soil survey and/or soil survey map sheets can be
obtained from the local NRCS County Office (http://www.nc.nres.usda.gov/).
Vicinity map - Please clearly mark the location and approximate boundaries of the
property and project on the map. Please indicate north and scale. Please include
applicable road names or State Road numbers.
The Site Plan - The most critical map to be provided is the site plan. You must provide
full sized plans. The following is the minimum list of plans that are typically needed.
Pre-construction/Pre-existing conditions - This sheet must be scaled and
include all jurisdictional and non jurisdictional wetland, stream, water features,
State regulated buffers, topographic contours with elevations, approximate extent
and nature of forest, field, landscaped, or other cover. Any existing structures and
impervious area must also be shown. Existing utility lines and easements must
also be shown. Existing roads, culverts, and other pertinent features must be
shown. North arrow and the scale must be shown. Please note that the impact
boundaries on the maps should correspond to the flagged impact boundaries in the
field.
Proposed conditions - These sheets must be scaled and show all existing
jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetland, stream, water features, and State
regulated buffers must be underlain on the site plan(s). The plans must show all
built-out structures and impervious cover. The plans must include the final grading
contours with elevations. The plans must indicate all utilities and easements. It is
likely that several versions of the final built-out site plans will be necessary. The
following is a list of layers:
Drainage Plans - Final drainage plans must be included. The plans should include
the locations and pertinent elevations and sizes of the collection system and
drainage ways. All inlets and outlets must also be shown with pertinent elevations.
Scaled stormwater BMPs must also be indicated as required by DWQ rules and
policies. In certain cases, final stormwater management plans must also be
provided, but that will be addressed later in this document.
Plats - The plans must show the location and layout of all sub-divided parcels with
lot identifications. Platted parcels must be developable without further impacts to
jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands, streams, water features, and State
regulated buffers.
Proposed Impacts - All impacts to jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetland,
stream, water features, and State regulated buffers must be shown and labeled on
the site plans. All excavation, fill, flooding, stabilization, and other impacts that will
be conducted in or near jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetland, stream, water
features, and State regulated buffers must be indicated.
5
Wetland Impacts (on the site plan):
Precise grading and final elevation contours must be provided. Existing vegetation and
any clearing must be specified.
All subsurface utility lines must indicate the location of anti-seep collars. Construction
detail for anti-seep collars must be provided.
Roadway or other crossings of riparian wetlands may require floodway culverts to
maintain existing hydrological conditions.
When surface drainage features or groundwater recharge areas that feed or would
reasonably feed wetlands that are not to be filled are made impervious, it may be
necessary to direct some stormwater runoff to those areas in order to maintain hydrology.
You must identify these areas and address them. Supporting explanations and discharge
information must be provided to show that the wetland would not be eroded or receive
too much or too little hydrology. In many cases this could help satisfy part of a
stormwater management plan.
Flooding
Draining
Stream Impacts:
Stream impacts must be clearly shown on the plans. The centerline as well as the banks
of the stream must be surveyed or located by GPS for the portion of the stream to be
impacted.
Culverting:
The inlet and the outlet of the culvert should be aligned with the stream as much as
possible. Inlet and outlet elevations and stream bed elevations should be indicated.
Any widening of the stream must be shown with elevations.
The extent of and plan details for all dissipation or grade control devices should be shown
with pertinent elevations.
6
For shorter culvert sections, such as for road crossings, a longitudinal cross section that
shows the stream bed invert at the inlet and outlet, the existing stream bank elevations
and the invert of the inlet and outlet of the pipe(s) must be provided.
For shorter culvert sections, such as for road crossings, a vertical cross section must be
provided that shows the stream cross section at the inlet and outlet overlain with the
culvert and fill cross section.
For bottomless culverts or other spans, a vertical cross section should be provided that
shows the minimum distance from each span to each stream bank, the stream cross
section, the height of the span above the stream and the minimum distance from the
edge of each footer to each stream bank.
For bottomless culverts or other spans, a plan view must be provided that shows the
location of the spans and the stream banks.
For longer culverts or culverts that will pass beneath substantial impervious cover, it will
be necessary to provide adequate plan detail to show that discharge velocity/energy will
be adequately dissipated.
Aquatic life passage through culverts is typically achieved by placing the invert of the
culvert below the existing bed of the stream per the USACE or North Carolina Wildlife
Resource Commission guidelines. Other methods such as baffles may also be used.
Please be aware that such placement may require the use of grade/velocity control
measures up or down stream of culverts on steeper streams to prevent head-cuts or
stream bed erosion. The culvert placement relative to the stream bed can be indicated
on the longitudinal profile. Grade and velocity control measures must be indicated on the
plan view and typical designs should be provided.
Multiple culverts, wide culverts or sectioned box culverts typically require the use of sills,
off-setting or other means to match the cross section of the existing stream (in order to
maintain stream stability and provide aquatic life passage). A vertical cross section of the
culverts should be shown overlain with the up and downstream stream cross section
including the stream flood-prone area.
Impacts associated with dam construction must indicate and enumerate all fill associated
with the dam foot print, spillway and any bank stream bank stabilization. The length of
stream impounded must also be indicated and enumerated.
Stream Relocations:
Stream relocations must be conducted as specified in General Certification numbers
3402 and 3404 (available on the Wetlands Unit web site). Stream relocation plans must
include:
Morphological measurements (see Appendix B of the Internal Technical Guide for Stream
Work in North Carolina available on the Wetlands Unit web site) - not all of the
measurements are applicable in every instance.
Typical stream cross sections - Typically, a riffle cross section and a pool cross section
that includes the entire flood prone area. The bankfull and flood prove area elevations
should be indicated. Similarly, a riffle cross section of the reference stream(s) should be
provided.
Plan view - Provide scaled plans that show the location of the proposed (preferably with
stationing) and the existing stream. In most instances, the bankfull contours and flood
prone area contours, in stream structures, bank revetments/stabilization, channel plugs,
7
planting plan, vegetation conditions, stormwater outlets, grade controls, bridges, culverts,
sewer lines, roads, fencing, and easement lines should also be provided.
Longitudinal Stream Profile - A scaled profile that indicates the thalweg , bankfull, and
top of bank elevations should be provided for the design and reference streams. In many
cases, it will also be necessary to show the existing land elevations for the design
stream.
Planting Plan - A planting and/or vegetation management plan should also be provided
that makes use of appropriate native vegetation. The plan should indicate the extent,
density, and species of plants to be provided.
In-stream structure, bank revetment/stabilization, and stormwater outlet typicals -
Detailed, typical plans should be provided for all in stream structures, bank revetments or
stabilization, and stormwater outlets. The typicals should include materials and
specifications as well as relative lengths, positions, and angles.
Sediment transport analysis - A sediment transport analysis should be provided based
on the current, relevant, accepted practices. The sediment transport analysis should be
relevant to the stream bed load type and should predict bed load transport equilibrium.
Permanent conservation easement or similar means of protection must also be provided.
Other Information:
1. The project should always be referred to by this name in all correspondence as well
as the DWQ # once it is provided.
2. This only applies to DOT projects which are not expected to utilize the Express
Review Program.
3. This should be the size of the project as identified by the USACE for 404 Permits or
by the Division of Water Quality for Buffer Approvals and Isolated Wetland Permits.
4. Please provide the name (as depicted on the USGS topographic map and DWQ
Stream Classification Lists) of the nearest water body(ies) to which your project is a
tributary to (e.g. "Neuse River (Falls Lake below normal pool elevation)'). (Do not
simple state "stream", "river", "ocean", "sound" or `lake".) Please provide the "stream
index number" of the named water body or water body section (e.g. "27-(1)"). Also,
please provide the full water quality classification (e.g. "WS-IV NSW CA") of the water
body. This information can be obtained from the DWQ web site
hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/Reports/reportsWB.html.
5. Please state which river basin and sub-basin that your project is in (e.g. "Neuse River
Basin, NEU01"). This information can be obtained from the DWQ web site
hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/Reports/reportsWB.html.
6. Conditions should also be indicated on the existing site plan where applicable.
Photos (including aerial photos) can be helpful in describing the existing conditions.
7. You must provide an attachment that explicitly describes what the proposed project
will entail from the planning stage to final construction.
8. This can be a simple explanation, but it is critically important because the purpose
dictates how the no practical alternatives is reviewed.
SECTION IV - PRIOR PROJECT HISTORY
Please include copies of all 401 Water Quality Certifications, Isolated Wetland
Permits, Buffer Approvals, USACE Permits, CAMA Permits for the site as well as a
copy of the final approved, site plan.
SECTION V - FUTURE PROJECT PLANS
For projects utilizing the express review process, all impacts both present and
potential future must be indicated. For instance, the location or configuration of
platted lots sometimes suggests that future impacts will be necessary to build,
access, or otherwise develop such lots. Failure to account for such potential impacts
could delay or disqualify a project from the rapid review process. If you believe that
the lot can be developed without impacts, but you anticipate that your assertion may
be questioned, it is recommended that you provide a potential building foot print
and/or grading plan to show that future impacts could be avoided.
SECTION VI - PROPOSED IMPACTS TO WATER OF THE US
It is recommended that the individual impacts be described if there are special things
to note about the impacts. Typically the most important thing is to have detailed
accurate site plans as described above. Please make sure they are clearly labeled.
Please include all proposed temporary impacts.
Also, a current, signed delineation map from the USACE should be provided (if
available) and a map locating the stream origins signed by the appropriate DWQ
Staff must be provided if applicable.
2. Each impact to a wetland must be clearly labeled and identified on the site plan. The
type of impact must be clearly stated. If the impact is temporary, a specific plan must
be described or shown as to how the wetland will be restored. Keep in mind that the
USACE delineates some features as wetlands that DWQ calls streams. Please do
not list any impacts in this table that DWQ would identify as a stream. If there is any
doubt, it is recommended that the impacts be listed as streams.
3. Each impact to a wetland must be clearly labeled and identified on the site plan. The
type of impact must be clearly stated. If the impact is temporary, a specific plan must
be described or shown as to how the wetland will be restored. Keep in mind that the
USACE delineates some features as wetlands that DWQ calls streams. Please list
any impacts in this table that DWQ would identify as a stream. If there is any doubt, it
is recommended that the impacts be listed as streams. Please follow current DWQ
policy with respect to whether a stream is perennial or not. It is recommended that
you assume that a stream is perennial (unless you are positive that it is not) so if
mitigation is required then the appropriate amount of mitigation would be anticipated
or requested from the WRP or private bank. If the WRP or private bank has pre-
approved too short of an amount of stream or if inadequate mitigation is proposed,
then that situation will result in delays.
4. Sometimes it is difficult to determine whether a feature is a modified natural channel
or a ditch, especially in the eastern part of the State. Soils, drainage features,
topography, and similar factors, all are important for making that determination.
5. Other items to address not specifically requested in the application include
downstream sediment starvation, thermal pollution, low flow releases from dams, and
aquatic life passage. Other important considerations are buffer reestablishment or
mitigation around ponds on buffered streams. The site plan should include the
precise elevation contour of the normal pool as well as the dam foot-print. Mitigation
9
is required for wetland flooding of an acre or greater and for stream fill (if over the
150 foot threshold) under the dam foot-print and any outlet stabilization.
SECTION VI - AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Avoidance and minimization are critical aspects of an application particularly if you desire the application
to be processed expeditiously. The following is a check-list of avoidance and minimization questions that
DWQ Staff often look for in applications.
Are there any stream crossings at angles less than 75° or greater than 105°?
Are there any stream crossings that cross two streams above or at the confluence of those
streams?
Are there any stream, wetland, water, and/or buffer impacts other than perpendicular road
crossing near the edges of the property?
Can the stream be relocated as a natural channel design as opposed to culverted or
otherwise filled?
Is any single stream crossed more than once?
Can property access routes be moved or reduced to avoid stream, wetland, water, buffer
impacts?
Can a building, parking lot, etc. be realigned to avoid impacts?
Can the site layout be reconfigured to avoid impacts?
Can headwalls or steeper side slopes be used to avoid/minimize impacts?
Can a retaining wall be used to avoid/minimize impacts?
Can cul de sacs be used in place of a crossing?
Can lots be reshaped or have shared driveways to avoid impacts?
If based solely on the practicable physical possibility, the answer is "yes" to any of the above questions
then you must have to provide substantial and convincing justification as to why the impacts are
necessary. If the impacts are required by a local government or other agency the claim must be
supported with appropriate written documentation from the local government or other agency. Most
projects typically involve the need to justify avoidance and minimization. If this information is not readily
available, then the express review process may not be the appropriate venue to use because the project
may be put on hold at the end of the process. Providing alternative plans (such as plans that avoid the
impact, minimize the impact and the preferred plan, similar those used in environmental assessments)
and explanations as to why the preferred plan is needed and why the alternative plans won't work are
many times helpful in the no practical alternatives review.
SECTION VIII - MITIGATION
Mitigation for the Express Review Program, final mitigation plans must be presented up front. The final
plans (except for plans that propose payment into the Wetlands Restoration Fund, Riparian Buffer
Restoration Fund, private mitigation banks, or similar banking instruments) must contain detailed plans,
specifications, calculations and other supporting data that show that the appropriate mitigation will be
achieved at the ratios required. The design plans must be developed to at least the "90V level.
Monitoring plans must be final and specific. Any means of permanent protection, such as a permanent
conservation easement must be provided. If you elect to use the WRP or a private mitigation bank, it is
10
recommended that you request the maximum possible mitigation amount that DWQ may require so that
you will not have to get further approval from them on short notice. The WRP and private banks are not
part of the expedited review process and cannot be expected to meet any such deadlines. There will be
no conditional expedited approvals that require final plans at a later date. It is not recommended that
innovative mitigation techniques or greater than 10% preservation be requested as part of an expedited
process.
SECTION IX
If your project requires the preparation of an environmental document under NEPA or SEPA and an
approval letter has not been issued by the State Clearinghouse, then you cannot apply under the
expedited review process. I t is your responsibility to find out if such documentation is required.
SECTION X
There are many aspects of the Buffer Rules that must be addressed in every application, if applicable.
The first and most important thing to keep in mind is that allowable activities that require written Approval
from DWQ triggers a review of the entire project for compliance with the Buffer Rules.
Diffuse Flow & Stormwater Management:
The most common issues that arise involve the requirement for diffuse flow of stormwater
through riparian buffers. Basically one of three things must be indicated in regards to all
"new" stormwater that is collected and subsequently discharged. First, provisions for
diffuse flow through the protected buffer must be made. This usually involves the use of
level spreading devices designed to the latest DWQ guidance on level spreader design,
which is available on our web site. Please keep in mind that it does not matter how far a
discharge point is from a buffer. The stormwater must be flowing in a diffuse manner at
whatever point it eventually reaches the buffer. If the stormwater will not be flowing in a
diffuse manner through the protected buffer at the point it reaches the buffer, then one of
the following options may be allowed:
You may provide a nitrogen removing measure such as a forested filter strip,
grassed swale, stormwater wetland, etc. The measure employed should be
designed according to the NC DENR Stormwater Best Management Practices
Manual or other DWQ Guidance available at http:
//h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/mitresto.html. After the nitrogen is treated, the
stormwater can be directly conveyed through the buffer with written DWQ approval.
You may discharge the stormwater to an existing man-made conveyance that
currently conveys stormwater through the protected buffer (assuming the
conveyance was not constructed in violation of the Rules) as long as that
conveyance does not need to be altered to convey the flow. Please remember that
there are no other choices. The following checklist is intended to help insure that
your application will not be deemed incomplete as a result of improper stormwater
design.
Stormwater Managemen (for Buffer Rules c mp iance onl - Also, see Section XI
MV ? Wit Nb ?A bRW ? EMPT 2oM Q?t,r tQ fzI,1 S
All stormwater out-falls must be clearly shown and labeled on the site plan for projects in
Buffered watersheds. List each out-fall as labeled:
Option 1: Level spreading devices designed to the latest DWQ Guidance, and
devices that merely control velocity but do not provide diffuse flow such as rip rap
dissipators are not proposed. List each of these out-falls as labeled on the site
plan and provide a DWQ worksheet available at
http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/mitresto.html:
11
Option 2: Nitrogen removing measures designed to DWQ Standards are
proposed for discharges for which diffuse flow through a protected Buffer cannot be
met. List each of these out-falls as labeled on the site plan and provide a DWQ
worksheet available at http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/mitresto.html:
Option 3: The stormwater will be discharged to an existing man-made (not
including modified natural channels) conveyance that carries the stormwater
through the Buffer. The conveyance was not constructed in violation of the Buffer
Rules. List each out-fall as labeled:
All stormwater out-fall must meet one of the options above. (Note: if you cannot check this
box your application will likely not be accepted into the express review process.)
Site Plans:
All applications on properties with DWQ protected buffers must clearly depict the buffers
and any impacts to the buffers on the site plans. The impact maps should clearly depict
both zones of the protected buffers and the proposed impact areas (provided in square
feet).
Surface Water & Buffer Delineations:
Any surface waters subject to DWQ protected buffers must be field located and accurately
depicted on the site plans and impact maps. The width, dimensions and pattern of the
surface water must be delineated. The surface water location must not be taken simply
from a USGS map, soil survey or local municipality's map. The buffers must be measured
from the surface water as required within the applicable buffer protection rule (e.g., all
buffers along streams subject to the Neuse Buffer Rule must be measured from the "top-of-
bank" of the stream and not the centerline of the stream). All streams must be surveyed or
located by GPS and shown precisely on the site plans.
Impact Table:
Please provide additional impact tables that clearly state the area of impact for each
corresponding impact site.
Variances:
Projects that require the Minor and "General" Variances may be eligible for the use of the
Express Review Program. However, Major Variances are not eligible. If your project
requires a Minor or "General" Variance approval, then be sure to attach a completed Minor
or "General" Variance application.
Mitigation:
As opposed to applications that are submitted under our regular process, final mitigation
plans must be presented up front (see requirements for Section VIII above). The mitigation
plans must comply with the applicable buffer mitigation rule.
SECTION XI - STORMWATER - S a-6 1 S r-A W C"n / NO s1DR WA%q -
Please provide the following information in regards to potential stormwater requirements:
The total acreage of the site. ________ (acres)
12
---- (acres)
The total built-out impervious acreage ----
The total area that will be disturbed (acres)
If the total area exceeds 20% imperviousness, the development on the site is uniform in
density, and you are claim that the total impervious area is less than 30%, you must
provide a complete, detailed breakdown of the assumed built-out conditions. The
breakdown must be detailed enough to show that all potential impervious areas are
accounted for.
If there are concentrated areas of development such as multi-family, commercial, cluster,
club houses, etc. that exceed 30% imperviousness and the total imperviousness for the site
does not exceed 30%, a stormwater management plan will likely be required for those
areas that exceed 30% imperviousness.
Stormwater management plans must be complete with a final design and an executed
Operation and Maintenance Agreement. There will be no conditional stormwater approvals
for the express review process that allow for approval of the final plans at a later date.
Worksheets must be provided that are available at
http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.uslncwetiands/mitresto.html.
SECTION XII - SEWAGE DISPOSAL
Response must be clear and detailed. Any disposal method that suggests further impacts
may be required other than those shown must be clearly addressed on the site plans.
SECTION XIII
Answering yes to either of these responses automatically precludes you from the express
review process.
SECTION XIV - SIGNATURE
The name, position and/or title of the applicant must be in type or long hand script here with
the signature. It should be the same person as described in Part II.
When applying to use a General Certification it is important to review every condition of the Certification
to determine whether or not your project can and will meet all of the conditions. For each Certification for
which you have applied, you must list the number of each condition and specifically where the information
is provided in the application or how and why the condition will or will not be met if not otherwise
described in the application. The following format is provided for GC 3402 as an example:
SWA
GC 3402 for Nationwide Permit V?
c Qm --------------------------------------
9._WkLL Eon?p?l ---
----- -------------- -----------------------
10. -------- -
----
11.-N U 0D -----------------
S.Su???r?T?knm m?r?(-,iA_?io?4 i5 ?QT• -------------------
6.- ,SPOOoS 'Cb 4 5, IN LAN-LA '? ?5 Pgi6L1 is
dcteM?T --
13
13. G(IO STANT) lF(L1'IPlcf?t _??_ c,?T? X02 3 fA2S tii ISS4l PA
17
Remember, N/A by itself is not an acceptable answer. You must explain why you think something does
not apply.
If you have any questions about these requirements, please email the Express Review Program at
[e-mail] and include your question and phone number and the appropriate staff will
respond as soon as possible.

WQC #3399
STREAM RESTORATION, ENHANCEMENT AND STABILIZATION AND WETLAND AND
RIPARIAN RESTORATION AND CREATION ACTIVITIES CERTIFICATION
GENERAL CERTIFICATION FOR STREAM RESTORATION. ENHANCEMENT AND
STABILIZATION PROJECTS AND WETLAND AND RIPARIAN RESTORATION AND
CREATION ACTIVITIES INCLUDING THOSE ELIGIBLE FOR CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 13 (BANK STABILIZATION) AND 27 (WETLAND AND
RIPARIA14 RESTORATION AND CREATION) AND REGIONAL PERMIT 197800080
(CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF BULKHEADS)
This General Certification is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401, Public
Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality Regulations in 15A NCAC 2H .0500 and 15A NCAC 26 .0200 for the discharge of fill
material to waters as described in 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B) (13) and (27) of the Corps of
Engineers regulations (i.e. Nationwide Permit Numbers 13 and 27) and Regional Permit
197800080. The category of activities shall include stream bank stabilization or stream
restoration activity as long as impacts to waters or significant wetlands are minimized. This
Certification replaces Water Quality Certification (WQC) Number 1663 issued on September 8,
1983; WQC No. 1272 issued November 10, 1978; WQC No. 2665 issued on 21 January 1992;
WQC No. 2102 issued on February 11, 1997, WQC Nos. 3256, 3257 and 3258 issued on
November 22, 1999 and WQC No. 3353 issued on March 18, 2002. This WQC is rescinded
when the Corps of Engineers reauthorize Nationwide Permits 13 or 27 or Regional Permit
197800080 or when deemed appropriate by the Director of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
The State of North Carolina certifies that the specified category of activity will not violate
applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217
if conducted in accordance with the conditions set forth.
Conditions of Certification:
Wetland and/or riparian area restoration and creation projects which are for
compensatory mitigation or compensatory mitigation credit (and not including
projects that only involve stream restoration or enhancement work described in
condition nos. 2 and 3 below) that are proposed under this General Certification
require written application to and approval from the Division of Water Quality. All
applications for written DWQ approval will be reviewed and a response will be
prepared within 30 days of stamped receipt of the application in the Division of
Water Quality's Central Office in Raleigh. This 30-day period does not include time
spent by the application or DWQ's response within US Postal Service or North
Carolina's Mail Service Center mail systems;
Wetland and riparian area restoration and creation projects (not including projects
that involve work in or impacts to streams) which are not for compensatory
mitigation or compensatory mitigation credit proposed under this General
Certification do not require written application to and approval from the Division of
Water Quality. In these cases, the applicant is required to notify the Division in
writing with three copies of project specifications before the impact occurs. If the
Division determines that the project would not result in an ecologically viable wetland
and riparian area, then the Division shall prepare a response to notify the applicant
in writing within 30 days of DWQ's receipt of the notification. In such cases, the
applicant will be required to submit a formal application and pay of the appropriate
fee, and DWQ will be required to process the application through normal
procedures;
1
WQC #3399
2. Proposed stream restoration projects (as defined and limited below), that do not
disturb wetlands and that are not being conducted for compensatory mitigation or
compensatory mitigation credit do not require written application to and approval
from the Division of Water Quality, and, therefore, do not require payment of an
application fee to the Division of Water Quality.
Stream restoration is defined as the process of converting an unstable, altered or
degraded stream corridor, including adjacent riparian zone and floodprone areas to
its natural or referenced, stable conditions considering recent and future watershed
conditions. This biological and chemical integrity, including transport of water and
sediment is produced by the stream's watershed in order to achieve dynamic
equilibrium. The applicant is required to notify the Division in writing with three
copies of detailed restoration plans and specifications before the impact occurs. If
the Division determines that the project does not meet the above definition of stream
restoration, then the Division shall notify the applicant in writing within 30 days of
receipt of the application. In such cases, the applicant will be required to submit a
formal application and pay of the appropriate fee, and DWQ will be required to
process the application through normal procedures;
3. Stream enhancement projects (as defined and limited below), that do not disturb
wetlands and that are not being conducted for compensatory mitigation or
compensatory mitigation credit and do not include any stream channel relocation, do
not require written application to and approval from the Division of Water Quality,
and, therefore, do not require payment of an application fee to the Division of Water
Quality.
Stream enhancement is defined as the process of implementing stream
rehabilitation practices in order to improve water quality and/or ecological function.
These practices must only be conducted on streams that are not experiencing
severe aggradation or erosion. Stream enhancement does not include the relocation
of the stream channel. Stream enhancement bank stabilization techniques include
the use of woody vegetation as the primary means of long term stability, and "soft"
techniques such as root wads that encourage the establishment of dense woody
vegetation. Stream enhancement techniques do not typically include the use of
stream bank or bed hardening techniques such as rip-rap or other rock, gabion,
block or concrete structures. However, enhancement activities may also include the
placement of in stream habitat or grade control structures such as cross vanes, j-
hook vanes, and wing deflectors that do not affect the overall dimension, pattern, or
profile of a stable stream.
The applicant is required to notify the Division in writing with three copies of detailed
enhancement plans and specifications before the impact occurs if the stream
enhancement project disturbs greater than 500 feet of stream bank or if the project
proposes the use of in stream structures. If the Division determines that the project
does not meet the above definition of stream enhancement, then the Division shall
notify the applicant in writing with an explanation within 30 days of receipt of the
notification to require application and payment of the appropriate fee;
4. Stream stabilization projects that include the use of any structure or fill in the existing
stream bed or disturb greater that 500 feet of stream bank that are proposed under
this General Certification require written application to and approval from the
Division of Water Quality.
Stream stabilization is defined as the in-place stabilization of an eroding stream
bank using measures that consist primarily of "hard" engineering, such as but not

WQC #3399
limited to concrete lining, rip rap or other rock, and gabions. The use of "hard"
engineering will not be considered as stream restoration or enhancement;
Impacts to any stream length in the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico or Randleman River Basins
(or any other major river basins with Riparian Area Protection Rules [Buffer Rules] in
effect at the time of application) requires written concurrence for this Certification
from DWQ in accordance with 15A NCAC 213.0200. Activities listed as "exempt"
from these rules do not need to apply for written concurrence under this
Certification. New development activities located in the protected 50-foot wide
riparian areas (whether jurisdictional wetlands or not) within the Neuse and Tar-
Pamlico River Basins shall be limited to "uses" identified within and constructed in
accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0200. All new development shall be located,
designed, constructed, and maintained to have minimal disturbance to protect water
quality to the maximum extent practicable through the use of best management
practices;
6. In order for the above conditions to be valid, any plans not requiring written
concurrence to use this Certification must be built according to the plans provided to
the Division of Water Quality. If written concurrence is required, then the project
must be built and maintained according to the plans approved by the written
concurrence and Certification from the Division of Water Quality;
7. Appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or exceed those
outlined in the most recent version of the "North Carolina Erosion and Sediment
Control Planning and Design Manual" or "North Carolina Surface Mining Manual"
whichever is more appropriate (available from the Division of Land Resources at the
DENR Regional and Central Offices) shall be designed, installed and maintained
properly to assure compliance with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard
(50 NTUs in streams and rivers not designated as trout waters by DWQ; 25 NTUs in
all saltwater classes and all lakes and reservoirs; 10 NTUs in DWQ-classified trout
waters);
8. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands or waters shall be
removed and the original grade restored after the Division of Land Resources or
delegated program has released the project;
9. Any rip-rap shall be of such a size and density so as not to be able to be carried off
by wave or current action and consist of clean rock or masonry material free of
debris or toxic pollutants. Rip-rap shall not be installed in the streambed except in
specific areas required for velocity control and approved by the Division of Land
Resources and Water Quality. However rock vanes, wing deflectors, and similar
structures for grade control and bank protection are acceptable;
10. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrete from coming into contact
with freshwaters of the state until the concrete has hardened;
11. If an environmental document is required, this Certification is not valid until a Finding
of No Significant Impact or Record of Decision is issued by the State
Clearinghouse;
12. Additional site-specific conditions may be added to projects which require written
concurrence under this Certification in order to ensure compliance with all applicable
water quality and effluent standards;

WQC #3399
13. Concurrence from DWQ that this Certification applies to an individual project shall
expire three years from the date of the cover letter from DWQ or the notification sent
to DWQ.
Non-compliance with or violation of the conditions herein set forth by a specific project shall
result in revocation of this Certification for the project and may also result in criminal and/or civil
penalties.
The Director of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality may require submission of a
formal application for individual Certification for any project in this category of activity that requires
written concurrence under this certification, if it is determined that the project is likely to have a
significant adverse effect upon water quality or degrade the waters so that existing uses of the
wetland or downstream waters are precluded.
Public hearings may be held for specific applications or group of applications prior to a
Certification decision if deemed in the public's best interest by the Director of the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality.
Effective date: March 2003
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
By
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Director
WQC # 3399

LA
USGS Topographic Map
(Darlington Quad)
® Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200A
Cary, NC 27511
0.5 0.25 0 0.5 1
Miles

Gregory Site
Gregory Site
Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Plan
Halifax County, NC
Prepared For:
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
UP
Prepared By:
B U C K 8000 Regency Parkway
Suite 200
Cary, North Carolina 27511
Phone: [phone]
l t! ( I 1 1 ! ( Fax: [phone]
www.buckerigineering.com
0-0929
June 2004
Gregory Site
Stream and Wetland
Restoration Plan
Halifax County, NC
Prepared For:
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
June 2004
Report Prepared By Buck Engineering PC
Will Harman PG
Principal In-Charge
John Hutton
Project Manager
Staci Ricks
Hydraulic Engineer
Matt Koon
CADD Analyst
Kevin Tweedy, PE
Project Engineer
Heath Wadsworth, PE
Hydraulic Engineer
Marshall Wight
Field Technician
Gregory Site Restoration Plan ii Buck Engineering
•
•
•
•
•
•
r
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
Executive Summary
The Gregory wetland and stream restoration site is located near the town of Halifax in
Halifax County, North Carolina. Ditches on the site were used to promote drainage when
the land was under agricultural production. Currently, a total of approximately 8,500 feet
of ditches and a channelized stream system (Black Spring Creek/McCulloch's Ditch)
exist on the site. Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC (EBX) proposes to restore
6,725 linear feet of the main channel of this stream system and a minimum of 75 acres of
on-site wetlands. All acreage to be restored is classified as "A" list hydric soils and all
open field soils have been designated Prior Converted Cropland (PC) by the US
Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The area
has been verified by survey and a plat has been recorded of the conservation easement.
The conservation easement will be transferred to a non-profit land trust conservancy after
the five-year monitoring period for long term maintenance and monitoring.
Past land-use for the Gregory site has been row crop agriculture. However, the wooded
areas located around the perimeter of the site contain desirable native vegetation,
including sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black willow (Salix nigra), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), river birch (Betula nigra), water oak (Quercus nigra), and
overcup oak (Quercus lyrata). The small tree/shrub layer is dominated by wax myrtle
(Myrica cerifera), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea),
red bay (Persea borbonia), and American holly (Ilex opaca). Therefore, there is the
potential for restoration of a diverse native vegetation community at the site due to the
close proximity of appropriate seed sources.
The design goal for the Gregory property is to restore a "small stream swamp" with
associated "bottomland hardwood" and "cypress swamp" communities as described by
Schafale and Weakley (1990). To raise the local water table and restore site hydrology,
restoration will include partially to completely filling lateral field ditches, depending on
the amount of fill material that is generated from minor land grading and excavating the
new stream channel for Black Spring Creek. Grading activities will focus on removing
any field crowns, surface drains, and swales that were imposed during conversion of the
land from swamp to agriculture.
A summary of existing and design stream reach lengths and wetland areas, along with
proposed restoration design approaches, are provided in Table ES-1 below.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan iii Buck Engineering
Table ES-1. Summary of Restoration Activities
Gre o Site Stream and Wetland Restoration Plan
Existing Restored Stream or
Restoration
Activity Length/Area Length/Area Wetland Approach
(ft/Ac) (ft/Ac) Mitigation Units
SMU/WMU
Black Spring Rosgen
Creek/McCulloch' 4,716 6,725 6,725 Priority I
s Ditch Restoration
Wetlands 13 75 75 Restoration
Restoration
Gregory Site Restoration Plan iv Buck Engineering
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Project Description ........................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Project Objectives .......................................................................................... .. 1-1
1.3 Watershed Characterization ........................................................................... ..1-3
2 Existing Wetland Conditions ................................................................................. ..2-1
2.1 Soils ................................................................................................................ ..2-1
2.2 Climatic Conditions ....................................................................................... ..2-1
2.3 Site Hydrology ............................................................................................... ..2-3
2.4 Hydrologic Modeling ..................................................................................... 2-10
3 Existing Stream Conditions ................................................................................... .. 3-1
3.1 Channel Stability Assessment ........................................................................ .. 3-1
3.2 Black Spring Creek Existing Conditions ....................................................... .. 3-4
4 Potential Constraints .............................................................................................. ..4-1
4.1 Federally Protected Species ........................................................................... ..4-1
4.2 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... .. 4-4
4.3 Transaction Screen Map Report .............................
5 Bankfull Stage Verification ................................................................................... .. 5-1
5.1 Bankfull Stage and Discharge ........................................................................ .. 5-1
5.2 Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships (Regional Curves) .................. .. 5-1
5.3 Bankfull Verification in the Project Watershed ............................................. .. 5-2
6 Stream Restoration Design Criteria Selection ....................................................... .. 6-1
6.1 Upstream Reference Reaches ........................................................................ .. 6-1
6.2 Reference Reach Databases ........................................................................... .. 6-2
6.3 Regime Equations .......................................................................................... .. 6-2
6.4 Comparison to Past Projects .......................................................................... .. 6-2
6.5 Gregory Site ................................................................................................... ..6-3
7 Wetland Restoration Plan ...................................................................................... .. 7-1
7.1 Restoration of Wetland Hydrology ................................................................ .. 7-1
7.2 Hydrologic Model Analyses .......................................................................... .. 7-1
7.3 Wetland Reference Site .................................................................................. .. 7-5
7.4 Vegetation Plan .............................................................................................. .. 7-5
7.5 Soils ................................................................................................................ ..7-5
8 Natural Channel Design ......................................................................................... ..8-1
8.1 Design Summary ............................................................................................ .. 8-1
8.2 Natural Channel Design ................................................................................. .. 8-1
8.3 Planting Design .............................................................................................. .. 8-5
9 Sediment Transport Analysis ................................................................................. ..9-1
10 Flooding Analyses ............................................................................................. 10-1
1 1 Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................ 11-1
11.1 Wetland Hydrologic Monitoring .................................................................... 11-1
11.2 Wetland Reference Site .................................................................................. 11-2
11.3 Vegetation Monitoring ................................................................................... 11-2
11.4 Stream Monitoring ......................................................................................... 11-2
Gregory Site Restoration Plan v Buck Engineering
11.5 Risk Analysis .................................................................................................11-4
12 References ..........................................................................................................12-1
Appendix 1 Existing Condition Data
Appendix 2 Reference Reach Data
Appendix 3 Agency Letters and EDR Report
Appendix 4 Photographic Log
Appendix 5 HEC-RAS Data
Appendix 6 Construction Plans
Gregory Site Restoration Plan vi Buck Engineering
w
i
•
•
•
w
•
w
•
•
•
w
•
•
•
•
•
•
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Project Vicinity Map ................................................................................ 1-2
Figure 1-2 Project Watershed Map ............................................................................ 1-4
Figure 2-1 Project Soil Map . ..................................................................................... 2-2
Figure 2-2 Prior Converted Wetland Map ................................................................. 2-4
Figure 2-3 Site Hydrology Map ................................................................................. 2-5
Figure 2-4 NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve (Sweet and Geratz, 2003) with Buck
Reference Data Points and Surveyed Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area for
Marsh Swamp .......................................................................................... 2-7
Figure 2-5 Observed Overbank Flooding and Predicted Extent of Overbank Flooding
During Bankfull Flow, Based on HEC-RAS Modeling . ......................... 2-9
Figure 5-1 Reference Reach Vicinity Map ................................................................ 5-3
Figure 5-2 NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve with Surveyed Bankfull Cross-Sectional
Areas for Project Reference Reaches, Existing Condition, and Design
Conditions. (Project data points were not used in determining the
regression line.) ........................................................................................ 5-4
Figure 6-1 Design Criteria Selection Flow Chart ...................................................... 6-1
Figure 6-2 Morphological Measurements and Ratios (Dimension) .......................... 6-4
Figure 6-3 Morphological Measurements and Ratios (Pattern) ................................ 6-5
Figure 6-4 Morphological Measurements and Ratios (Profile) ................................. 6-6
Figure 7-1 Site Restoration Map ................................................................................ 7-3
Figure 7-2 Modeling Point Locations ........................................................................ 7-6
Figure 7-3 55-Year Wetland Hydrology Simulation that Predicts Restored Site
Conditions ................................................................................................ 7-7
Figure 8-1 Bankfull Pool Depth: Rootwads Versus Vanes ....................................... 8-3
Figure 9-1 Comparison Between Stream Power and Channel Slope for the Gregory
Site Existing and Design Reaches, Project Reference ............................. 9-3
Gregory Site Restoration Plan
vi
Buck Engineering
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Water balance for the existing condition of the project site .................. 2-11
Table 3-1 Conversion of Bank Height Ratio (Degree of Incision) to Adjective
Rankings of Stability (Rosgen, 2001) ......................................................3-2
Table 3-2 Conversion of Width/Depth Ratios to Adjective Ranking of Stability from
Stability Conditions (Rosgen, 2001) ........................................................ 3-3
Table 3-3 Existing Condition Parameters for Black Spring Creek/McCulloch's
Ditch ......................................................................................................... 3-5
Table 4-1 Species Under Federal Protection in Halifax County .............................. 4-1
Table 5-1 NC Rural Coastal Plain Curve Equations ................................................ 5-2
Table 7-1 Water balance data for the proposed conditions of Gregory ................... 7-4
Table 7-2 Percent of growing season experiencing saturated or inundated conditions
for the four modeled scenarios ................................................................. 7-5
Table 8-1 Natural Channel Design Parameters for Gregory Site Reaches 1 & 2....8-4
Table 9-1 Bankfull Shear Stress and Channel Slope for the Existing„ Reference and
Design Reaches ........................................................................................ 9-2
Gregory Site Restoration Plan vii Buck Engineering
r
w
•
•
•
•
w
•
•
i
s
•
r
w
1 Introduction
1.1 Project Description
The Gregory wetland and stream restoration site is located near the town of Halifax in
Halifax County, North Carolina (Figure 1-1). The site is located within the Fishing Creek
Basin (HUC-03020102). Watershed size was calculated at the point where Black Spring
Creek enters the project site at 0.16 square miles (Figure 1-2). Black Spring Creek then
flows into McCulloch's Ditch along the eastern edge of the project site. The watershed
area for Black Spring Creek/McCulloch's Ditch at the downstream end of the project is
approximately 0.75 square miles. The site has a history of agricultural use, consisting
primarily of row crop agriculture. Ditches on the site were used to increase subsurface
drainage when the land was under agricultural production (see Figure 2-2 for prior-
converted cropland map). Black Spring Creek flows through an excavated ditch along
the northern side of the site. It then feeds into McCulloch's Ditch, which runs north to
south along the eastern property boundary, collecting drainage from the lateral ditches on
the property and flowing directly into Marsh Swamp. The total existing length of Black
Spring Creek and McCulloch's Ditch is 4,716 feet.
The Gregory wetland and stream restoration site is located within the Coastal Plain
physiographic region of North Carolina. The geology of this area is part of the Castle
Hayne Formation, formed during the Tertiary Period. Topographical relief of the area is
largely due to dissection by Marsh Swamp and its tributary streams (SCS, 1994).
Local relief within the project site is approximately 10 feet, with the highest point located
at the northeastern corner of the site, and the lowest point located at the confluence of the
project reach and Marsh Swamp at the southwestern corner of the site. The surrounding
properties are characterized primarily by agriculture and bottomland hardwood stands,
however there is an area of existing swampland on the southwestern side of the project
property, adjacent to Marsh Swamp. The restored wetland area and streams will be re-
connected to this area of existing swampland to form one contiguous wetland system.
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC (EBX) proposes to restore wetland
functionality and stream dimension, pattern, and profile to the site.
1.2 Project Objectives
The design goal for the Gregory property is to restore a "small stream swamp" with
associated "bottomland hardwood" and "cypress swamp" communities as described by
Schafale and Weakley (1990). To raise the local water table and restore site hydrology,
restoration will include partially to completely filling lateral field ditches, depending on
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 1-1 Buck Engineering

r;

r
\ i

A- Gregory
1
?? 1 - - JS-P'Pe - ? 7

H
lifax
?
-
1 T`

?I

\?
V

`
, --1-- f

i
X, f
-?J

Figure 1-1. Project Vicinity Map

®Environmental Banc and Exchange
LLC IF
,
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200A
lie Cary, NC 27511

1 0.5 0 1 2
iiiiii?MOOMOOOI Miles

r
r
r
the amount of fill material that is generated from minor land grading and excavating the
new stream channel for Black Spring Creek. Grading activities will focus on removing
any field crowns, surface drains, and swales that were imposed during conversion of the
land from swamp to agriculture. The proposed restoration practices will result in the
restoration of 6,725 feet of stream channel and a minimum of 75 acres of wetland.
1.3 Watershed Characterization
The Gregory site lies within USGS hydrologic unit 03020102 and NC Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) sub-basin 03-03-04 of the Tar-Pamlico River basin. The Tar-Pamlico
is the fourth largest river basin in North Carolina and is contained wholly within the state.
Pamlico Sound, along with neighboring Albemarle Sound, constitutes one of the most
productive estuarine systems in the United States. Water quality within sub-basin 03-03-
04 is generally good and there are no streams on the state's Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list of impaired waters. However, NCDWQ is monitoring two sites in the sub-
basin due to a noted decreased bioclassification over time.
Marsh Swamp is identified as NCDWQ index number 28-79-30-1. However, it has not
been rated for water quality. Marsh Swamp is designated as Class C, which means it is
protected secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and
survival, agriculture, and other uses suitable for Class C waters. There are no restrictions
on watershed development or types of discharges for these waters. Marsh Run has the
supplemental classification of Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW), which is intended for
waters needing additional nutrient management due to their being subject to excessive
growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. Management strategies are specific to
the particular waterbody in question. Marsh Swamp has also received the supplemental
classification of Swamp Waters (Sw), which is intended to recognize those waters that
generally have naturally occurring very low velocities, low pH, and low dissolved
oxygen. It does not require any specific restrictions on discharge types or development.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 1-3 Buck Engineering
r
Figure 1-2. Project Watershed Map
®. Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200A
Cary, NC 27511
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
I 1I
�01
Black Spring Creek Watershed
McCulloch's Ditch Watershed
Streams and Ditches
Easement Area
�01

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
a
•
•
•
•
•
•
;Z Existing Wetland Conditions
2.1 Soils
Existing soil series on the site include the Chastain and Bibb series (SCS, 2001), as
shown in Figure 2-1. Chastain and Bibb soils were not separated in mapping because
they react similarly to most kinds of land use and management. The Chastain and Bibb
series consist of nearly level, very deep, poorly drained, very slow permeability soils on
floodplains in the lower to upper Coastal Plain. The soils formed in loamy, marine
sediments and are underlain by alluvial marly sands and clays. Slopes range from 0 to 1
percent. Chastain and Bibb soils are typically very dark grayish brown with a surface
layer about 5 inches thick. The subsoil extends to a depth of 72 inches for Chastain soils
and 66 inches for Bibb soils. In the undrained condition, permeability is slow and
moderate, for Chastain and Bibb soils, respectively, and the seasonal high water table is
near the soil surface. The Chastain and Bibb soil series are classified as "A" list hydric
soil by the US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) (1995). Soils in all areas identified for restoration were confirmed hydric by a
trained professional. A beaver dam controls hydrology at the southern end of the site.
This area was delineated and not included in the proposed wetland restoration zone.
NRCS soil mapping for the project area is displayed in Figure 2-1.
2.2 Climatic Conditions
The growing season for Halifax County is 254 days long, beginning on March 30 and
ending November 4 (MRCS WETS Tables NC2827 for Enfield). Halifax County has an
average annual rainfall of 45.4 inches (MRCS WETS Tables NC2827 for Enfield). In
much of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina, approximately 36 inches of water are lost to
evapotranspiration during an average year (Evans and Skaggs, 1985). Since average
rainfall exceeds average evapotranspiration losses, the Coastal Plain of North Carolina
experiences a moisture excess during most years, meaning that the excess water must
leave a site by groundwater flow, runoff, channelized surface flow, or deep seepage.
Annual losses due to deep seepage, or percolation of water to confined aquifer systems,
are typically less than 1 inch of water for most Coastal Plain areas and are not a
significant loss pathway for excess water. Although groundwater flow can be significant
in some systems, most excess water is lost via surface and shallow subsurface flow.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 2-1 Buck Engineering

N

t,
.

Soil Series Goldsboro fine sandy loam
Figure 2-1. Project Soil Map
Altavista fine sandy loam Gritney fine sandy loam
Bonneau loamy fine sand Lynchburg fine sandy loam
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC Chastain and Bibb soils Rains fine sandy loam
?IA 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200A fine sand loam
Emporia fine sandy loam ; Tomotle
, 9 Y y
Cary, NC 27511
= Water
500 250 0 500 1,000 a Easement Area
Feet Streams and Ditches

2.3 Site Hydrology

The area proposed for restoration on the project site was historically a swamp that was
drained to create agricultural land. As is the case in much of rural North Carolina, natural
drainage patterns have been altered over the last two centuries to increase drainage and
promote agricultural production. Black Spring Creek, McCulloch's Ditch, and Marsh
• Swamp were channelized and straightened for this purpose. All open field areas on the
project site have been designated as prior converted wetland by the NRCS (Figure 2-2).
Remnant hydric soils in the area are evidence that the site historically supported a
wetland ecosystem.

Marsh Swamp is a large, channelized stream that runs north to south along the western
side of the property and forms the property boundary (Figure 2-3). Marsh Swamp has a
parallel dike that is eight to ten feet high. The dike does not allow for drainage of lateral
• ditches, thus most surface and subsurface drainage on site is directed off site via
• McCulloch's Ditch.
A flashboard riser in Marsh Swamp regulates drainage into a ditch that then flows to
McCulloch's Ditch on the upper northeast corner of the project site. Downstream from
• the flashboard riser along Marsh Swamp is an abandoned water retention structure that
has breached in recent years. Marsh Swamp has eroded the area to the left around the
retention structure causing water to flow onto the property site as well as being diverted
around the structure. The water flowing onto the site feeds a large drainage ditch that
• runs parallel to Marsh Swamp for approximately 1,500 feet. The ditch curves to the east,
'
s Ditch. It then turns to the south, makes a final turn to
into the field, towards McCulloch
the east, and finally empties into McCulloch's Ditch. Based on the present hydrology, it
appears the water retention structure may have been used to divert water onto the site
during dry periods.
S
e
Black Spring Creek flows through an excavated ditch along the northern side of the site.
This stream begins as seepage from several springs but also receives input from overland
flow and a small pond drainage tributary before flowing onto the project site. Where the
stream flows onto the project site, it has been channelized to flow directly to
McCulloch's Ditch. McCulloch's Ditch is the third channelized stream on the property.
It runs north to south along the eastern property boundary, collecting drainage from the
lateral ditches on the property and flowing directly into Marsh Swamp.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 2-3 Buck Engineering

ti p
{

rX,
2533
?4 '?'i.'7 ? ? ?,.••'7' rt4. ?v4ii?'J'r ? .? x?J??. "'4r?f3?{i t ? -./
jt / r _?.?
qx U
7
I:i ?'?? rosy q `.A
?i PC

* , 1par
` ®
t
..
e
r

F
O T / Z ?t e? a ry?4r,
ttl-
lv;?K?n fr s,r •:
4
1.
;? . ,fit' r? t ...._y i Cj ?j ?/ t? ?tl e ?kr ,4 ???r
e
'fiG•:
\
69
. ,
- ?• a z 9
?J' r
-
.: -n Y 4} a
' ?S"; 't l
y
??• PL
{ y dab'' 4.•?+AtiC? r' 1
f?"' ! ?7L)-j? _ ' ?P4• ?8•w^v^?94r3"f ?" (? .' t l '?•? f [' S ? r1r "M`? ?. rr
- tbt Fyn !' tYM! •4rly y?+ I .
_, ,"-.? A d.-y two- 1 ter' it .{ VL
_

s• ? i2•
\ C ) l is ~w`,* .
u o
200
(1
4 W-4
' 41
{ . "'
? (?, t:en,.•.i
?
p
{
* ;
?
3
Z
`
?
?
`
'
?
J
*4? x y
/ ?Y' ?Ahy
wl
+? 1
s , zl y
? I ni at
r s??y P
c
?
Rk ?
•(•?? x
i I (? 4`?/r-• ??ryd ?( ?1. ? •7•.'++iC'_.-11 y
!
V
.>? ?' a ..t? ?'? MQ ? .{ J, s i. ? ( !. .r s _ p •?.• ., •..^'r.•C?t^6 f'?? d
i?• ti;r? '• tr 9 } ..lt wr,? r `?}Mx' ? k, 6+• 7 f rv? rtn3Y=?
' T?M R???rr?i ,? y}t.':" 'C' 7}j ?L _. C., L' E.d?! c ? I ?S• ^.i.!.r?r..X? ?FY y 4?? .
ryt
..,
/
t-
n?c
••=?
F
;
y '
+
-
4°,,
•?-
?
`."?
^

r
?
.
*, ,.•,?
,
,?f
,. + A ;?
w
,
a,
y
?a•?
:e :•!?
a,(' < i,-
h
^!'"?1.+'I ? ?, J!.,•
.. •?`?4 lyJ1r? !?• x ? }? ? U y7'.f, Y. f' 4}a S- +?4. F
17
03 m, NA
IX.4. .T?' `'s}• 5.
Y '? '?tIY jj? fs1 ?. 4 r 4 '` ?? ?? ?•„ r 4 h• r
.i ?"r t^ ?" ? i'''? . ?+` f f t, ib??' f es. J ?'?,•t_ 1 4'4 t., tj7????i1?;:?- ??r !` rr••':? •7,?k?? ?f JT ???:? .
?J?fL
'
r
a?
2
?
?
'?,' .• l? S•
,LK's, } }Y :.
yr
S t N? r =r1? r s
° of
+
•f 'a, xfj r
rw{ e'`'i?1' {e, R,; ,;"'R j+ •`4r'n SP?l t '.?}/¢p}• ?"[gq,`•?+C??.,r; :,''3''. •?
;.c}Y',47 '? "•,e?'?'•YS r2'" 11
L< V yl.' ) }?iI?? •,•O' ^/l/ ?'F. ,p-. 111':`I • `Std .Ye Pl •• + .tw"?; •?f."SI.I+? !.'4`i!? i
3 ?1:? ? ?.. S.F L" Y 1 ?1 N•!Y Y' ?' .?Yc°:,. ' 7 v 't •q,-kr"'y.? a"'77 lh i?.^'
?V? ri•:} r.:r:a'F•w? .
c .. i'
.f;`.+
?
. J y.•
.it' ' y ? r
n;7t!!?' .o?Y
d•
'{1F •
•
- Ty ' n
-
i
?
??
'
q
.
t
.
j
?
,
st i
.
I
.
,.:
r
.
r.?• ,'. ?' a?, r'
?.?, ' ?? ? ?,i?*i.y ?? r _`?`{.iCr,.?A ?`• W°4??'ia?•?t5. r,5,?.. "? ' ?t-
f???,??, +;w,q^?.?y??fi. Xi •`?. tl?^?rr????,r. ?'"e R• 4a ,?,; c.? ?, ?? •... Jet ?-1• ^?;: "X}3%in",?a rf????.,Y?? s.rY.. J; ',r?-=:
`?`!
"'?'
i'??"(i
• 1'• -?
i••
{:
yy-
lr
r
1
ijl,
.
,
•
i
r Ji v 7- : ?, ?•Jt
,??
"yiy"i M1 YY??+?.•T i'.SfG°? r
,,elf y? ?S Y In-Y. sIY"a,.?, .,":Z;?,' yLj- `sit-?* ti. .
x.-
4!r"!'T M
1e'?
f
1 -I
T'N
?? ! S•
-!T
'
,
{'
' t ;•T"
S { r
J
.
a`•?r.Z
,
•,
..: ^`?
?
y( .,., r.
b
t ). r jig
{?i
•?.. .5
r?
?1(
},?
+er7. >^f
• a:rl'w," ? x - r. ?
?-r A.r 'i . ti /"
.
I
t
'r
`
?
yy
t
,,y
.
.
.
i,L'? .'x, mot? e. .
.i; ^..??Sr., x?,"' . -? y: i?•.Y • / r.. 3iy •r'+r?:;
a i?

Figure 2-2. Prior Converted Wetland Map o Easement Area

Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200A
NC 27511
. Cary
,
560 280 0 560 1,120
Feet
Figure 2-3. Site Hydrology Map
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200A
Cary, NC 27511
500 250 0 500 1,000
iiiiMMMMMOMOM Feet
Streams and Ditches
i Easement Area
L.—.—. --r
♦— Flow Direction
\\ Break in Flow

2.3.1 Riparian Wetland Verification
In order to verify that restored wetlands on the project site will qualify as riparian, on site
investigations and hydrologic modeling were conducted on the Gregory site. An
engineer and a biologist from Buck Engineering conducted a site visit on July 14, 2003.
Heavy rains the night before had caused the water level in Marsh Swamp to rise to near
bankfull conditions. As a result, portions of the site were flooding during the site visit.
Areas of observed flooding were photographed and the extent of flooding was recorded
on a copy of the aerial photograph for the site.
Topographic data collected from the NC Floodplain Mapping Website were used to
develop a digital terrain model (DTM) for the entire Gregory Site (Figure 2-5). This
information and additional field data collected during the July 14 site visit were used to
develop a HEC-RAS model of the site. The model was developed by cutting cross-
sections approximately 400 feet apart along Marsh Swamp through the project site, for a
total of eleven cross-sections. With this information, the model can predict the degree of
flooding that would occur across the site after restoration techniques are imposed.
Since Marsh Swamp is unincised, bankfull elevation is represented by the top of the
stream bank. This was verified during the July 14 site visit by taking measurements of the
channel and estimating channel cross-sectional area for comparison against regional
curve information. At the top of the stream bank, Marsh Swamp has a cross-sectional
area of approximately 80 to 100 square feet, and the watershed size at the project area is
approximately 32 square miles. These data plot well within the scatter of data points
collected for the Coastal Plain regional curve (Figure 2-4), and provides strong evidence
that Marsh Swamp is an unincised stream channel along the perimeter of the Gregory
Site. Therefore, flows larger than the bankfull flow can spread out onto the floodplain.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 2-6 Buck Engineering
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1000.0

d
100
0
Q .

f? LL
X &
_N
c 10
0
rv
m .

.0
0.1
__00 If-
? Curve Data
95% C1 up
95% C1 down
Buck Reference Data
¦ Marsh Swamp
Power (Curve Data)
1 10 100 1000
y =9.4824x0. tae
Watershed Area (Sq. Mi.) R2=0.9585
Figure 2-4 NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve (Sweet and Geratz, 2003) with Buck
Reference Data Points and Surveyed Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area for Marsh
Swamp.
Regional curve information collected for the Coastal Plain of North Carolina indicates a
return period for bankfull flow of less than one year to approximately 1.2 years (Sweet
and Geratz, 2003). This corresponds to a greater than 83% (100/1.2) probability during
any given year of a flow event that would inundate a large portion of the proposed site if
the levee were removed.
Observed flooding extents, recorded during the July 14 site visit are shown in Figure 2-5.
Based on the level of water in the Marsh Swamp channel, flow during the site visit was
slightly less than bankfull flow (see Photo Log). The observed flooding on the northern
and middle portions of the site is primarily the result of breaches or low spots in the levee
that runs between Marsh Swamp and the project site. These breaches allow water into the
site at two locations. The upper breach was observed during the June 4, 2003 site visit
along with a drainage ditch that was excavated in the past few years to carry water from
the breach to the downstream end of the site. It appears that the ditch drains differently
depending on the stage of Marsh Swamp. During low flow periods, water in this drainage
ditch appears to flow back into Marsh Swamp near the middle of the site, approximately
1,300 feet downstream of the upper breach. During high flow periods, water in the
drainage ditch flows into the site and follows the network of drainage ditches to the lower
end of the project site for a length of approximately 3,500 feet. This ditch, along with the
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 2-7 Buck Engineering
. network of other ditches across the site, allows floodwater to recede quickly by providing
. direct outlets for water to flow offsite.
As a result of the existing breaches in the levee along Marsh Swamp, flooding was
. evident over a significant portion of the site during the July 14 site visit. While overbank
. flooding spreads across the majority of the site, even under existing conditions, the
existing network of drainage ditches provides outlets for floodwater, such that flooding
across the site only occurs for brief periods under existing conditions.
. Results from the HEC-RAS model analyses show similar findings. The HEC-RAS model
. was run to estimate the extent of flooding at a flow event equal to the bankfull discharge,
when water would begin to flow out of the banks of Marsh Swamp channel. This level of
flow is slightly larger than the observed flow during the July 14 site visit, when the flow
. level was estimated to be several inches below the bankfull stage. Due to the fact that it is
. difficult to accurately model flooding in low flow conditions such as the restored stream
and the fact that on site flooding will be most significantly influenced by hydrologic
conditions in Marsh Swamp, the model was simplified by not including the restored
. stream. No other modifications to existing site topography were made to the model; in
other words the existing topography of the fields was used. A plan view approximation
of the predicted flooding is shown in Figure 2-5.
The results of the model analyses indicate that if the levee along Marsh Swamp were
. removed or breached along its length, the result would be frequent flooding over much of
the Gregory Site during a bankfull or larger event. The model analyses and on-site
observations on July 14 also indicate that several small areas presented in the original
proposal will not flood regularly due to topographic elevation.

The model results and the observed areas of flooding documented during the July 14 site
visit correlate well, verifying the accuracy of the topographic information used in the
model. Discrepancies between the extent of observed flooding and modeled flooding are
due to the fact that the modeled flow is a larger event than occurred during the July 14
site visit. On the lower end of the site, below the proposed project area, there are areas of
observed flooding that do not correlate well with modeled data. This is due to a beaver
dam that is influencing ponding conditions on the lower end of the site. The effect of the
beaver dam was not considered in the model analyses since the area affected is
considered existing wetlands and outside the proposed restoration area. It should also be
noted that although flooding of areas to the east of McCulloch's Ditch were observed
during the July 14 site visit, these areas were not documented and are not shown in
Figure 2-5 since they are outside of the proposed restoration area. Model simulations,
however, were run for the entire bottomland area.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 2-8 Buck Engineering
Marsh Swamp
Figure 2-5. Observed Overbank Flooding and
Modeled Predicted Extent of
Overbank Flooding
® Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200A
Cary, NC 27511
500 250 0 500 1,000
Feet
Black Spring Creek
McCulloch's Ditch
- Predicted Areas of Flooding
on HEC -RAS Model Analyse
(at bankfull flow)
- Areas of Observed Flooding luring
July 14, 2003 Site Visit
(at less than bankfull flow)

2.4 Hydrologic Modeling
To further investigate the current hydrologic status of the site and provide a means for
evaluating proposed restoration plans, hydrologic models were developed to simulate site
hydrology. DrainMod (version 5.1) was used to develop hydrologic simulation models to
represent conditions between McCulloch's Ditch and the main lateral ditch that runs
parallel to Marsh Swamp. DrainMod is identified as an approved hydrologic tool for
assessing wetland hydrology by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
NRCS (1997). For more information on DrainMod and its application to high water table
soils, the reader is referred to Skaggs, 1980.
The existing hydrology of the site was modeled with the controlled drainage application
of DrainMod. Controlled drainage is provided by parallel drains with a water control
structure at the outlet. Under existing conditions, the hydrology of the site is controlled
by McCulloch's Ditch and the main lateral ditch that runs parallel to Marsh Swamp and
eventually outlets into Marsh Swamp (Figure 2-3). Marsh Swamp acts as the water
control structure for McCulloch's Ditch. These lateral ditches are approximately 1,200
feet apart and range in depth from 3 to 5 feet. Drainage ditch configuration, along with
other inputs, was used to create a model that is representative of existing groundwater
hydrology. The model uses historical weather data from weather stations in Halifax and
Enfield in Halifax County, NC to simulate groundwater hydrology for a 55-year period.
Model parameters were selected based on field measurements and professional judgment
of site conditions. To estimate existing site hydrology, model simulations were run for
55 years. DRAINMOD computes daily water balance information and outputs
summaries that describe the loss pathways for rainfall over the model simulation period.
Table 2-1 summarizes the average annual amount of rainfall, infiltration, drainage,
runoff, and evapotranspiration estimated for the existing condition of the project site.
Infiltration represents the amount of the water that percolates into the soil and is lost via
drainage or runoff. Drainage is the loss of infiltrated water that travels through the soil
profile and is discharged to the drainage ditches or to underlying aquifers. Runoff is
water that flows overland and reaches the drainage ditches before infiltration.
Evapotranspiration is water that is lost by the direct evaporation of water from the soil or
through the transpiration of plants.
From the data provided, it is clear that most rainfall that falls onto the site is lost via
evapotranspiration, with lesser, approximately equal amounts lost from drainage and
runoff. Restoration of the site will involve plugging the ditches, restoring the stream
through the site, and increasing the amount of surface storage available to store rainfall
and flood waters. Restoration of the stream will increase the frequency of flooding
events, providing more water to the site through overbank flooding. Plugging the ditches
will allow more water to remain in the soil profile and not exit the restoration site via the
ditches. Increasing surface storage will decrease the amount of runoff and allow the
water table to remain higher throughout the year.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 2-10 Buck Engineering
Table 2-1 Water balance for the existing condition of the nroiect site.

Hydrologic
Parameter Average Annual Amount
over 55 Year
Simulation Period
(cm of water) Average Annual Amount
over 55 Year
Simulation Period
(% of rainfall)
Drainage 17.97 20.7
Runoff 23.50 15.9
Evapotranspiration 71.95 63.4
Precipitation 113.44 100.0
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 2-11 Buck Engineering
•
•
•
•
•
3 Existing Stream Conditions
•
The primary purposes of the existing condition survey are to determine the stability of the
project stream reach and its potential for restoration. This is accomplished through a
• quantitative and qualitative investigation of the stream corridor, including channel
dimension, pattern, and profile. This analysis provides information that is used to assess
• the potential for restoration. Data collected during the existing condition survey are used
to determine if the stream is moving towards stability or instability and if the cause of
• instability is localized or system-wide. Examples of localized instability include removal
of riparian vegetation and/or trampling of the stream banks by livestock or humans.
System-wide instability is often caused by channel incision, which causes head-ward
erosion until stopped by a knick point.
•
• 3.1 Channel Stability Assessment

Buck Engineering used a modified stream channel stability assessment methodology
developed by Rosgen (2001). The Rosgen method is a field assessment of the following
variables:
•
1. Stream Channel Condition or "State" Categories,
2. Vertical Stability - Degradation/Aggradation,
• 3. Lateral Stability,
4. Channel Pattern,
• 5. River Profile and Bed Features,
6. Channel Dimension Relations,
• 7. Stream Channel Scour/Deposition Potential (Sediment Competence), and
8. Channel Evolution.

• A description of each variable is provided below.
3.1.1 Stream Channel Condition or "State" Categories
•
• Seven categories are included in this analysis and include: a) riparian vegetation, b)
sediment depositional patterns, c) debris occurrence, d) meander patterns, e) stream
• size/stream order, 0 flow regime, and g) altered states due to direct disturbance. These
condition categories are determined from field inspection and measurement of stream
• channel condition characteristics.
• 3.1.2 Vertical Stability - Degradation/A2gradation
•
• The bank height and entrenchment ratios are measured in the field to determine vertical
stability. The bank height ratio is measured as the ratio of the lowest bank height divided
• by a maximum bankfull depth. Table 3-1 shows the relationship between bank height
• ratio and vertical stability developed by Rosgen (2001).
•
• Gregory Site Restoration Plan 3-1 Buck Engineering
r?
u

Table 3-1 Conversion of Bank Height Ratio (Degree of Incision) to Adjective
Rankings of Stability (Rosgen, 2001).
Stability Rating Bank Height Ratio
Stable (low risk of degradation) 1.0-1.05
Moderately unstable 1.06-1.3
Unstable (high risk of degradation) 1.3-1.5
Highly unstable > 1.5
The entrenchment ratio (ER) is calculated by dividing the flood-prone width (width
measured at twice the maximum bankfull depth) by the bankfull width. If the
entrenchment ratio is less than 1.4 (+/- 0.2), the stream is considered entrenched (Rosgen,
1996).
• 3.1.3 Lateral Stability
The degree of lateral containment (confinement) and potential lateral accretion are
determined in the field by measuring the meander width ratio and Bank Erosion Hazard
Index (BEHI). The meander width ratio is the meander belt width divided by the
bankfull channel width, and provides insight into channel adjustment processes
depending on stream type and degree of confinement. BEHI ratings can be used to
estimate the annual, lateral streambank erosion rate.

• 3.1.4 Channel Pattern
r Channel pattern is assessed in the field by measuring the meander width ratio (described
above), ratio of radius of curvature to bankfull width, sinuosity, and meander wavelength
ratio (meander wavelength divided by bankfull width). These dimensionless ratios are
compared to reference reach data for the same valley and stream type to determine where
channel adjustment has occurred due to instability.

3.1.5 River Profile and Bed Features
A longitudinal profile is created by measuring elevations of the bed, water surface,
bankfull, and low bank height along the reach. This profile can be used to determine
changes in river slope compared to valley slope, which are sensitive to sediment
• transport, competence, and the balance of energy. For example, the removal of large
woody debris may increase the step/pool spacing and result in excess energy and
• subsequent channel degradation.

• 3.1.6 Channel Dimension Relations
The bankfull width/depth ratio (bankfull width divided by mean bankfull depth) provides
an indication of departure from the reference reach and relates to channel instability. An
increase in width/depth ratio indicates accelerated streambank erosion, excessive
sediment deposition, stream flow changes, and alteration of channel shape (e.g., from

Gregory Site Restoration Plan 3-2 Buck Engineering

r
channelization). Channel widening is also associated with an increase in width/depth
ratio due to evolutionary shifts in stream type (e.g., from G4 to F4 to C4). Table 3-2
shows the relationship between the degree of width/depth ratio increase and channel
stability developed by Rosgen (2001).
Table 3-2 Conversion of Width/Depth Ratios to Adjective Ranking of Stability
from Stability Conditions (Rosgen, 2001).
Stability Rating Ratio of W/D Increase
Very stable 1.0
Stable 1.0-1.2
Moderately unstable 1.21-1.4
Unstable > 1.4
While an increase in width/depth ratio is associated with channel widening, a decrease in
width/depth ratio is associated with channel incision. Hence, for incised channels, the
ratio of channel width/depth ratio to reference reach width/depth ratio will be less than
1.0. The reduction in width/depth ratio indicates excess shear stress and an adjustment of
the channel toward an unstable condition.
3.1.7 Stream Channel Scour/Deposition Potential (Sediment Competence)
This methodology is discussed in detail in Chapter 8 of this report.
3.1.8 Channel Evolution
A common sequence of physical adjustments has been observed in many streams
following disturbance. This adjustment process is often referred to as channel evolution.
Disturbance can result from channelization, increase in runoff due to build-out in the
watershed, and removal of streamside vegetation, as well as other changes that negatively
affect stream stability. Several models have been used to describe this process of
physical adjustment for a stream. Simon's channel evolution model (1989) characterizes
evolution in six steps, including 1) sinuous, pre-modified, 2) channelized, 3) degradation,
4) degradation and widening, 5) aggradation and widening, and 6) quasi-equilibrium.
The channel evolution process is initiated once a stable, well-vegetated stream that has
access to its floodplain is disturbed. Disturbance commonly results in an increase in
stream power, which causes degradation, often referred to as channel incision. Incision
eventually leads to increased heights and slopes of stream banks, and when critical bank
heights are exceeded, the banks begin to fail and mass wasting of soil and rock leads to
channel widening. Incision and widening continue migrating upstream, a process
commonly referred to as a head-cut. Eventually the mass wasting slows and the stream
begins to aggrade with a new low-flow channel forming in the sediment deposits. By the
end of the evolutionary process, a stable stream with dimension, pattern, and profile
similar to those of undisturbed channels forms in the deposited alluvium but with a much
narrower floodplain. The new channel is at a lower elevation than its original form with
a new floodplain constructed of alluvial material. The old floodplain remains a dry
Gregory Site Restoration Plan
3-3
Buck Engineering
terrace (FISRWG, 1998). The time required to reach a state of quasi-equilibrium is
• highly variable, but generally is on the order of decades.
3.2 Black Spring Creek Existing Conditions
Watershed size was calculated at the point where Black Spring Creek enters the project
site at 0.16 square miles. Black Spring Creek flows through a ditch along the northern
• property boundary and empties into McCulloch's Ditch along the eastern edge of the
project site. The watershed for Black Spring Creek/McCulloch's Ditch at the
downstream end of the project is approximately 0.75 square miles (Figure 1-2).

• The section of Black Spring Creek, upstream of the project site, exhibits a pattern that is
. in the process of stabilizing. Channel features indicate that this section of stream has
undergone a stream evolution scenario that is very common in the Southeast. The stream
appears to have been straightened at some point in the past. This straightening led to
incision, which eventually led to lateral instability and widening. The stream has since
• begun to stabilize by increasing pattern and establishing bankfull benches within the
overly large channel.

Within the project site, Black Spring Creek has been ditched and channelized. The creek
i flows through a ditch along the wood line on the north end of the site to the intersection
'
with McCulloch
s Ditch. Drainage from the northeast side of the site combines with
Black Spring Creek at this point to flow into McCulloch's Ditch. McCulloch's Ditch
flows southward down the eastern edge of the property and eventually drains into Marsh
• Swamp.
e
Existing condition parameters in Table 3-3 reflect conditions in Black Spring Creek
immediately upstream of the project site (Reach 1) and in McColloch's Ditch (Reach 2)
within the project site.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan
3-4
Buck Engineering
Table 3-3 Existing Condition Parameters for Black Spring Creek/McCulloch's
Ditch.

Parameter Black Spring
Creek* McCulloch's
Ditch
Rosgen Stream Type E5 F5
Drainage Area (sq mi) 0.16 0.75
Bankfull Width (ft) 5.2-6.3 7.0-10.4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.5-0.6 0.7-0.8
Width/Depth Ratio 8.1-12.0 10.5-14.5
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 3.3-3.3 4.6-7.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.9-1.0 1.3-1.4
o Width of Floodprone Area (ft) 12.5-85.0 11.0-16.0
Entrenchment Ratio 2-16.3 1.4-1.6
Pool Bankfull Area (sq ft) 3.9 NA*
6 Max Pool Depth (ft) 1.2 NA*
Ratio of Max Pool Depth to
Bankfull Depth 2.2 NA*
Pool Width (ft) 5.4 NA*
Ratio of Pool Width to Bankfull
idth
0.9
NA*
Bank Height Ratio 1.9-2.4 2.9-3.8
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft) 10-27 NA**
Ratio of Pool to Pool Spacing to
Bankfull Width
1.7-4.7
NA**
Meander Length (ft) 19-55 NA**
Meander Length Ratio 3.3-9.5 NA**
D
Radius of Curvature (ft)
15-30
NA**
Radius of Curvature Ratio 2.6-5.2 NA**
Meander Belt Width (ft) 10-15 NA**
Meander Width Ratio 1.7-2.6 NA**
Sinuosity 1.3 1.0
Q)
i?E alley Slope (ft/ft) 0.0024 0.0009
2
L
a-

S Slope (ft/ft)

0.0018

0.0009
* Black Spring Creek data are based on cross sections and profiles immediately
upstream of the project site.
** Pattern data are not presented for McCulloch's Ditch because natural pattern
geometry does not exist within the project site.
3.2.1 Stability Assessment
Black Spring Creek within the project area is a perennial, channelized stream with a flow
regime dominated by storm flow runoff. The non-channelized sections of the creek
upstream of the project site exhibit an irregular meandering pattern. The channel
contains few debris blockages and exhibits poor sediment transport capacity as evidenced
by numerous mid and side channel bars. The channel appears to be aggrading within the
project site based on the two or more feet of muck found consistently along the channel
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 3-5 Buck Engineering
S
bed. This aggradation is due to the fact that the inverts of the culverts placed along
McCulloch's Ditch are higher that the channel invert throughout.
As part of the stability assessment, three cross sections were surveyed at stable riffles and
a a pool immediately upstream of the project reach on Black Spring Creek. Existing
• condition information is included in Appendix 1. Three cross sections were also
surveyed on McCulloch's Ditch within the project site. The cross sections are provided
in Appendix 1. Bankfull riffle cross sectional area averaged 3.3 ft2 and 6.0 ft2 for Black
S ring Creek and McCulloch's Ditch, respectively. The pool cross sectional area was 3.9
• ft for Black Spring Creek. No bedform diversity exists with McCulloch's Ditch on the
project site, therefore no pool cross sections were surveyed.
0 Bank height ratios range from 1.9 to 3.8 and entrenchment ratios range from 1.4 to 16.3
across the two reaches. These values indicate the stream is generally highly incised;
however, the backwater conditions on the site have limited vertical degradation. The
stream is moderately entrenched within the project site with entrenchment ratios of 1.4 to
1.6. The valley is classified as a Type X (Rosgen, 1996), characterized by broad and
0 gentle slopes associated with extensive floodplains.
No natural meander geometry exists within the project site. Therefore, channel pattern
was measured for a reach of Black Spring Creek upstream of the project site. Meander
width ratios (MWR) ranged from 1.7 to 2.6 on this reach. This range is significantly
. lower than MWRs recorded from reference reaches throughout the NC Coastal Plain.
These values indicate the stream is laterally unstable, which is corroborated by evidence
of moderate erosion around the outside of meander bends throughout the reach. Radius
of curvature ratios in Black Spring Creek ranged from 2.6 to 5.2. These values are within
the range of typical reference values for this stream type. Meander length ratios are also
• typical of this stream type. Streambank erosion is moderate throughout Black Spring
Creek due to the moderately high bank height ratios and moderate near bank stress.

The bankfull width/depth ratio is variable, ranging from a low of 8.1 in Black Spring
Creek to 14.5 in McCulloch's Ditch. Width/depth ratios in McCulloch's ditch are a result
of channelization, not channel forming processes. These width/depth ratios are consistent
with reference reach ratios for E and C stream types. This indicates, while habitat is poor
within the project site, the reaches are not actively incising or widening.

The modified Wolman pebble count (Rosgen, 1994) is not appropriate for sand bed
streams; therefore, a bulk sampling procedure was used to characterize the bankfull
channel bottom. Cores were sampled from the bed along the entire reach. These cores
. were taken back to a lab and dry sieved to obtain a sediment size distribution. The sieve
• data show that the Black Spring Creek D50 is 0.41-mm and the D84 is 0.78-mm indicating
that coarse sand is the dominant bed material in the stream channel. No bed material
samples were taken in McCulloch's Ditch because two to three feet of muck cover any
natural sediment. Design condition bed material is expected to be similar to the upstream
S Black Spring Creek condition.

0 Gregory Site Restoration Plan 3-6 Buck Engineering
r- r -I
LJ
Tree species along Black Spring Creek, upstream of the project site, consist of red maple
(Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), white oak (Quercus alba), privet (Ligustrum
sinense), southern magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), american holly(Ilex opaca),and
devil's walking stick (Aralia spinosa). The vine and vegetative layers consist of
greenbrier(Smilax spp.),Rubus (Rubus sp), Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and Christmas Fern (Polystichum
acrosthicoides).
The project site consists almost entirely of cultivated agricultural fields. The
southernmost tip of the project site is dominated by emergent wetland vegetation
including cattail (Typha angustifolia), common rush (Juncus effuses) and sedges (Carex
spp., and Cyperus spp.). The transitional zone, between the maintained field and the
ponded emergent zone, is dominated by four to six year old red maple and sweetgum.
The edge of the transitional zone was delineated out from the PC area. NRCS guidance
states that PC designations are considered invalid if vegetation is greater than five-years
old.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 3-7 Buck Engineering
4 Potential Constraints
4.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with a federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Species that the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program lists under federal protection
for Halifax County as of January 29, 2003 are listed in Table 4-1. A brief description of
the characteristics and habitat requirements of these species follow, along with a
conclusion regarding potential project impact.
Table 4-1 Species Under Federal Protection in Halifax County.
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal
State
Biological
, Status Status ?Concusiou
Haliaeetus Bald eagle T (PD) T No Effect
leucocephalus
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded E E No Effect
woodpecker
Alasmidonta Dwarf May Affect -
heterodon wedgemussel E E Unlikely to
Affect
Elliptio Tar spinymussel E E No Effect
steinstansana
Notes:
• "E - Endangered" denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.
• "T - Threatened" denotes a species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
• VW denotes the species is proposed for delisting.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald Eagle)
Family: Accipitridae
Federally Listed: March 11, 1967
Threatened
The Bald Eagle is found throughout much of North America. In 1999 it was proposed for
delisting (PD) in the lower 48 states.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 4-1 Buck Engineering

Adult Bald Eagles have dark bodies with a white head and tail. Juveniles are completely
• brown and do not develop white markings on their head and tail until they are 5-6 years
old. Bald eagles are 3 feet long with a 7 foot. wingspan and feed mostly on fish, water
birds, and turtles. Bald eagles are found around coastal areas, rivers, or lakeshores. They
frequently build their nests in transition zones between forest and marsh or open water.
Nests are large and cone shaped (6-8 feet tall and 6 or more feet wide), and are usually
built in dominant live pines or cypress trees less than 2 miles from open water. Winter
• roosts are similar to nesting areas but may be farther from water.

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Potential habitat for the Bald Eagle does not exist in the proposed project area. The site
lies primarily within open fields and water onsite exists only in streams too small to
provide foraging habitat for the eagle. In addition, a search of the NHP database on
December 29, 2003 found no known occurrence within the vicinity of the proposed
project. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to have an effect on this
species.
Picoides borealis (Red-Cockaded Woodpecker)
Family: Picidae
Federally Listed: October 13, 1970
Endangered
The red-cockaded woodpecker once occurred from New Jersey to southern Florida and
west to eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma,
and Missouri. The red-cockaded woodpecker is now found only in coastal states of its
historic range and inland in southeastern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. In North
Carolina moderate populations occur in the Sandhills and southern Coastal Plain. The
few populations found in the Piedmont and northern Coastal Plain are believed to be
relics of former populations.
The red-cockaded woodpecker is approximately 8 inches (20.3 centimeters) long with a
wingspan of 14 inches (35.6 centimeters). Plumage includes black and white horizontal
stripes on its back, with white cheeks and under parts. Its flanks are streaked black. The
cap and stripe on the throat and side of neck are black, with males having a small red spot
on each side of the cap. Eggs are laid from April through June. Maximum clutch size is
seven eggs with an average of three to five. Red-cockaded woodpeckers are usually
found in open pine stands, particularly longleaf pine, that are between 80 and 120 years
old, however they may also be found in pocosins with pine trees older then 60 years.
These birds forage in pine and pine hardwood stands, with preference given to pine trees
that are 10 inches (25 centimeters) or larger in diameter. The bird's diet consists of
primarily insects including ants, beetles, and wood-boring insects.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 4-2 Buck Engineering

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No open pine stands are found on or around the project site. On site surveys revealed no
evidence of the red cockaded woodpecker or its potential habitat. In addition, a search of
the NHP database on December 29, 2003 found no known occurrence within the vicinity
of the proposed project. Therefore the proposed project is not anticipated to have an
effect on this species.
Alasmidonta heterodon (Dwarf Wedgemussel)
Family: Unionidae
Federally Listed: March 14, 1990
The Dwarf Wedge Mussel is historically known to exist from New Brunswick, Canada to
North Carolina. Documented populations in NC have occurred in Johnston, Wake, Nash,
Wilson, Granville, Vance, Franklin, and Warren Counties.
The Dwarf wedge mussel is a small freshwater mussel with a trapezoidal-shaped shell
that is usually less then 1.7 inches (4.5 cm) in length and is brown to yellowish brown in
color. It is found in stable, unpolluted creeks and rivers with slow to moderate flows and
a sand, gravel, or muddy bottom.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY AFFECT - UNLIKELY TO ADVERSELY
AFFECT
Endangered
The streams within the project site represent suitable habitat for the Dwarf Wedgemussel
however Black Spring Creek, which is the only stream proposed for restoration, is
• considered to be an unstable system. No known populations exist within Halifax County
and a search of the NHP database on December 29, 2003 found no known occurrence
within the vicinity of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project is not
anticipated to have an effect on this species.

Elliptio steinstansana (Tar spinymussel)
Family: Unionidae
Federally Listed: March 14, 1990
Endangered
The Tar Spinymussel is only known to occur in North Carolina. Historically it is
believed to have occurred in the Neuse and Tar River Basins in the Coastal Plain and
Piedmont. Today, only a few populations are known to exist.
The Tar Spinymussel is one of three freshwater mussels with spines. Juveniles may have
up to 12 spines; however, they tend to loose them as they mature. It is a medium sized
mussel reaching about 2.5 inches (6.35 cm) in length. This species is most closely
associated with unconsolidated beds of coarse sand and gravel in relatively fast flowing
water. Stream banks are stable with extensive root systems holding soils in place. The
associated landscape is largely wooded, especially near streams. Trees near the stream
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 4-3 Buck Engineering

are relatively mature and tend to form a closed canopy over smaller streams, creeks, and
headwater river habitats. Water quality is good to excellent.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
The streams within the project site do not represent suitable habitat for the Tar
Spinymussel. Johnson and Clarke (1983) list this species as occurring only within the
Little Fishing Creek Subbasin, which does not include the project site. In addition, a
search of the NHP database on December 29, 2003 found no known occurrence within
the vicinity of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to
have an effect on this species.
4.2 Cultural Resources
In a letter dated January 12, 2001, Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc.
requested that the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources (NCDCR) review
the project and comment on any possible impact to cultural resources within the project
area. NCDCR determined, in a letter dated February 19, 2001, that there were no known
properties of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be affected
by the project (see Appendix 4 for a copy of the response from NCDCR).
4.3 Transaction Screen Map Report
Buck Engineering obtained an Environmental Data Resources (EDR) Transaction Screen
Map Report that identifies and maps real or potential hazardous environmental sites
within the distance required by The American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM)
Transaction Screen Process (E 1528). The overall environmental risk for this site was
determined to be low due to the absence of any risk sites within the following tolerances:
• 1/2 mile of a reported Superfund Site (NPL)
• 1/2 mile of a reported Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage or Disposal Facility
(RCRIS-TSDF)
• 1/4 mile of a reported known or suspect CERCLIS hazardous waste site
• 1/4 mile of a reported known or suspect State Hazardous Waste site (SHWS)
• 1/2 mile of a reported Solid Waste Facility or Landfill (SWF/LF), or
• 1/8 mile of a site with a reported Leaking Underground Storage Tank incident
(LUST).
A copy of the report with an overview map is included in Appendix 3.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 4-4 Buck Engineering
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5 Bankfull Stage Verification
5.1 Bankfull Stage and Discharge
Bankfull stage and its corresponding discharge are the primary variables used to develop
a natural channel design. However, the correct identification of the bankfull stage in the
field can be difficult and subjective (Williams, 1978; Knighton, 1984; and Johnson and
Heil, 1996). Numerous definitions exist of bankfull stage and methods for its
identification in the field (Wolman and Leopold, 1957; Nixon, 1959; Schumm, 1960;
Kilpatrick and Barnes, 1964; and Williams, 1978). The identification of bankfull stage in
the humid Southeast is especially difficult because of dense understory vegetation and a
long history of channel modification and subsequent adjustment in channel morphology.
It is generally accepted that bankfull stage corresponds with the discharge that fills a
channel to the elevation of the active floodplain. The bankfull discharge, known as the
channel forming discharge or the effective discharge, is thought to be the flow that moves
the most sediment over time. Field indicators include the back of point bars, significant
breaks in slope, changes in vegetation, the highest scour line, or the top of the bank
(Leopold, 1994). The most consistent bankfull indicators for streams in the Coastal Plain
of North Carolina are the backs of point bars, breaks in slope at the front of flat bankfull
benches, or the top of bank (Sweet and Geratz, 2003).
5.2 Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships (Regional Curves)
Hydraulic geometry relationships are often used to predict channel morphology features
and their corresponding dimensions. The stream channel hydraulic geometry theory
developed by Leopold and Maddock (1953) describes the interrelations between
dependent variables such as width, depth, and area as functions of independent variables
such as watershed area or discharge. These relationships can be developed at a single
cross-section or across many stations along a reach (Merigliano, 1997). Hydraulic
geometry relationships are empirically derived and can be developed for a specific river
or extrapolated to a watershed in the same physiographic region with similar
rainfall/runoff relationships (FISRWG, 1998).
Regional curves were first developed by Dunne and Leopold (1978) and relate bankfull
channel dimensions to drainage area. A primary purpose for developing regional curves
is to aid in identifying bankfull stage and dimension in un-gaged watersheds and to help
estimate the bankfull dimension and discharge for natural channel designs (Rosgen,
1994). Gage station analyses throughout the United States have shown that the bankfull
discharge has an average return interval of 1.5 years or 66.7% annual exceedence
probability on the maximum annual series (Dunne and Leopold, 1978; Leopold, 1994).
Regional curve equations developed from the North Carolina rural Coastal Plain study
are provided by Sweet and Geratz (2003) and Doll (2003) and are shown in Table 3.1.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 5-1 Buck Engineering
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Table 5-1 NC Rural Coastal Plain Curve Equations.
North Carolina Coastal Plain Rural Regional Curve Equations
EcoScience Data (Sweet and Geratz, 2003)
bkf = 8.79 AW R' =0.92
Abkf = 9.43 AW 0-74 R2 =0.96
Wbkf = 9.64 AW 0.38 R' =0.95
Dbkf = 0.98 AW 0.36 R2 =0.92
NCSU Data Doll, 2003
Qbkf = 100.64 AW ' R =0.88
Abkf = 21.61 AW 0.611 R2 =0.89
Wbkf = 19.05 AW 0.37 R2 =0.83
Dbkf = 1.11 AW R2 =0.79
5.3 Bankfull Verification in the Project Watershed
The preferred method of verifying hydraulic geometry relationships within a project
watershed is to survey a nearby gage site and compare the results to the appropriate
regional curve. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) website was consulted to
locate gages within the Fishing Creek Basin (HUC 03020102). While some active gages
exist within this basin, all are located above the fall line in Warren County. These gages
were considered inappropriate for comparison with the project reach due to the different
physiographic setting. No other appropriate active gages were located in adjacent basins.
With no useful gage data available, an alternative method for analyzing the local bankfull
cross section area versus drainage area relationship was developed. Reference reaches
were located within close proximity to the project site (Figure 5-1). Detailed riffle cross
sections were surveyed on the reference reaches (Cross sections are shown in Appendix
2). These reference sites were selected based on the confidence with which bankfull
features were selected. All sites selected also exhibited a stable pattern and profile. The
drainage areas were determined for the reference reaches and compared to bankfull cross
sectional area. These points were plotted against the regional curve for the Coastal Plain
to verify that the relationships in this basin are similar to the entire Coastal Plain region
(Figure 5-2). Other Coastal Plain reference reaches surveyed by Buck Engineering are
shown for comparison purposes. All project reference reaches plotted well within the
95% confidence intervals of the NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve. This agreement with
other Coastal data provides confidence that hydraulic geometry relationships in this basin
are similar to the entire Coastal Plain region.
The bankfull stage in Black Spring Creek was identified in the field as the break in slope
on flat depositional features and the back of point bars. These indicators are consistent
with other Coastal Plain streams. Within the project boundaries, Black Spring Creek and
McCulloch's Ditch are maintained, channelized ditches with no definable bankfull
features. Bankfull in these cross sections was selected based on regional curve data,
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 5-2 Buck Engineering
s
Figure 5-1. Reference Reach Vicinity Map
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200A
Cary, NC 27511
1 0.5 0 1 2
Miles
* Tributary to Jacket Swamp
Tributary to Beaverdam Swamp
Reference Reach Watershed
?" n Easement Area
upstream bankfull data, and comparison with local reference reaches. Bankfull data for
the project existing and design conditions and the reference reaches are compared with
the NC Coastal Plain regional curves in Figure 5-2.
1000.0

? Ecoscience Curve Data
95% C1 up
95% CI down
X Project Reference Reaches
Buck Reference Data
d
Q 100.0 • Black Spring Creek
+ Design Reaches

V Power(Ecosclence Curve Data)
?.
V) LL
.
071 0
N

...i
75
s` 10.0
t0
m

1
0-
.
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Watershed Area (Sq. Mi.) y. g,g8pgx?39
Rx - 0.9585
Figure 5-2 NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve with Surveyed Bankfull Cross-
Sectional Areas for Project Reference Reaches, Existing Condition, and Design
Conditions. (Project data points were not used in determining the regression line.)
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 5-4 Buck Engineering
6 Stream Restoration Design Criteria Selection
Buck Engineering uses a combination of approaches to develop design criteria. The
design criteria utilizes both dimensionless ratios and regime equations to design channel
dimension, pattern, and profile. A flow chart for selecting design criteria is shown in
Figure 6-1.
6.1 Upstream Reference Reaches
The best option for developing design criteria is to locate a reference reach upstream of
the project site. A reference reach is a channel segment that is stable-neither aggrading
nor degrading- and is of the same morphological "type" as the channel under
consideration for restoration. Figures 6-2 through 6-4 show how the dimension, pattern,
and profile dimensionless ratios are developed from the reference reach survey. The
reference reach should also have a similar valley slope as the project reach. The
reference reach is then used as the "blueprint" for the channel design (Rosgen, 1998).
Data on channel characteristics (dimension, pattern, and profile), in the form of
dimensionless ratios, are developed for the reference reach. If the reach upstream of the
project does not have sufficient pattern, but does have a stable riffle cross-section,
dimension ratios are developed. Measuring a reference bankfull dimension that was
formed under the same influences as the project reach is ideal.
I)CSI_n CrIICI'i;t SeIeCIIPn
I. there a rei'rr.•ncc reach
upstrcvtt rsith a bible
nhfl: X .nmc callo% slope"
Yes > < No
Reference Reach I I Reference Reach I I Reference Reach
tiune?' )atahase Reaie c Search

Reference Reach
Ratios as Ratio. Reference Reach
surkec il'posstblc
design criteria
Ratios
I Regime Literature I Pall Project
reriety cyualuuts Ilsaluation
Regime Iiqual tO Its
Res ices of
nrrnntonng data
Regime Equations
l Ratios
Select Design Ratios
and Equations
Figure 6-1 Design Criteria Selection Flow Chart.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 6-1 Buck Engineering

6.2 Reference Reach Databases
If a reference reach cannot be located upstream of the project reach, a review of the NC
Department of Transportation (DOT) reference reach database is performed. A database
search is conducted to locate reference reaches within close proximity to the project site.
The search includes streams with the same valley and stream type as the project reach. If
references are found meeting these criteria, the reference reach is field surveyed for
validation and comparison with the database. If no reference reaches are located through
the database, a reference reach search is conducted within close proximity to the project
site. If an appropriate reach is located, the reach is surveyed, added to the database, and
the information is used in the process of design criteria selection.
If a reference reach is not found in close proximity to the project site through the database
• or through a search process, summary ratios are acquired for all streams with the same
valley and stream type within the project's physiographic region. These ratios are then
compared to literature values and regime equations along with ratios developed through
the evaluation of successful projects.

6.3 Regime Equations

Buck Engineering uses a variety of published journals, books, and design manuals to
cross reference NC database values with peer reviewed regime equations. Examples
include Fluvial Forms and Processes by Knighton (1984), Mountain Rivers by Ellen
• Wohl (2000), and the Hydraulic Design Manual for Stream Restoration Projects by the
• Army Corps of Engineers (2001). The most common regime equations used in our
designs are for pattern. For example, most reference reach surveys in the eastern US
show ratios of radius of curvature to bankfull width much less than 1.5. However, the
Corps manual recommends a ratio greater than 2.0 to maintain stability in free-forming
• systems. Since most stream restoration projects are constructed on floodplains denude of
woody vegetation they are closer to free forming streams. Therefore, we often use the
Corps recommended value rather than reference reach data for radius of curvature. For
similar reasons, meander wavelength and pool-to-pool spacing ratios from the Corps
manual.

6.4 Comparison to Past Projects
All of the above techniques for developing ratios and/or regime equations are compared
to past projects built with similar conditions. Ultimately, these sites will provide the best
. pattern and profile ratios because they better reflect site conditions after construction.
. Again, most reference reaches are in mature forests whereas restoration sites are in
floodplains without woody vegetation. This severely alters floodplain processes. If past
ratios did not provide adequate stability or bedform diversity, they are not used.
• Conversely, if past project ratios create stable channels with optimal bedform diversity,

. Gregory Site Restoration Plan 6-2 Buck Engineering

r
they will be incorporated into the design. Ultimately, the design criteria are selections of
ratios and equations made upon a thorough evaluation of the above tasks. Combinations
of approaches may be used to optimize the design. The final selection of design criteria
is discussed in the design chapter.
6.5 Gregory Site
Black Spring Creek, upstream of the project site, was evaluated as a potential reference
site. Although this channel is in the process of stabilizing, the pattern and profile are still
adjusting in response to instability. This is evidenced by erosion around the outside of
meander bends and poor riffle and pool development.
The NCDOT database contained no reference reaches near the project site so a search
was conducted within close proximity to the Gregory Site. No appropriate pattern
reference reaches were located within the search area for several reasons. Every stream
examined within the Tar River basin near the project site was dominated by beaver
activity. These systems were determined to be inappropriate as reference reaches. For
clarification, this section describes the search for reaches to be used for pattern reference
data. Reference reaches discussed in Chapter 5 were surveyed for the purpose of
verifying bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships within this watershed.
The Roanoke River Drainage begins less than one mile to the east of the project site.
This area was determined to represent a significantly different geologic setting than that
surrounding the project site. Streams in this basin were typically gravel bed streams with
constrained valleys of greater than one percent slope. This entire region was determined
to be inappropriate for developing reference data.
West of I-95 the Coastal Plain slopes upward towards the fall line. Although several
streams were located and surveyed for verifying bankfull dimension in this basin, no
streams were located with appropriately similar valley conditions and slope to the project
site for use as reference reaches.
• With no nearby reference reach data available for selection of design criteria, stream
• pattern and profile design parameters were selected based on past project experience and
analysis of a reference reach from a similar geomorphic setting. As discussed in section
5, stream dimension was based on a combination of regional curve information, bankfull
cross sections surveyed upstream of the project site, and surveyed reference reaches.
• Buck Engineering has designed and built several other streams of similar size, slope, and
geomorphic setting. Monitoring data from these projects has suggested no instability
problems as a result of channel pattern. Reference reach data were analyzed from
Johannah Creek in Johnston County, which was used as a reference for a similar Coastal
Plain project. The reference data is similar to the pattern data used for past projects,
providing confidence in the pattern ratios through converging lines of evidence. Refer to
Appendix 2 for reference reach data and section 8 for a detailed discussion of project
design and design parameters.

Gregory Site Restoration Plan 6-3 Buck Engineering

FIGURE 6-2: MORPHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS AND RATIOS
DIMENSION
BANKFULL WIDTH (Wp)

BANKFULL
95 STAGE
X
m
E
CL
SECTION A
(POOL)
CHANNEL DIMENSION MEASUREMENTS
MAX POOL DEPTH (Dp max)
POOL WIDTH (Wp)
POOL AREA (Ap)
MAX RIFFLE DEPTH (Dmax)
MEAN RIFFLE DEPTH (Dbkf
[RIFFLE WIDTH (Wr)
RIFFLE AREA (Ar)
MAX RUN DEPTH (Dm)
MAX GLIDE DEPTH (D I)
BANKFULL WIDTH (Wr)
BANKFULL
?fl STAGE
m BANK HEIGHT
E (BH)
IF IF
SECTION B
(RIFFLE)
CHANNEL DIMENSION CALCULATIONS
RATIO: MEAN POOL DEPTH / MEAN RIFFLE DEPTH (Dp / Dbk?
RATIO: POOL WIDTH / RIFFLE WIDTH (Wp / Wr)
RATIO: POOL AREA / RIFFLE AREA (Ap / Ar)
RATIO: MAX. POOL DEPTH / MEAN RIFFLE DEPTH
(Dp max / Dbkfl
RATIO: LOWEST BANK HEIGHT/ MAX. RIFFLE DEPTH
(131-flow / Dmax)
RATIO: MAX RIFFLE DEPTH / MEAN RIFFLE
DEPTH (Dmax / Dbko
RATIO: RIFFLE WIDTH / MEAN RIFFLE DEPTH (Wr / Dbkt
RATIO: RUN DEPTH / MEAN RIFFLE DEPTH (Dm / Dbko
RATIO: GLIDE DEPTH / MEAN RIFFLE DEPTH ( Dgl / Dbko
STREAMFLOW: ESTIMATED MEAN VELOCITY (u) @ BANKFULL STAGE
STREAMFLOW: ESTIMATED DISCHARGE (Q BANKFULL STAGE
I Regency Parkway Suite B U C E 8000
C Phone h919 63548811 00
Fax: [phone]
., . ? r iur13 \ morNl ivlyg y vN r?IL.UUn? t13/Uai 2u6?1 ud:?u.15 PM _

M
CHANNEL PATTERN MEASUREMENTS
MEANDER LENGTH (Lm)
BELT WIDTH (WbIt) CHANNEL PATTERN CALCULATIONS
RADIUS OF CURVATURE (RC)

RATIO: RADIUS OF CURVATURE / RIFFLE WIDTH (Rc / Wr)
RATIO: MEANDER LENGTH / RIFFLE WIDTH (Lm / Wr)
MEANDER WIDTH RATIO (MWR = Wblt / Wr
SINUOSITY (In = CHANNEL LENGTH /VALLEY LENGTH
..: j rian, \ i ob pna gy Ut l r- Lc(g.' n 9,j 6 F'fvl r_
80 Regency Parkway Suite 200
e 200
963-5488 200
Cary, BUCK Phone:
Fax: [phone] All
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
111 Is 1111,11 111 '111 111H 7_??
FIGURE 6-4: MORPHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS AND RATIOS
PROFILE
:Q BANKFULL S AGE /MEAN
GRADIENT
E
SL
BASE FLOW o
CHANNEL BOTTOM
(THALWEG) ? fl
ss' w z w
LY _j 0 LL Z
O J a Z) a _
O
J w
of Ix 0
a o V)
a a
v w
POOL TO POOL SPACING P-P O O
d
RIFFLE / POOL SEQUENCE

CHANNEL PROFILE MEASUREMENTS
VALLEY SLOPE (VS)
AVE. WATER SURFACE SLOPE (S)
RIFFLE SLOPE (Srif)
POOL SLOPE (Spool)
POOL TO POOL SPACING (P-P)
POOL LENGTH (PL)
RUN SLOPE (Srun)
GLIDE SLOPE (Sglide)
STEP HEIGHT (SH)
STEP LENGTH (SL)
STEP/POOL SEQUENCE
CHANNEL PROFILE CALCULATIONS
RATIO: RIFFLE SLOPE / AVERAGE WATER SURFACE SLOPE (Srif / S)
RATIO: POOL SLOPE / AVERAGE WATER SURFACE SLOPE (Spool / S)
RATIO: RUN SLOPE / AVERAGE WATER SURFACE SLOPE (Srun / S)
RATIO: GLIDE SLOPE / AVERAGE WATER SURFACE SLOPE (Sglide / S)
RATIO: POOL LENGTH/ RIFFLE WIDTH (PL / Wr)
RATIO: POOL TO POOL SPACING / RIFFLE WIDTH (P-P / Wr)
B M M grill JW 8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
Cary, North Carolina 27511
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
?..\mdns\morphologyuElAlLCfgn U3/U4//2'04U4:29
:5F 1Vf
•
•
•

•
7 Wetland Restoration Plan
•
7.1 Restoration of Wetland Hydrology
• Several lateral drainage ditches between Marsh Swamp and McCulloch's Ditch will be
plugged and filled to raise the water table on-site and restore wetland hydrology. A new
• meandering channel will be constructed for Black Spring Creek as discussed in Section 8.
McCulloch's Ditch will remain open to provide drainage for adjacent farm fields,
however flow from Black Spring Creek will be diverted to the new channel.
McCulloch's Ditch will be plugged on both sides of Reach 2 as the new channel crosses
• the existing McCulloch's alignment. A berm will be constructed along the western bank
• of McCulloch's Ditch to keep flood waters on the project site and to provide access to the
site. Due to the proposed Priority Level I restoration of Black Spring Creek, flooding of
the project site will occur more often than under existing conditions. Any additional
flooding to the adjacent farm fields would be considered a negative impact by the
• landowner. During storm events, high flows in Marsh Swamp backup into McCulloch's
Ditch and reduce the capacity of the channel to carry away floodwaters. With the
• proposed berm, flooding of the farm fields should be reduced since less water will be
carried in McCulloch's Ditch.
•

• The proposed berm is not being constructed to increase hydrology on the restoration site.
It is not anticipated that the berm will cause any additional ponding of water, since the
• berm is not located in the lowest part of the valley. During flooding events the berm will
• prevent the migration of floodwaters onto the adjacent fields, but as waters recede,
. floodwaters will flow to the restored Black Spring Creek, which is in the lowest part of
the valley.
•
• The abandoned channels will be fully to partially filled, depending on the amount of fill
• material that can be produced during grading activities and excavation of new channels.
Grading is required to provide a stable slope for the restored channels and ensure that the
• bank height ratios of the restored streams will be equal to 1.0. In areas where there is
• insufficient fill material to completely fill the old channel, sections of the old channel will
• be partially filled and graded to form wide shallow depressions which will aid in the

• restoration of habitat diversity and increase surface storage. The proposed practices are
designed to result in the restoration of a minimum of 75 acres of wetlands (Figure 7-1).
•
• The levee along Marsh Swamp will be breached at several locations to allow more
• floodwater to access the site during overbank events. This will improve hydrology on the
project site as well as provide nutrient and sediment retention benefits to Marsh Swamp.
•
• 7.2 Hydrologic Model Analyses
•
• Hydrologic models were developed to provide a means for evaluating proposed
• restoration plans. DrainMod (version 5.1) was used to develop hydrologic simulation
models to represent existing and proposed conditions. DrainMod is based on a water
• balance in the soil profile and uses climatological records to simulate the performance of
• drainage and water table control systems. The model was developed specifically for
• Gregory Site Restoration Plan 7-1 Buck Engineering
r?
J
shallow water table soils (Skaggs 1998). DrainMod is identified as an approved
hydrologic tool for assessing wetland hydrology by the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) MRCS (1997). For more information on DrainMod and its
application to shallow water table soils, the reader is referred to Skaggs (1980).
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 7-2 Buck Engineering
G
1` S i'> N
` 1 �:i 44���hY1 t_ I�ll�/ �yyy i :1_ •t�.'�A

The model used to simulate restored conditions used the sub-irrigation application of
DrainMod instead of the conventional drainage application. The proposed restoration
will fill the existing lateral ditches and modify stream elevation and location. Under
restored conditions, the stream will be the only drainage feature in this area, thus
controlling the hydrology. The restored stream will have a constant supply of water and
is more precisely modeled with the sub-irrigation application. The sub-irrigation
application simulates conditions in which the water level in the drainage outlet is kept
constant, such as baseflow conditions in a stream channel. One disadvantage of
DrainMod is that it is unable to simulate over-bank flooding of the stream associated with
large rainfall events. Therefore, this analysis is considered conservative and it is
expected that actual site conditions will be wetter than modeled simulations predict.
To model the restored conditions, the inputs used to create the existing condition models
(discussed in section 2.4), along with depth of stream and topographic surface storage,
were changed to values representative of the described restoration practices. For
example, drain depths were reduced to approximately 27 centimeters to represent the
water level in the restored, meandering channel. Surface storage parameters were
increased, within a range of two to four centimeters to represent surface roughing
practices and restoration of natural wetland topography. Input files that describe
cropping conditions were changed to represent forested conditions. A water balance for
restored conditions is presented in Table 7-1. The proposed water balance illustrates a
decrease in runoff, this water infiltrates into the soil profile, which allows the water table
to remain higher throughout the year, thus restoring wetland hydrology.
Table 7-1 Water balance data for the proposed conditions of Gregory.

Hydrologic
Parameter Average Annual
Amount over 55 Year
Simulation Period
(cm of water) Average Annual
Amount over 55 Year
Simulation Period
(% of rainfall)
Drainage 23.70 20.9
Runoff 10.33 9.1
Evapotranspiration 79.38 70.0
Precipitation 113.44 100.0
. Four scenarios were simulated to evaluate the restored hydrologic conditions: 1) a
. location 200 feet from the restored channel with a maximum surface storage of two cm,
2) a location 400 feet from the restored channel with a maximum surface storage of two
cm, 3) a location 200 feet from the restored channel with a maximum surface storage of
. four cm, and 4) a location 400 feet from the restored channel with a maximum surface
. storage of four cm. Figure 7-2 shows modeling point locations. Theses scenarios were
chosen to represent a range of wetness conditions across the restored site. Fifty-five (55)
year simulations were run following the procedure described in Section 2.4. Results of
the simulations are presented in Figure 7-3.

The results indicate that wetland hydrology will be restored to the site under the proposed
restoration practices. The modeled scenarios that had surface storage greater than two
centimeters met at least 12% wetland criteria in a majority of years, indicating that under
average rainfall conditions, the site will exhibit wetland hydrology. The data presented in
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 7-4 Buck Engineering
Figure 7-3 were used to determine the percent of the growing season in which continuous
saturation or inundation would be present for each modeled scenario. The results are
presented in Table 7-2 below
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 7-5 Buck Engineering

a 8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200 BUCK Cary, North Carolina 2751 27511
Phone: [phone]
u
Fax: [phone]
" m
x M ?
y
rv
?. ?
?. i / P?1
asign E FIv7 Z.dgn u3/ /1uu4 W: 1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
70
Figure 7-3 55-Year Wetland Hydrology Simulation that Predicts Restored Site Conditions
0200 ft from restored stream with 2" surface storage 0200 ft from restored stream with 4" surface storage
®400 ft from restored stream with 2" surface storage ®400 ft from restored stream with 4" surface storag(

is
60
m
o
'N U)
G N 50
0 c
L
c
40
E ?
?
Z c
.-
m co
> 30
_
V
H ?
c
20
V
++ 4)

c 10
0
J
12% of the Growing Season
1985 1989 1993 1997 2001
0 am"
1949
1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981
Model Year

Table 7-2 Percent of growing season experiencing saturated or inundated
conditions for the four modeled scenarios.

Modeled Scenario Percent of Growing Season
Experiencing Continuous Proposed
Design Conditions
200 feet from stream, surface storage = 2 cm 11.0%
400 feet from stream, surface storage = 2 cm 11.9%
200 feet from stream, surface storage = 4 cm 12.8%
400 feet from stream, surface storage = 4 cm 14.2%
7.3 Wetland Reference Site
The reference wetland is located immediately adjacent to the project site within the
Marsh Swamp floodplain. The reference wetland will be used to document system
development and progress toward achieving mitigation goals and objectives. Soil type,
hydrology, and vegetation have been assessed to determine the applicability of the site.
The site falls within the same climactic, physiographic, and ecological region as the
mitigation site.
The Chastain and Bibb soils dominate the reference site. These are the same soil series
found at the mitigation site. Based on soil profiles information from both locations the
soils are comparable.
An automated groundwater monitoring well has been installed in the reference wetland
location. Hydrographs produced from the reference location will be compared to well
hydrographs from the mitigation site for the purpose of comparing hydrologic conditions
between the restored site and the "target" site. This comparison along with an analysis of
rainfall data will be used to assess success if the monitoring period is dominated by a
departure from normal rainfall conditions.
0 The site is comprised of greater than 50% facultative and wetter species and therefore
0 meets the hydrophytic vegetation requirement. Vegetation within the wetland reference
• area is approximately 60 to 70 years old. Dominant vegetation is composed of swamp
. chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black willow
(Salix nigra), American holly (Ilex opaca), sweetpepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), and
sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana).

7.4 Vegetation Plan
See Section 8.3-Planting Plan.
7.5 Soils
If necessary, soil amendments (fertilizer, lime, etc.) will be applied at rates appropriate
for the target vegetation. Since the land has been in agricultural production for a number
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 7-5 Buck Engineering
of years, it is likely that the current soil fertility will be high and amendments will not be
necessary.
Disking and tillage practices commonly used in agriculture will be used to break the plow
pan and reduce compaction of the soil caused by years of agricultural production. Tillage
practices will also be used to remove any field crowns, restoring a more natural
topography to the site.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 7-6 Buck Engineering

8 Natural Channel Design

8.1 Design Summary
•
The proposed natural channel design for Black Spring Creek/McCulloch's Ditch on the
Gregory site is the highest level of restoration feasible given the valley and stream types.
For the incised reaches, selection of restoration type follows Rosgen's priority restoration
. approach for incised streams (Rosgen, 1997), which has an overriding objective of re-
establishing contact between the channel and a floodplain. For the purposes of this
discussion the four Rosgen restoration approaches have been defined below in order of
decreasing restoration benefit:

. • Priority I - Re-establish the channel on a previous floodplain (e.g., raise channel
. elevation); meander new channel to achieve dimension, pattern, and profile
characteristic of a stable stream for the particular valley type; fill or isolate
existing incised channel.
• Priority II - Establish a new floodplain for the existing bankfull elevation (e.g.,
. excavate a new floodplain); meander channel to achieve dimension, pattern, and
profile characteristic of a stable stream for the particular valley type; fill or isolate
existing incised channel.
• Priority III - Establish a new floodplain at the existing bankfull elevation (e.g.,
. using bankfull benches); leave existing channel in place; use in-stream structures
. to dissipate energy through a step/pool channel type.
• Priority IV - Stabilize the channel in place using in-stream structures and
bioengineering to decrease streambed and streambank erosion.

8.2 Natural Channel Design

1b
See construction plans in Appendix 5 for detailed design information.
1b Diverting the stream from the highly incised, backwater system in McCulloch's Ditch
10 into the restored channel will provide numerous water quality and habitat benefits such
. as:
• Improved overbank flooding and nutrient retention;
• Decreased in channel shear stress;
• Improved bed form diversity;
• Improved vegetative cover and lower water temperatures; and
. • Improved sediment transport capacity.
8.2.1 Black Spring Creek/McCulloch's Ditch

. The design stream is broken into two reaches based on slope differences. Reach 1 is the
steeper section coming out of the woodline at the northeast corner of the project down to
the active floodplain of March Swamp. Reach 2 begins as the valley slope changes at the
point where the design channel meets the Marsh Swamp Floodplain and continues
. downstream to the end of the project. Table 8-1 lists design parameters for both reaches.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 8-1 Buck Engineering

r
The section of Black Spring Creek upstream of the project site exhibits a pattern that is in
the process of stabilizing. Reach 1 will diverge from the existing stream alignment at a
point where the stream is still moderately stable, i.e., upstream of the channelized section.
Because the stream is less incised at this point, the new channel will have only a short
Priority II section as the bed elevation is "stepped up" to a Priority I restoration. This is
accomplished by reducing the water surface slope of the new channel as it is meandered
away from the existing channel. Over a short length, the elevation difference between the
bed elevation and top of bank is greater than the bankfull maximum depth and a new
floodplain must be excavated out of the stream bank. At the point where this elevation
difference becomes equal to the bankfull maximum depth, a Priority I restoration can be
implemented and the design slope of the new channel can be implemented. As the bed
elevation of Reach 1 is raised, Black Spring Creek will be reconnected with the
surrounding floodplain. This will allow the relatively frequent bankfull events to overtop
the banks and dissipate energy on the floodplain. As a result, in-channel shear stresses
will be decreased during high flow events.
A stream crossing will be installed in the relocated channel in the northeastern corner of
the project site. The previous landowner still owns fields on both sides of the project site
and requires the crossing to be able to move equipment to the field to the north. The
crossing will be constructed with a squashed corrugated metal pipe. The pipe invert will
be buried below the streambed elevation and the grade will be controlled by a constructed
riffle downstream of the pipe. The road crossing will built up over the culvert but still
allow bankfull events and greater to flow across the floodplain.
. Minor recontouring of the valley will be required for this restoration approach. Due to
. property constraints, it is necessary to relocate Reach 1 along the edge of the existing
valley. The valley will be regraded to match the general valley shape upstream of the
project site.

The new channel will be built with an appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile based
on reference reach ratios and professional judgment (see Chapter 6). Reach 1 (Valley
slope=O.Ot2) has significantly more slope than Reach 2 and was therefore designed with
less sinuosity (k=1.2). Field observations of stable sandbed streams indicate that at
valley slopes greater than 0.01, sinuosity is generally close to 1.2. Design ratios were
adjusted by decreasing meander width ratios and increasing radius of curvature and
meander length ratios.
In-stream structures such as rootwads and log vanes will be used to stabilize the newly
constructed stream. These materials are preferable to rock vanes for meander bend
stabilization in small Priority I restorations. When properly installed, they provide
superior bank protection and allow for better and more natural pool formation. Figure 8-
1 provides evidence from project monitoring survey data on one sandbed and one gravel
bed stream that pools are deeper in meander bends constructed with rootwads than rock
vanes. Constructed riffles and log weirs will be used to provide grade control throughout
both reaches. Constructed riffles were selected rather than rock cross vanes based on
monitoring data from past projects. The type of constructed riffle proposed for this
project creates less convergence and therefore less scour downstream. This structure is
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 8-2
Buck Engineering
less prone to failure and provides grade control without causing localized sediment
transport problems. Transplants and other bioengineering techniques will be used to
stabilize the banks, particularly around the outside of meander bends.
Bankfull Pool Depth:
Rootwads Versus Vanes
6-
5-
4 -
3 ¦ Root Wads
¦ Vanes
2-
1
0
Min Depth Max Depth AVG Depth RW n = 14
Vane n = 9
Figure 8-1 Bankfull Pool Depth: Rootwads Versus Vanes
Reach 2 begins at the point where Reach 1 enters the Marsh Swamp floodplain. Slope
across the floodplain is extremely low (valley slope=0.0019). Reach 2 is designed as a
highly sinuous (k=1.58) Rosgen C5 stream. The increase in sinuosity over Reach 1 is
due to the significantly lower valley slope. Irregular meander patterns were utilized in
several short reaches to increase habitat diversity.
Reach 2 will tie into a ditch at the southern end of the site. The ditch is under backwater
conditions from a beaver swamp at this point. This system ties into the Marsh Swamp
DA stream system near the southern tip of the project site.
McCulloch's Ditch will remain open, however flow from Black Spring Creek will be
diverted to the new channel. McCulloch's Ditch will be plugged on both sides of Reach
2 as the new channel crosses the existing McCulloch's alignment. A berm will be
constructed along the western bank of McCulloch's Ditch to keep flood waters on the
project site.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 8-3 Buck Engineering
Table 8-1 Natural Channel Design Parameters for Gregory Site Reaches 1 & 2.
Gregory Site.
Reach 1
Design Values Reach 2
Desi n Values Rationale
Parameter MIN MAX MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 0.2 0.8
Stream Type (Rosgen) C5 C5 N to 1
ankfull (bkf) Discharge, Qbkf (cfs) 7.2 7.6 No te 2
ankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 1.6 1.0 V=Q/A
ankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 4.5 7.6 Note 2
ankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 7.3 10.3 Abkf * W -ID
ankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.6 0.7 d=A/W
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 12.0 14.0 Note 3
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 300 900 500 1200
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 41 123 49 116 Note 4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.0
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.4 Note 5
Max Depth @ Top of Bank,

maxtob ft
0.9
1.0
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 1.0 Note 6
Meander Length, Lm (ft) 59 96 52 124
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf * 8.0 13.0 5.0 12.0 Note 7
Radius of Curvature, Re (ft) 18 29 21 41
Re Ratio, Rc/Wbkf * 2.5 4.0 2.0 4.0 Not 7
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) 22 37 31 83
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf * 3.0 5.0 3.0 8.0 Note 7
Sinuosity, K 1.20 1.58 TW le t Valley 1 ngth
alley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0122 0.0011
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0102 0.0007 Sval / K
Slope Riffle, Srif (ft/ft) 0.011 0.02 0.0006 0.0015
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.1 2.0 0.9 -2.2 Note8
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft) 0.0050 0.0000
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.49 0.00 Note 1'8
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft) 1.0 1.5 1.3 1.4
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 1.7 2.5 1.7 1.9 Note1
Pool Area, Apool (sq ft) 8.4 14.6 14.2 18.8
Pool Area Ratio, Apool/Abkf 1.9 3.3 1.9 2.5 Note 7
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 8-4 Buck Engineering
a
s
w
i
0
•
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
Pool Width, Wpool (ft) 8.1 9.6 11.3 13.4
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.3 Nbte 9
Pool-Pool Spacing, Lps (ft) 48.0 84.0 25.8 61.9
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 4.0 7.0 2.5 6.0 Note 7
16 (mm) 0.22 0.22
35 (mm) 0.33 0.33
50 (mm) 0.41 0.41
84 (mm) 0.78 0.78
95 (mm) 1.19 1.19
Note 1: A C5 stream type is appropriate for a wide, alluvial valley with a sand
streambed. A C5 was used rather than an E5 based on relationships of W/D ratio to
slope in NC Coastal Plain reference reach streams and to provide a more conservative
design.
Note 2: Bankfull indicators on Black Spring Creek and the NC Coastal Plain regional
curve were the most reliable source for obtaining bankfull discharge and dimension
information.
Note 3: A final W/D ratio was selected based on relationships of W/D ratio to slope in
NC Coastal Plain reference reach streams.
Note 4: Required for stream classification.
Note 5: This ratio was based on past project experience.
Note 6: A bank height ratio of 1.0 ensures that all flows greater than bankfull will spread
onto a floodplain. This minimizes shear stress in the channel and maximizes floodplain
functionality resulting in lower risk of channel instability.
Note 7: Values were chosen based on reference reach database analysis and past project
expenence.
• Note 8: Facet slope ratios were developed by holding the pool slopes at 0.00001. Riffle
slopes were then calculated mathematically.
Note 9: Values were chosen based on reference reach database analysis and past project
experience. It is more conservative to design a pool wider than the riffle. Over time, the
• pool width may narrow, which is a positive evolutionary step.
L.
0 8.3 Planting Design
The design of the proposed restored project area will most closely resemble the "Coastal
Plain small stream swamp" described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Trees to be
planted include willow oak (Quercus phellos), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii),
• laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), blackgum (Nyssa
sylvatica), swamp blackgum (Nyssa biflora), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum).
Overcup oak, swamp blackgum, and bald cypress will be planted in the wettest areas.
• The permanent seed mixture will be composed of Virginia wild rye (Elymus virginicus),
• switch grass (Panicum virgatum), and fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea). The permanent
seed mixture will be applied to provide immediate soil stabilization after construction.
• Gregory Site Restoration Plan 8-5 Buck Engineering
r-1
U

•
Species selected for riverine restoration are considered to be tolerant to moderately
tolerant of flooding. Moderately tolerant species are able to survive on soils that are
saturated or flooded for several months during the growing season. Flood tolerant
species are able to survive on sites in which the soil is saturated or flooded for long
S indefinite periods during the growing season (Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)
Technical Note VN-RS-4.1). The occurrence of small hummocks, variations in soil
texture and microtopography will result in a heterogeneous plant community with
varying hydroperiods.
The plant community types listed above are derived from the Classification of the
Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Species
selection generally follows tolerances cited in WRP Technical Note VN-RS-4.1, Species
• Match Ensures Conversion of Wet Agricultural Fields to Bottomland Hardwood
• Wetlands, March 1997. These documents, used in combination, suggest a high
probability that the selected plants will survive on the hydrologically restored fields of
the project site and will replicate the targeted natural systems.
•
Prior to planting, the restoration area will be inspected for proper elevation and soil
suitability. The site will be inspected at the completion of planting to determine whether
proper planting methods were used, including spacing, species composition, and density.
Disking and tillage practices commonly used in agriculture will be used to break the plow
• pan and reduce compaction of the soil caused by years of agricultural production. Tillage
practices will also be used to remove any field crowns, restoring a more natural
topography to the site.

• The site has minimal existing native riparian vegetation other than field grasses. Invasive
species such as multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and privet (Ligustrum sinense) are
present. Grading operations will remove these invasive species. If these or other
invasive species re-establish and persist for more than three years after the stream
• restoration has been constructed, hand cutting and herbicide treatment will be required.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 8-6 Buck Engineering
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
9 Sediment Transport Analysis
The purpose of sediment transport analysis is to ensure that the stream restoration design
creates a stable sand bed channel that does not aggrade or degrade over time. The
overriding assumption is that the project reach should be transporting all the sediment
delivered from upstream sources, thereby being a "transport" reach and classified as a
Rosgen C or E stream type. Empirical relationships from stable sand bed channels in
North Carolina are used in this analysis.
Sediment transport is typically assessed by computing channel competency, capacity, or
both. Sediment transport competency is a measure of force (lbs/ft2) that refers to the
stream's ability to move a given grain size. Quantitative tools include shear stress,
tractive force, and critical dimensionless shear stress. Since these equations help
determine a size class that is mobile under certain flow conditions, they are most
important in gravel bed studies where the bed material ranges in size from sand to cobble,
of which only a fraction are mobile during bankfull conditions. In sand bed systems, all
particle sizes are mobile during bankfull flows; therefore, there is no need to determine
the maximum particle size that the stream can transport. However, comparing the design
shear stress values to those computed for sand-bed reference reaches does provide a
useful comparison to determine if the stresses predicted for the design channels are
within the range of those found in stable systems.
Shear stress placed on sediment particles within a stream channel may be estimated by
the following equation:
i = 7RS, where (1)
i = shear stress (lb/ft2)
y = specific gravity of water (62.4 lb/ft)
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
S = average channel slope (ft/ft)
The values were calculated for the existing conditions of Black Spring Creek (upstream
of the project site), the reference reaches, and the design reaches (Table 9-1). Values
were not calculated for the McCulloch's Ditch existing conditions because channel shear
stress and stream power are negligible due to blockages and backwater conditions within
the ditch. Design bankfull shear stresses are comparable to the reference values when
normalized by slope.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan
9-1
Buck Engineering
i
r
r
Table 9-1 Bankfull Shear Stress and Channel Slope for the Existing„ Reference
and Design Reaches.

Reach Name Average
Channel Slope
ftlft Average Bankfull
Shear Stress (lb/ft2) Average Bankfull
Stream Power
W/m
Black Spring Creek-Existing 0.0025 0.074 1.47
Trib to Jacket Swamp 0.0099 0.305 11.84
Trib to Beaverdam Swamp 0.0050 0.281 6.03
Reach 1 Design 0.0050 0.164 4.44
Reach 2 Design 0.0012 0.048 0.80
For sand bed streams, sediment transport capacity is much more important than
competency. Sediment transport capacity refers to the stream's ability to move a mass of
sediment past a cross section per unit time in pounds/second or tons/year. Sediment
transport capacity can be assessed directly using actual monitored data from bankfull
events if a sediment transport rating curve has been developed for the project site. Since
this is extremely difficult, other empirical relationships are used to assess sediment
transport capacity. The most common capacity equation is stream power. Stream power
can be calculated a number of ways, but the most common is:
w = yQS/W, where
(2)
co = mean stream power in W/m2
y = specific weight of water (9810 N/m). y = pg where p is the density of
the water-sediment mixture (1,000 kg/m3) and g is the acceleration due to
gravity (9.81 m/s2)
Q = bankfull discharge in in 3/S
S = Design channel slope (dimensionless)
W = Bankfull channel width in meters
Note: 1 ft-lb/sec/ft2 = 14.56 W/m2
Equation 2 does not provide a sediment transport rating curve; however, it does describe
. the stream's ability to accomplish work, e.g. move sediment. For this analysis, stream
power values were calculated for the Black Spring Creek existing condition as 1.47
W/m2, the tributary to Jacket Swamp reference reach as 11.84 W/m2, and the tributary to
Beaverdam Swamp reference reach as 6.03 W/m2. Stream power was calculated for the
. design Reaches 1 and 2 as 4.44 W/m2 and 0.80 W/m2. These data points were then
. overlaid onto Figure 9-1, which shows the relationship of stream power versus slope for
reference reach sand bed streams located within the Coastal Plain of North Carolina.
These data are presented for comparison only. Reach 2 plots below the 95% confidence
. interval for the curve developed for Coastal Plain reference reaches but within the range
of data used to develop the curve. The project reference reaches also plot slightly below
the curve, which indicates that the design stream powers fall within the range of data
expected for stable sandbed systems in this region of the NC Coastal Plain. This provides
good evidence that the project design reaches will neither aggrade nor degrade.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 9-2 Buck Engineering
18.000
16.000
14.000
N
E 12.000
10.000
3
o
a 8.000
E
L 6.000
N
4.000
2.000
0.000 +
0
0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012
Slope (ft/ft)
Figure 9-1 Comparison Between Stream Power and Channel Slope for the
Gregory Site Existing and Design Reaches, Project Reference
Reach Data, and Buck Coastal Reference Reaches.
X Existing Condition
1941.8x - 0.9181
R2 0.9011
? Buck Ref. Reaches
0 Design Reaches
95% Confidence
" jX Project Ref. Reaches
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 9-3 Buck Engineering
10 Flooding Analyses
The project site has been located on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Black Spring Creek is a tributary to Marsh Swamp
Run; as a result, the entire project site is inundated by Marsh Swamp Run's floodplain
which is mapped as a FEMA detailed study area (designated Zone AE). The proposed
stream restoration only impacts the Marsh Swamp Run floodplain; the main channel will
not be altered. Existing and proposed HEC-RAS models were developed from a
combination of LIDAR topographic information, surveyed cross sections, and FEMA FIS
data. Discharges were interpolated for the 10, 50, 100, and 500 year from the FEMA FIS
data. To verify that the proposed stream restoration on Black Spring Creek will not
impact the Marsh Swamp Run floodplain, a comparison was made between the existing
and proposed condition. The comparison does not show a significant change to the 100-
year base flood elevations. For further analysis see Appendix 5.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 10-1 Buck Engineering
11 Monitoring and Evaluation
Environmental components monitored in this project will be those that allow an
evaluation of channel stability, survivability of riparian vegetation, and wetland
hydrology. Post-restoration monitoring will be conducted for five years following the
completion of construction to document project success.
An as-built report will be produced for the site within 90 days following completion of
construction on the site. The report will include elevations, photographs, well and
sampling plot locations, and a list of the species planted and their associated densities.
Monitoring reports will be produced annually for five years following the completion of
construction. Annual monitoring reports will be prepared and submitted to the EEP by
November 30 during each monitoring year. Annual monitoring reports will document the
parameters described below.
11.1 Wetland Hydrologic Monitoring
Groundwater-monitoring stations will be installed across the project area to document
hydrologic conditions of the restored site. Eight groundwater monitoring stations will be
installed, with four stations being automated groundwater gauges, and four stations being
manually read stations. Ground water monitoring stations will follow the USACE
standard methods found in WRP Technical Notes ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02 (July 2000).
In order to determine if the rainfall is normal for the given year, rainfall amounts will be
tallied using data obtained from the Halifax and Enfield automated weather stations
(ULAN: 14130,00OP: 313675; UCAN: 14087,COOP: 312827), located approximately
3.5 and 10 miles from the project site, respectively.
Success Criteria: To meet the hydrologic success criteria, the monitoring data must show
that for each normal year within the monitoring period, the site has been inundated or
saturated within 12 inches of the soil surface for a minimum of 12.5% of the growing
season (32 consecutive days). Drainmod was used to determine the maximum number
of consecutive days the site would meet wetland hydrology. The simulations illustrated
that the site would meet the criteria for 11.5% of the growing season. Since the wetlands
will receive overbank flooding from Marsh Swamp as well as the new channel, the
Drain-nod results are a conservative estimate, as the model has no overbank flooding
input component. Thus 12.5% of the growing season was selected for the success
criteria.
WETS tables for Halifax County will be utilized to determine normal precipitation. If the
restored site is inundated or saturated within 12 inches of the soil surface for less than
12.5% of the growing season, but the post-restoration monitoring data reflect that the site
meets applicable USACE criteria for wetlands and the site is performing with similar
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 11-1 Buck Engineering
hydrology as a monitored reference site, then the regulatory agencies may consider the
site for mitigation of in-kind impacts on a case-by-case basis.
11.2 Wetland Reference Site
Existing wetlands found within the property will be used as the reference wetland to
document system development and progress toward achieving mitigation goals and
objectives. The reference site is located adjacent to the southern end of the property,
within the Marsh Swamp floodplain. The site is an example of a "Coastal Plain
bottomland hardwood forest - blackwater subtype," as described by Schafale and
Weakley (1990). These systems exist as the floodplains of blackwater streams.
Hydrology of these systems is palustrine, seasonally to intermittently flooded. Flows
tend to be highly variable, with floods of short duration, and periods of very low flow.
If the rainfall data for any given year during the monitoring period are not normal, and if
the desired hydrology for the project site is not on a trajectory to achieve success, then
the reference wetland data can be assessed to determine if there is a positive correlation
between the underperformance of the restoration site and the natural hydrology of the
reference site. The procedure described in Section 2.2 will be used to determine if
normal rainfall has not occurred in any given year.
11.3 Vegetation Monitoring
Survival of planted vegetation will be evaluated using survival plots or counts. Survival
of live stakes will be evaluated using enough plots or a size plot that allows evaluating at
least 100 live stakes. Evaluations of live stake survival will continue for at least 5 years.
When stakes do not survive, a determination will be made as to the need for replacement;
in general, if greater than 25% die, replacement will be done.
All rooted vegetation will be flagged and evaluated for at least 5 years to determine
survival. At least 2 staked survival plots will be evaluated. Plots will be 25 ft by 100 ft
and all flagged stems will be counted in those plots.
Success Criteria: Success will be defined as 320 stems per acre after 5 years. When
rooted vegetation does not survive, a determination will be made as to the need for
replacement; in general, if greater than 25% die (averaged over all plots), replacement
will be done.
11.4 Stream Monitoring
Monitoring of restored stream reaches will be conducted for a five year monitoring
period to evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration practices. Monitored stream
parameters include stream dimension (cross-sections), pattern (longitudinal survey),
profile (profile survey), and photographic documentation. The methods used and the
success criteria are described below for each parameter.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 11-2 Buck Engineering
• 11.4.1 Cross-sections
Permanent cross-sections (either surveyed or located using a GPS) will be established at a
. spacing of one per 20 bankfull-width lengths, with an effort made to include both riffles
. and pools. These cross-sections may be the same as ones taken to develop construction
plans or they may be new. Each cross-section will be marked on both banks with
permanent pins to establish the exact transect used. A common benchmark will be used
for cross-sections and consistently used to facilitate easy comparison of year-to-year data.
. The annual cross-section survey will include points measured at all breaks in slope,
. including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg. Calculations
will be made of width/depth ratio, entrenchment ratio, and low bank height ratio. Riffle
cross-sections will be classified using the Rosgen stream classification system.
•
Success Criteria: There should be little or no change in as-built cross-sections. If changes
do take place they should be evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward
a more unstable condition (down-cutting, erosion) or are minor changes that represent an
increase in stability (settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, decrease in
. width/depth ratio and/or cross sectional area).
11.4.2 Pattern

. Annual measurements taken for the plan view of the restoration site will include
sinuosity, meander width ratio, and radius of curvature (on newly constructed meanders
and only for the first year of monitoring).

11.4.3 Longitudinal Profile
A complete longitudinal profile will be completed once the first year and then every two
years for a total of five years (for a total of 3 times). Measurements will include slope
(average, pool and riffle) and pool-to-pool spacing. Survey points will include thalweg,
water surface, inner berm, bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of these points will be
taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, run, pool, and glide), and the max pool
depth. The survey will be tied to a permanent benchmark.

. Success Criteria: The as-built longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features
are remaining stable, e.g., they are not aggrading or degrading. The pools should remain
deep with flat water surface slopes and the riffles should remain steeper and shallower.

11.4.4 Photo Reference Sites
Photographs used to evaluate restored sites will be made with a 35-mm camera using
slide film or a digital camera. There will be one photo reference site per cross-section
showing both banks and the stream channel. Several of the in-stream structures (e.g.,
rock vanes, cross vanes, and root wads) will also be photographed. Reference sites will
be photographed before construction and continued once per year for at least 5 years
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 11-3 Buck Engineering
•
•

•
• following construction. After construction has taken place, reference sites will be marked
• with wooden stakes.
• Longitudinal reference photos: The stream will be photographed longitudinally beginning
• at the downstream end of the restoration site and moving upstream to the end of the site.
. Photographs will be taken looking upstream at delineated locations. Reference photo
locations will be marked and described for future reference. Points will be close enough
• together to get an overall view of the reach. The angle of the shot will depend on what
• angle provides the best view and will be noted and continued in future shots. When
• modifications of stream position have to be made due to obstructions or other reasons, the
position will be noted along with any landmarks and the same position used in the future.
•
• Lateral reference photos: Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent
• cross-section. Photographs will be taken of both banks at each cross-section. The survey

• tape will be centered in the photographs of the bank. The water line will be located in the
lower edge of the frame and as much of the bank as possible included in each photo.
• Photographers will make an effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo
• over time. Photos of areas that have been treated differently will also be included; for
. example, two different types of erosion control material used. This will allow for future
i
compar
sons.
•
. Success Criteria: Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation
. or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion
control measures. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absences of developing bars
• within the channel or an excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral photos should not
. indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the bank over time. A series of
• photos over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
Vegetative succession should include initial herbaceous growth, followed by increasing
• densities of woody vegetation, and then ultimately a mature overstory with herbaceous
understory.
•
• 11.5 Risk Analysis
• As discussed in Section 1.3, the project watershed is less than 1% impervious surface.
Additionally, the watershed is largely wooded. Due to property owner and accessibility
constraints, no development is expected to occur in the watershed. With little change
. expected in the watershed, it is unlikely that rainfall runoff relationships will shift in the
. future.
• A portion of the project watershed is currently farmed. Further land clearing in the
. watershed could result in increased sediment load into the project reach. This scenario
. has the potential to cause aggradation in the restored stream. However, this would most
likely be a short-term problem as regrowth in vegetation would stabilize upstream
• erosion.
•
•
•
•
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 11-4 Buck Engineering
Since the project will be constructed in an open field with no existing vegetation,
establishment of vegetation will be a key component in stream stability. If climactic,
soil, or other conditions limit plant growth and survivability during the five years
following construction, project maintenance may be required.
In general, this project is considered to be at low risk for future destabilization due to the
lack of development in this region and the constraints to future development within the
project watershed.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 11-5 Buck Engineering
12 References
Ackers, P. and W.R. White. 1973. Sediment transport: new approach and analysis.
Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol. 99, No. HY11, pp. 2041-2060.
Andrews, E. D., Entrainment of gravel from naturally sorted river bed material,
Geological Society of America Bulletin, 94, 1225-1231, 1983.
Bunte, Kristin. 1994. Draft of "Modeling Bedload Sediment Transport in Sand-bed
Streams using the Ackers and White (1973) Sediment Transport Formula."
Prepared for the Stream Technology Center, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station, U.S. Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado
Clinton, D. R. 2001. Stream morphology relationships from reference streams in North
Carolina. Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Doll, Barbara A., Dani E. Wise-Frederick, Carolyn M. Buckner, Shawn D. Wilkerson,
William A. Harman and Rachel E. Smith. 2000. Hydraulic Geometry Relationships
for Urban Streams Throughout the Piedmont of North Carolina. Riparian Ecology
and Management in Multi-Land Use Watersheds. American Water Resources
Association Summer Symposium. Portland, Oregon. Dates: September 28-31,
2000. Pp: 299-304.
Doll, B. A., D.E. Wise-Frederick, C.M. Buckner, S.D. Wilkerson, W.A. Harman, R.E.
Smith, and J. Spooner, 2002. Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Urban
Streams throughout the Piedmont of North Carolina. In Press.
Doll, B.A. 2003. Stream Restoration Technical Guidebook and Coastal Stream Study
Amendment. Division of Water Quality, 319 Program.
Dunne, T. and L. B. Leopold, 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. New York: W. H.
Freeman and Company.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. Stream
Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes and Practices. National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA.
City of Winston-Salem, NC, Stormwater Management Division. 1999. Why are our
Stream Banks "growing up" in Winston-Salem? Available from World Wide Web:
(http://www.ci.Winston-Salem.nc.us/stonnwater/why are stream banks.htm)
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 12-1 Buck Engineering
Hammer, T.R., 1973. Impact of Urbanization on Peak Streamflow. Regional Science
Research Institute Discussion Paper Series: No. 63. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 76
PP.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R.
Everhart, and R.E. Smith, 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for
North Carolina Streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings.
Edited by: D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy. American Water Resources Association.
June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Harmel, R. D., C. T. Haan, and R. C. Dutnell. 1999. Evaluation of Rosgen's streambank
erosion potential assessment in Northeastern Oklahoma. Journal AWRA 35(1):113-
121.
Harrelson, C. C., C. L. Rawlins, and J. P. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference
Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. General Technical Report RM-245.
USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort
Collins, CO.
Jennings, G. D., and W. A. Harman. 2000. Stream corridor restoration experiences in
North Carolina. ASAE Paper 002012, ASAE Annual International Meeting,
Milwaukee, WI. Am. Soc. Agr. Eng., St. Joseph, MI.
Johnson, P.A., and T.M. Heil, 1996. Uncertainty in Estimating Bankfull Conditions.
Water Resources Bulletin. Journal of the American Water Resources Association
32(6):1283-1292.
Kilpatrick, F.A., and H.H. Barnes Jr. 1964. Channel Geometry of Piedmont Streams as
Related to Frequency of Floods. Professional Paper 422-E. US Geological Survey,
Washington, DC.
Knighton, David. 1984. Fluvial Forms and Processes. Rutledge, Chapman, and Hall,
Inc. New York, NY.
Leopold, L. B., M. G. Wolman and J. P. Miller. 1992. Fluvial Processes in
Geomorphology. Dover Publications, Inc. New York, NY.
Leopold, L.B., 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Leopold, L.B., and T. Maddock Jr., 1953. The Hydraulic Geometry of Stream Channels
and Some Physiographic Implications. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
252, 57 pp.
Merigliano, M.F. 1997. Hydraulic Geometry and Stream Channel Behavior: An
Uncertain Link. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33(6):1327-
1336.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 12-2 Buck Engineering
r
r
r
Nanson, G.C. and J.C. Croke, 1992. A Genetic Classification of Floodplains.
Geomorphology 4(1992); 459-486.
Nixon, M., 1959. A Study of Bankfull Discharges of Rivers in England and Wales. In
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, vol. 12, pp. 157-175.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 1997. Standard Operating Procedures
Biological Monitoring. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2000. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Protocols for Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Patterson, J. M., D. R. Clinton, W. A. Harman, G. D. Jennings, and L. O. Slate. 1999.
Development of streambank erodibility relationships for North Carolina stream. In:
Olson, D. S., and J. P. Potyondy (Eds.). Wildland Hydrology, Proc. AWRA
Specialty Conf., Bozeman, MT. pp. 117-123.
Rinaldi, M. and P.A. Johnson, 1997. Stream Meander Restoration. Journal of the
American Water Resources Association 33:855-866.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa
Springs, Colo.
Rosgen, D.L., 1997. A geomorphological approach to restoration of incised rivers. In:
Wang, S.S.Y, E.J. Langendoen, and F.D. Shields, Jr. (Eds.). Proceedings of the
Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. pp. 12-
22.
Rosgen, D.L., 1998. The Reference Reach - a Blueprint for Natural Channel Design.
Draft Presented at ASCE Conference on River Restoration in Denver Colorado -
March, 1998. ASCE. Reston, VA.
Rosgen, D.L. 2001. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of
the Federal Interagency Sediment Conference, Reno, NV, March, 2001.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley, 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina. Third Approximation. NCDEHNR Natural Heritage Program,
Raleigh, NC.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 12-3 Buck Engineering
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
Schumm, S.A., 1960. The Shape of Alluvial Channels in Relation to Sediment Type. U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 352-B. U.S. Geological Survey, Washigton,
DC.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth
Surface Processes and Landforms 14(1):11-26.
Skaggs, R. W. 1980. DrainMod Reference Report: Methods for design and evaluation of
drainage-water management systems for soils with high water tables. U. S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 329 pp.
Soar, P.J. and C.R. Thorne. 2001. Channel Restoration Design for Meandering Rivers.
US Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center.
Sweet, W.V. and J.W. Geratz. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and
Recurrence Intervals for North Carolina's Coastal Plain. Journal of the American
Water Resources Association 39(4):861-871
r Thornwaite, C.W. and J.R. Mather, 1957. Instructions and Tables for Computing
Potential Evapotranspiration and the Water Balance. Climatology. Drexel Institute
r of Technology, 10(3):185-311.
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
Wilkerson, S.D., Karl G. Linden, James D. Bowen, Craig J. Allan. 1998. Development
and Analysis of Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for the Urban Piedmont of
North Carolina. University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
Williams, G.P., 1978. Bankfull Discharge of Rivers. Water Resources Research
14(6):1141-1154.
Williams, G.P., 1986. River Meander and Channel Size. Journal of Hydrology 88:147-
164.
Wilson, M.P. 1983. Erosion of Banks Along Piedmont Urban Streams. Water Resources
Research Institute of the University of North Carolina.
Wohl, E.E. 2000. Mountain rivers. Am. Geophys. Union Press, 320 pp.
Wolman, M.G., 1954. A Method of Sampling Course River-Bed Material. Transactions
of American Geophysical Union 35: 951-956.
Wolman, M.G. and L.B. Leopold., 1957. River Floodplains: Some Observations on their
Formation. USGS Professional Paper 282-C. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington,
DC.
Gregory Site Restoration Plan 12-4 Buck Engineering
Appendix 1 Existing Condition Data

Cross-section Data: Black Spring Creek
Stream BKF Max, BKF _., x-
Feature Type', BKF Area , BKF Width Depth Gie tha;.. WID BH Ratio ER : B K F ECev TOB Elev
Riffle C 3.3 6.3 0.52 0.88 12.05 2.4 2 116.11 117.35
Cross-section #1
118.5
118
0 117.5
117
116.5
W 116
115.5
115
100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Station a - Bankfull 0 - - Floodprone I
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Cross-section Data: Black Spring Creek

Feature Stream,
T e=
BKF Area
°^ B F dth BKF
Depth Max:BKF
.De
/U r
BH Ratio
Y. - ER` °
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool 3.9 5.43 0.72 1.23 7.53 1.8 3 115.6 116.53
Cross-section #2
118
117.5
117
116.5
116
115.5
115
114.5
114
100 120 140 160 180 200 220
o - - Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone

Cross-section Data: Black Spring Creek
Stream : BKF Max BK
Feature T e? _` Bf F 4rea . r B -_Width Depth De 11-L, ;W/D BH Ratio. f
E F BKF Elev, _ TOB Elev
Riffle E 3.3 5.19 0.64 1.04 8.13 1.9 16.3 115.56 116.47
Cross-section #3
118
117.5
117
116.5
116
115.5
115
114.5
114
--------------------------------------------------o
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
o - - Bankfull - - 0 - - Floodprone
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Black Spring Creek

Sediment Distribution
I
100

90

80

70

60 ! II

I -?- Class Percent

-Cumulative Percent
a 50 j

cc j
40
I
I '

30 I
i

I
I i
20
i
!
10 I
j
0
1 10 100
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross-section Data: McCulloch's Ditch

Feature Stream
J pe
Btu-Area
BKrWidth BKF
De th Max BKF
LID
BH Ratio
<EFfi -,:?
BKFElev
TOB Elev
Riffle F 4.6 7.04 0.65 1.3 10.83 3.7 1.6 103.3 106.85
Cross-section #1
108
107
106
105
R
104
w
103
102
101
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Station - a - - Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone

Cross-section Data: McCulloch's Ditch
-Stream BKF max BKF `
Feature Type, .. BKF°Area= BKFWidth Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER .; ! BKF" fev. `TOB Elev
Riffle F 6.1 8.01 0.76 1.37 10.53 3.8 1.4 102.15 106.02-
Cross-section #2
107
106
105
104
103
102
101
100
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
o - - Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone

Cross-section Data: McCulloch's Ditch
Strearn
-
?.
<c
BKF
Max BKF

Feature y a
F Are , a
BK th
De
th

D

lVIQ

BH Ratio

Ff-

KF Bev

OB EFev
p _ _.
Riffle F 7.4 10.4 0.72 1.35 14.51 2.9 1.5 102 104.59
Cross-section #3
106
105
104
103
102
101
100
90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130
o - - Bankfull o Floodprone
Appendix 2 Reference Reach Data

Cross-section Data: Trib To Beaverdam Swamp
Stream" "r, BKF MaxPKF,r
Feature T = B ?'iCea B Wi th Depth p
1 }.
I ta
BH Ratio
BKF Elev
TOB Efev
. ?
..
Riffle E 11.2 8.14 1.37 1.94 5.94 1.3 10.3 95 95.52
98
97
oo 96
95
M 94
93
92
Cross-section #1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Station 8 - - Bankfull - 0 - - Floodprone
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Cross-section Data: Trib To Beaverdam Swamp
Stream BKF MaxBKF ^
Feature T e ( BKF'Area
:
BKF,,WLith
L
Depth
' ?tFi
1N/D
BH Ratio
BKF Elev..:
TOB Elev
Riffle E 9.2 7.96 1.15 1.47 6.9 1.6 11.5 94.31 95.16
Cross-section #2
96
95.5
95
94.5
94
93.5
93
92.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
- - o - - Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone

Trib to Beaver Dam Swamp
Sediment Distribution
100
90
80
70
60
d
a 50
I
v 40
30
20
10
0

I
i I
Class Percent
ItCurnulative Percent

i
,

I
I
i
10
100
Particle Size Class (mm)

Cross-section Data: Trib to Jacket Swamp

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width BKF
De th Max BKF
De t .T -- -
?D
BH Ratio
ER,;
BKF-EIL

ZOB E I e v
Riffle E 4.8 7.39 0.64 1.2 11.46 1 17.7 96.66 96.66
Cross-section #1
98
97.5
c 97
96.5
a?
M 96
95.5
95
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0
120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Station 0 - - Bankfull - - 0 - - Floodprone
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Cross-section Data: Trib to Jacket Swamp

Feature Stream.
T e; °'
BKF4
OjjF,'4idth BKF
Depth Max BKF
De th'- `
BH Ratio
ER
BKF E(ev
TOB Elev
Pool 3.8 6.08 0.62 1.39 9.75 1 20.2 96.26 96.26
Cross-section #2
98.5
98
97.5
97
96.5
96
95.5
95
94.5
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
I
0 - - Bankfull - - 0 - - Floodprone
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Cross-section Data: Trib to Jacket Swamp

Feature Stream-
Type -:.
BKF Area
BKF Width BKF
Depth Max-BKF
Depth_-.,
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB'Elev
Riffle C 3.6 7.1 0.5 1.05 14.17 0.6 14.4 95.35 94.95
Cross-section #3
98
97.5
97
96.5
96
95.5
95
94.5
94
Standing Water
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
- - o - - Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone j
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
190

80
70
60
a 50
N
N
R
U 40
30
20
i
10
0
Trib to Jacket Swamp
Sediment Distribution
I
i
i
I
I I I
-*-Class Percent
--*-Cumulative Percent

?I
I
I I
? i

i

10
100
Particle Size Class (mm)
Appendix 3 Agency Letters and EDR Report
&5/06/2003 10:04 NC STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION 4 52671 NO.731 P(
• er N[o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Schael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History
1$beth C. Evans, Secretary Jeffrey 1. Crow, Director
February 19, 2001
Jennifer Robertson
• Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc.
• 720 South Main Avenue
Newton NC 29658
Re: Tar Pam Wetland Mitigation and Stream Restoration Sites, Halifax County, ER 01-8529
• Dear Ms. Robertson:
Thank you for your letter of January 12, 2001, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of architectural, historic,
or archaeological significance which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no
comment on the project as currently proposed.
• The above comments me made pursuant to Section 106 of the National f-115toric Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106
codified at 36 C1;R Part 800.
• Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
• comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763-
Sincerely,
avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Ptcscrvation Officer:
DB:kgc
• bc: County
• Reading
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Few
411mini9tration 507 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 27699.4617 (919) 7334763 •733-8653
•- It e M Rt"..- Q. n-,i..:..h Mr a6t7 Mail Scrviee Center. Ralcich 27699-4613 [phone] .715-4801
EEF ': Environmental
:Data
Resources, Inc.
The EDR-Transaction Screen TM
Map Report
With Toxicheck/® Analysis
Gregory Farm
Gregory Farm Rd
Halifax, NC 27839
Inquiry Number: 01110182.1r
January 09, 2004
The Source
For Environmental
Risk Management
Data
3530 Post Road
Southport, Connecticut 06890
Nationwide Customer Service
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Internet: www.edrnet.com
FORM -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Toxicheck(Optional)------------------------------ ------------------------ TK-1
Executive Summary------------------------------ ------------------------- ES1
Overview Map----------------------------------- ------------------------ 3
Map Summary - All Sites--------------------------- ------------------------ 4
Map Findings----------------------------------- ------------------------- 6
Orphan Summary -------------------------------- ------------------------- 7
APPENDICES
Government Records Searched / Data Currency Tracking Addendum- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GR-1
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer
Copyright and Trademark Notice
This report contains information obtained from a variety of public and other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED,
IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES INC. SPECIFICALLY
DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL EDR BE LIABLE TO
ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY
LOSS OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.
Entire contents copyright 2003 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and the edr logos are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the
property of their respective owners.
TC01110182.1 r Pagel
TOXICHECK
Subject Property: GREGORY FARM
GREGORY FARM RD
HALIFAX, NC 27839
Environmental Risk Code: LOW
This code results from the subject property not being listed in those databases as indicated in the Report
and not located within : 1/2 mile of a reported Superfund Site (NPL) ; 1/2 mile of a reported Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage or Disposal Facility (RCRIS-TSDF); 1/4 mile of a reported known or suspect
CERCLIS hazardous waste site ; 1/4 mile of a reported known or suspect State Hazardous Waste site
(SHWS); 1/2 mile of a reported Solid Waste Facility or Landfill (SWF/LF); or 1/8 mile of a site with a
reported Leaking Underground Storage Tank incident (LUST).
This code is based solely on the results of searches of databases comprised of certain governmental records
as made available to EDR and reflected in the attached report. Without further confirmation by completing
the ASTM Standard E-1528 Transaction Screen and/or a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, the
conditions affecting the property are unknown. Further investigation by an environmental professional may
be appropriate. This Report is not a substitute for a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment conducted
by an environmental professional . Nothing in this Report should be construed to mean that any
environmental remediation is or is not necessary with respect to the subject property.
If this information is being used for a commercial property transaction, the government records searched
complies with the requirements of the ASTM Standard E-1528 Transaction Screen. However, the ASTM
Standard's requirements are not fulfilled until the Applicant Questionnaire and Site Visit (including an
investigation of the property's historical use) are completed and reviewed. If this information is being used
for an industrial property transaction, the ASTM Standard requires that a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment be performed by an environmental professional.
Disclaimer
Copyright and Trademark Notice
This report contains information obtained from a variety of public and other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED,
IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES INC. SPECIFICALLY
DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OFANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL EDR BE LIABLE TO
ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY
LOSS OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.
Entire contents copyright 2001 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and the edr logos are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the
property of their respective owners.
TC01110182.1r Page TK-1
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The EDR-Transaction Screen Map Report is a screening tool which maps sites with potential liability
or existing environmental liabilities. Specified government databases are searched in accordance with
ASTM Standard E 1528-00.
The ASTM E 1528-00 Transaction Screen property due diligence standard consists of four major
components: a government records check, an historical inquiry, an owner/occupant questionnaire, and a
site survey. This report contains the results of the government records search on the target property
and surrounding area in accordance with the government records search requirements of the ASTM E
1528-00 standard.
The results of the government records search in accordance with QUESTIONS 21 and 22 (page 15, E 1528-00)
of the standard indicated the following:
QUESTION 21
Do any of the following Federal government record systems list the property or any property within the
circumference of the area noted below:
National Priorities List (NPL) ? on the property ? Within 1 Mile
CERCLIS List ? on the property ? Within 112 Mile
CERCLIS NFRAP List ? on the property ? Within 1/4 Mile
RCRA-CORRACTS Facilities ? on the property ? Within 1 Mile
RCRA-TSD Non-CORRACTS Facilities ? on the property ? Within 1/2 Mile
RCRA LQG Facilities ? on the property ? Within 1/4 Mile
RCRA SQG Facilities ? on the property ? Within 1/4 Mile
ERNS ? on the property
. QUESTION 22
Do any of the following state government record systems list the property or any property within the
. circumference of the area noted below:
State equivalent to NPL ? on the property ? Within 1 Mile
State equivalent to CERCLIS ? on the property ? Within 1/2 Mile
. Solid Waste/Landfill Facilities (SWF/LS) ? on the property ? Within 112 Mile
Leaking Underground Storage Tank List (LUST) ? on the property ? Within 1/2 Mile
. Underground Storage Tank List (UST) ? on the property ? Within 1/4 Mile
In accordance with Section 5.6 (page 10, E 1528) if the answer is (yes) or unknown, then the user
. will have to decide what further action, if any, is appropriate. Answers should be evaluated in light of
the other information obtained in the transaction screen process. If the user decides no further inquiry is
. warranted, the rationale must be documented. If the user decides that further inquiry is warranted, it may
be necessary to contact an environmental professional.

. Additional Research - ASTM Supplemental Government Databases
To provide additional information which may assist in the assessment of other components of the ASTM
. E 1528-00 Transaction Screen, EDR also searches government databases not included in Questions 21

. and 22 of ASTM E 1528-00. This information may be useful in completing the owner/occupant
ti
i
ques
onna
re.
. The results of the search of these additional government records indicated affirmative (yes) responses on
the target property for the following government databases:
. No affirmative responses found in the non-ASTM E 1528-00 government databases.

TC01110182.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

OVERVIEW MAP - 01110182.1 r - Buck Engineering
•
„q
/
,
??.TMt f r,. /.
'ter
Y r cr c
,
1 ? ?1C
71
g 1/4 112 1 Miles
/V Oil & Gas pipelines Hazardous Substance
100-year flood zone Disposal Sites
500-year flood zone
Federal Wetlands
. * Target Property
A Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
. ? Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
. 1 Coal Gasification Sites
National Priority List Sites
. Landfill Sites
. Dept. Defense Sites

TARGET PROPERTY: Gregory Farm CUSTOMER: Buck Engineering
ADDRESS: Gregory Farm Rd CONTACT: John Hutton
CITY/STATE/ZIP: Halifax NC 27839 INQUIRY #: 01110182.1 r
LAT/LONG: 36.3214 / 77.6613 DATE: January 09, 2004 5:29 pm
. Copyright 0 2003 EDR, Inc. 0 2003 GDT, Inc. Rel. 07/2003. All Rights Reserved.
•
•
•
•
•
MAP FINDING'S SUMMARY
Search
Target Distance Total
Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD
NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
Proposed NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
CERCLIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
CERC-NFRAP 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
CORRACTS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
RCRIS-TSD 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
RCRIS Lg. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
RCRIS Sm. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
ERNS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
STATE ASTM STANDARD
State Haz. Waste 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
State Landfill 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
LUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
OLI 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
INDIAN UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
VCP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL
Delisted NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
FINDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
HMIRS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
MLTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
MINES TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
NPL Liens TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
PADS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
US BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
DOD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
RAATS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TRIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TSCA TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
SSTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
FTTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
STATE OR LOCAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL
NC HSDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
AST TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
LUST TRUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
IMD TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
EDR PROPRIETARY HISTORICAL DATABASES
Coal Gas 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
TC01110182.1 r Page 4
•
•
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Target Distance Total
Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
BROWNFIELDS DATABASES
US BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
Brownfields 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
INST CONTROL 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
VCP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
NOTES:
TP = Target Property
NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
TC01110182.1 r Page 5
Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction
Distance
Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
Coal Gas Site Search: No site was found in a search of Real Property Scan's ENVIROHAZ database.
NO SITES FOUND
TC01110182.1 r Page 6

City EDR ID Site Name
ORPHAN SUMMARY
Site Address Zip Database(s)
HALIFAX 0001435971 HALIFAX 66 SELF SERVE 1-95 & NC HWY 903 27839 LUST, UST
HALIFAX 8105765195 TRAVEL WORLD, FORMER 1-95 / HWY 903 27839 LUST
HALIFAX S105892747 NEW DIXIE MART 1-95 / SR 903 27839 LUST
HALIFAX 0001438986 SOUTHEAST HIGH SCHOOL 16683 HWY 125 27839 UST
HALIFAX S106074795 NASH BRICK CO SR 1339 27839 LUST
HALIFAX 0001437299 DAY'S CROSS ROADS RT 2 27839 UST
HALIFAX 0001437375 H.L. PIKE STORE FIT 2 BOX 454 27839 UST
HALIFAX 0001439127 4-WAY STORE FIT 2 BOX 160 (CORNER 903 & 1600) 27839 UST
HALIFAX 0003143833 HUBERT S. MORRIS RT 2 BOX 20 27839 UST
HALIFAX 0001435905 ON A FARM ROUTE 2, BOX 60 27839 UST
HALIFAX S105218229 EMRO STORE #139 ROUTE 2, BOX 167 27839 LUST TRUST
HALIFAX 0001437273 DARLINGTON PEANUT & SUPPLY IN ROUTE 2, BOX 62 27839 UST
HALIFAX 0003142593 4-WAY STORE ROUTE 2, BOX 160/COR 903 & 1600 27839 UST
HALIFAX 0001435968 HALIFAX SUPER SAVER 441 HWY 301 27839 UST
HALIFAX 0001437891 HALIFAX TEXACO (CLOSED) HWY 301 27839 UST
HALIFAX 0001438997 CENTRAL OFFICE ADMINST BLDG 9525 HWY 301 S 27839 UST
HALIFAX 0003137980 HALIFAX COUNTY SCH-MAINTENANC 6915 HWY 301 N 27839 UST
HALIFAX S105764956 STARVIN MARVIN #139 (SPEEDWAY) 10685 HIGHWAY 903 27839 LUST
HALIFAX 0001439518 WORLDCOM (HALING) SR 903 & US 301 27839 UST
HALIFAX 0003146089 NC DOT - HALIFAX (DIV FOUR) 14134 HWY 903 HALIFAX 27839 UST
HALIFAX 0001437386 W & H FARM SUPPLY COUNTRY RD 1001 27839 UST
HALIFAX S104546847 HALIFAX COUNTY CDLF LYLES ROAD 27839 SWF/LF
HALIFAX S104546854 HALIFAX COAL ASH LANDFILL LYLES ROAD 27839 SWF/LF
HALIFAX 1004744533 USS FARM SERVICE CTR CO RD 1001 RT 2 BOX 52 27839 RCRIS-SOG, FINDS
HALIFAX CO 1003868281 HALIFAX CO LDFL SR 1103 27839 CERC-NFRAP
TC01110182.1 r Page 7
i
AREA RADON INFORMATION
- Federal EPA Radon Zone for HALIFAX County, NC: 3
Note : Zone 1 indoor average level > 4 Ci/L.
Zone 2 indoor average level >= 2 pCi/L and <= 4 pCi/L.
Zone 3 indoor average level < 2 pCi/L.
- Federal Area Radon Information for HALIFAX County, NC
Number of sites tested: 3
Area Average Activity % <4 pCi/L % 4-20 pCi/L
Living Area - 1 st Floor 0.900 pCi/L
Living Area - 2nd Floor Not Reported 100%
Not Reported 0%
Not Reported
Basement Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported

Not Reported
Not Reported
TC.COM - Page 1 of 1
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
To maintain currency of the following federal and state databases, EDR contacts the appropriate governmental agency
on a monthly or quarterly basis, as required.
Elapsed ASTM days: Provides confirmation that this EDR report meets or exceeds the 90-day updating requirement
of the ASTM standard.
FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD RECORDS
NPL: National Priority List
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
National Priorities List (Superfund). The NPL is a subset of CERCLIS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority
cleanup under the Superfund Program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. As such, EDR provides polygon
coverage for over 1,000 NPL site boundaries produced by EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
(EPIC) and regional EPA offices.
Date of Government Version: 10/21/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 12/08/03
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Data Arrival at ED R: 11/03/03
Elapsed ASTM days: 35
Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/03/03
NPL Site Boundaries
Sources:
EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC)
Telephone: [phone]
EPA Region 1
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 3
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 4
Telephone [phone]
Proposed NPL: Proposed National Priority List Sites
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Date of Government Version: 10/14/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 12/08/03
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
EPA Region 6
Telephone: [phone]
EPA Region 8
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 12/01/03
Elapsed ASTM days: 7
Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/03/03
CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
CERCLIS contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities,
private companies and private persons, pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLIS contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities
List (NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL.
Date of Government Version: 09/11/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 10/29/03
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/24/03
Elapsed ASTM days: 35
Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/22/03
CERCLIS-NFRAP: CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
As of February 1995, CERCLIS sites designated "No Further Remedial Action Planned" (NFRAP) have been removed
from CERCLIS. NFRAP sites may be sites where, following an initial investigation, no contamination was found,
contamination was removed quickly without the need for the site to be placed on the NPL, or the contamination
was not serious enough to require Federal Superfund action or NPL consideration. EPA has removed approximately
25,000 NFRAP sites to lift the unintended barriers to the redevelopment of these properties and has archived them
as historical records so EPA does not needlessly repeat the investigations in the future. This policy change is
part of the EPA's Brownfields Redevelopment Program to help cities, states, private investors and affected citizens
to promote economic redevelopment of unproductive urban sites.
TC01110182.1 r Page GR-1
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 09/11/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 10/29/03
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/24/03
Elapsed ASTM days: 35
Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/22/03
CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
CORRACTS identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity.
Date of Government Version: 09/17/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 11/11/03
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 10/01/03
Elapsed ASTM days: 41
Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/08/03
RCRIS: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System. RCRIS includes selective information on sites which generate,
transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs): generate less than 100 kg of hazardous
waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. Small quantity generators (SQGs): generate between
100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month. Large quantity generators (LQGs): generate over 1,000 kilograms
(kg) of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. Transporters are individuals or
entities that move hazardous waste from the generator off-site to a facility that can recycle, treat, store, or
dispose of the waste. TSDFs treat, store, or dispose of the waste.
Date of Government Version: 09/10/03 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/11/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 10/01/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 20
Database Release Frequency: Varies Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/18/03
ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System
Source: National Response Center, United States Coast Guard
Telephone: [phone]
Emergency Response Notification System. ERNS records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous
substances.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/02 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 01/27/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 02/03/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 7
Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/27/03
FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL RECORDS
BRS: Biennial Reporting System
Source: EPA/NTIS
Telephone: [phone]
The Biennial Reporting System is a national system administered by the EPA that collects data on the generation
and management of hazardous waste. BRS captures detailed data from two groups: Large Quantity Generators (LQG)
and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities.
Date of Government Version: 12/01/01
Database Release Frequency: Biennially
Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/16/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/15/04
DELISTED NPL: National Priority List Deletions
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the
EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the
NPL where no further response is appropriate.
TC01110182.1 r Page GR-2
i
•
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 10/21/03
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
FINDS: Facility Index System/Facility Identification Initiative Program Summary Report
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Facility Index System. FINDS contains both facility information and 'pointers' to other sources that contain more
detail. EDR includes the following FINDS databases in this report: PCS (Permit Compliance System), AIRS (Aerometric
Information Retrieval System), DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial
enforcement cases for all environmental statutes), FURS (Federal Underground Injection Control), C-DOCKET (Criminal
Docket System used to track criminal enforcement actions for all environmental statutes), FFIS (Federal Facilities
Information System), STATE (State Environmental Laws and Statutes), and PADS (PCB Activity Data System).
Date of Government Version: 10/23/03
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation
Telephone: [phone]
Hazardous Materials Incident Report System. HMIRS contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to DOT.
Date of Government Version: 08/11/03
Database Release Frequency: Annually
MLTS: Material Licensing Tracking System
Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Telephone: [phone]
MILTS is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and contains a list of approximately 8,100 sites which
possess or use radioactive materials and which are subject to NRC licensing requirements. To maintain currency,
EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis.
Date of Government Version: 10/16/03
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
MINES: Mines Master Index File
Source: Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: 08/27/03
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
NPL LIENS: Federal Superfund Liens
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Federal Superfund Liens. Under the authority granted the USEPA by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, the USEPA has the authority to file liens against real property in order
to recover remedial action expenditures or when the property owner receives notification of potential liability.
USEPA compiles a listing of filed notices of Superfund Liens.
Date of Government Version: 10/15/91
Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned
Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/03/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/02/04
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/07/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/23/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/19/04
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/07/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04
Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/29/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/29/04
Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/21/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/23/04
. PADS: PCB Activity Database System
. Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
. PCB Activity Database. PADS Identifies generators, transporters, commercial storers and/or brokers and disposers
of PCB's who are required to notify the EPA of such activities.

Date of Government Version: 09/30/03
Database Release Frequency: Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/12/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02109/04
TC01110182.ir Page GR-3

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
DOD: Department of Defense Sites
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
This data set consists of federally owned or administered lands, administered by the Department of Defense, that
have any area equal to or greater than 640 acres of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Date of Government Version: 10/01/03
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/12/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/09/04
STORMWATER: Storm Water General Permits
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
A listing of all facilities with Storm Water General Permits.
Date of Government Version: N/A
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Last EDR Contact: N/A
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
US BROWNFIELDS: A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Included in the listing are brownfields properties addresses by Cooperative Agreement Recipients and brownfields
properties addressed by Targeted Brownfields Assessments. Targeted Brownfields Assessments-EPA's Targeted Brownfields
Assessments (TBA) program is designed to help states, tribes, and municipalities--especially those without EPA
Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots--minimize the uncertainties of contamination often associated with
brownfields. Under the TBA program, EPA provides funding and/or technical assistance for environmental assessments
at brownfields sites throughout the country. Targeted Brownfields Assessments supplement and work with other efforts
under EPA's Brownfields Initiative to promote cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields. Cooperative Agreement
Recipients-States, political subdivisions, territories, and Indian tribes become BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients
when they enter into BCRLF cooperative agreements with the U.S. EPA. EPA selects BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients
based on a proposal and application process. BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients must use EPA funds provided
through BCRLF cooperative agreement for specified brownfields-related cleanup activities.
Date of Government Version: 07/15/03
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/17/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/15/04
RMP: Risk Management Plans
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
When Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, it required EPA to publish regulations and guidance
for chemical accident prevention at facilities using extremely hazardous substances. The Risk Management Program
Rule (RMP Rule) was written to implement Section 112(r) of these amendments. The rule, which built upon existing
industry codes and standards, requires companies of all sizes that use certain flammable and toxic substances
to develop a Risk Management Program, which includes a(n): Hazard assessment that details the potential effects
of an accidental release, an accident history of the last five years, and an evaluation of worst-case and alternative
accidental releases; Prevention program that includes safety precautions and maintenance, monitoring, and employee
training measures; and Emergency response program that spells out emergency health care, employee training measures
and procedures for informing the public and response agencies (e.g the fire department) should an accident occur.
Date of Government Version: N/A
Database Release Frequency: N/A
Date of Last EDR Contact: N/A
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
RCRA Administration Action Tracking System. RAATS contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA
pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA. For administration
actions after September 30, 1995, data entry in the RAATS database was discontinued. EPA will retain a copy of
the database for historical records. It was necessary to terminate RAATS because a decrease in agency resources
made it impossible to continue to update the information contained in the database.
TC01110182.1 r Page GR-4
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 04/17/95
Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned
Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/08/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/08/04
TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
Source: EPA
Telephone: 20 2 - 566-0250
Toxic Release Inventory System. TRIS identifies facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air, water and
land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III Section 313.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/01
Database Release Frequency: Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/22/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/22/04
TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Toxic Substances Control Act. TSCA identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the
TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. It includes data on the production volume of these substances by plant
site.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/02
Database Release Frequency: Every 4 Years
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/20/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/19/04
FTTS INSP: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: 10/16/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/22/03
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/22/04
SSTS: Section 7 Tracking Systems
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Section 7 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended (92 Stat. 829) requires all
registered pesticide-producing establishments to submit a report to the Environmental Protection Agency by March
1 st each year. Each establishment must report the types and amounts of pesticides, active ingredients and devices
being produced, and those having been produced and sold or distributed in the past year.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/01 Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/20/03
Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/19/04
FTTS: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
Source: EPA/Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Telephone: [phone]
FTTS tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA,
TSCA and EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act). To maintain currency, EDR contacts the
Agency on a quarterly basis.
Date of Government Version: 10/16/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/22/03
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/22/04
TE OF NORTH CAROLINA ASTM STANDARD RECORDS
SHWS: Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
State Hazardous Waste Sites. State hazardous waste site records are the states' equivalent to CERCLIS. These sites
may or may not already be listed on the federal CERCLIS list. Priority sites planned for cleanup using state funds
(state equivalent of Superfund) are identified along with sites where cleanup will be paid for by potentially
responsible parties. Available information varies by state.
TC01110182.1 r Page GR-5
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 11/04/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 12/10/03
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Data Arrival at ED R: 11/04/03
Elapsed ASTM days: 36
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/14/03
SWF/LF: List of Solid Waste Facilities
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites. SWF/LF type records typically contain an inventory of solid waste disposal
facilities or landfills in a particular state. Depending on the state, these may be active or inactive facilities
or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Subtitle D Section 4004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposal
sites.
Date of Government Version: 10/27/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 11/14/03
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 10/27/03
Elapsed ASTM days: 18
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/27/03
LUST: Incidents Management Database
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports. LUST records contain an inventory of reported leaking underground
storage tank incidents. Not all states maintain these records, and the information stored varies by state.
Date of Government Version: 12/05/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 12/30/03
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 12/08/03
Elapsed ASTM days: 22
Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/08/03
UST: Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Registered Underground Storage Tanks. UST's are regulated under Subtitle 1 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) and must be registered with the state department responsible for administering the UST program. Available
information varies by state program.
Date of Government Version: 07/18/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 09/19/03
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/08/03
Elapsed ASTM days: 11
Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/24/03
OLI: Old Landfill Inventory
Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: 11/04/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 11/26/03
Database Release Frequency: Varies
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 11/04/03
Elapsed ASTM days: 22
Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/04/03
VCP: Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: 10/17/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 11/10/03
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Data Arrival at ED R: 10/17/03
Elapsed ASTM days: 24
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/14/03
INDIAN UST: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
Source: EPA Region 4
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: 10/22/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 01/09/04
Database Release Frequency: Varies
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 12/19/03
Elapsed ASTM days: 21
Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/24/03
TC01110182.1r PageGR-6
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL RECORDS
HSDS: Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
Source: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
Locations of uncontrolled and unregulated hazardous waste sites. The file includes sites on the National Priority
List as well as those on the state priority list.
Date of Government Version: 06/21/95
Database Release Frequency: Biennially
Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/01/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/01/04
AST: AST Database
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Facilities with aboveground storage tanks that have a capacity greater than 21,000 gallons.
Date of Government Version: 06/05/03
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/20/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/19/04
LUST TRUST: State Trust Fund Database
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
This database contains information about claims against the State Trust Funds for reimbursements for expenses
incurred while remediating Leaking UST's.
Date of Government Version: 11/07/03
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/12/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/09/04
IMD: Incident Management Database
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Groundwater and/or soil contamination incidents
Date of Government Version: 10/15/03
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/27/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/26/04
EDR PROPRIETARY HISTORICAL DATABASES
Former Manufactured Gas (Coal Gas) Sites: The existence and location of Coal Gas sites is provided exclusively to
EDR by Real Property Scan, Inc. ©Copyright 1993 Real Property Scan, Inc. For a technical description of the types
of hazards which may be found at such sites, contact your EDR customer service representative.
Disclaimer Provided by Real Property Scan, Inc.
The information contained in this report has predominantly been obtained from publicly available sources produced by entities
other than Real Property Scan. While reasonable steps have been taken to insure the accuracy of this report, Real Property
Scan does not guarantee the accuracy of this report. Any liability on the part of Real Property Scan is strictly limited to a refund
of the amount paid. No claim is made for the actual existence of toxins at any site. This report does not constitute a legal
opinion.
BROWNFIELDS DATABASES
Brownfields: Brownfields Projects Inventory
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
A brownfield site is an abandoned, idled, or underused property where the threat of environmental contamination
has hindered its redevelopment. All of the sites in the inventory are working toward a brownfield agreement for
cleanup and liabitliy control.
TC01110182.1 r Page GR-7
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 09/30/03
Database Release Frequency: Varies
VCP: Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: 10/17/03
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
INST CONTROL: No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: 10/17/03
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/07/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/02/04
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/14/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/24/04
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/14/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/12/04
US BROWNFIELDS: A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Included in the listing are brownfields properties addresses by Cooperative Agreement Recipients and brownfields
properties addressed by Targeted Brownfields Assessments. Targeted Brownfields Assessments-EPA's Targeted Brownfields
Assessments (TBA) program is designed to help states, tribes, and municipalities--especially those without EPA
Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots--minimize the uncertainties of contamination often associated with
brownfields. Under the TBA program, EPA provides funding and/or technical assistance for environmental assessments
at brownfields sites throughout the country. Targeted Brownfields Assessments supplement and work with other efforts
under EPA's Brownfields Initiative to promote cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields. Cooperative Agreement
Recipients-States, political subdivisions, territories, and Indian tribes become BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients
when they enter into BCRLF cooperative agreements with the U.S. EPA. EPA selects BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients
based on a proposal and application process. BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients must use EPA funds provided
through BCRLF cooperative agreement for specified brownfields-related cleanup activities.
Date of Government Version: N/A Date of Last EDR Contact: N/A
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
OTHER DATABASE(S)
Depending on the geographic area covered by this report, the data provided in these specialty databases may or may not be
complete. For example, the existence of wetlands information data in a specific report does not mean that all wetlands in the
area covered by the report are included. Moreover, the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily
mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report.
Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 1999 from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100-year and 500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA.
NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR
in 2002 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION
© 2003 Geographic Data Technology, Inc., Rel. 07/2003. This product contains proprietary and confidential property of Geographic
Data Technology, Inc. Unauthorized use, including copying for other than testing and standard backup procedures, of this product is
expressly prohibited.
TC01110182.1r Page GR-8
COMPARISON TABLE - Gregory Site
STREAM: Marsh Swamp Run
3/4/2004
Existing Conditions
Model Proposed Conditions Model

River Station
Profile Discharge
(cfs) WSEL
(ft.) WSEL
(ft.) (Prop.WSEL-
Ext. WSEL)
58663.57 10 YR 1920 109.49 109.51 0.02
58663.57 50 YR 3610 110.18 110.20 0.02
58663.57 100 YR 4570 110.51 110.53 0.02
58663.57 500 YR 7570 111.41 111.43 0.02

58297.32 10 YR 1920 108.94 108.95 0.01
58297.32 50 YR 3610 109.66 109.68 0.02
58297.32 100 YR 4570 110.01 110.03 0.02
58297.32 500 YR 7570 110.97 110.99 0.02

57909.41 10 YR 1920 108.49 108.52 0.03
57909.41 50 YR 3610 109.25 109.27 0.02
57909.41 100 YR 4570 109.61 109.64 0.03
57909.41 500 YR 7570 110.61 110.63 0.02

57633.48 10 YR 1920 108.26 108.29 0.03
57633.48 50 YR 3610 109.03 109.06 0.03
57633.48 100 YR 4570 109.40 109.42 0.02
57633.48 500 YR 7570 110.41 110.43 0.02

57370.85 10 YR 1920 108.07 108.10 0.03
57370.85 50 YR 3610 108.85 108.88 0.03
57370.85 100 YR 4570 109.22 109.25 0.03
57370.85 500 YR 7570 110.24 110.26 0.02

57171.53 10 YR 1920 107.93 107.97 0.04
57171.53 50 YR 3610 108.72 108.74 0.02
57171.53 100 YR 4570 109.09 109.11 0.02
57171.53 500 YR 7570 110.12 110.14 0.02

56952.87 10 YR 1920 107.78 107.81 0.03
56952.87 50 YR 3610 108.56 108.59 0.03
56952.87 100 YR 4570 108.94 108.96 0.02
56952.87 500 YR 7570 109.99 110.00 0.01

56542.24 10 YR 1920 107.46 107.48 0.02
56542.24 50 YR 3610 108.22 108.24 0.02
56542.24 100 YR 4570 108.61 108.63 0.02
56542.24 500 YR 7570 109.68 109.70 0.02
COMPARISON TABLE - Gregory Site
STREAM: Marsh Swamp Run
3/4/2004
Existing Conditions
Model Proposed Conditions Model

River Station
Profile Discharge
(cfs) WSEL
(ft.) WSEL
(ft.) (Prop.WSEL-
Ext. WSEL)

56366.94 10 YR 1920 107.28 107.30 0.02
56366.94 50 YR 3610 108.02 108.05 0.03
56366.94 100 YR 4570 108.42 108.44 0.02
56366.94 500 YR 7570 109.52 109.53 0.01

56162.21 10 YR 1920 107.06 107.09 0.03
56162.21 50 YR 3610 107.80 107.82 0.02
56162.21 100 YR 4570 108.21 108.23 0.02
56162.21 500 YR 7570 109.33 109.34 0.01

55885.69 10 YR 1920 106.70 106.74 0.04
55885.69 50 YR 3610 107.44 107.47 0.03
55885.69 100 YR 4570 107.89 107.91 0.02
55885.69 500 YR 7570 109.07 109.08 0.01

55545.49 10 YR 1920 106.31 106.33 0.02
55545.49 50 YR 3610 107.10 107.12 0.02
55545.49 100 YR 4570 107.62 107.63 0.01
55545.49 500 YR 7570 108.87 108.87 0.00

55255.9 10 YR 1920 106.09 106.11 0.02
55255.9 50 YR 3610 106.93 106.95 0.02
55255.9 100 YR 4570 107.49 107.50 0.01
55255.9 500 YR 7570 108.77 108.77 0.00

54649.79 10 YR 1920 105.66 105.66 0.00
54649.79 50 YR 3610 106.6 106.6 0.00
54649.79 100 YR 4570 107.25 107.25 0.00
54649.79 500 YR 7570 108.59 108.59 0.00

53745.7 10 YR 1920 105.33 105.32 -0.01
53745.7 50 YR 3610 106.31 106.31 0.00
53745.7 100 YR 4570 107.04 107.03 -0.01
53745.7 500 YR 7570 108.41 108.41 0.00

52695.76 10 YR 1920 105.00 105.00 0.00
52695.76 50 YR 3610 106.00 106.00 0.00
52695.76 100 YR 4570 106.80 106.80 0.00
52695.76 500 YR 7570 108.20 108.20 0.00
Appendix 4 Photographic Log

Farm Fields to be Restored
McCulloch's Ditch
Marsh Swamp
Black Spring Creek Upstream of Project Site

Lateral Field Ditch and Corn Crops

Ditch Parallel to Marsh Swamp at High Stage

Sediment Deposition from Marsh Swamp Flooding

Marsh Swamp at High Stage near Water Control Structure

Flooding during July 14, 2003 Site Visit
Ponded Wetland at South End of Project Site
Flood Waters from Marsh Swamp
Flooding in Lateral Ditches During July 14, 2003 Visit

Sediment Deposition from Marsh Swamp During July 14, 2003
Visit
South End of Site During July 14, 2003 Site Visit
Evidence of Beaver Activity Near South End of Site
Floodwaters from Marsh Swamp
Appendix 5 HEC-RAS Data
COMPARISON TABLE - Gregory Site
STREAM: Marsh Swamp Run
3/8/2004
Existing Conditions
Model Proposed Conditions Model

River Station
Profile Discharge
(cfs) WSEL
(ft.) WSEL
(ft.) (Prop.WSEL-
Ext. WSEL)
58663.57 10 YR 1920 109.49 109.51 0.02
58663.57 50 YR 3610 110.18 110.20 0.02
58663.57 100 YR 4570 110.51 110.53 0.02
58663.57 500 YR 7570 111.41 111.43 0.02

58297.32 10 YR 1920 108.94 108.95 0.01
58297.32 50 YR 3610 109.66 109.68 0.02
58297.32 100 YR 4570 110.01 110.03 0.02
58297.32 500 YR 7570 110.97 110.99 0.02

57909.41 10 YR 1920 108.49 108.52 0.03
57909.41 50 YR 3610 109.25 109.27 0.02
57909.41 100 YR 4570 109.61 109.64 0.03
57909.41 500 YR 7570 110.61 110.63 0.02

57633.48 10 YR 1920 108.26 108.29 0.03
57633.48 50 YR 3610 109.03 109.06 0.03
57633.48 100 YR 4570 109.40 109.42 0.02
57633.48 500 YR 7570 110.41 110.43 0.02

57370.85 10 YR 1920 108.07 108.10 0.03
57370.85 50 YR 3610 108.85 108.88 0.03
57370.85 100 YR 4570 109.22 109.25 0.03
57370.85 500 YR 7570 110.24 110.26 0.02

57171.53 10 YR 1920 107.93 107.97 0.04
57171.53 50 YR 3610 108.72 108.74 0.02
57171.53 100 YR 4570 109.09 109.11 0.02
57171.53 500 YR 7570 110.12 110.14 0.02

56952.87 10 YR 1920 107.78 107.81 0.03
56952.87 50 YR 3610 108.56 108.59 0.03
56952.87 100 YR 4570 108.94 108.96 0.02
56952.87 500 YR 7570 109.99 110.00 0.01

56542.24 10 YR 1920 107.46 107.48 0.02
56542.24 50 YR 3610 108.22 108.24 0.02
56542.24 100 YR 4570 108.61 108.63 0.02
56542.24 500 YR 7570 109.68 109.70 0.02
COMPARISON TABLE - Gregory Site
STREAM: Marsh Swamp Run
3/8/2004
Existing Conditions
Model Proposed Conditions Model

River Station
Profile Discharge
(cfs) WSEL
(ft.) WSEL
(ft.) (Prop.WSEL-
Ext. WSEL)

56366.94 10 YR 1920 107.28 107.30 0.02
56366.94 50 YR 3610 108.02 108.05 0.03
56366.94 100 YR 4570 108.42 108.44 0.02
56366.94 500 YR 7570 109.52 109.53 0.01

56162.21 10 YR 1920 107.06 107.09 0.03
56162.21 50 YR 3610 107.80 107.82 0.02
56162.21 100 YR 4570 108.21 108.23 0.02
56162.21 500 YR 7570 109.33 109.34 0.01

55885.69 10 YR 1920 106.70 106.74 0.04
55885.69 50 YR 3610 107.44 107.47 0.03
55885.69 100 YR 4570 107.89 107.91 0.02
55885.69 500 YR 7570 109.07 109.08 0.01

55545.49 10 YR 1920 106.31 106.33 0.02
55545.49 50 YR 3610 107.10 107.12 0.02
55545.49 100 YR 4570 107.62 107.63 0.01
55545.49 500 YR 7570 108.87 108.87 0.00

55255.9 10 YR 1920 106.09 106.11 0.02
55255.9 50 YR 3610 106.93 106.95 0.02
55255.9 100 YR 4570 107.49 107.50 0.01
55255.9 500 YR 7570 108.77 108.77 0.00

54649.79 10 YR 1920 105.66 105.66 0.00
54649.79 50 YR 3610 106.6 106.6 0.00
54649.79 100 YR 4570 107.25 107.25 0.00
54649.79 500 YR 7570 108.59 108.59 0.00

53745.7 10 YR 1920 105.33 105.32 -0.01
53745.7 50 YR 3610 106.31 106.31 0.00
53745.7 100 YR 4570 107.04 107.03 -0.01
53745.7 500 YR 7570 108.41 108.41 0.00

52695.76 10 YR 1920 105.00 105.00 0.00
52695.76 50 YR 3610 106.00 106.00 0.00
52695.76 100 YR 4570 106.80 106.80 0.00
52695.76 500 YR 7570 108.20 108.20 0.00

.. - r ^\ `\ ;.?._ v •..._ °_ c 1 ? ?,-..., , n , ? ? t •, t r `• } ? 'S -.`.? •-• i° ? .j ,: y "'tiff r _! ••, ??X. jov/
`? ` \ r \ \; ?\ ???\Z > ? \,??j ? r ? i •. ? Z { t 13 ?v? ,?' . \.... ? `1 .1 `?? t r ' " \ , , ter,
\..l i l ?\ \ rl i)?l ,',t, / / -i .'' ,!9 r . t^ (1( i.. (-' C?/)f °7 ?iJ? G , ? t} +l? r
L n
'I •, t\` t,1 J/ t ,/ frr f'?l,'ri ^',?.r,?,. , 'I \' ?,\• i7?t"; ?'(c.. .`?,?? ?1 J • \ <?• f j
-
\\'^`,
fr,
' 1 ),i,? >f t, --' ,? .; ;_/,'l•.e r ?1 j/'?, i... ..?,.,1:. ?,r ?S ?. ? ?<% ?jr.l?'I`'./?t1% C°?' , \ f??,t.\- i
,
f?.j ?? ` r, /.... t ,z ??•` t ?? ?i ,I r i lei ??
J } lt?, t C rv' \ir i `
?t 7.?i- ( t}tli ?1 \zr., lea /`,`_ S - ' t IA ?A
f• , ', s r \ 1}y rrt " u., .,- {{ \ „ t r ?. ° ' ?'?J r 1,'?j_ ?-??t•'`'? ` ? <? r?
(L/ :
\ l ?.y..
17'
l``.i???r
- ? iii D < l 1 V'
?? r F
...,ter ? ? `t.._\; ??? .f?? ? •, } I ..fit ? { ) `??Q / , 't `\ ...,??
r
\I >r
Al kA
,
?t
,
'Ir
/J
O t'' . ?J1,1., ?? • ? C`( aC t..,:\ `,. y J, ? ? / / C t .. ; ' 1 r:. ,.. ' c ?: \? .,.r
}
tel. / ,ssf t, c. r ?` ?L \?
'.... ?? >7 'Z\ r! \,?' P? ? • ? 1 * e, • ?i?, ny {j ..% ? 1 V'.. \ 1. \? ?> ?> >? .? s?? C j .? \
r? y
r wit \\ (\, ?,S\. \..) ?? ? ..%< i U ? -tt, }? ?f t? ? ?? r ??'??• ? l ? j``"-? ?? 4?,•` ? ?`? v L^ .., 1 't\
.:. ?? ?? ?? -? 1 ( ? \s ?i v \, r?(t\ f ~ t;2,., , r .,'w-? ?,? f? ,n\ As - ?r? r.. -f ? , ^, .
c
lk,
?, ?A"4 ?t t} ?? ?( i?' VA. j} o' - h? a•tv' i t t ?? 6' a..y?« i a
I ,111 { ?. ?\p :, ?l • A° ( f/ \'.--z. ?1 lam. -
:,:'` ?'. ?`. ?'°.? ,'• r t?` „s??, i .r? 0 3?r.g.,>. `•'?lpi(? -/????1 `?, '\t?'.'" 1':.? l?j--
,
r ?
_ r
.
?ti 1;r, , er t
'
5 •
J
y
r
Nta , .,
l -
°
•?f % 11,-\ 1. : j ..?i,t• s.. .`t of i i/? r?
( 1 '
L \
Appendix 6 Construction Plans
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
w
0
v
(?4?

It 0
® - V o
12
_ JI PROJECT
LOCATION t
t JI` US
. ]01
M L'n p
00,
VICINITY MAP
INDEX OF SHEETS
1 TITLE SHEET
1-A SYMBOLOGY - BUCK ENGINEERING
INDEX OF SHEETS,
PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS AND STREAM
DESIGN PARAMETERS
1-B SYMBOLOGY-NCDOT
2 TO 2-B STRUCTURE DETAILS
4 TO 9 PLAN VIEW OF PROPOSED AND
EXISTING STREAM, PLANTING PLAN
10-11 GRADING PLANS
12-17 PROFILE
18 VEGETATION PLANTING PLAN
GRAPHIC SCALES
3,0 15 0 30 60
PLANS
30 15 0 30 60
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
eae nrsT u?ws r 1 :ui+
WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT NC 170 1 21
ENVIROMENTAL BANC AND EXCHANGE, LLC ranNrr RNrr .oyy.,
GREGORY SITE
HALIFAX. COUNTY
LOCATION: OFF NCRS 561 NEAR HALIFAX
TYPE OF WORK: WETLAND AND STREAM RESTORATION
PROJECT SUMMARY
EXISTING STREAM LENGTH = 4716 FEET
PROPOSED DESIGN REACH 1 LENGTH = 766 FEET
PROPOSED DESIGN REACH 2 LENGTH = 5959 FEET
PROPOSED DESIGN STREAM LENGTH = 6725 FEET
PROPOSED RESTORED WETLAND AREA = 81 ACRES
PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF.
ENVIRONMENTAL BANC AND EXCHANGE, LLC
10055 RED RUN BOULEVARD, SUITE 130
nwlNr,Mnls fsn')1117

EBX CONTACT..-
GEORGE KELLY
PROJECT MANAGER
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NV[ UN: POR CONWMUCMN
Pd
SIGNATURE.-
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF:
BU600C.e. N. q PWmy 2751 i00
K Cary. Ca i ZiS71
PMm: 91W6Y5108
KClf4ICZRLNO-d=?? F- 91%463-54W
JOHN HUTTON
PROJECT MANAGER
LEITING DATE: I KEVIN TWEEDY, PE
PROJECT ENGrAT"
•
•
M
STREAM CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
SUPERCEDES SHEET IB
® LOG VANE
pp p BOULDER CLUSTER
LOG WEIR 0
A ROOT WAD
LOG CROSS VANE
00333)
00 J-HOOK
ROCKVANE
TEMPORARY SILT CHECK
FOOT BRIDGE
L J TEMPORARY STREAM
f -1 CROSSING
LJ PERMANENTSTREAM
r1 CROSSING
ROCK CROSS VANE
WING DEFLECTOR

DOUBLE IMNG DEFLECTOR

4I0 -i1F---I11 1t- SILT FENCE
® SAFETY FENCE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
® TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
ROCK STEP POOL
TREE REMOVAL
/ TREE PROTECTION
O PLAY GROUND EQUIPMENT
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
TRANSPLANTS
® FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL
DECEMBER 1993
6.60 TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP
6.06 CONSTRUCTION ACCESS
6.62 SILT FENCE
6.70 TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING (CULVERTED)
GENERAL NOTES
VEGETATION SELECTION
PROJECT BIGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
00 Na vs FM MN vcm*l
8000
BuPa 2TS121p
Lv MCanal
PAOm i1P?fi15{EB
tNO1Ntt RING ru a?a?oss?so
RIPARIAN WOODY VEGETATION
STEMS
TO BE
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FLOOD TOLERANCE PI ANTFn
WILLOW OAK UERCUS PHELLOS WEAKLY TO MODERATELY TOLERANT 7300
SWAMP CHESTNUT OAK UERCUSMICHAUXII WEAKLY TOLERANT 7300
LAUREL OAK QUERCUS LAURIFOLIA WEAKLY TO MODERATELY TOLERANT 7300
OVERCUP OAK UERCUS LYRATA MODERATELY TOLERANT 7300
BLACKGUM SSA SYLVATICA WEAKLY TOLERANT 7300
SWAMP BLACKGUM YSSA BIFLORA TOLERANT 3500
BALD CYPRESS TAXODIUM DISTICHUM VERY TOLERANT 3500
NOTE SEE DETAIL ON SHEET ZB FOR BARE ROOT PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS
BARE ROOT VEGETATION WALL BE PLANTED IN ALL DISTURBED
AREAS TARGETED FOR WETLAND RESTORATION (AS SHOWN ON SHEET ID).
RIPARIAN SEED MIXTURE
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
RGINIA WILDRYE LYMUS VIRGWICUS
IMTCHGRASS ANICUMVIRGATUM
ll:r%y'zcnGE CARER VULPIMOIDEA
NOTE RIPARIAN SEED MIXTURE WILL BE SPREAD OVER ALL CLEARED AND
DISTURBED AREAS TARGETED FOR WETLAND RESTORATION-
c
a
c
m
:zv
1
1
1
*S.U.E = SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEER
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROADS & RELATED ITEMS
Edge of Pavement ............................. - ---
Curb -------------------------------------------
Prop. Slope Stakes Cut ........................ -- -L- - -
Prop. Slope Stakes Fill ........................
Prop.Woven Wire Fence ---------_-----_..... _ E$_
Prop. Chain Link Fence ..................... 8-
Prop. Barbed Wire Fence--------------------- 0_
Prop. Wheelchair Ramp ----------------------
Curb Cut for Future Wheelchair Ramp -------
Exist. Guardrail -------------------------------
Prop. Guardrail -------------------------------- . . .
Equality Symbol ............................... e
Pavement Removal - - - _ . ...... . . . . ...... _ _ ... .
RIGHT OF WAY
Baseline Control Point ........................
Existing Right of Way Marker .. . . . ... . . . . ...... Q
Exist. Right of Way Line wMarker ... . ...------
Prop. Right of Way Line with Proposed
WW Marker (Iron Pin & Cap) ..... ........ . A
Prop. Right of Way Line with Proposed
(Concrete or Granite) RAV Marker .. _... _..... 0
Exist. Control of Access Line ......... . ......... ----- ---- 4 IR ;_
.e.
Prop. Control of Access Line ........... . .... . ..
Exist. Easement Line ...........................
Prop. Temp. Construction Easement Line ... _ _ . -E-
Prop. Temp. Drainage Easement Line --------- -TM
Prop. Perm. Drainage Easement Line ... _ _ .... _ PU
HYDROLOGY
Stream or Body of Water .................... ?.. _
River Basin Buffer .............................. -RBB-
Flow Arrow .................................... ----->
Disappearing Stream ...........................
Spring ------------------------------------------ Qom./
Swamp Marsh ............................... .
Shoreline------------------------------- ------- -------
Falls,Rapids .................................... - -i- -
Prop Lateral, Tail, Head Ditches ...............
?F&W
STRUCTURES
MAJOR
Bridge, Tunnel, or Box Culvert . . .. . . ........ . ca+c
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall
and End Wall ----------------------- - --- ,CONC..(
CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
MINOR
Head & End Wall Cam!
Pipe Culvert ................................... `-- -
Footbridge-------------------•------....--------> - ------<
Drainage Boxes ..................... . .......... El cB
Paved Ditch Gutter
UTILITIES
Exist. Pole -------------------------------------
Exist. Power Pole
.-• ............................
Prop. Power Pole ............................... b
Exist. Telephone Pole ................_........
Prop. Telephone Pole-------------------------- -
a-Exist. Joint Use Pole ............................ j.
Prop. Joint Use Pole ............................ .b.
Telephone Pedestal---------------------------- IJ
LLG Telephone Cable Hand Hold.---------- 0
Cable TV Pedestal -----------------------------19
LIG TV Cable Hand Hold .................... 0
LPG Power Cable Hand Hold ............ . ....
Hydrant.-----•----------------------------------Q
Satellite Dish ................................... 21
Exist. Water Valve --------------------------•---
SewerClean Out------------------------------
Power Manhole ....................... . . . ...... 0
Telephone Booth ....... _ ......................
Cellular Telephone Tower- - . . ...... . . ..........
Water Manhole ......... . .......................
Light Pole ...................................... 0
H-frame Pole -------- ..._... e-•--*
Power Line Tower--_ ..........................
Pole with Base --------------------------------- 13
Gas Valve ..................................... 4
Gas Meter ..................................... a
Telephone Manhole ........................... . (D
Power Transformer .........................._- 0
Sanitary Sewer Manhole .......................
Storm Sewer Manhole . ....... . ............... OS
Tank; Water, Gas, Oil _----------------------- 0
Water Tank With Legs .......... . . .. . ...... _ _ _ ?^{
Traffic Signal Junction Box -------------_...._.
Fiber Optic Splice Box------------------------- (D
Television or Radio Tower . ..... . ... . ..........
Utility Power Line Connects to Traffic
Signal Lines Cut Into the Pavement---.....-.- rs ;S
Recorded Waterline .......................
Designated Water Line (S.U.E.*) .............. -,-,-.
Sanitary Sewer --------- ................._---- -
Recorded Sanitary Sewer Force Main ...... -FSS-fSS-
Designated Sanitary Sewer Force Main(S.U.E.*)-FSS-sss-
Recorded Gas Line --,---.
Designated Gas Line (S.U.E.*) ................ _ -c- _
Storm Sewer -------------------------------- ... s s
Recorded Power Line ......_----------------- • P
Designated Power Line (S.U.E.*) ..... ........ _ N -r- _
Recorded Telephone Cable .................. -r-r-
Designated Telephone Cable (S.U.E.*)
.......
Recorded USG Telephone Conduit
...... -TC-TC-
Designated USG Telephone Conduit(S.U
E
*)
.
. --m--rC--
Unknown Utility (S.U.E.*) ------------------ -TM__4M-
Recorded Television Cable .................. -T.-n-
Designated Television Cable (S.U.E.*) .
...... _-TY--Tr--
Recorded Fiber Optics Cable ............... -FO-FO-
Designated Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.*)
.....
Exist. Water Meter ............................ O
LPG Test Hole (S.U.E.*) ----------------------- m
Abandoned According to UAG Record........ .Tm,
End of Information .... . ............. . ......... c,,,
BOUNDARIES & PROPERTIES
State Line ...
County Line---
Township Line
City Line ........................................ -----
Reservation Line ................................ _ -_-_-_
Property Line ......................... .........
Property Line Symbol ..........................
Exist. Iron Pin ..................................
Property Corner -------------------------------- - +
Property Monument ............................
Property Number------------------------------
Parcel Number 123
6
Fence Line ....................................
- x-x-x-
Existing Wetland Boundaries .
. Ne & ISB.
. .
....... . . . .
... - -ULB- -
High Quality Wetland Boundary -------------- -,o „r8-
Medium Quality Wetland Boundaries-....... -uo n8-
Low Quality Wetland Boundaries . .. . ....... .. -Lo ¦LB-
Proposed Wetland Boundaries . . .............. _,LB_
Existing Endangered Animal Boundaries...... - - EAS- _
Existing Endangered Plant Boundaries _ _ ..... _ - -EM- -
BUILDINGS & OTHER CULTURE
Buildings .......................................
Foundations .................................... rJ

Area Outline ................................. ,?-7

Gate
.....................
Gas Pump Vent or LVG Tank Cap ............ o

Church Ft
,
GJ
School ...
Park ------------------------------------------ --
Cemetery ------------------------------------ --
`r ]
Dam ..
Sign ---------------------- --------------...... e
s
Well ----------------------- ---- o
Small Mine ------------------------------------ x
Swimming Pool ------------------------•-------
TOPOGRAPHY
Loose Surface -------------------------------- -------
Hard Surface .................................
Change in Road Surface ..................... ..............
Curb ------------------------------- -----------
RightofWay Symbol ----_----...-..-_----.- Raw
Guard Post ------------------------------------ T,np
Paved Walk -------
Bridge -----------------------------------------
Box Culvert or Tunnel _ _ _ ......... - - - -
Ferry .......................................... -------
Culvert ...... ,.............I
Footbridge ..................................... ..............
Trail, Footpath - ._ . ...........................
Ught House ...........................
VEGETATION
Single Tree .................................... Q
Single Shrub .................................. o
Hedge ......................................... ,ter
Woods Line ------- ...............:.............. w
Orchard ............... 44f?4?Q
Vineyard ............................... ...... (-YeffYAftl1 1
RAILROADS
Standard Gauge
TM SFMAW
RR Signal Milepost o
Switch ............ o.
TYPICAL RIFFLE AND POOL FOR REACH 1 AND 2
TYPICAL STRUCTURE PLACEMENT
PROJECT BNGItM
PRELIMINARY PLANS
00 Nor UM 104 CoN011LOCHION
RIFFLE
WINa
Oils
ST tin
Nb i?
POOL
WIAS
Y
REACH I REACH 2
RFFLE POOL RIFFLE POOL
Tff 0.7 toff 124'
os or o.r oz
0.91 1.1' III 1.P
120 120 14.0 13A
456 62 TIM' 1150'
3.0 23' SS 40
WIDTH OF BAWOIAL(VMiI
AVENGE DEPTH
WIDTH TO DEPTH RATIO (W WAD)
BANKfUL AREA(AEAS
BOTTOM WIDTH (WW
ROOT WADS WITHOUT TRANSPLANTS
NTS
ROOT WADS
ROOT WADS WITH TRANSPLANTS
NTS
Ng71M
4000 Re , p-, SJ ]00
B Csy.N CnoAra 27511
NO tt I rs PRiP410
BERM OS MAX. HT.) BERUM NOT TO G?
DOEID BEYOND LIMITS OF ROOT WADS ?y

TR ANSPLANTS BERM SMAL HTI BFRM(SI NOT TO
COI FIBER
? FLOOD EXTEND BEYOND LNTTS OF ROOT WADS
.

INM MATTING
P
PLAIN NOTES
TRENg41G METHOD
,
F THE ROOT WAD CANNOT BE DRIVEN INTO THE BAN( OR THE
TOP OF TOP OF - BANK NEEDS TO BE RECONSTRUCTED. THE TRENOBIIG METHOD

BANK OPTIONAL
COVER LOG
B4HK SHOULD BE USED- 115 METHOD REQUIRES THAT A TRENCH
EXCAVATED
FOR THE LOG
F
O
STAGE
BAN1flA1 STAGE C-A
THIS
00
7ER LLOr SSHO(A
BE INSTAL ID jRAERIF TH
THE ROOT WAD IN A TRENCH EXCAVATED PARALLEL TO THE
BARB' AND WELL BELOW THE STREAK.ONE-THIRD OF THE
1 1,7
ROOT MAD SHOULD REMAIN BELOW NORMAL BASE FLOW COIDrWNS.
ANCHOR COVER LOG

HEIC IS. LINDER FOOTER LOGS
OR WITH A BOULDER
r f
IA 9E ROQT MASS.HEB,ITF LS
m . .' A5.O15: 9igEMF @ NOTES:
a
tv
9 - .i': .. ... ... DRIVE POW
SINRPEN THE ENO OF THE LOG WITH A CFWNSAW BEFORE 'DRMNG-

0 ROOT WAD I R INTO THE BANK ORIENT ROOT WADS UPSTREAM SO THAT THE

0
FOOTER LOG IT DIAMETER INSTALLED BELOW STREAMBED
FOOTER LOG a IT OIAMETER INSTALLED BELOW STREAMBED STREAM FLOW MEETS THE ROOT WAD AT A 90-DEGREE ANGLE,
DEFLECTING THE VN1ER AWAY FROM THE BANK A TRANSPLANT
Q (OPTIONAL PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER) TRANSPLANTS OR (OPDONAL PER gRECT10N OF ENGINEEIO OR BOULDER SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF
O
10-15 FEET LONG BOULDERS TTE ROOT WAD IF A BACK EDDY IS FORMED BY THE ROOT WAD.
6 FEET LONG TRUNK THE BOULDER SMALL BE APPROXNATELY PX TX Y.
?I(r DIAMETER FOOTER LOG FOR >ITDWAETER
j / TRENCHING METHOD
/ ONLY
C
0
a
CROSS SECTION VIEW PLAN VIEW
CROSS SECTION VIEW
6
U
MXOJECI REFERENCE NO. SHEET N0.

A
fro
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE LOG VANE IROJECT ENGIMM
LOG BURIED

A *4 STREAMBANK
AT LEAST S!
PRELIMINARY PLANS
ELEVATION POINT
NOT USE FM
COMTRUCTION
TOP
OFBANK F TOE OF BANK
HEAD OF ?
?/1Y RIFFLE BURY BOULDERS 2-4 INCHES BELOW BED
C
S TWGQ
SS
O a

4 L
? ? j}
mvvw J 1S IN
HE
MM
E
F
CIASSB AND i57 SiDE&

TRANSPLANTS
8
L R FLOW
looa R,a P.Mw swu 2N
?E 1.51u 2 FT BUCK fi11i?ENtt
l>
-•?tg NO NO Fa 91@/6M{YO
g. afo ELEVATION POINT
?? \ \\
VARIES S
12
1/3 BKFLWSDTH \ \
\ \
. FILTER FABRIC \

PROFILEA-A' 2r3BKFLWIDTH LOG BURIED
BFLOWSTREAMBED
L PLAN VIEW
A'
EROSION
CONTROL TRANSPLANTS
PLAN VIEW MATTING
TOP OF STREAMBANK
D- FLOW -? ' NOTES.
113
STREANBED
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12, INCHES IN DIAMETER RELATIVELY STRAIGHT.
1dl° HARDWOOD. AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
Ay, 2 SOIL SHOULD L AROUND B REE COMPACTED WHL AROUND BLARED PORTIONS OF LOG.

GREGORY SITE ? i TRANSPLANTS ARE PLACED ALONG THE TOP OF THE BANK OVER
THEBUUED LOG VANE TO PROTECT AGAINST EROSION DURING
HIGH FLOWS.
REACH 1 REACH 2 CENTER BOULDER 2b FEET
Ww(m
D-
4 7.3 103 BELOW ADJACENT BOUDERS
I \
(
) 0.9 10 ?
BURY END OF LOG 1' BELOW MAX POOL DEPTH-
SECTION B-B'
PROFILE VIEW
LOG WEIR
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
® TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION ROOTMASS, AND SOIL MATERIAL
TRANSPLANTS ® I
o ® TRANSPLANTS
TOP OF
TOP OF STRENABANK

®
® Y
CIVW
® NEWSDTH
IX CHANNEL WIDTH fL(JYf I
TRANSPLANTED VEGE
ATION
ROOTMASS
AND SOIL MATERIAL
- -

SCOUR STRFAMBED
'
TOE OF BANK .
,
1 POOL

- A /

LOG WEIR :..'.. ?1
HEADER LOG BACTff1IL (ONSITEAELLMU)

-?_.--
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
r ---- - _
1 .___
.: .: NOTES:
?' 1. IXf:AVATEAHOLE IN THE BANK TO BE STASH ]ZED 7}SITMALL
A . flLTd2fAB(IC FOR DRAINAGE ACCOMMODATE THE SE OF TRANSPLANT TO BE PLACED
I-S S...I

. :. S?EOSF. .
BEGIN EXCAVATION AT THE TOE OF THE BANK
FOOTER LOG ,. 2. EXCAVATE TRANSPLANT USING A FRONT END LOADER.

-- IV MINIMUM --
CROSS SECTION VIEW EXCAVATE THE ENTIRE ROOT MASS AND AS MUCH ADDITIONAL
SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE IF E TIREROOT MASSCW NOT BE
? EXCAVATE IN ONE BUCKET LOAD, THE TRANSPLANT IS TOO LARGE

PLAN VIEW
SECTION A-A' AND ANOTHER SHOULD BE SELECTED.
3. PLACE TRANSPLANT IN THE BANK TO BE STABILPED SD THAT
VEGETATION IS ORIENTATED VERTr-ALLLY

RANSPLANTS TRANS PLANTED VEGETATION AND R OOTMASS 1. FILL IN ANY HOLES AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND COMPACT.
5. ANYLOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED.
B. RACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE TOGETHER SUCH THAT
THEYTOUCK

rn
v
0 NOTES \N, /, ® ® TOP OF BANK
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10 INCHES IN DIAMETER. RELATIVELY STRAIGHT,

v HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2 LOGS >20 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAYBE USED ALONE WITHOUTANADDITIONAL LOG.
¢
m FILTER FABRIC SHOULD STILL BE USED TOAMSEAL E ELEVATION LOG
3. TOP OF HEADER LOG SHOULD BE SET AT SAMEELEVA710N AS THE STRFAAIBID. ® i l ® TOE OF BANK
^
HEADER LOG 7. USE FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS. - - - - \ - `
-
---
5. PLACE TRANSPLANTS FROM TOE OF STREAMBANK TO TOP OF STREAMBANK - - - - - i
c
a
a FOOTER LOG
m
d
CROSS SECTION VIEW
n PLAN VIEW

m
_m

PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS
SHRIJS DIG THE HOLE 5 -11INCHES LARGER
q. THAN THE DIAMETER OF THE POT AND THE SAW DEM
AS THE POT.
2 REMOVE THE PLANT FROM THE POT. LAY THE KAM ON
ITS SBA: ENECESSARY TO REMOVE THE POT.
3. SPNFTEALRWIT6ROOTBOIIM GRIXMNGNA
DROWIO7IE ROOT YNEVERTiCN.
COB WRI
C A IETIOOF ROC ROOT. ALSO DEEP ENIXg1T0
ISS4 ACROSS ALS YMEA
CR155 THE BOTTOM OF THE BAIL
I. PULE THE PLANT IN T
1F OF THE "OLE I
TOP aF SIRFANBANK . REMOVE 6IIDlE1MTH SOIL (SAW SOIL
S
FOR
THE SOIL TDRUOVE AIR S THE REST OF THE HOLE WITH THE THE REMAINING AND SOIL
I PRELIMINARY PLANS
W NOT USE POR CONSMOCIOU
NOTES
1. PLANT BARE ROOT SHIMS AND TREES TO THE WIDTH OF THE
BUFFER AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
2 ALLOW FOR 6-10 FEET BETWEEN PLANNNGS. DEPENDING ON SUM
1 LOOSER COMPACTED SOIL
4. PLANT Of HOLES MADE BYAMATTOCK DMaLF- RANTING BAP, OR
OTHER APPROVED MEANS.
5. PLANT IN LADLES DEEP AND WOE TNDUGHTO ALLOW THE ROOTS
TO SPREAD OUT AND DOWN WITHOUT J.ROOTNG.
B. KEEP ROOTS MOISTWHIE DtSTWSMM OR VWTNG TO PLANT
BY MEANS OF WETCINVAS, BURLAP, ORSIRAW.
7. fEEWN PLANTS N MOISTSOtl.ORSAPAIISTIF NOT PROMPTLY
RANTED UPON ARRIVAL TO PROJECT SITE
OF STRE/LBANK
nrtoH LNCwIBa
CROSS SECTION VIEW OF BARE ROOT PLANTING
NO
1. WHEN PREPARING THE HOLE FORA POTTED PLANT OR
PROJECT ENGINEER
R B IN N `B'OO R1 Anmy su. 2oo I
Cap,N CU 27511
m- 919-453-6?
NO LRRI O FAC nBaB36AB0
CROSS SECTION VIEW OF CONTAINER PLANTING
LIVE STAKING SPECIFICATION
TOEOFAllPE
MofmoFawLg
c
to
v
N
O
N
D
Q
B
n
n
0
CROSS SECTION VIEW
PLAN VIEW
TOP OF SIHFAMBANC
I NANTSTNE5.
TOP OF BANK TO TIE OF BANK
SOINJ+E CUT TOP
BIAS FACING W W WO
INECUTIIIIO
LAN 1RDM
2-J U]1(i1N
ANGLE CUT A-a DECREES
LINE STAKE DETAIL
NOTES.'
1. STARES SHOULD BE CUT AND
INSTALLED ON THE SAME DAY.
7_ DO NOT INSTALL STAKES THAT
HAVE BEEN SPLIT.
3. STAKES MUST BE INSTALLED WITH
SODS POINTING UPWARDS.
1. STAKES SHOIJLD BE INSTALLED
P@tPENpCNART7 BNIC
5. INDIESBE U2 LNG,
IN DIAMETER AN AND t ID 7 F FT LONG
115 OF S
6. STAKES SHOLILD REINSTALLED LEAVING
15 OF STAKE ABOVE GROUND.

?: ' : Ii: :.
>i
::
.
.

m
L
a
m
m
r;
n
C
a
a
c
m
/ j r f
r
I
r r
/ I
`
r r
\

/
r
J I
r

/

i ?
y l !
I
P l . i
~? Cr!
i j
l 1 `t ?fr
..1 \ f
f ? e
/ ' t t va
f f ! ( ? \1 s
r'\ REACH ISTA 10("'. ! . ,'f
BEGIN CONSTRUC
\\ \ r\ ? t
rr t?? \\ r
\\ r r
\r?
\r ti
\\'0 \\ I
\ ? \r \1 I
`po a3 ! r ,\ l
\s ?^Y
r1
t
l
F?
\
t?
f
I
i
1
±r,
l 4
i t \
? `I 1
1
f
i
/
d f
kJ?
1
t
r \ f #
i
i

' i
F t

?•t l t
7 t !e
? r
1 [
t _
tiY^?e
{9

r0.0NCr A6ERB+GE NO. SHW NG.
4
NIOJEQ 91GIN®I
PRELIMINARY PLANS
W NOr um rm commmmm
,rswrm I
F- 91
I'^?eooo
C c.r,eamc.?oe.nsn
rw? ns?rsiee
N? IN iic?mawo
mm
DESIGN CCNTWRS NLTHW STREAM CHANNEL NOT
SHOWCHANNEL SHAG BE CONSTR,CTEB
ACCORDING TO TTPICAL CROSS SEUMS.
30 15 0 30 60
SCALE (Fr)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PROJECT REFERENCE 140. SHEET No.

PROJECT 84GIN t

,t st /? `4it
/1 V(7Nn0
Y
L PRELIMINARY PLANS
Nar un MR COMMULTIM
EF P
\ ; 3d
( od
ERT.
?
L -
I
?
? \
r
{ \
ti
° ti {
? AX'STPo,CTED
BER1I ',? ? , I

t
° f
i
? J 1; '
`

I
\i

'

? ?

,
R"w
BUCK °°°° Pw" SUM
VSII °
.?„
9-463-5486
'?' P..
i
(?
f i 1 }
f NOINttRINO
oq?
siw
'}
??( ?? 4 `?' 93 7 [
i 1f EDBERII
?
?
iL `
;

.^ J

i I
Er?
t {
z I
\ >
?V t 1 ? L ? 1i
? t
O ;'. \ I # .
L
t
_I
t
?O

1 --

S21+00{ } Ir { rr \II)?
J

° f {
\
J t( 1 ti { i ? r{ 1 ?

31,
? g+00 y
2 r t ((I?
;`I ;t ?i }} } I ' try s 1' f? f ,?
? n o
,
1 ±i
i {
i 1
t2 ii f ' ? ?
t i
?? N
}
? } ?
?- 00 I l f V `t t } ? j
I { {?" j i
? N •_ ?I J
? i' , 1 - i
?
f
1 I
{
{
f
4 l
{ ?
''" t I 11 ?? ? 1 ? ? ?, i ? 1 } ?
? f 1 t
? ?' i ?
I }
? i
l i

t_1 } I 4 I ?- _1 i ` 0
} i t l? .. { i 1 t .. O { ! r r
i._) i j 1 1 } t
}}?l? ??F r,k of i } }} i } ? t
1
t
\1 i t 1 r i
\
t
? '
1 r
l r O
O t t ?
tr
J
,,:\ j\\ € }`
)ttrr If i\ t rt` t , \

1

,
?? f ( 5 1 L
l

+Yt"
Ifs
r
i
.r
.

x r r t
`f
v
? .. DESIGN CONMRS WITHIN STREAM CHANNEL NOT
._. _
?,. j r' , ? SHOWXCHANMEL 4WL BE CONSTA47ED
ACCORDING TO TTPA;AL CROSS SECTIONS

GREGORY SITE
$ie
rw
30 15 0 30 60

eie SCALE
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PMECf ENGINES
.i

g PRELIMINARY PLANS
?! i1 •` _ ,
_ ,• 1 ^ •, t t t •, . it DO NOi um rm commvcm et
i If
\ j 1 v° 1

f ..
t
f
{
?
*
7
I
-
lr mo w
._.
T
j :
?
?
8iJ -
1
? it+ t
` ;i

t i
1
;
1
?
t ( _ t _- / t
t ?- y -.
th \ / { lP00 ppwq PUbrq SUY IDP

Cey, Nam Oa,ow 21511
PMe IiPlSlbll!
BUCA
\ t - F-11,63340

-
f
,• _ ? ? - - / r ? ?'' T .. ^ ? ,S.aP?G'-L•:C2'-E=E-c7?s-ss?ia
'` -- ?. ? } ; ^ +• ?' \ = / ` - / } ? _ - ._- _ _ -- - - -
l
) d V
... .. - - - -
`
-
- ?-e.:-?-?.<.
_
i 1 f 1 " i t f L
1 ?
? J
s.?.. 1.,?
..
,=_ t _ _ _- rr.srt--zzz - - - _ •• -- _
\ t 1 k \ 'r\ _ _. 11 1: 1 :Fj
YNS / _ - _----------- -- - -- - _ __----
-
-
-
--
L _
_
_
_
- - -
-

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
- - - -
- - - - - - - -

O CONSTRUCTED SE
CONSTRUCTED
pul !t
c
t
I ., r
(o t r }

M f l } a r

I r
Of
\

/ y

T i \
?1 \
co O
i
.01
i i
cs
105 0)

'
x Li
}^y /? ( bo
? W
! ((
^^

o ??
w b ??I t O
?
} I o° f
} h
O tom, I }
^'?
? f
?
v,
/
/
tv t 7 Q

? \
?
i / \
9m }O 36x \
t a {
r. ? t
.> >
eo O ?
_
t
ti
a 1 ? 1 / /

•
' m2m
,'
39+00 '1 DESIGN CONTOURS WTHN STREAM MANNEL NOT
SWWXCNANNEL SWL BE CONSTRCTEO
AO RDMG TO TYPICAL CAOS? SECrAWS.
C 1 x00
s ^` GREGORY SIfE
m
° 30 15 0 30 60

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Y i ?
` ?? i ! f 1 _ 1J ! . a? f *.

N
J PRELIMINARY PLANS
00 mar w. Pm COKSMUCT W
AD 83,
r f

J l f D / / r
/'
" /~` r \ ' mow1
` 1 ` t { / \ t 4 l W flpllq POI 5W 7W
IO
J
J
?(
r? 1
- .'A'.m +r f
3 t \ Ut
"?'
?
^
J ' PMrt%Y?6351/111
B
/r t
\ r.,
/
\ !\
1J
r r
LNO CRI F-919 ?m
6
t
1

71

Cli

? `'
/ z t 1 ! t f J +

5
-7
00
c) co
I ? t rl /
1 J 6N
?
J ?T ! - ,
L F-
? s
t r'
i 1 1
?s W

(P
10 V)
47+00
W

}
L r !(o c
$
fox f N
J `? O k
°
° Z
} hp

45+00 +
1 1 I v

1
J
% O
°
co
I
j
U
1> }
I
, \ r
\
`S r
° f E-
7x0
0

t r

IS.
t + L ^ ?` j -? v/
ic? < _ ' t
B
L
A
Q `• WWM
n L DESIGN CONTOURS MITHW STREW CHANNEL NOT
o SRMN.CHANMEL SHALL BE CONSTRICTED
ACCORDING TO TTPCAL CROSS SECTIONS
> 4i sl
i
c
a
`, GREGORY SIZE
•
OF
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
reoacr e+aNEEK
1` z
-At IPR?L"°'M?NR S
t r r ,fs - ?? Z i q7 \ r'• M `
EOW Pyuq P-bm Sal m
BUCK.
/' r ?t? ?1 1 ' J ~~?~f l ?t'? { O MC R O
10? fc riie?so
r. ?# 'i$?r r r' r ! f r 1 S J f
-------
' sew}
SO f
f 7 ti ! / ( E # f: fJ ,- ?? ' `• ` ? ? U1W??H,CTEO BERM
/r } ?? O_ 1 fit !t
Ir rtr' ?} 1 .. ? ? f- t` If`i ??tit t II ? {
, t
tv? f? f I I{? i ., ? O
58+00 / /r f r v ?? # s!
t /
63 b0 O f 1 rr [ rsr1 00
! Q
F-
? ? 57+00
41
2
If , + `v 3' fn
(A / O co
v /
-1 ` / ° b ! f
y t / a rn ro '\j of Z
10
'J ? I / / t\?f elf 1 r ?'-
/ \ / ?\ 1 1 Q
(] / \l ^; ; rrl l ?r .,. ..? tom"~r E CC
/ ?/ 7 ? 'i 1 f f t3z t r r \? 1
t? f? \ i tiJ f
/
%\ <t L..,?
v
a 1
a \
m ? s
VIT,
i
v GREGORY SITE
s° 30 15 0 30 60
?s .1 ? 1 • ? DESIaNT'Q1RS W?HIN STREAM CHANNEL AOT
t
G J ? _ , ,. - - . °. ` > ShONAL NF1 SRAIL 8E CONSTIMTED"
j;mi ACCORDOG TO TYPg1L CROSS SECTIONS.
SCALE (FT)

r' I? 73+Dn
! J / i ? / ? t J ( `.
\
f
1
t
I ? / ? f
? ? t v
c ^i ? 1 't i No Nees
\ L, f y - ?r r i
r
I f 1?I i\?r''t ?, \ V Jj (.-^ Ir j J, f/ rf?
( (V t 1 ( ?Z ?\ J J }`Y I
r t? \ ? i ? I \
1 Q i 1`_._l ! ? r I
e
+
O , _ r v {
O
S
CL
Q
B
i
`c
(; 1 i f
i ( 1 / f ID -

?., F ? f { Nf I6
Nf
(

r
i \
? ,
rL t
I
REACH -Z-STN 77.6723
END CONUTeIXTION f

C)
f .fir

DES" CONTOURS WITHIN STREAM CHANNEL NOT
SRDMI(CHANNEL SHALL BE CONSMCTED
\ i
A(,T,g2O1AC 7D TYPICAL CROSS SECfCWS.
r
- GREGORY SITE

,_ 30 15 0 30 60
Irrrr.6i---i___j
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PROJECT ENGINEER
!
r 1 1 tl, } t i
r') i rt , PRELIMINARY PLANS
r r !• '} j, t q A r i e ro MTr uee FOR oMSMUCr at£
r i i i' w pM } i t
f r r .? tt i it ?t'i f
!r G t / l t
} 4 I ?r ? r ? .? 1 ref- ? h\ ? f
pMp\? 1t1 /'./tr .-rv r \}r ( i i F /} F, r 1 1 eaoo R.y.gr..Vy swm
r v r .J \t? ,! 1 5 r \ J r t.' I 1/ 7 1 i 13UCI
rc "
Q ^? ??? -'` -(lC? l-T .• l { e? t \? f_t 1 7 1 i?}\f.! O [[ O F- 994635490
Z i/ r ?,.. 1Cr { r t\i'i/ }! r\'+\r C t r t !r// I
f ,.left r „/ 1 L ,1'1., '-r ?, t ? r E 1Jr ,??r t/ l j i C Jr€
_ _.-. c-,7 t?: ?...? ? ? `ru ? f `y?-•` ~ ? rjl yr ej,±z ^i 1/ ,11 t E )lJ r ! 1 ? ! r Y r / r J
?.--- `n.l`J- .. _ ., 1J.% •??>? t- mss-. J Iy ri rr) rr ? ? ?\? t t,•ti ,`tl,' 1 f f i ,`??? '`\? ( / / Ill.
r 1 } r J ( i
y 4? .r ;. v ' c '" ty ? .J -'\ 1 `._\t \1 ! \1t?11 or
---------- -%
r 'R Cis ?? ` [? > J y a?g ?\ t :fi ttttt, } ! r; F --' r{r Jr 1 Emu Guv5lfmwKr
f A ,. ?_ .P\r \! . 1I4 ! jii} tt r / ' 1 ?? 1) '' f
±? ?? _ i/ yft,_ lr? r i ;p'f t., `? ?-• 1 tLl 1it1?'Jr!£t }ti ?! /'' '} It I!
t? .1??C . ? `J ?.? +`i ? !.t ? ?-^ i r E ! t E t t ! t ` ! t 7' f Jt / t.. ?it tf _ t r j
?J`i T??/. I,1J "??? •ry ?Jt .. 4--, J `\..? ', It\\( j\ \}4t I+jIJtJ! !I'' (? }
-•? l r ! ?,?----- c r ^? t, -?-, ? r?'?"' ` !\?!r•\?lttijt f, r)r. (?, 1 1 r
t / Ir ) ??? S ?i 1+ i ??..r .r3 S `'?,` C.` U t'\\tt} l`t/1/J 11//?r? i E f ! /
rr ?? { r Y? ,^.\) t r, r\ C-- z- t?_\ ii 11>h/{ } ?,,i tt I\l\11\ \\jlF1'+ {..\11tJ C`,y } Ir,.i
) -i _?.t J>s \u t i r \l; \" \ 1 {'' M \ ?
1 R1?1 ?Ji ?? rr?+, ?^r ? f= \ = rye'.-?1?r ?Ir ?. I ". ! "1\tt `'?'t,?1111? \ ; \.- it
/ ~?s r .sV a---. lI \^ f ..t-?i, A 1 L \\?\ 11 \l\\t? ,l l 1, (. t3 1 ,r'\
tl S., ? ?rf ? . i? t"."• r `.. 6 1 ? r! I+..? ,,, t, t I l ?- ? l ! } \\ ? l 1 1 ' }tl
y.. t>7 „„t?? ` J a' 1 ? :\ J t r a' 4 ? / I $ r., ? c .+?.- t ^ '- w L \ t t l ?\ t11L\ \? \ \ >` E J ? r t '
? t !'• ° 7!y"? i U?t? l\.f f 5 (?-? iL 1 !.r t ?,? a t/ \ `'t IQ t \ tl It?\ \ ` \ {r tll ^'?.
t/ t t.??. fi, 1 Gz Jt t 1 \ 1 ,1 t\\\\\ l l? \ ytlt
z } ? ._ 1 ? `? \ a r /y ?-rti~ - } .. -?. ? .,? ? •, .- \ `` `t ,\ ,. ?, \ ; It \ 1 _ \ .- ^ ` \ t}
s 11 r LC,.? G+ ? A v< I t
i/l S S r \ c:.r\ / t r. ? r r l <? t n ? t- \- } } ? `1 tl\'t\ \_tt}-•?r } }
.iI cT £ \ %' r t 11 1' l \\ ? ? l l t
1 .. ( } sit 11 ? t?_-? tl ! '? .r''_'}_ 5, 0 '" t' ? '\ 1 1 \` ll 1} t \•- ?'--' tlt t;
l?}l ?.,i P ; tlv?! 1 S?',! G.. / r s`r .: 1 1 ? . 1 A !' ? ? i ?> tl,}'t(\?1?}Jv`-'.==??ilf\:
\\? r \ s ?( } / to [ t >c t tl t 1` 4 i}
\ \\? ?- St r 1 `•.. ..> .. r / .^ rti .._• ? t } \'+ ? - S \ ° ) r\.. ` } ? _,t tl l},. 1 '\+.` --> i \... (rr\L
\? i}\ -\ \ S 1?1 L71 ,?, r r. i/ `i?_ ? .=?s ? e Z- \i +\ {Slit\1?\_\\\1- ?4?1?tit11\`\\r
t}}}t \? ? e} } / ?\ ? r j 1 { ?? ??`C...? `?;,,Ji `a ..`.[\? ? l +} \ }} ?? ?}; \\\11\?\\e.,t 1^^\1>ttT'/)tlt\\
' I} } 1 l `;3 , t,,...? v /?i r ? ? ? ?•?` t ,1 t1 _ \? t ttt^ 1LL1\?_ ? \ }1lltttl
?i11ty } 1 t#\ t } 1 t ,11 Ir `tom. / ?tJ al ~ y r _?/ r ?. tlcz ' \\ !? t. . t ` "t \ \7 i ttttt?lttltA-
;,°F?y',' i -S ` _ ? 1 ? / s t` 4 < ? `` _ ? 1 \\ 1 \ } : ti ,ti ? `" w } t } t t 1! t?
'1lrlJJ#// t l Z tJl\ _ i'1S?/ry) s e\,>f-tit' tJ tJ 1?;t ?\ `t ,lfl ifJ t ?\ \ '11'1 t.+7t tllll\`\\?il}i \
1 > t t l \
lltl=[ j t t If t9y \T 1> }' rr t ,., 4 t r? > 1 `} (ltl ?t?li 1
( } ; t? / _ 1. a Cf ?_ \ i? /? ??_ t.r @1 l ` r 1 t 11 tll!¢} i_?=
lJUli i \I\1 tt Y `-yip ` J Js I l ( £Z ( >r ?1 17 (r} r \\\ \t}\\ r y\\t It{l\11i )C
4 1? i r-.. ?-> 'i a< r R a r r \_ r. 1 i Z; 111 \\`\
Ills j ! 1 } "? .t-?"/ /? "?! i ;)r . ? .. v .-- v,ti a ^^ t v ?S l t t t-1+v !t tt?A \v.-? v
J, 115.,}}I .I?t t / <'yt <' a'>,?`J.r!11^w c="'.='c?yr?f .-?\? j_+ - \t \r , 1 } }}t\ \
1 1 l 1 y ,f+ r`.?, f '`•A ?S° h?'} ?'?ti ?.,.! > ?` \ \ rt t ??. A?.1
!11 i t\i\t t t `'\! ?/ / \1 ````\? 40L t ??<r w t' rr f~! t ` \f\Jr } r t \5it!/
/f ?t`-/p \ 1; , :-J `_ _xi `?'> ? a? Z ._ ?.^ .. t f t 1 1} + f /Jr
a t \ C t, r t w ? - v t F f
t 1 1 >< % sir s t _ _?? ° r r- A t 1 C ^',1 } I ^' ; J a? ,. a? 1 t r 1
1 i 1 t..jl `\ ;1'?`ttJt- „J ? ''? _ tf .e \ ?' ? ? ,'' t? ?_, l.T \, 1 (t 1 r 11 t t jt'S s .. \ \ r:?1 a ` , r `Y ? 1 c, ! t, t: ti• - _ ? t ? 1(r V \ \ ! ! ? 1 ? -,,-'^' ? ,, t'1 l 4 }
! ? ?i?\ ! y t .•r r'` g b \r r. d_J 1 l A r" 3 S {( 1
;;_.- r \ ? 1 ? -.ti ? 1f? lrr" \ /t i? l ! r. a r t t ,• fl}i tl t
C,\r il? \t!4 1 t } ,, °!J r/1r'i (_ i It /Jr r_ rr f t
'I•n} ?' ;? ? f }?} !? ?L t , \! ?? f f "t ? ;ltl t,
.?1(R ` r.!t1 I { It i\ `- 1 r`t i C. °? rt1rr a L!, \ 1 1 };' 4 ) `{'\ t
r r,.`J; t? i 1 ? (f ?pr1 } L ri ?,° ,t } ??,?1 `\ \ '. , lpl 1 c } ( ?
1' ? ? ((t 1'\O 11 t w,tt v > G `? > r '? , - f \ ? 1 ?° } ? „ / t 1> , ? 1v > ? / ! t t . r } ?
r} i f / t it ?.? r?, 1y\ ?\ _ t j r ?? t E +i 1. ' \t t (r / l f t ', ?
"•.f 1 J ?. }? °rv} ??
l ? 1 `' '' t ? +?r \ Gti ?l /? 4 1 1 l+l ?? V ? yr , l \ ,t
_i-? ..i~sl .• ?1?.. ?\? ! \i .l?\\l \° " - { ? ly / t \_1 \t\ r?\ is r'^L 1 } `1 ,? ?? 't '. \ ~?J?->•,1?
v d 4??v?V v\ v ?G tirf ? it :.% /-vy Vt 1 1 'fit ; r, < ? ?? i tl 1 Al v _? (Ji<! r
a , v? ?, t v s T{? r - t l , v +' l
??U`.,:4 '_ r t a --+e ; ,r -- 'b 1 i aIY \ r t - • r . r f }^?°' U i,, r
a
m u. V Fl / J / !r 1^? l y?? of
m vYyr E t ? , v e . ? ? ? r ?. ? v ' ? v iI o
%
a ? ?}' rir\ .\ t \ ?ti.-\,? \ ~,??,'?- a\'j\ `J <..» -+ i j/?/ 1?.1 t 4t.?'\ ,??+ } 1,y ?' 1` U? ? \1 1r?> i(, GREGORY SITE
` i n - _ '; . 's ? `' ., ° - - - \ - \ ?' GRADIAiG PLMIS
o JL frn sir, ?., ,? \,rr ", \ \r? \-\ /? !' n
r 100 50 0 100 200
MATCHUNE SHEET 11 ?'
e
e
e
e
e
•
e•
e
•
•
•
•
e
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
MATCHLINE SHEET 10
ROJEU ENOIN®l
?r .. i •` i 4. \ ? t?' ~ ` ? `? i 4 ? ?EJ n} * f ^' ` ` \ ? ,,.? ! (• ,? 1 .. ?,r'i - ? .J ?- r? f ` t, f !' / / }
'_„ '.`.` EM1., k, / f / ?..? j i 1slr ;jt?t; `P6e 1 { \_. ^,'l,• \\
"y _rt (dJ a I {W¢ / PRELIMINARY PLANS
, mUCrOM
?yi i ! 5 t ! • \ ~r S? t \1 G < \ ! < 1{s; r W f t ! r oo MT UM PM mN
l? I f it E,- \?-- ' 7 "'\t\ r„' a`' i,•.+ \j L is y,1 t wig^Z+.`} '?-"'f'?.-t •7 t f !
f
j\ t!
K
"?f trt ` { ?.r 1\`'y?3+! •\\~5 ` ` l? .?•? V-. -\ C`, fr `1 ',i \?`?tti ?{ fn
? rJ r ' f \ \ i' '- i 1 { r ?l.F ?r}t ..!•.ti\ `'?1 .ir \ \l \ ry \ 1 iti'' /?? \
! ?ti £'-1 ! } t c 1 t s` t J 1 1 J It v \ [-.? f ti e / \•--. \ eooo RogwKr wWSwmo
a 1~ r\ !} tr \3 ! t y s if/ r'J # fi` 1 r G \ '-' l! j !.. 't\ t L2 4 B mew emy.xaa? nn,
na?wsue
tt t `y \ , i?Jr ,.\\ ?Ei ry` ,!! 5 ,f } ' ! N, iz 1ti ` i No RRI ec nRmsuo
{ \r Y •\1^_.,? /// \ \J ti ?(rj /? ( f ? ?i?`l?`i ?`? r/. tt { °t ? 1\ yt Rro.:
t ? ? L 1\
1 / W7
! '" ,?-Z .. ?r i } ( _ { t` i iJ} ? \ t ? ! ' t ?t t Zq ? ^\ 1 ) i `?Q t?t i , lf.?\l ?' O{ ^'r tQ?
€ ? {\ J -'} r t \ ?._-,? S° V ! @ t t?? { ! f 1 S? ?,• r1f vt t ., / T? 1 Pvt. 1r t`a?,?t yL,,,`-\ s
tt t ! ?\ r' \`? \1t: (`? `1 =r.nt; It i r J r li ,t ;?? t u +d.>r?.r? v?ly } > }\!.. ??\S f40J
? w\ t .+-' `t '^1 > ! t ?t i 1 ,. ti \ ? r i (?tr5 ? ? t 1 ? t•
t 1 iii i / 1f• \il i_ } 1 J 2 !? ! / \i r. t\ \rii i lr 1
G 1 1 1?.s S ? /\1 t\'t'?r{ y .. S ! 9 f ! 1 c 41 \ ! : ? ( ! \ l G i ? \ 4 \ !
11 it -s Z ^? ! ! ! \ `\`^ wit ! 1 L i t trr 1?, ( / §-, r,l sot
! t ?,? t 1 f f e -f? ' et
S \ ?J t _ f 1 ?ti ?? ? k \v t J r !? ` ?" i.\. `, M h?? t,.?\ \\'t\ .S ? u, t1 -i I \ ? f^.'
t -? / vr- \v , i t l f t If t i f t i 1? ?u ??}y\: !?'l\rv/1(f!3 4
} } I C ?...° _- ?\?`S< it ,_ i ! ! t ? Z \\`. fsF-1 ? ?,/ lti ? yt \v f J J ( r\ 1 t\\i { l i{#3tt?',` € ? ^`
Q// ! 1 ' F r, //`?0 _? t n _t f t ?? l a?1 ?F ? !
_ 1 ? rr t^ f i i -, i? t si 1 LE{ ? f ,? t i i t ?r \\ 1 i ?4 !,??? rt ?i \ t ? t r..`--.! ? ?ti1 \ , 5 \\.- )
\ ! ' i/ / €? \ t / \t 1 t 1 ??? :1 4 to >>?. ? \t
r \{ f s ! J r\Cr r; f ite?o ; ! t `' .\ t 1 {' t\l 105 ` \\t\\g n` ,»>__ t tj
r rr -\ "-? _ F t\ t ?? t 3 \ IL
t' / r.i \ } i ti „ C V \\ t I12 J ?_ .ln ` , t \ J 3 f 'C? f ( t `
t ^ t; \ ., \ { \ 3 \ ?? ( J \ } ? t? s ? /.,y1 i?7 t ?? <\ ` Ct ,\I s??r f!/ ? \?S?
1 \ to ) ` J \ •, \ \ ( Ct y } -- ^
&T 165 105 >t ? {t t? ?x
t ! t /^v??v_ "^ v?v ? Y°v,t t r tQi i 1` c `t ?}
` 1 / \ •. 1 _ r \` I i 't }? ? ` 1 ? -. ? 1 4 t } vi \?tt?`} ? JVJ ? /
` f S'!^ ?``y _r \ \ ! -rl f ? ?3 l ? it? 'tl `\ fi 1 t i? ?I Fv 166 1 ' \ St?f? ? ?3 \'~t /\a'"? ;\'a ?'7 FC
f ?6 S {r??1f?.r d !'
aft/ ! _\_ r\? ?` -' t1(1 ~`\r Qt t \' i ! 1; i?At \\{tP t { 1? ??? t' ri`?!? ~t?15
...-t ,,. 1 /. - --'? \ 'w ? "'??__ l !J r \---. r 1t `1? ^' 1 rat - ) \ ? ? ? 11 ,? ? \t .,? { ? ` rr? !`?fi
??(r f'rl / t\ \...? ~-.? `'„•`v / \ r' J. ?J ` !_ ~?^' - ` , i ?/j ` 1!r\ }t > ;r\ ! t ! ` t St1; Jti y IJ fj5!\ \ y
rt' r ^\ \? t 1 t 1 1 05 _1 J
ids Ktc
t -.,,E r\ r? 1 "`,l! ?s ?4 t \t ?? t i ?,\ }1 r. ? 1 ?1! (7r?(,}'? ? J £r t t(? f"l? '1 t j?p?'L^?
} i , i 1 t t \ i t 1 t t r 11 i- n ? } 1 t \ I Ij' c
f ` \ ?? ? R t '?!? i ~f t Y t ` ? L' \ r \ l ° z r ?" -` ! 1(35' 4 t\ \ 1 T'(3c5 ?.dr ?«
t ?J \„" / ?: E\ \ t \ S L r \1 t t t ?/ t \' ?\ ! t
F-F ? t y..j ( r 5` `° t ? \? t l 1 ? ? !/ r>>tit,1 ?` !tr .' •1 ,ry t'`\ t `'` _ ?"'?,?? `' ?,?'J ? \s^ ?' ?yn j?
P J a} v i 1__ r gtSl t) t v 4 v !l t J ' 1? A l \ K ?r
ME'
! IJ ^ / ? ? f 1 i ill i t t} t t { t r F' t / (? ? t t ±Q ?t10
/ `? } tA'} }!/{ !r r\\?`"\r? rl f /,?, t\ ,l i? t', // 11`fyt l< ~r t\?1 -103
VAty, '?,A
\t 1>\? / tv V v1 l+© ;? 1\ ?t1 ??? ,1 i t ! Ji`lJli t•}t {-!1 1 01 ?;105
IFS - "gar ,5??? ?tA/ 5
r \! 1 .\ \ ! }` !!l+J t ; 1 105 t{3 \ 1 1 j - j !` 1 45 \
i i 1 ! t! ?) ?j_ ` „(
i L
i ; (L?if7V 1 !? hi 1 } °,../rrr. !r } t? -{ tv rl? 05 1055 ?.A t
v t t 1 v p v -``.v - r 1 . 1 \! r L i I !?
L ..i 1! t 4 1 \ t? ?v ?--?rfr ) 1 ! / ? l- ?^i .r A ?+? J? ! f.. >, 1v
N i95,
14
t i V 4?0i \\\" I r i (p? G tJi t, ?A /! f ?r f y.'t 105 L t
r \\ / r'J Jrr 1 _-J SQr t t' 'r rt !1 rY40P
ej ! } i t • _ i f-,{??/t r}t?11 ur+./ r ?l S? O J f, lrl
r yr ?! i `1 t., t / / ?? ! !7 ?,y? t r t It
j;?i `` ?i ^. ?a ft? ?f ?t
? t ^^n? . V r ? ?? v 1`' f' ° -- v t J /? / I t(!_J xhJ 1 r ? 1 ? ! ( ? J? e? j z f ? .,
1. r?"t/f \ f ! 1~ / r3 / ' r 1 \_, r.\Jt -t ` „? f7 i1-` i J ?Y f
r 135 rr `1
r i v i ?/ vV.. A 4 r Lt\ t ?vrf? ` . _. rli ?? + iS5 i t.v
li ,\ \;I r Y t Y, _ C3 r -?
?ENDtCri51mull0N ! is ^? _'V ?` t /' !'' ?,?f?i? `r? i ?'"? ' z ?'•Lt r
:i15, f r r wy a 1{}?/' J'? ? -- ! i..? , Zf? 1 / f k5 ;rrG L! rtr ??,
C? j i/ i ,.n !J r/??r 1 1" ?t^ A ?L 'V 't f _ `t!' cri 13 s^i FrJ r it t?inn r
? , v ?v 1 ! r` ? ;..? rT rr-.} e?f /? vJ 1 l ?.t,.+r?` ?, /il `-s ?' {? 1 '\ YtV p •? t-„
r - r r\? t Y: t yn _ 7 k 5
`L?4 '} ? O 71` S f t j ? \ \ ! \ \
n t v t "/f„ ??? r 1.' e a„'' i ,,,"°' •t " '' l? 3 fjj `'- ^ t ?` 141 \
m ' 'v Y_ 35 r V , Ar r z Lk- rr5? ?7Ehah t % vs ?? € i 1 '' ' c
es?
/ 1 1 t / `?'}< !? }o fr 1 rt ° `r-- r `/? GREGORY SITE
*
s ! f 1 .r l0g5 GRADING PLAINS
100 50 0 100 200
NIOkCI ux,*M®l
PRELIMINARY PLANS
I
DO 1mr um A CommuLTWN
120
l
BUCK °°°°C ary,EGS u6"???°
r?Pna?vsue
NO NL INO hcnwmswo
110
100
120
110
r
w
a
w
w
e
e
w
w
w
a
a
r
100
e
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
!
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
44 4T 444:?
T
FI
' -

4 44 PRELIMINARY PLANS
r un 1

-'
- m w
00. mdamm
:
120 44 4 44 +
t

E
44+
`
463i488
Pa
ile
wl[
-
NO NttR NO 41 Pa 11Mlb'YO
+H
a * J71

i

I I

i

I

i i !
!i

I ;

i
{

-
4 ,

i +
i
LZ m ml I N; ?, I {
110

v ce
7 6 i

j r
ii
_ I A :II Ii J
:I ?, it
is a

i=
i

I

I

I

i I
i
I
1 I f - + I
,I I ? . 1 ' i S I{{ 3 {
1 ;

100 s i

+ I

I ?? 7

1

4-

1
i i!+ !
ice. {i ip !i
! + i i
t i ! , i I i
4 5+00 46 +00 47+00 48+00 49 +00 50 +00

i I
i
i t

1 I
I I
I ; -r!- -^-- -
4444-

120 -

i I { + , 1 1
i { 1,

i

i i
:-L

110 I ?
W ?' 1
Q f I?
.? i
Q
, I
,
Ti
o
.

~? b N 7 N d p 1-N 9 If -0
[? J ' a w -.i# ?i.tl
( 4+4

: I

a
w t
J i
i
t + 1
4 -
I..
44
-
-
1
7
1

r.
Z

•a
ws

1

t

_

-

.
4?

a

-.-

-

,
p

_

_

?

-

,

_

_

_

r
t
it

{

A )IU

M
44
4-4- 54 -0 0

+
N
ww , 1 1
i 1 f I PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
i 41 -11 t
-
i
f PROJECT ENGINEER
T T
- :--t--
_ i 4 _
?

(

f

! PRELIMINARY PLANS
Yo N=GT U88 FOR CONPROCTMS
L L
i
120 1. I
I

: I ;
1
HIT
1

3
BWO YpxgPWmf hub 3Y0

M:MR
CaeYn 37511
0+7.
BUCK
1fY?
161YY
P1
-4H- H+ i
ale
Pc t9x744oo
it NO CtRI 0 :!L
i
i t

I f !1 1
sit li

I

i !
I

-

I

i

_

i
'f

1 -if
i
1

is

i

i

I

i

1 !

- t

3

+7

l
il
i

.I f'

i I
1 i

1

'

ti

'

li

110 N ' i 1 ' N r Q i l' I
. 1
o

` I
iq3

1

Y.

M` :r0
1 3
.mt I
I
I, {
a Y J Ru a J Y - w w I
i

i i 1
,{
I

i i

i

i
3 A
II li
ii
I I
i
I
:i
I
li
I
!1'
i
? i
i
it 3 11 ?{ V I
I 31 ili

-_ I
I 1 !i { 1
! 1 1

I
I

1 -i t

I

` {

t

i
j

1

I

{

I

i

'

I

00

i
(

t
i

f

I

I

I

{

!i 444

I

i
i

1

1

{

t

i,

j

{ 1

i I

II
!

t

i
(
i i
!
: r
4
I
i t
i
i i
n
M
3
1
A
i?
! --k4
!
I!
il!
I,
,

57+ 00 58+00 59+00 60+00 61+00 62+00 63+00
I : it li I it i ili ilf
i
it

I
i

444
i{
I

f

I
l I

{
I I
,
i
I
{
I
i

120 I
-
j jj

' -17
i

i
i I!i i
!
i
i'
!I

444

'I it
,

!I'

i3

i

1

i
i
ii !1 I 3
I
{!
i'

I
ii

i
i
1

i

(
i

!

I

:

i

I

f
110
-H-f+

Q
4 a l
b
-
,

I I I I
1.
r : 4 47
1 1 1 1 ?

e 100
1
I - - - -
Z I I I ! f l

.e
» t--- - -
-W17-.- ?It b
M
N f I ' ? f f ,

ee 1

i
NO. SFiEE7 N0.
PROJECT 11381E10E
I

I !
!

-

OIELT E11Gt?t

f
I
I
I
I i

- 1
it

I

i

PRELIMINARY PLANS

Do mw um MR commm-rwK

I
-
120
-
H-4
4
44

1

I
+

is
i t I
I
I

I
44+
1

1

I

`

!

lll P Sub ]m

IKw9
°" °" H4M3
VV

s
NO C R NO ? he 119b/90
lo
Z

EI

! i
!

f

t
r E i i f i ! i 1 1 1 i
{ ! ! i 1 V ! a E
- T
T -
i

i

I

{

i F
T

! ,
l
i
,
i

I

i
f
i

' i
I _

i

i

i

t
i i!

i!
f

I

i
7

1

i

i

[

!

i

i

!

1

i
i

I

1 i ii i 1 !!? I! ?1 i
t - N!
I r,

E Y

+'

I i
t i
'o I im
l m

!+ P b'
Cl
i
IN T-
IR o` I
i l l
I

+ m I
of
m
i 1
t i
t
l 3 ! f i ! I
i
I
' I ':

i t
I
I
I ? ? 1 tom! 1

t l
1
!
i
li
Ii
1

I

1
I
I
I 1 1 j I

(I

!i

i i ;

! i

i
1
! 1 ?I t ! I I t I! li

I

iV
1
i
t

? L-L

-

i.
; E

I

1
? i III i j ,
t I i t V

d

I

!

I

!

I wl

I ,

!

!

!

!

1
1

i

I
II (
-

!i

li3

1 1

I?

i V

I
,
iii i
i
I
11
!

0

10

I i

i

I

I

1

I
I

t

j

I

I

I

i

i

i I

, ! ! i

I

is
i
1

?

t

'ill
!i ':iii 11 !I! i !1! ti
{ !i{1
69+00 70+00 71+00 72+00 73+00 74+00
;! I li I li II it 11 !!

!
j
I

s

t i
i i

j

i
L I
a
i
=F
F
t

1
i

1
i'.

120

I

ii i I

- _

I
i

i

1
I

' 3

It
1 I 1 1 I
{i
I

1
1

ii
!

!

!I
1
I

I

I i
I
i

{

,
I

I

1
! i ! s 1 V i ' i I I
+i l
-L 4+
44

'

,

.
110
44+
-H+
+F

i
444+ 4 +
i ? m . mt. i I
m Q o + t
? p m
,tl J tl J. M J ? I
1 ¦ 11
a I , a
¢
I

-'

6
e -•-1-
w
w
w
_ ..
-
-
I

'
-

e
® i I I i
--
-
Y ? { i
I?
I L
I
? I :
1 1
I
?

Z 100
Eli
I
,

44?1- !
4
44
4-
444-4- -44 4-

?
i
i
I -77
r
w
u,a -•- T- -? m tV t t- I 1 .--- L v?h...• --?
14- iV I -`- 1 f- T- t Ti_ +

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
NO. simr t'o.
WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT mor_-r
ENVIROMENTAL BAtNC AND 1?EXCHALNGE, LLC
GREGORY SITE PRELIMINARY PLANS
00 7pi' VS IR COMIAOC170N
REVEGETATIOK PEON
B 5000 R"." Pad V Sub 700
C.y. NaAhiWU AX 11
110.M36 775275
O fa rwJ6l6{SO
LOCATION. OFF NCRS 561 NEAR HALIFAX
TYPE OF WORK WETLAND AND STREAM RESTORATION
rR4?D-8 3:
>x -
x `
/i\\ri\?/i\\?i /i?\/\\/i\\r\\/i\\r\?i\\r\\/i\\r\ri\\r\/\`x/
/ \/\i\/?\ \i/ZlV\\ /\// //
\ \\/i\\/r\\r\\/`\r\\/ /\\/i\\/\ i\\?\/\\?i\\/\\/`\
//\ /\?/\//\//\//\?/\//\Y/\
r/\>/\//\/r y\//\/r
\yy??/? \\i \\//N//?\/r?/??`r/?
Xi\/xi\r\i\\/\\i\\/\,\\/\?i\? \r\\ \\r\\ \\i\\ \\r\\ \? \\ / \\ \\ \ \\ \? \\
NX \X' /I
`?
\\/ r
c COMSTRLCTEO BERM
1
a
m
m TOTAL AREA TO BE PIAMTED BARE-FWT TREE
02 ACRES PL ArrMG BODRDAw
a
VEGETATION PLANTING
M7TFG PLAN
m
o ; -A:OT rREESTLW?l BE TEO BP 70 rHE STRfaMfBAMRTOF rREOMEMw
SfREAMTCRANMfL
W THE DETAMS?Jlal . NEW $T,?EAM BANKS Of REACHES 1& 2 AS DESCRIBED 4,0 20 0 40 80
1PCARTMG BWA04 d' WILL BE STAKED BY THE EAGWEER PRIOR TO PUNTMG SCALE `?
a¢ 1
n fma ?w,. r^4??

loy4i

v
aA(\-
I C, 0: ?,J
12fy,) CU
0,1,/ 03/ 2004 16: 32 19194635490

BUCK km 7
911
? e %dh 8 6

p., 1 (C Ir ! ' i = Fox: 919.468.5490
.?.._._._...._._._. ,_......?....., %wW.buaMr0* hnp,rnm
ExP 04-09zy
TO: NC Division of Water Quality
Parkview Building
2321 Crabtree Blvd
Raleigh, NC 27604
ATTENTION: _Beverly Strickland (fax [phone])
DATE: June 3, 2004
BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 01
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
f44
lij3 E- C'
RE: Ctial Express Permit Application for 401 er
Grd o Mitigation Project
JOB NO. 170
We are sending via:
?X Fax Q Regular Mail Pick-up 0 Hand Delivered
The following Items: EX]
Correspondence Q Plana ? Specifications Other as listed below:
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
1 Initial interest in participation in the express permitting program for the 401 water
quality certification form
1 Project Vi inity Mar)
1 NRCS Soil Project Ma
1 Site Restoration Ma

THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
X For Approval As Requested Approved As Submitted ElForward Returned For Corrections
For Your Use RX For Permitting 8 Approved As Noted To Subcontractor
REMARKS:
Please find enclosed an Initial interest In participation In the express permitting program for
the 401 water quality certification form along with supporting documentation for The Gregory
Wetland and Stream Mitigation Site In Halifax county. The plan Is being submitted for express
permitting approval from NCDWQ.
If you have any questions= please give me call at [phone].
COPY TO: Tara Disy Allden; File SIGNED: Sraci Ricks
JUN-3-20304 THU 16:16 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLAND'S P. 1
06103/2004 16:32 19194635490 BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 02
INITIAL INTEREST IN PARTICIPATION IN THE EXPRESS PERMITTING PROGRAM FOR
THE 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION, ISOLATED WETLAND PERMITTING OR
STREAM ORIGIN DETERMINATION PROGRAMS
September 21, 2003
Version 1.0
Applicant Name: „Tara Disy Alld n
Applicant Address: Environmental Banc and Exchange LLC
8000 Regency Parlfflay Sultfl 200
Cart/ NO 27511
Applicant's phone number: 219-
Applicant's fax number 919-463-5490
Applicant's email address tarafebxusa corn
Consultant Name (if applicable): Buck Enaineerina
Consultant address (if applicable): 8000 Reaencv Parkway Suite 200
Consultant's phone number: 919-459-9019
Consultant's fax number 919-463-6490
Consultant's email address shcksOBuckenaineerina com
Type of action requested under the Express Review Program (check all that apply):
4 401 Water Quality Certification
Isolated Wetland Permit
Riparian Buffer Approval
Stream Origin Determination
Name of Project: Gregory Slte Stream and Wetland Restoration Plan
Property size (acres) 80 acres
Nearest named stream (from USGS topo map): Black Soring Creek
Please provide a brief description of this project (attach site plan If available);
The Gregory project pn2u es to restore 6,725 linear feet of the main channel of this
stream system and a minimum of 75 acres of on-site wetlands for the purposes of a
stream and wetland Mitigation bank.
Please attach a map of site location using USGS 1:24,000 map and county soil survey.
Location of project site - please Include reference to the county, nearest name town and highway
number:
Project is located in Halifax County near Enflgld. NC. Take 1-95 North, take exit 160 (HWY
561) turn to the right. Take a left onto Grapevine Road& take a left ontg Gregory Road. Protect Is
located on this road
JUN-73-2004 THU 16:16 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 2
06/03/2004 16:32 19194635499 BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 03
Proposed impacts:
13 acres of wetlands
acres of isolated wetlands
4.716 linear feet of streams
linear feet of isolated streams
square feet of protected stream buffers
Has consultant or applicant attended any DWO-sponsored training sessions in the past two
years? If so, please list which ones.
Which other environmental permits will be needed for this project? Please list them below:
„w In(ermittent and Perennial Stream Identification for Riparian Buffer Rule Applications
(October 26-29, 2003)
Sediment and Erosion Control permits, 401/404 permits
Does this project require approval under the State Environmental Policy Act or National
Environmental Policy Act? ._NQ_
Does this project require approval of a Variance from the NC Environmental Management
Commission" -NO---,,-,
Are you aware of any local controversy concerning this project? If so, please describe the
controversy and any measures that have been taken with respect to public involvement.
There Is no controversy surrounding this stream and wetland restoration groiect. _
This form must be submitted via email (c/o bev.strickland0ncmall, net), fax (919-733-
6893) or hand-delivered (Parkview Building, 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604) within the
first three (3) working days of the month for the first three months of the Express Review Program
(until January 1, 2004). Application procedures after that time will be provided at a later date..
Applicants who are selected to participate in the Express Review Program will be notified via
email or fax with one additional working day. Successful applicants will then be instructed
regarding detailed procedures for full application. Unsuccessful applicants will be queried to
determine if they want to be In the following month's selection process or whether they want to
follow the normal application process.
Please contact John Domey at 919-733-9646 If you have any questions regarding this form.
JUN-3-2004 THU 16:17 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P.
F;6/03,'2004 16:32 19194635490 BUCK EHGINEERING PACE 04
JUN-3-2004 THU 16:17 TEL: J1y (.5.5btiy.5 IVMI'IC uv4u-wc 1 L-rovva
Ft;,%{32FJ04 1b:
191946:35490
BUCK. E+-IIHEERING
PA'. :-IF A5

Figure 2-1. Project Soil Map
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200A
' Cary, NC 27511
500 250 0 _ 500 1,000
JUH-=-2'{_14 THU 16:18 TEL: [phone]
Soil Series Goldsboro fine san0y {oam
Altavista fine 9Rndy loam Gritney fine r3angy loam
Bonneau loamy tine sand LynctlL)urg fine Sandy loam
Cheataln and 61bb Boll Reins find Sandy loam
Ernpodfl fine sandy loam FTomoBey fins Bandy loam
Water
NRME: DWQ-WETLHhlD P.

Nate: Ditches within the
Easement boundary will be
plugged and filled
r
Figure 7-1. Site Restoration Map
® Environmental Banc and Exchange. LLG
8000 Regency Parkway. Suite 200A
Cary, NC 27511
500 250 0 500 1,000
JUN-=-`004 THLI 16:19 TEL: 919T336893
Wetland Restoration
.......... '
j Easement Area
Stream Restoration Alignment
Post Restoration Site Hydrology
NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS F. 6

Q?
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
June 4, 2004
Project Name: Gregory Site Stream and Wetland Restoration Plan
Halifax County
EXPRESS REVIEW ACCEPTANCE LETTER
Environmental Banc and Exchange LLC
Attn: Tara Disy Allden
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
Subject Property: Gregory Road, Enfield, NC
Dear Ms. Allden:
On June 3, 2004, the Wetlands/401 Unit of the Division of Water Quality received a Fax/email request
from Buck Engineering regarding a project known as "Gregory Site Stream and Wetland Restoration
Plan" for acceptance into the Express Review Program. This letter advises you that your project will be
accepted into the Express Review Program once the following items are received: 1) a fee of $4,000.00
made payable to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 2) seven complete and collated copies of
the application and 3) seven copies of all additional information pertaining to this project. Thank you
for your attention to this matter.
Please keep in mind that the clock for this project will not start until receipt of the completed application
package and required fee are received.
If you have any questions or wish to discuss these matters further please do not hesitate to call John
Dorney at 919-733-9646 or Deborah Edwards at 733-9502.
JRD/bs
cc: Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
File copy
Central Files
Buck Engineering, 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200, Cary, NC 27511 - Fax# [phone]

N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwedands)
Customer Service #: 1-877-623-6748
Sincerely,
SENDING CONFIRMATION
DATE
NAME : JUN-4-2004 FRI 08:44
DWQ-WETLANDS
O 4-
0929
TEL [phone]
PHONE : [phone]
PAGES : 2/2
START TIME : JUN-04 08:43
ELAPSED TIME : 00' 40"
MODE : ECM
RESULTS : OK
FIRST PAGE OF RECENT DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED...
?oFWArF9 WYm...u.ernI? aKm,r,
CL r:vnn e'amie, t>wronm.rn M ve.mamae? .en rlnmea n?.,mar
Nay W xlimek. C C.. Urm«
?1 ? eivuknMwJm!fu Jlnq .,1 ro e,r II. svllmr. oermy pb.w„O t UNIYon of W«rr lj?nlily
EXPRESS PERMIT REVIEW PROGRAM
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Wetiands/401 Unit
Street Addrew: 2321 Crnbtree Boulevard, Suite Z50
Raleigh, NC 27601.2260
Mailing Address: 1650 Mail Sefvicc (:cite(
Raleigh, NC 27697-1650
Contact information: Phone p: 919-733-1203
Fax #: [phone]
Fox To: Buck Engineering Fax #: [phone]
Date:
Number of pages Includiug cover sheet:
Notes or special instructions:
Thr, otieinal will he sent in the mail. If you have questions Please CAI) Dchbic Rdwarrls At 917-731-9502.
ry !„ UINn«r el W Y« t]uelilY. pl weWM,t CtllirutiOE lhuC
ansS Ram.ne ryC 1]M9-IaM ITLllley Martafl
IeSA NeY SGn
919-. - ryC rLOSmonl
3):: Ct?vcc .. Mz]!W-ZMO
Io19171J IMfilpaore1, 919]l1la9J(ful.IanP Illdc enr,ularc.YYOC,wt1.YW
LIM
O." OF W A rF9pG
r
EXPRESS PERMIT REVIEW PROGRAM
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Unit
Street Address: 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Mailing Address: 1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Contact Information: Phone #: [phone]
Fax #: [phone]
Fax To: Buck Engineering Fax #: [phone]
Date:
Number of pages including cover sheet:
Notes or special instructions:
The original will be sent in the mail. If you have questions please call Debbie Edwards at 919-733-9502.
N'
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
EXPRESS REVIEW SCHEDULE
PROJECT NAME: DWO #: o--I 0 I Cam,
ACTION C?V,?J
DATE
Acceptance letter (-p /L1 I
,
Application received (-P l
Initial review/letter
Information received
Field Meeting G
Additi
l i
f
i
l
ona
n
ormat
on
etter

Information received
crki)
-7/
Office Meeting
Additional information letter
Information received
Expiration -7 t Co
Issued/Rejected (circle one)
EBX-Neuse L LLC
NCDIV NC Division of Water
DATE' INVOICE NO DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT DEDUCTION BALANCE >
6-10-04 401-404Prm 401/404 Permit-Gregor 2000.00 .2000.00
WETLANDS 1401 G ROUP
JUN 1 7 200
WATER QUALITY SE %
TION
.? 6,10-04 1201 T > 2000.00 2000. o0
wiA" norA#!N NdRiRTIW RfN7 vni n a amrrm mw-A - I
j
¦ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
Item 4 If Restricted Delivery is desired.
¦ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
¦ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
Article Addressed to: H-&- I's -s t1C d
Environmental Banc and Exchange LLC
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
DWQ# 04-0929 - Halifax
A. SIQnallure
/?/ ? Agent
X LIL / Al Y - rl AAA-
B. Received by ( Printed Name) C.
D. Is delivery address different from item 1? vyes
If YES, enter delivery address below: ? No
3. Service Type
?Reglstered Certified Mail Express Mail
Return Receipt for Merohandisi
? Insured Mail ? C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ? Yes
2. Article Number 7001 1140 0002 3 715 0068
(rmnsfer from servlcb.... ,
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

• Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box •
First-Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
USPS
Permit No. G-10
NC DENR Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Certification Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
Item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
Attach this card to the back of the maiipiece,
or on the front if space permits.
Article Addressed to: 1: SS U C d
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
DWQ# 04-0929 - Halifax
A. Signet i
X
B. Received by (Printed Name)
0 Agent
0. Date op// 3
D. Is delivery address different from Rem 1? U Yes
,J1AT4,.nter delivery address below: ` ? No

Mail ? Express Mail
egistered J,Retum Receipt for Merchandise
? Insured Mall ? C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ? Yes
!. Article Number 7Opt{ p75? 0003 3326 7104
amnsfer from service labeq
)S Form 3811, August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 102585.02-M•154
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

Sender. Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box'
NC DENR Division of Water Quality
Wetlands/401 Certification Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
First-Class Mall
Postage $ Fees Paid
LISPS
Permit No. G-10

PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
m
1l0 6 .4,
N ~ ' a= r` PROJECT ENGINEER
N ~
t ~ ~ w~ u w.. ~
„,r w z4 i ~ _ u.,
F p
~ ~ P ELIMINA Y PLANS y R R ,,.t e~.,
~ ~ DO NOT U98 FOR CONSTRUCTION
t ~
9 @ .
1~ r
d ~ #
'Av. ~ ~ q , i ; l
0 i
8 v' yIS ~ IN S ~ P V 1 ; - ~ B000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
¢ P `t b , t ~ r Cary, North Carolina 27511
i ~ ~ 7 x ~ - ~ , Phone: 819-463x488 ~ Et, ~ ° ENC3INEERINO~ Fax: [phone]
m _ r
# A M
'4. ~s , . -a. 1 t .o.. ;t k
t .p - y, ,a
„m . , d., . -4 y ~ ~ ~ P _ ,n..,.. ~ ~ qe, r ,
~ ;y r ' 4
} ^
r t ~ n " . m. - r...: .a jai":.fir ~w _ _
° ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~Jc~~ ~ ~ :r - ~ sv ~ ~c~ ,Jtl ~ ~ • _
~ a ~ . - 2 f _ . w.
w. . x„~ „ ,,:u Ewa ~ _ ,
~ r m...... ..m. A......._; _ . xs -
. s . . . _ .r _ ~ µ w. ~ ~ ~ - -
n a~~ . .r, , . ~..w. ..ss m .~c sn ccc .w.Y,xv a r BERM ~ CONSTRUCTED
~ w
_ ~ .c rs ~ ~ - ..............~._...,,..m.. ° . ~,~y~.~~ n. w
.~.,M ~ ~E"
o ~ -h ~ ~ r ~ f ~
CONS7R ~ t 1 ~
t ~ ~ E t ~ ~ S ~
,
~ f , ~ I
N _ . I
M ~ ~
, ~ r ~ ,e- ` I
, r b I i ~ i
L _ 1, r ~ ti.~ 1 `
t '~w ' J "e. m+ /
~ + - #a. rr ~p / '
~ ~er~ y r ~ r
f ~ t f t O
~ t t 4 r` ~ s
t ~`r ti r` ~ R.
W ~ 4 ~ 1 l #
~ ry l 1 l i / ! O
~ ~ i O
~ ~ ,1` _
O I~ dlE.. '1 /~'J~~
s ~ _ _.f
~ ~
J ;r

`
a ~'i t
,f. { I 'I i ° 1
1 ~ 9 ~ '~i r .«ti~
~ i ~I b._ ~ i~ ! ~
I~ I~ }a.
i
O
~ O i ~ O
I { ~ O
~ y ~ . h.... ~ ~ 4 k.
~ i` 1
~ 1 r M~4 " ~~.R
~ t ~ T ,r ~ f ` N ,ti ~
r 4
~ t`f ~ ~
W X ~ ~ - ~m~- ~ ~ r~ ° ~
W r ~j . ~ 1 t + 1° t m'
O ~ ~ t SS ~ ~ i~ .~0'.
p ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ j' d j
- ~ ~ a i ~ R ' ~ .s ' 1 ' I ~ .
~ kQ ~
~ ~ ~ 3 t' W ~ i, r ~ r>~ ,u
~ cr ~ k~ I ~ + f D t 9
~ k 6 Y !
o f I ~ ~ ~ _ . r.
s ~ .N ° 1 i i }
N 1 x ~ ~ I ! t i ~ t ~ i ~:7
i I` ~ ~ 1 ~ o i e_ r
m ~ ~ ~ DESIGN CONTOURS W1TH1N STREAM CHANNEL NOT
r, ~ F 3 w 00 SHOWN.CHANNEL SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED
I ,.w ,w ACCORDING TO TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS.
ii 4' t
~ '`D ~ ~ ~ 0
0 ~ s' ~ ' I
~ ~ GREGORY SITE
~ , O m
0 6~
~ ~ 15 0 30 60 30 A. rt
~ ~ ct N~

c0 L SCALE FT

A'~'!R llRO1lCT A~liSII~li N0. B~HBBT TOTAL N0. 8f1~7B
~ O
~ 2
fPATE !~>l10. F A.PlOiIiQ 9
161e gp3 ~ ~ ` ~ ~ vov~. aye ~ry T~
~eoo ~2 l ~ ~~~1 llA~~u less PROJECT
LOCATION ~
it ~ ~
- ~ B°5 HALIFAX
1613 ~~I666UUU ` ~ _ ~~dm ~1~ _ ~ p ~ ~ I61B ~ ~
/ 1903
I~ ~
eB9e / - ; g5 ' 301 LOCATION: OFF NCSR
~wos j ~ ~ i 58
"'s ; TYPE OF WORK: WETI. ~
GRADING SHEET 10
GRADING SHEET 11 ~
VICINITY MAP ( '
I 1
INIDEX OF SHEETS 1` I
.1 I . 1 ~ 1
rs I ~ ~ ~ `
I , / f
1` I ~i ! ~ ~ ~
1 TITLE SHEET ~ ru+o 83 I ~ 1 , ~ 1
1-A SYMBOLOGY- BUCK ENGINEERING j I ! ~
INDEX OF SHEE; S, 1 1 I 1 1
~ ~
PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS AND STREAM i ' 1 1
DESIGN PARAMETERS r I ` ~ ~ 1
1-B SYMBOLOGY - NCDOT ! ~ ,z ,
2 TO 2-B STRUCTURE DETAILS 1 _ Ma _ I
3 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE t ` f - ~ '
4 TO 9 PLAN VIEW OF PROPOSED AND END L10NSTRUCTION ` I 'r ~ l I ~
EXISTING STREAM, PLANTING PLAN sra ri~eas , ~ ~
, ~ I
10-11 GRADING PLANS ~ i I 1 ~
12-17 PROFILE ~ I ~
18 VEGETATION PLANTING PLAN ~ SHEET REACH I STA 19.32A8
~ ~ 6 5 ~ ~ END CONSTRUCTIAIV
\ - I ~ ~ 5
s \ ~ e ` ~ hF~, ~ ( ~
~ ~ I
~ ~ ~
~ f / '
9 SHEE ~ ~ i
~ T - HET ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S
~ I tiF ~ F I r
r Q J ~
1 i , ` ~ ~„~.a~• BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
i STA IO~OOr00 .~;j I fl
I~~
'~so~~ I ~ /
I „r
~ S C1/jC d I REACH 2 STA 18.32.08
~ er EG N CONSTRUCTION
i
I
0
( r
I
I
• ~
IRED FOR THE OFFICE OF: •
V GRAPHIC SCALES PROJECT SUMMARY PREPARED W ENVIRONMENTAL 30 15 0 30 60 EXISTING STREAM LENGTH = 4716 FEET 10055 RED R OWIN O PLAN$ PROPOSED DESIGN REACH 1 LENGTH = 766 FEET PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF. PR E 0 CT ENGINEER
8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
,NTAL BANC AND EXCHANGE LL Cary, North Carolina 27511 C ~ Phone: [phone]
EN4INEERING ~ Fax: [phone] RED RUN BOULEVARD, SUITE 130 5490
OVIIING MILLS, MD 21117
3~ 5 Q 30 60 PROPOSED DESIGN REACH 2 LENGTH = 5959 FEET PRELIMINARY PLANS JOHN HUTTON
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSED DESIGN STREAM LENGTH = 6725 FEET ~ # 8000 REGEN PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) ~ ~0 REGENCY PARKWAY, SUITE 200 PROJECT MANAGER
t C fi f EB 5 0 5 ~0 PROPOSED RESTORED WETLAND AREA = 75 ACRES TAR PROFILE (VERTICAL) P CARY, NC 27511
LETTING DATE: • KEVIN TWEEDY PE EBX CONTACT.
TARA DISY ALLDEN PROJECT ENGINEER
PROJECT MANAGER P.E.
SIGNATURE:
_

PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. -
m ~7C1~$IEAA~~I[ ~~l~T~lE1~T7C~~l~TAI~, ~~~1[l~~]L~ ~]EN]E~A][, N~~IE~ no ~a
PROIECf ENGINEER
5U]P]EIBCEI)]ES S]HE~T l~
LOG VANE
LOG WEIR o ~ p BOULDER CLUSTER
0 PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT U8B POR CGdi81RUCCION
ROOT WAD ~IHIHIHIF- SILT FENCE
m SAFETY FENCE
LOG CROSS VANE
o~ CONSERVATION EASEMENT B ~ ~ ~ 8000 Regenry Parkway Suite 200
Cary, NoM Cerollna 27611 Pone: 978-483-5488
p~ J-HOOK ffiN6INEEIt2NC Fes: B79d63-5490
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
- Q~ ROCK VANE
~ TEMPORARY SILT CHECK ~ ROCK STEP POOL
FOOT BRIDGE
~-J TEMPORARY STREAM ~ TREE REMOVAL
r`-1 CROSSING
`J PERMANENT STREAM TREE PROTECTION
r~ CROSSING
CY~ ROCK CROSS VANE O PLAY GROUND EQUIPMENT
WING DEFLECTOR
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
DOUBLE WING DEFLECTOR
TRANSPLANTS
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
~7C~NY~~I~~ S~IE~IIF~C~7CI~N~ V~GlE7C~l7C~~N ~]E]L]EC~Y~N
EROSION AND SED/MENT CONTROL PLANN/NG AND DES/GN MANUAL RIPARIAN WOODY VEGETATION
STEMS
DECEMBER 7993 TO BE
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FLOOD TOLERANCE PLANTED
6.60 TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP WILLOW OAK QUERCUS PHELLOS WEAKLY TO MODERATELY TOLERANT 7300
SWAMP CHESTNUT OAK. QUERCUS MICHAUXII WEAKLY TOLERANT 7300
LAUREL OAK QUERCUS LAURIFOLIA WEAKLY TO MODERATELY TOLERANT 7300
6.06 CONSTRUCTION ACCESS OVERCUP OAK. _ QUERCUS LYRATA _ MODERATELY TOLERANT 7300
BLACKGUM NYSSA SYLVATICA WEAKLY TOLERANT 7300
6.62 SILT FENCE SWAMP BLACKGUM NYSSA BIFLORA TOLERANT 3500
BALD CYPRESS. TAXODIUM DISTICHUM. VERY TOLERANT 3500
6.70 TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING (CUWERTED) NOTE: SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 2-8 FOR BARE ROOT PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS BARE ROOT VEGETATION WILL BE PLANTED IN ALL DISTURBED
AREAS TARGETED FOR WETLAND RESTORATION (AS SHOWN ON SHEET 10).
RIPARIAN SEED MIXTURE
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
VIRGINIA WILDRYE ELYMUS VIRGINICUS
SWITCHGRA$S PANICUM VIRGATUM
FOX SEDGE CAREX VULPINOIDEA _ _
NOTE: RIPARIAN SEED MIXTURE WILL BE SPREAD OVER ALL CLEARED AND
c m DISTURBED AREAS TARGETED FOR WETLAND RESTORATION.
v
Q
N
m
n
m
n 1
N
C 4
a
m
m
0 P/
C.YL Om
M
R0
lP2

PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
170 1-B
*S.U.E = SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEER ~][~I][~][~~ ROADS F~ RELATED ITEMS C O NVE N T I O NAB
Edge of Pavement . MINOR Recorded Curb Head & End Wall - coN/~ Designated ' Buildin
corded at r ~ s W e L ne 9 -w w-
' * Foundation ,si Hated Wat r Lin s e e S.U.E. 9 - - ~ -w- -w- r
Prop. Slope Stakes Cut _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ pi e Culvert ry
p ~ Sanita S r-----, ' Area Outlin ry nita Sewer a ss ss \ ~
Prop. Slope Stakes Fill F--- Footbridge Recorded Prop. Woven Wire Fence --e--~- Drainage Boxes. ~ ca Designated v1
corded S ni ' a to Sewer Force Main Gat rY -FSS-FSS- e
i Gas Pum nt s Hated S nit r Ve or I,VC T n a s Sewe Force ~ a k Ma n S.U.E. Ca - o 9 ry - - - - - - p FSS FSS p
Prop. Chain Link Fence _ --8--~- paved Ditch Gutter
Recorded Prop. Barbed Wire Fence Designated corded Ga Lin s e Church -c-c
si Hated Gas Lin e S.U.E. School g - -c- -c- -
Prop. Wheelchair Ramp ~
UTILITIES Storm Se Exist. Guardrail i --L ~ - Exist. Pole Recorded Designated Park _ arm Sewer - s S L---
Curb Cut for Future Wheelchair Ramp cF
corded Po r Lin _ _ _ _ we e Cemete -P--P rY
~ _t _I
• * Dam si Hated Po r Lin we a S.U.E. 9 - _
Prop. Guardrail - Exist. Power Pole . ~ -P- -P-
Pro Power Pole d Recorded Equality Symbol ~ P• ~orded Tele h n I ~gn o o e C b e p a T r s
Exist. Telephone Pole _ t Designated ' Well
Pavement Removal ~ si Hated Tel h n abl . e o e C a S.U.E. o 9 p - _ _ -T- -T w
Prop. Telephone Pole o Recorded RIGHT OF WAY Exist.loint Use Pole........._ Designated
' Small in ~orded l~G Tele h ne Cond it p o u TC TC
si Hated USG T I n n * • e e ho a Co duct .E. SU 9 p Swimmin Pool
Baseline Control Point ~ ~ Prop. Joint Use Pole b rc rc g
Unknown Existing Right of Way Marker 0 Telephone Pedestal - - D kno n tili w U S.U.E. -aun-~m-
.
corded Tel i i n I evso Cabe
lLG Telephone Cable Hand Hold H Recorded F~cist. Right of Way Line w/Marker _ ~ Desi Hated ~ N- Loose Surfac e
Cable N Pedestal - ~ 9 si Hated Tele i i n ble v s o Ca S.U.E.
Prop. Right of Way Line with Proposed ~y1G 7y Cable Hand Hold ~ Recorded F g _ - Hard Surface
:orded Fib r t' abl e 0 icsC a p FO FO- Chan ~n R e oad rf Su ace
R/W Marker (Iron Pin & Cap) T- lLG Power Cable Hand Hold 0 Designated 9
si Hated Fib r Cabl e 0 tics a S.U.E. 9 p _ _ - Fo Fo C r
Prop. Right of Way Line with Proposed Hydrant.........._ ~ Exist. Water ub
~t. ater Meter .
(Concrete or Granite) RrW Marker Satellite Dish b lLG Test H Exist. Water Valve Ri ht f o Wa S m I g Y Y o * R/W
~ est ole S. .E U
Exist. Control of Access Line _~;e~ ~ Abandoned Guar P t os
Sewer Clean Out 0 Q GP ~ndon A ed ccor in lVG R d to ec r od 9 aTruw
• Paved Walk
Prop. Control of Access Line power Manhole ~ End of Info Exist. Easement Line -E------- Telephone Booth m ~ f n olfrm o anon ~.o~.
Brid e g
Prop. Temp. Construction Easement Line E Cellular Telephone Tower ~ B Water Manhole State Line Box Culvert r T o unnel ~
~L------------~~
O rop. Temp. Drainage Easement Line ~ County Lin Light Pole - ~ 3~ to Line - Fer
r`Y un Line
Prop. Perm. Drainage Easement Line roe H-Frame Pole.........---.--.....--..-----.--....---..---...........-----...... Township L . Culvert vnshi Lin
p e
• Footbrid e - ~ Line------------------------------------------------------- 9
HYDROLOGY Power Line Tower........._ ~ City Line......
Pole with Base _ Reservation ervation ine-------------------------------------------------------------- - - _ _ _ Trail Foot th _ pa , ~ _ -
Stream or Body of Water ~ . - _ - Pro e Lin _
Gas Valve - P rtY e Line------------------------------------------------ p
River Basin Buffer -ReB- Gas Meter ~ Property Lin Li ht Hou g se
e Line S mbol . p Y
Flow Arrow . _ ~ Telephone Manhole...... Exist. Iron T st. ron in 0
~ .
Disoppearing Stream ~ Power Transformer..... Property Co Sin le Tre e pe orner
Spring 0 Property M O'~ Sanitary Sewer Manhole e Monument ' p Sin le Shrub
Swamp Marsh ~ - J~ ~ Pro e Nu 9 a
e Number 123 Hed e
Shoreline Tank; Water, Gas, Oil Parcel Num Falls, Rapids . - Water Tank With Legs ~ Fence Line g
Storm Sewer Manhole ~ P rtY cel Number 6 .
. Woods Line-
~ce me ~ - - -x x-x-
rop Latera ,Tai ,Head Ditches JS ~ Existing We Traffic Signal Junction Box • ww & Isew Orchard tin Wetland B n ou daries
9 _ - ~ ~ WLB - -
~ ~ Fiber Optic Splice Box ~ High Quali STRUCTURES Television or Radio Tower _ uali tl n r----- WeadB n ou da Vine and
rY Ha WLB Y VINEYARD
Medium Q MAJOR Utility Power Line Connects to TrafFic ~ Low Qualit Brid e Tunnel or Box Culvert r- coNC -I Signal Lines Cut Into the Pavement Proposed 9 ~ium li ua Wetland B n Q ou ri da es Ma wLB
~ uali etl n B n ' W a d ou dari es Lo wLB
Standard Gau 9e
osed etl n W a d Boundar~e p S WLB ax r~sAaRr~rrav
RR Si Hal Mile o t g p s o
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall ~ ~ Existing End tin Endan ered A imal B n oundaries 9 g - w,~.~ EAB
• Switch tin Endan r t eedPlnB n a ou darie
and End Wall ~corrc ww~ Existing End 9 g s - - - - - - ~ EPB swrrc~
revised 02/02/00
_

F
PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
1'/
TYPICAL RIFFLE AND POOL FOR REACH 1 AND 2 TYPICAL STRUCTURE PLACEMENT 1l0 2
N PROJECT ENGINEER
N
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USB FOR CONSTRUCTION
RIFFLE
Wbkf
I
8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
TRANSPLANTS 4NTS LOG VANE Cary, North Carolina 27511 Phone: [phone]
ENC~INSERIN Fax: [phone]
~ D-Max I .
S.~ ti. - ~ ~ ~ 0~
/ ~ G~ ~ \ 5~ / ~
/ I \F~`'
/ ~ I ~ ~ \~P~ LOG WEIR
Wb ~ ~Qi y ~ \ i
/ ~ f
l / ~ \
f / / ~ i I
/ / ~I
POOL I / ao / /
Z a~~ / / alo ~ ~I~
wbkf / l / / a ~ ~ ~ Iw =I-'
/ / ~ ° FIB / ~ a
/ ~ / ~ o ~ / LL~o I / o ~Io ~ ~
~ / ~ / ~
/ / / ~ / ~ ~ / ~
~ I ~ / ~ /
~ ~ I
q.~ D-Max ~ N I ~
I FIBER MATTING ~ ~ ~ COIR ~
ON CHANNEL SLOPES ~
Wb BETWEEN BENDS ~ ~
\ ~
\ ~
TOP OF BANK DF BANK
STRUCTURE NOTES COIR FIBER MATTING
NUMBER AND SIZE BEHIND ROOT WADS
GENERALLY LOG WEIR5, ROOT WADS, OF R00T WADS
REACH 1 REACH 2 LOG VANES, MATTING AND TRANSPLANTS TO BE DETERMINED WILL BE INSTALLED IN THE LOCATIONS AND BY THE ENGINEER
RIFFLE POOL RIFFLE POOL SEQUENCE AS SHOWN. ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES OR CHANGES TO
7.3' 8.9' 10.3' 12.4' WIDTH OF BANKFULL (VWkQ STRUCTURE LOCATIONS MAY
0.6' 0.7' 0.7' 0.9' AVERAGE DEPTH BE MADE BY THE ENGINEER DURING CONSTRUCTION.
0.9' 1.1' 1.0' 1.4' MAXIMUM DEPTH (D~nax)
12.0 12.9 14.0 13.4 WIDTH TO DEPTH RATIO (bkA WID)
4.5ft~ 61ft~ 7.6ft~ 11.5ft' BANKFULL AREA (Abkfj
3.0' 2.3' 5.5' 4.0' BOTTOM 1MDTH (VW)
ROOT WADS
ROOT WADS WITHOUT TRANSPLANTS ROOT WADS WITH TRANSPLANTS
NTS NTS
c BERM (0.5' MAX. HT.) BERM(Sj NOT TO p
EXTEND BEYOND LIMITS OF ROOT WADS. ~
TRANSPLANTS BERM (0.5' MAX. HT.) BERMS) NOT TO EXTEND BEYOND LIMITS OF ROOT WADS.
FLOOD COIR FIBER MATTING FLC FLOOD NOTES: PLAIN TRENCHING METHOD:
PLAIN PLF IF THE ROOT WAD CANNOT BE DRIVEN INTO THE BANK OR THE
TOP OF BANK NEEDS TO BE RECONSTRUCTED, THE TRENCHING METHOD
TOP OF BANK OPTIONAL SHOULD BE USED. THIS METHOD REQUIRES THAT A TRENCH BANK BE EXCAVATED FOR THE LOG PORTION OF THE ROOT WAD. IN
COVER LOG BANKFULL STAGE THIS CASE, A FOOTER LOG SHOULD BE INSTALLED UNDERNEATH
BANKFULL STAGE THE ROOT WAD IN A TRENCH EXCAVATED PARALLEL TO THE • = BANK AND WELL BELOW THE STREAMBED. ONE-THIRD OF THE
ROOT WAD SHOULD REMAIN BELOW NORMAL BASE FLOW CONDITIONS.
• FL W A
ANCHOR COVER LOG R LOG ~ '
UNDER FOOTER LOGS 2 LOGS ' '..•.1/3:01=•.ROOT'.MASS:k{EIGHX:IS.~.•.•.'••:.'..~..•.'••:,.•..•..•:••::.~..~.
•.113:0~•.ROQ:T.'.MASS•:#{EtGH7•:1S•~.•:•.';'•::.'.:•.•:•.';'•;:,',.~.~.•.';'~•::,,.~. R WIT A 0 H BOULDER. )OLDER. '~••~~',:$EL©W,~.3TI~EAM.~:~©..'.....':•:i•`•.`:.•:~;:'..••:•:.'.:'~•.'~••~::';•'•..' NOTES:
• ~ DRIVE POINT METHOD:
~ , SHARPEN THE END OF THE LOG WITH A CHAINSAW BEFORE "DRIVING"
~ R00T WAD IT INTO THE BANK. ORIENT ROOT WADS UPSTREAM SO THAT THE STREAM FLOW MEETS THE ROOT WAD AT A 90-DEGREE ANGLE,
~ FOOTER LOG > 10" DIAMETER INSTALLED BELOW STREAMBED FOOTER LOG > 10" DIAMETER INSTALLED BELOW STREAMBED DEFLECTING THE WATER AWAY FROM THE BANK. A TRANSPLANT
~ (OPTIONAL PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER) TRANSPLANTS OR OR (OPTIONAL PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER) OR BOULDER SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF THE ROOT WAD IF A BACK EDDY IS FORMED BY THE ROOT WAD.
BOULDERS ~ 10-15 FEET LONG THE BOULDER SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY 4'X 3'X 2'.
~ >10" DIAMETER FOOTER LOG FOR 6 FEET LONG TRUNK FOR >10" DIAMETER
to TRENCHING METHOD ETHOD
~ ONLY
Z

w~ CROSS SECTION VIEW PLAN VIEW CROSS SECTION VIEW

PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
m
170 2 A
N PROJECT ENGINEER
N CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE LOG VANE
LOG BURIED IN STREAMBANK
A AT LEAST 5' , PRELIMINARY PLANS
ELEVATION POINT TOP 3 DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF BANK 0 TOE OF BANK
J
HEAD OF 0
RIFFLE BURY BOULDERS 2-4 INCHES BELOW BED J LL
° ~ 18 INCHES THICKNESS MIX 0 9 F
oS ° ~ CLASS B AND #57 STONE ° 1!2 Wbkf TRANSPLANTS
° ~ FL W B B' 0
8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200 Cary, North Carolina 27511
1.5 to 2 FT ~,.~oE RrFF Phone: [phone]
O ° ° lF EN~iINEERINC~ Fax:[phone] ° ~
'•l/' ° ELEVATION POINT ° 8 00 ~ 0 0 B o 2p~ 3p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
B o6 ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 8 g o°g ~o VARIES 5• ~ ~ ~
01~ ~ TYPE 2 113 BKFL WIDTH ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
B ° o ~ FILTER FABRIC 9 80 0°
ooo~ ~9 0
PROFILE A-A' 2/3 BKFL WIDTH LOG BURIED BELOW STREAMBED
PLAN VIEW
A'
EROSION CONTROL TRANSPLANTS
PLAN VIEW MATTING
TOI TOP OF STREAMBANK
~
Dmax 1I3 Dmax FLOW ~ ; NOTES:
ST STREAMBED 1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAS f 12" INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT,
° ,gyp°I° HARDWOOD, AND RECENTI Y HARVESTED.
A 2. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOG. 3. TRANSPLANTS ARE PLACEq ALONG THE TOP OF THE BANK OVER
GREGORY SITE ' THE BURIED LOG VANE TO PROTECT AGAINST EROSION DURING
1, HIGH FLOWS.
REACH 1 REACH 2 CENTER BOULDER 2-5 FEET ~
Wbkf 7.3 10.3 BELOW ADJACENT BOULDERS 1 ~i'
Dmax (it) 0.9 1.0 1 ~ v
BURY END OF LOG 1' BELOW MAX POOL DEPTH.
SECTION B-B'
PROFILE VIEW
LOG WEIR
TRANSPLANTED VEGETA N TIO
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION, ROOTMASS, AND SOIL MATERIAL
TRANSPLANTS TRANSPLANTS
TI TOP OF STREAMBANK
~ TOP OF STREAMBANK J • I
LL
i
CHANNEL WIDTH ~--FLOW ' ,I • ~ 1
1.5 X CHANNEL WIDTH • ~ TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION ROOTMASS AND SOIL MATERIAL
• ~ ~ , ' \ TOE OF BANK
/ ~ • S • \ \
O'OUR Pte' ~ SCOUR I • • ~
' POOL ~ • • ' • • • ' •
HEADER LOG • • , • , • • . BIkCKFILL (ON-SITE ALLUVIUM) ' BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
A LOG WEIR • • ~ ~ NOTES:
I I
' ~ ~ ~ 1. EXCAVATE A HOLE IN THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED THAT WILL
A y 5• . 'FILTEf2,FABRICFQR DRAINAGE " ACCOMMODATE THE SIZE OF TRANSPLANT TO BE PLACED. " ~ ~ BEGIN EXCAVATION AT THE TOE OF THE BANK.
FOOTER LOG ; , : SEE SPECS); , • 2. EXCAVATE TRANSPLANT USING A FRONT END LOADER.
EXCAVATE THE ENTIRE ROOT MASS AND AS MUCH ADDITIONAL
4' MINIMUM CROSS SECTION VIEW SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE. IF ENTIRE ROOT MASS CAN NOT BE EXCAVATE IN ONE BUCKET LOAD, THE TRANSPLANT IS T00 LARGE
AND ANOTHER SHOULD BE SELECTED.
PLAN VIEW SECTION A-A' 3. PLACE TRANSPLANT IN THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED SO THAT
VEGETATION IS ORIENTATED VERTICALLY. TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION AND ROOTMASS 4. FILL IN ANY HOLES AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND COMPACT.
5. ANY LOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED.
6. PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE TOGETHER SUCH THAT
TRANSPLANTS ~ THEY TOUCH. `1 r
/
\ / \ /
~ NOTES: ~ TOP OF BANK
~ 1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, \ ~ l
~ HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED. r~
~ 2. LOGS >20 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE USED ALONE WITHOUT AN ADDITIONAL LOG.
~ FILTER FABRIC SHOULD STILL BE USED TO SEAL AROUND LOG it ~ l TOE OF BANK
~ 3. TOP OF HEADER LOG SHOULD BE SET AT SAME ELEVATION AS THE STREAMBED. / \ / \
~ HEADER LOG 4. USE FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS. ~ 5. PLACE TRANSPLANTS FROM TOE OF STREAMBANK TO TOP OF STREAMBANK. i ~ ~i '
Z FOOTER LOG
b3~

CROSS SECTION VIEW
PLAN VIEW

_

PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
m
t~ TlO G~D
PROJECT ENGINEER
N PLANTIN PE IFI ATIONS GS C C N S
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USB FOR CONSTRUCTION
8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
Cary, North Carolina 27511
NOTES: Phone: [phone] NOTES: EN(iINEERIN(3 Fax: [phone]
1. PLANT BARE ROOT SHRUBS AND TREES TO THE WIDTH OF THE 1. WHEN PREPARING THE HOLE FOR A POTTED PLANT OR
BUFFER AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. SHRUB DIG THE HOLE 8 -12 INCHES LARGER
PLANTINGS 2. ALLOW FOR6-10 FEET BETWEEN PLANTINGS, DEPENDING ON SIZE. 3. LOOSEN COMPACTED SOIL. PLANTINGS THAN THE DIAMETER OF THE POT AND THE SAME DEPTH AS THE POT. 2. REMOVE THE PLANT FROM THE POT. LAY THE PLANT ON
4. PLANT IN HOLES MADE BY A MATTOCK, DIBBLE, PLANTING BAR, OR OTHER APPROVED MEANS. ITS SIDE IF NECESSARY TO REMOVE THE POT.
- 5. PLANT IN HOLES DEEP AND WIDE ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE ROOTS TO SPREAD OUT AND DOWN WITHOUT J-ROOTING. 3. IF THE PLANT IS ROOTBOUND (ROOTS GROWING IN A SPIRAL AROUND THE ROOT BALL), MAKE VERTICAL
6. KEEP ROOTS MOIST WHILE DISTRIBUTING OR WAITING TO PLANT CUTS WITH A KNIFE OR SPADE JUST DEEP ENOUGH TO CUT THE NET OF ROOTS. ALSO MAKE A
BY MEANS OF WET CANVAS, BURLAP, OR STRAW. 7. HEEL-IN PLANTS IN MOIST SOIL OR SAWDUST IF NOT PROMPTLY CRISS-CROSS CUT ACROSS THE BOTTOM OF THE BALL.
PLANTED UPON ARRIVAL TO PROJECT SITE. TOP OF STREAMBANK 4. PLACE THE PLANT IN THE HOLE. TOP OF STREAMBANK 5. FILL HALF OF THE HOLE WITH SOIL (SAME SOIL
REMOVED FOR BACKFILL . 6. WATER THE SOIL TO RE OVE AIR POCKETS AND FILL
THE REST OF THE HOLE WITH THE REMAINING SOIL.
BOTTOM OFCHANNEL ' • • • • • • • • BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
CROSS SECTION VIEW OF BARE ROOT PLANTING CROSS SECTION VIEW OF CONTAINER PLANTING
LIVE STAKING SPECI IG SPECIFICATION
e~
Fti
TO K TOP OF
STREAMBANK , TOP OF STREAMBANK SQUARE CUT TOP • BUDS FACING UPWARD
NOTES:
.1 .1 . :1' .:1' .1'' . 'I ' ~ • LIVE CUTTING ' • ' . ' • ' . ~ ' MIN. 112" DIA 1. STAKES SHOULD BE CUT AND
,N TOE OF SLOPE ' , ' ~ , ,1 • •1 • '.1', • • ,1 ,1 ' 2' - 3' LENGTH INSTALLED ON THE SAME DAY.
T?. PLANT STAKES FROM 2. DO NOT INSTALL STAKES THAT • • : • ~ : • • : • ~ : TOP OF BANK TO TOE OF BANK HAVE BEEN SPLIT.
.'1' '1', .1, .'•1.' .1,' 1, ' • • • • 3. STAKES MUST BE INSTALLED WITH • • • • ~ ~ • • • • • ~ • BUDS POINTING UPWARDS.
4. STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED
M , 1' . 1' ' .1. 1. ' >t BOTTOM OF CHANNEL • TOE OF SLOPE • • • • • • • • • • • • PERPENDICULAR TO BANK. ~ ; , • • I ; . ; , ~ ; 5. STAKES SHOULD BE 1J2 TO 2 INCHES
IN DIAMETER AND 2 TO 3 FT LONG.
ANGLE CUT 30 - 45 DEGREES 6. STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED LEAVING 115 OF STAKE ABOVE GROUND.
CROSS SECTION VIEW PLAN VIEW LIVE STAKE DETAIL
z
~o

_

PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
cD no 3
N PROJECT ENGINEER
N
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USB FOR CONSTRUCTION
6000 Regency Parkway Suite 200 Cary, North Carolina 27511
Phone: [phone]
ENCiINEERINCi Fax:[phone]
eft
Z

F-fA
V1(f~
VY(A

PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
c~ e
cD 170 4
N PROJECT ENGINEER
N k
1 i. V j a. t, ~ u q yr~ 4. h w 6
~
t •m ~ s r~~' .Y # t ~ ~ i ~ ~t 4 ty I
J y ~ ~ ~ ~TM W. t ~ d ~ mW, t \ E PRELIMINARY PLANS
i r } ~ ~ , # ~ DO NOT US& FOR CONSTRUCTION
1 `i t } w~ ? i 4 ~ , ,w~ {
v t n r r , l ~t
i ,
o. ~ ~ _
SS r { s Y ~ \.6d
+ p r r i
ff tr P
}4; Y~ t 8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200 Cary, North Carolina 27511
s ..yi - ~kq W~ ..k Phone: [phone]
1 EN(iINEERINCCi Fax:919~63-5490 z
M" i ~ ;
S p, t ~ S w * ~ I, m ~ ~ .a~ _,rt e..... ~ ~ ,
~ { i tl f I 1
t ~ t ~e .a ~ e M.... .
ro ~ 7 9 j ,
E y ~ ~ L d 1 ~ P
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
v~ c r f l
~A 1 i
+ ~ x ~ REACH 1 STA 10 62.34 : ~ Ff .~W~ ~ N1~ ~ _.Je v, i
t ' a , ~~~~~C s u-°"` ,
BEGIN CONST RUCT SON T ~ ~h., r -
~K~zal'~ , l>-q`°
r ~ * ~ I ~ ~w ~ i ~ ~ v
~"f ~ ai .u. t ,L ~
1
# t F'~ it
t~ 3, t ~ip a ~ ~~jg.;~:, . ~
~ ~ Zt t y1. S ~ d~ d'' t „ , `w .l
INSTALL !'SQUASHED RCP ~ SET INVERT `BELOW a ~ ~ ; ~ ~
x ~ ~ ~ D BED ELEVAT! ~ ~ f ~
b \ ~ a Y 0 ".n s ry ~ ~ ~w p , $ ~ /1 P t ' ,
b F E ~ ~t ~ r ~ I f I ~ r ~ t REACH 2 , STA 18 32.08 t~
~ ~ I 6~ ~ BEGIN CONST O RUCT ION
f 1 ~ ) a 1~ `4~ A ~ ~ O
V~ ~ ` j ~ ~ ~ _ ~
\ e i \t O I~. ip , ~ 1 } ~
+yM° X 0 D' 11
~ ~2 4 ~ ~ 7 i v
x ~ ~ ~
~ 0 0 ~ ti ~ k~
. a ~ ~ ~ ` s,1 a s 1 ~1
~ 1 ` ` 1 O ~7
~ ~ ~ ~ f ` e' t
tl ~ r,t ~ t \ ~ P 0 0 x
\ \ ~ ~ f \ i 1 ry~` ~ ~ ~ l ~ 0
\ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ,i~ ,j to \ ~ ` ti p y x ~0
~ r ~ ~ j ,~°w ~ t ,~w
~ ~ `rte . \ ~ r f ~ ~ ~
i' ~ ~ ~ ,
a t, ~ J r a ~ ~~ww.r REACH 1 STA 18+32.08 r`' I
y; J j 6 END CONSTRUCT ION 1 <<.
m
rf t ~v~
V A \ ~ ~ . ~ c ~ E \ V A 'i A ~ '9~ w, q r~ gi4 .a..~. 1 _
\ \ \ \ ~ r,'A' ~ t i a3 > k
`e \ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ .r
~ 'e 'e a y s`
~ S `t ~ v.. •I\ ~ fib. A `a? r - , 1 i
y ~ Y4 } J ~ r_
O P ~ d: , C r
~ _r,.__.__ I ~ r _ ~
e. 1. r~ w.
'y 1 ~ 1 1 m s \ 1 ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ,
° 1 t t ~i .r ~
'
~ ~
~ w ~
~~`yr y '4 ~„~~tt ~t 1
~t~:'~a" "ia i~" . 0 ~ ,r ~ h,
~ ~ ~ ` f
- - i `l t a 7 `V. p,y ...J
r_ a v_ ~ ~ . ,
°fi~^~,,, + ~ ~
~ '4 "a,. ~ "e , r ,
!1
Ql ( i
i N r { ' ; w.. b. z ~ ~ , 1 ~
,^^w.. '4 ,
L , - 'd '4.
N Q 9
y
0 f 4 a _ n. _ LLii.is
m
DESIGN CONTOURS WITHIN STREAM CHANNEL NOT a , SHOWN,CHANNEL SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED
~ ACCORDING TO TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS.
C 4 } v _ c 4 _ o - ,.J'
q
4
C Q1 GREGORY SITE
N N
V/
O(9 30 15 0 30 60
M

l0 i SCALE F
_

PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
co I70 5
N PROJECT ENGINEER
N

5 B( ~ PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT U38 FOR CONSTRUCTION
w ~ s , u r ; y ,r ~w,..,...n~ ~ 4 t ~ ~ P ....„N a ,au, a e ` f ; 1' ~,n-...n~ s'r
~ ~ f ~ a v ~ i t ,..w., 2 d it 9 ~""""~'^~u+aw» mares r ~+J ~ j^y 4 3 ~ 1 r'te``
-s-~ .,,..~a
t ~ d' d i ~ r' w~~m~. .,,,,.x.,,....,
1 f CONSTRUCTED a.
BERM - ~ 8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
Cary, North Carolina 27511
~ 4 9 $ Phone: [phone] ENC~INE$RINC~ ~ Fax:[phone]
4 ~ y 3 A4. 3y }~P
X 1 h O~ ig CONSTRUCTED BER d~.~~ M
pp ~ N a , ~ i
~ y i 2
- ~ p r I
...r? ;,-4 w .
~.I ,k
s f2
/ t ' ~,r~s ~ - t ; S f v ~ D u
1 4 ~
4 y ~ .1 d ~ ~ ` c£+a
yi ~ i
1 ~ ~ !t
~4
1 d " t ~3. }
1
1
V
f a ,'io
f ~ W. ~ ~
1 g ~ ~ j' t
X O d~ § ~
x ~ ~ f, ~"S 1
{ ~ E ~ ;p~' X i
y ,~nx~~, Y J~ ,,!f% ~'5),d, ~
~ i ``Jd,`, J' p
~ j R + i.
~ ~ 4 t d*~. ' ~4'..e f: ~ ~~fr y i ~ ~ ,a,,,
I ~ ~ . 1 ~ ~ ~ i sa'
O ~ ~ ! ~ i 1 i ~ Y ~
T t ~ O + 0~ ~ I o`
10, 0 2 @ y'
ry ~ ~u`; 1 i
i fi ~ ~ y~ ~ ~ I~ tit ~`i~ .
r, ~ 1
1 ~ ~ » y ~ i ' y ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ e , t+
} i / ~ ~ P ) ' f; r
~ } i. y 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~T . i f ~I ~ ~ ~~1~~~~_
y S { 9 t f \ y ~ ( ~3f - 1~~~Jy ' i ~ q i I k , i I .p 3
f ¢ , 9 y ! Yt E , ~ I r ,
t ~ ~ 's
3 ~ ~ ~ 2 Q'
~F ~ , ~ i ~ ~s , ~ _ ~ ,f Y ` r j A yi a§ ~ 6
` 1' ` }xi j r' ~ ~ F r r
~ ~ I y ~ ~ ~ ~ f
~ ~ i y 1 ~ t 's bi !1 ~ i \ ~ f, > J <r ~ ~ ~ t i ~ ~ M
f ' I i ; X ~ t s ~`t t! r r ! 4 ;
i I Q 3 ~ ~ N a;f r , l , i t 4
( ~ ~ i ~,,1 ~ ! z i ~ 1 { + ~ I F1 1 ( lJ/ ! i
t ~ 1 n t ' ~,i fs f'~ I t I [ ~ ~ ~ l ! 4s
,P Y ~ / ~ ~ ~ 3~ ~ ' ~ y A 'l
; ~ w 4 ~ ) y q ~1 c«A a j ~ d ! ~t L ~ ~ a
~ E ~ 1 S ~ , i rp h. : t a. p t q .
t z b, F, ~ Y ! r. ~ 1 I _ ' ' Y'xq s ~ ry ; * O
~f E rv,. i ~ y? ,r i _4 ti ~ ~ y ~ ,a' r+-/~ / O
s - 1 ~r 1 ~ oo ` . ~ N s
k .
{ 1 ~ 7 ` ~ r' ~ ! •l d ~bY ~ ~ t', i ~ ! O O ~ ~ -
f ~ F r ~ f 1 - F' ~ A E
~ ,mss ~ la y ~ ~ x
. ~ t
f ~ ~ ~ y w, ~ ,e tY
i.'" y ~ b,~ ~`t ~ ~ 8 ,e
~ . ~ ~ ~ . e~
t~ ~ ~ o~'' ~"t ~ t . i ~ ~
w ~
- r-
i
C ~ , Ol d
~ ~ x
If) ~ ~
L N
a
F ~ ~ t.~ . ~ ~
~ ~ ~3
r ~ i e , DESIGN CONTOURS WITHIN STREAM CHANNEL NOT
~ . > - ~ SHOWN.CHANNEL SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED
i t m r ACCORDING TO TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS.
i
r-I `~3 "~l
C .a _ i RE RY IT f G GO S E
~ t .a - ~ -
V~
30 15 0 30 60

L~
CO L SCALE F
_

PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
cD N l/ 0 7
PROJECT ENGINEER
N „

t P RELIMINARY PLANS NAB 83 no NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION

r" h .
„
ae. n / g. , . e^ p f 7 ~
a ~ < ~ _ , ! N, w_
~...ns fv s ~ ~ s ~
~,.,we ,,,,s,~ j e a.. y j x ~4 ~ ~ .o„~ _ x 8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
~ b~.. p i m 4 ~ O ~ y v r, c Cary, Noah Carolina 27511 Phone: [phone]
F as i a r m ENCiINEERIN(i ~ F x: " a 919 463 5490 1:~ ~ .
'h ~ ~ B t ~ m wa. W~ r n t i R, a ~m c wa . n ~tia ~
~4 i ~ Syr. r t 4 ,
" +w ti` m } t ~ , r
w. ~ C, , ~ ~ ~ ~ a
F ~ ^t w , ...r, _ ~ r -M
5 ~r. .d ~ ~ ~ G~ .v. ~ ; .
y# ~~s K # , ~ r. ~ .s .,a a
!S; ~ p kk ~'t Y' $ S.
i.P` i~~ i ~ ~t '0. .
5 r t ~Y N
i yl'Y ~~S ~ ',w ,Y ti' ? d.
3 ~ , u..
.+i ~ ` tea,... 4 ~ . s. t f' wryer .a
r
~tt' ,t t;, a
t~''' f •,a.

4, ' l x
7t i
i'. s~;
j,
_V NSTRU
~~i rFD ERM
,
~ y
r ~ t t .Y , e.... ~ t. °t Y~,f _
,ti r Q
r ~ , ;
~y 11 Y~ ~ r_.
t 4
` ~;>^'~t ~i ~ ¦ ~r
E t r :,q f 3j } s iS t y ~ ~ 4
` ' 'Y ~'.t `e~, i.7
f 9 I ,r F '
~e~~~~' ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1 d ~-1 ~ - ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ rn
i
t.,ip; 0 _R
1 i r ~ ~
_ ar_
~vk~ 1 1 -
4 ~ t ~ I ~5~ ~ ~
k~yn~'
,
1~ ~ ~ ~ 1 , 47+ ~ o ~0 r~R Yy v, T,, x O ~ O
O ~ O I X I
k X N 1,~ 0 0
i h O ~ f ` ~ O I ~ I h o i ~ ~
I + ~ w ~ o
45+00 ~ b~ j 4 ~ ~ + a + h ° J o +
{y~~ ~ 1 si i V ' u,
t#~ t 1 i d Ay 2~ ~ ri ~ t
- c - JX a Y w .i
f 3
O ~x 77t t
O r i A
O v ~ M O { 4 w /
k~ k 6 4 ~R i
F
t/
yl
ice.,.. l
I
N I ~ 1.
C~}'~ I I 3 s I
TV, i ~
AAV I` I
i I Y° w
r~ 1 aw ~
a 1 1 _ 1
~ ~ r` r
f r~v~ ~i
e ~ . DESIGN CONTOURS WITHIN STREAM CHANNEL NOT
SHOWN.CHANNEL SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED
i ACCORDING TO TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS.
rn N GREG~R Y SITE
N
V/
OB 30 15 0 30 60
M
u~
tD L SCALE FT

PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
m
~ ~ , il0 8
. o ~ , ~ ~ , PROJECT ENGINEER
N - ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ m, , u y,M. ;
~ ~ t ~ ~ t v t a.
~ ~ yw~. e f ~ 1 3 a
w ! ~ , r r - ~ - w ~.w .e A~ N . ; } PRELIMINARY PLANS
.~n-~~ ~ `"mow... SiH Vii,. DO NOT U8E FOR CONSTRUCTION ;
A , m e f q N [ 1 ~ ; w : s r w F i~ e'~
y n r " =.z ~
i r y., i 1 r. ` `S n 3 ' w ,f
k ~ 3 ? ~ .-.~.W„ . ~ . ~
t' ~ ~ , , q , ~ , - r w ..4, „
M e ~w
r ,n ~'`e r ~ ,~.r~, 8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200 ~~.a_ .
, ~ I Cary, North Carolina 27511
~ Phone: [phone] ,w~ ENQ~INEERINCi Fax: [phone]
`t _ ~ ~ ~ a ~ / w. ~ 4 a,~ of
~ / ~ ~ ~ ~y r _ - - Y. .
s x w ~r F.! - i
itt Stt z n w T J J'

r' ' tr q 4
. µ
i e t. . {
-
~ ~i~ y
~ , B ~
, J / ~~s. U~
~R ~ CO ERUCTED . , , BERM is ~
~ ~ t, , ~ , , a
~ ~ ~ ~ . , ~ ! I
i 1 i r
i ~ -
;Y:, F ~.i~ tea.....
~e • ti ~ ;
/ _~.n!~~ i
/ ~y?~,, 6 y S
' ~ J O i
58+ ; ~ `H~ ` 1 O
00 ~ ~ j S O
~ X D f O
~ S 1p i
1 ` 'tip+. i~ 6 3x 6 tl 3 ~ ~ 00
0 ~p 0 ~ CO 0
r ~xt, { 0 t X
i _ i ~s: _ t~ D~ .r ~O
i ,
i r . i
~ tt i , E i
~ ~ 51+ ' t°. 'A~ 00 ~ +00
.~9 ~ ~ r ~
i
i ~ ~ ~
i j"~~~ / t~ 1 i' W
/ ~ ' ~ 0° ~ , x 6 ~ _ f x ,
~ i . ~ ~ h
~ - ~ r .
i N ~ co rn
~ ~ O ~ O e~~. v ,
~t l t `l~ ~ l v W
i ~ ~p i =-V- o z
~ ~s d ~ ~ ~~t ~ 9~t i I ~1~ J
~ ~ O z, - ~ 4 ~ 2
~ p l t ~ r
/ ~ h ~r
I •f \ Fx 1t~ I i sT
~ ~ n, ~ ~ ~ V~ i ~j )f Y a.,.~ r 9 1
~ C
O / 1 f ' S
O tl { ~~k ,
ti. ~ 4, h Sy; q
1. ~ ~ s
f R
f~F ~
r-°°" ly,, T, i i ) ~Y
5r i Y .µl a
.V
, Z E, 'a nb t

t' ~ ~
e, „4~, `F. D i
~4 R ~f 4.
C ~
V i ~ Vi V ~C
m L \ ti ~ ,
N \ x a ` w,
~ ` ~
m `
1 B ra s° t
~
> /
~ ~ C
~ / O
/ a GREGORY SITE
C Q1 ,t ~a
~ " UI ~ . <~;
? NQI~ 30 15 0 30 60
v/ ~ ? ONT RS WITHIN STREAM CNAN EL NOT DESIGN, ~ QU ~
0~9 ~ ? , \r+ ~ - ~ SHOWNCHANNFL SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED`
u~ ACCORDING TO TYPICAt CROSS SECTIONS. SCALE FT

M m PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
c~
N 9
N PROJECT ENGINEER
M R
6E a Ep T _.m.,
U~ a ~ TR ~pN
3 . ,a a.~ PRELIMINARY PL~iNS
~ ~ ~ . ~ DO NOT USB FOR CON6TRUCTION
T
r
1 `
4~ ~
Y n, Y ~ 8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
F Cary, North Carolina 27511
.M # Phone: [phone] EN(3INEERINQ~ Fax: [phone]
. }6 4
i

a f k
1 a' } - ~ ti f ~ ~
a
y
t` t
~ _ r i
t ~ ~ ~
i
v, {
~ L e
k0
6g t
s ..M ro
t
it

i f
~ ~ 3 00 r
~r
~ ~ i i I ~
, it t F -a mm
h s " w..... ~y ~ ~
v , o + a ? ~ ~ L M1 1 i p { r ~.i d
1 00 _ . r` . ,4 gip. 1 ~ ~~,~r _
_ } O f
i -
r ~ , 1 . . -
2a _ t d 3 '
ro ~ ~ ` ~ ..y 1/~ ~ ° s \ ,4 r
jJ ~ JJ t
O O 1 r
O - ~ .1
- ~ > ~
O O ~ ; O ~ - kQ - - . ~ ~ I
+ ~ 6 1 ,
J ~ f .
y1 f ~ tton V'
k J , ~ t t r e~
O m . _
I ~ f " 1 e t
~ ~ j '1 F ~ vi f ~ ~ `J ~ ~ 3
1 ~y f P ~ y t` e~
rw! ~ ~ ~ ~fi ~ r I ,f
i t, tl
f` ~ ~
~ ~
p 7, Ir
~ ~ 1 f,.
a
O e O
r
L; „ r ! ':l t y
1 rr ra ~.8
} r '1 r` ~ /
r,, S
E,~ ~ , i .
. ~
,...,w....y r
~ k
t 4
m
Cm -v l 1
EACH ~ ~ A t ~ 2 T 77 67.23 m
h
r~ 1 O P TR ~ CT ION
~ a~ a ; ~ ~ ,4 s~ ~u. ~ ~ m ~a~
m F. f
~
m i NOTE:
~ i', ''r DESIGN CONTOURS WITHIN STREAM CHANNEL NOT
~ ~ r~~, ~:r W , SHOWN.CHANNEL SHA LL BE CONSTRUCTED
~ ,'yy~ ~ ~ ,f ACCORDING T 0 TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS, ,
~ ~ ~ y"` } , / , d. ~ s - -
~ ~ ~ f t.E~ ~o
Q~ " rl s~i. ~ ~ ~ GORY
~ .F - GRE SITE
f E
G
30 1 5 0 30 60
L(~
CO L
SCALE FT

PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
m
il0 10
N PROJECT ENGINEER
N
P ELIMINA Y P R R LANS
DO NOT U9g FOR CONBTRUCfION REACH `1 STA 106 .34
BEGIN CONSTRUCTlO
M 00 8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
Cary, North Carolina 27511
Phone: [phone] ENC3INEERINQ~ Fax:[phone]
Q
Z

a:.
t~ i `l
t - _ n~ REACH 1 STA 18*32A8
END CONSTRUCTION -
p _ ; ' ~ ? ~ - ,w~ ~ ~ - ~ ~
._.r...~-_ ~ i
1~/~ r ~I~
~ ''~I ~I ~
''may ~
~ l
~ { k H STA 1 ~3
l rt ~ ~ BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
}

' - _ ~
t -
_ ~ -
W 0 z
` %
~r~r~~ _ I f V
, ` ~ / ' ` ~ t
- - , ` I/ / ! ~~r _ ~
~ ? ~ { ti~ V }
' ~ ~ ~.,,i ~ ~
~ ~ 1 a, - : -g ~ -

° i ; ;
~ . j
x c
i~ 1 - ,
r ~ .
~==~t
_ - -
l; r-;, ~
i
,i { Yi t ~ R ~ ~
1~ 4 t _ 1 1 `.,~t
•~'~t
1 ~ i{ ~ J
M1 Y \:J
r s-„1\
1~ \1
' _
w,4 ~
.,r~
x, v
r`1
t ,
a t ~i
/ -
~/r
5 v ~ w '
4 ,w t , ` '
r<~ =E ~
ti
1 '
e u. - - 1
~ Q~ I

B ~ ~
l t^• I , . t!
a I 1 ~G
m _ • , . ~ ~ ,
i 4
m , , ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ µ
i ' N 'Ii
C ~ Q
~ ~ ~ RE ORY ITE G G S
~ C ~ ~
~ ~ ik ~ 11l GRADI11lG PLA S
N N
1 2 100 50 0 00 00
O~
M MATCHLINE SHEET 11
SCALE FT
lD L

PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
C~ B
no » MATCHLINE SHEET 10
N PROJECT ENGINEER
N `

t,r
e ,r~ ~ PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USB RO CON U R 9TR CTION
s S j tj 1
4 r. ~ ~ W , r<
- ~ ~ ~ ~ t i . G. ~x
.8 ~ , ~
6 z
z f
:j 8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
1 2 s; ,i', Cary, North Carolina 27511
} J k Phone: [phone] }f' EN(iINEERIN(i Fax:[phone]
f i e
s ~r
` E _ ~ z~
f ' is
d l ` ~ =f n ~ -
M
k i } _
t .:~1 i
1
Z {
~ ~ ~ t 1
k Y
i
i
f t i
'j E~ t .i
~ I" 1. - i Y . ~ ~
i ~ i ~ t~
~ , ~ ~ ~ ` i ~
i i ~
~ b A i i ~
~ t j ' ~ , i ~ i ~ i
i ~ i ;
i r i ~
J ~ 0 .1
t- ~ ~ i~ ~ 1
~ i~ ~ i ~
} - ~ ~ ! i
r ' ~ i i ,b ~,t
4 t,' i ~ ; _ :i ~ -
el ~
~~yytt i ~ ~ ~ ; x , r,
sL ~
Q ,1 1 V { f
I ` / is > ~ ~4 o~ 4d
I ~ 4 i P ~ ~ it -
t I 4 ~ I {y'
' I a
¢3 i
A ~ ' ' / ~ ~ ~:'i.
~ r - i ~ _ j~ , f '
t
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , .o I { ti.
~ _ ~ _ /
~ ; ~ - ,'(.rr^^!
r ' ~ ~7I .F
b, ~ , , , ~ ~ ~
~ , F ~ ~ ~ . f
r ~
` ~
~ ''t i
i i
i i ~
~ ~ ~ ~i
d ~ M ~ ~
i
i 3 1
~
t
1, . t ~ '
i i _ ~ ~
i i
~ ~ r W r ~
Y ` REACH 2 STA ~1 23 LQ. .J
;END CONSTRUC ON k- f V ~
s: ,i ,1
~ a~ k ~ i~
~r ~ ~ rn ` 9 G
.--I r-1 ~4
~ y r i y"~,, ~ - ~n
N ~ ~ ~ a „ , . w~ , p I
~ ~ ~ ~,t ~i$ a ~
r , ' { ? ~
~ ~ f h ~ ~ ~ !3 ~ ~ j' ~ ' !3
~ , '
> _ - ~ ~ ,
N C ~ 1 ~ r
J GREGORY SITE
i f N GRADING PLA S
~t rn ,
N - ' i N
? fr' 1 200 100 50 0 00
00
NIA \r+
L(~ SCALE FT
l0 L

f _ s . _ a ~ i y PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET NO.
- ~ S r : - 3 M ~ ~ F / .....y i
12
~ ~ i _ ` PROJECT ENGINEER
N ~ , y
N I _ n

P RELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
4 w , ~ ,
120 .
~ . v., , BEGIN CQNST UCTION.. , ~ . . _ _ x
, I ~ , M -
EL-912.$x' _ o` N ~ _
_ _
t r n r a fi . II ? t 6000 Regency Parkway Suite 200 Cary, North Carolina 27511
_ _ ~ ~ _ ~ W • ' . _ , Phone: [phone] sC1Z, ~ _ RNGINEERING Fax:[phone]
li ( W II r ii ~ 11 tfa _ Q. W~ . . 0. _ tf} • _ _ _ _
• - I a ~W :}o ' _ :.Q _ ~ _ • 0!' i .:.Q
a , ~r u I I' J ~ 4
: ~ ~ . - ~ o ~ ~ ~ I
~ , _
r-~,,~ ~ - _ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ 1
1. Y ~ ~ a I ~ve
- - \
- ` - _ ,'1 v
- . { ~ • 1 ~ , k ?
110 _ _ ~ y v t , W z
s i i.. ,
' ;
4 s , , i
i 2 m.....
~ _~t _ ~ ~ ri .A . m: . ~ v .~~Q _ ~p ~ - o a
r r t'11 .N r r ~ _
_ - ' ^ s~ ~ - ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ - , _ ~ ~ + ~ - ~ - ~ ' - '
to sGQ qp 7.
_ - .N~.~ _ . _ ~ u e~ II ~ ~ w.N b a
e 0, II J r ~ , a , -w , E e , ~t
• , p „I - i., R~ - x-~-- - i p ~ W I, ~ a N ~ ' t- ,
LL A 1 f Oe _ i ~ i_ - b I
_ ~
s . , - _ _ _ - I W n. lJJ _ ,
s i ~ y_. _ _ I •
100 t ,
_ _ ~ - F, ~v.~ ; . _ Y ~ .~vA~ Y .,.4w~~ ~ . ~ ~ a f
F , , ~ , a_ ~ ; LL _ s.
_v i , e_; ? ~ f i ~ _ d____. _ _ _ - - ~ ,g ~ 1.. : 'v p f I _ ~ f J
t f i
10+00 11+00 12+ + 14+00
00 1 3 00
, , ~ ~ _ . T_ _ s ~ - _ _ ~ - ~ _ a__ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ t
S Y . • _ ~ ~..7..a_..1v ..~a .F ~ F ~ ~ ~ ,
_ _ a 9 I X
s t e i t : ,
s a : a E _
n ~ E sue:.. }
~ S S + s _ i
1 ~ I § ' k - - ~t L } f t
. i 4~ _ 5 ~ a
120 , _
_ . ..w . - , { 1 - _
„r - - z G
t y , i
o Y ~ S ~ : ` ~ ~ d 3 t 1 r r
r c ~ . ~ ~ : .c Y - o 1 i
i _
• Y/ ^ ^
. ~ :
11^^ _ M/y~ v,.~ O
,O ~ _ } ~ N (0 f~ (0 _ Q V/ N
~ O . II Y t O t O O { ~ O ~ ro , f ~
Q ~ ~ II J ~ r- II II ~ II ~ II r-, I{ J !I J II J II J 11 J II P- 00 OQ ' t- r r tl c.* II k.r,. ~1 0 _ r
110 a ~ - - _ I I J _ _ ~ ~w ~w ~w aw ..w a II J; II J ~.~Il fl ~ d
F w.. ~
_ .
r
~ Q
ti $ ; _,N~ ~ o_ - - ~ •
i w
_ _ e o ~i Z _
a _ J I ,
, . ,a nE .,r 2 a,.,~ U
p r, a N ~ _ ~ _ g..
i ~ z 4- ~
a _ i
• ~ ~ ~ _
m ~ r ~ ,
t9 O R to N + N
~ t~ . ~ .
c- 11 ' * ~ c+~ O - 100 f M :'4'!.
W M ~ 0 II O ? t ! lA ~ (d.- e. as ~ ~
r, Q: II J r- t1) + O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ {I ~p r ~ Q r ~ W ~ O ~ ,
/ II' J II r II ~ r- II
~ 4., ~ If J II -I W - a a w II J
N N ~ W

O~ 1 i 11 00
T T _ 1 1 17.00 1~0_. 0 . G... , 0.
F - a o,~ ~

/ -
~ ~ ~ P, g i z i~ ~ ~ ~ t• ~ , y PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
- - - - s
i ~ n ~ x : r, ' 1lO 13 ; _ . _
PROJECT ENGINEER t,
N
N t
s _ . , . s
ti n ~ P ELIMINA Y PLANS R R
_ DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
_ s o - ~ ~ ~ ,
120 -
~
. _ _ _
_ , a 8000 Regency Parkway Suite 2D0
Cary, North Carolina 27511
_ $ Phone: [phone] y_ ENOINffiERINCi Fax: [phone]
5.
i
N O - cD E . ~ ~ 0 ~ . _ O (D ~ th _
~ (D ~ ~ _ . ' ' ct~ M .y M (p N (0 _ : ~ _ _ ~ N ' ' N y
r- - r I~ r..,,.. _ ~ _ ~ . _ .tag„ ~ ~~A crn ~ fp Q~ t ~ ~ O CA ~ p .K • ~ g N' a ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ f0i,. ~ tta ~ tc ~ _ 'G~' R~~
~ ~ ~ ° r~ r ~ Q ~ e+ o + o w r ~3 f. II _ 9 _ o r r- ' s ; k t ~•e N N tY) M ~ M
r II r- ,II ky il' ~ % N I II N I : tl ~ ~t~ . J o _ . , _~t,.. ~ . J I I rl 11 - `II = ~ , IJ- N II N I1- N r _ N tl._ N ._.~I II ~ . _ I~ J ~ ~ II J II J
;..a a ~ ~ w ~ a, w a w_ ~ W 11 J I I J I I! J I I J N.
110 . ~ 4' ~ ~ 4 ~ d d W ` ~ ~ (1,' W ! ~ ~ ~ W - ~ _O e._ , ,
u_ ~ ~ _ ~ .r ~~fi ~ ~ . ~ n ~ . f _ . ; O
t a ~
b n- ; r ` y f..
} r , ~r ~ _ _
_ ~ , - al~~~ - ~ .x 2!41: w ~ - , _ ~ _ /
> ~ ~ t ~ _ ~ W1.'
- s E ~ i x - ~
: ~ , d [ - a _ I , • -I- ~ -
I K ~ M r k~ 6 r
_ , _ . k _
~ s _ V ;
t
s..f_ 'i,
{
- ; ~ ! : Y/• 9
} O ~ i ln, CA _ _ _ N ~ f0 . _ : n rn ~
100 . _ ,gym ~~,r r. i io ~ - . _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,z.. N
:M2T~/~. .+l~F, ak,. yrs.... ~ g ._.a._...... ~ O W ~ O r e . r ? N II a11. Q N r ,
r IL II J II ~ I NI c*~..;- ~ i- • . ' ~ J _o ,N 1N E 11~
a`~ aw wig -w . _ . _ a , . _ - F I a ~ ~ ~ _ II =0 I I J _ ~ . W z_ a - a t~
4 _ _ ___.w
19+00 + + 2 21 00 0 + + 24+00 2 +0 2 00 5 00 22
t~ ~ ~ _t~;_ i ILL ~ ~ -i_ r _ ~ ~
. ' - j ~ ; 1
i 4 . a r j ~ ~ ~ i
i k' r . t
i ~ ~._.R - , . 2 ' - _ _
I ~ _ ' t
} ~ ~ : x i I - _ ~ - i - i ~ . ~ - r , A 3 :_I.. - 5
r , _ _ _ 7., _ ~ - - _ t q ;
s ~ - I ~ a _ y z. } i t ~ ~ 4 ~ . a ~ a • i ' ~ ~ u * i a
2 ~ _ s 1 ~ ~ ~ I ~ - t t. t
~ ~ , . ~~.s~.....~-.... , , ~ _.o,.,~ ~ it ~ d e is . > i
~ e - . -.-_..._f
i - S F A f e ~ ~ ~ ~ ' - - x f - ~ _ ~ } : ~y
C. , i. ~ 1
' ~ ~Yk. ~r C p
j S 2 _ ~ ~
i - - = - { , i _ _ t -
t 9
i ~~,.~,.e ~ i
g . p ,
_ -
4 F d' tin f0 t0 40 I~ r ~ ~w .4 v.~ye_. x~_ ~ r. ~ -
~ ~ h tO ~ ~ M _ , l'! • ~
_ _ r _ ~ r ~ $ _ ~ r R r I 0. ~ _ . ' v_ ~ ~ O } p~ + O + O } O. + ,O
_ ,t v. II SV II r ~ ~ ~I J II + O 00 ry. ; r' to r r_,_ r- _ ~ ~ + N it a~ I I N I I M I I O I ~ N r
J 110 _o_ _ ~ a Q w • U J ~ II -t II J ~ cYi II ! 1 c~ II C'4 II M II ~ W % W _ W _ UJ II J tl' J , II: ~ TI J II ,J Q
~ , m~ ~ a r _ ~ P ~a_ _ . , 1 ~ ,u, _ _ z _ ~.T o~ ~ , _ a a. aua ~,.w ~.w ~w - • a _,GL ~ w O
_ _ , .
cv_ , _ . r tV
4 - - M
~ , . s _ . ,aw , z . t _ r„ . Q
_ ~ ; : _ ~ . ~ _
- _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ I I I r~r
C ~ , ~ , J_ _ . rte.
C _ , ~ , r t.~ ~ ~ _ ,~~.t~ ~ a . gym, ~ _ e.,~ ~ J e e ~ ~
~ _ l ~ _
F f'-
a _ ~ _ 1 Q _ ~
_
_ _ _ -
_ y
>
100 N._
•cy' C M ~ A N tt7 Q ,N O r tti? t(9 .tb tp N . O W, ~ ~ p ~ _ ~ O
h- ~ V'' jpl) r } Q D- +
~ N II. N ,II r C :,u II ~ N O r : ~ r O r c N N t1 M II M II
rn a w: - w O. W Lt: II J II .J II
N
( '
_ Olr ' Om + + 1 _ ' ~ Q _ 3~ _ ~ Q 2
2 2 0 5 0
m _ ~ , ~ ,
~lr

4 u . , t ~ p t „ ' e 1 - ~ i a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - , ~ ~ d , ~ k PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
x ~ ~ _ ~ ~ 3
e n , ~ _ x 14 ~0
r 120 _ _ N - PROJECT ENGINEER
N
P ELIMINA Y PLANS R R
' DO NOT USB FOR CONSTRUCTION
i , .
E
, _ -t . O _ 6000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
~ ~ _ - N d' ~ ~ ~ O ~ _ ~ ~ O _ Cary, Narth Carolina 27511
Phone: [phone] _ ~ ~ ~ r` ~ ENGINEERING ~ F x. 1 -a - a r,n _ ~ p.; _ - f~1 N aC1 N ~p ~ a 9 9 63 5 90
{3y to rr IA 9 ~ - - N ~ ~ ~ f~ p p . . ,
S"~ II ~ U : ch II N p 110 O tip r- ~ fvy II c'~ I h M I I i l l ~ r afl c a0; ~ I I Cry II ~ I ,
II IF J II M J ! M J M II 1 ~ II ~ W I~ .,.,I W ,a _ _ W W - W W -s W - W - i#' ~
d a a a s W ~ ~ ~
O Q , Q t
y © .
' ~
~ , N .
' ~ ~ ~ T T ~ ~ ~~s ~ ter. i a T rte' y~r Y
~ ~ = : i.
L ' _ _ _ r_ a.
.F -r... ~--_..n-.-_ .oe tee,.: r .o o - ~ fr _ _ . a. r... n.... _ R . i • I
W ~ ` . F - , -
~r ~ 1 a ' II
J _ ~1
_ ~ t a 1n i _ ~ ~
M. _ ~ _ Q 1
u v ~ ~ { I
100 f
V W ~ _ M ~P, u W, V
W~ W C"' ~
N ~ ~ ~ d' d' ' ; _ + 0 etr) O _ + p + } p
il, ~ t C7.~_~I _ (~1 II
11 IL J ` ~ ~ W If ~J II ~ n M~ II- ~ II 11.. II J If` --I II . ~ W -
.I~° a a.
1
e ~ . _ _ _ _ ,
f r..,__ . ,n_ ,H.:_. _ ~ r« f
s t I z ~ ~ _ p1 _ ~ t t 1 ~ ~ _ ! a..... E ~
v ~ ~ ' ~ } e ~ i i 1~ '
{ { e' I _ w w
+ + + 36+ 34 00 35 00 33 00 + 7+ 38+00 00 6 00 3
, . t I_ , I _ ~ ~ _ - : , . :
i t~_. j q h~ y-; ~ i y ~ v •
' i ~ _ ~ i ~ # t_ ~ k. I~
e i i ~ _ ~ a
, _ , a . E ~
! i , _ r d _
r - z ~ : 1
i ~ i ~ ~ E t E ~ i6 i _
.i, r z i ~ q a ~ i t . ;
~ ~_i . 4 _ _ t i ~ ~ ~ I
5 ~ ,t v _ ; _ • ,
' a ! o d i _ ~ .
~ :e
x 3 .
. ~ . _ _:.....y, _
hV i O fl p) EA dJ p _ € flp _ N fl N O , to
~ to , m ~ ~ ~ ~ In
+ ~ . 110 ~p p II ~ t"' a r p r ~ ~ N •
~r_ ~ ~1 « "d „ s~ 11 ,ll ,.,o. +II II ~ ~ ~ J.. II J Ili .J ~J ~ #I ,~{I~.,,~, fir,, _ 'Cr`' '"1Jw" 11 If IL ~.a
_ _ ~ I ' n ~ n ~ ~l tt_ ~ ~ . n --1 it a u ~ ~ - W W ~ " ~ - W - W - W W
F {
i i. O '
"z Q m.,,.
Q-~ 11_ O
T , 6 /rn~ C~ ~ ° ,
\U _ _ q_. <
. .
r . ~ _ _ .a~µ _ I; - a
. t u r _ ~ ~ $ L
_ , :
~ J ' i
2 _ s
U LL v ' '
I~". : ~
100 F- Q
_ m .a ~ ~ _ _ ~ a
~ ~ o r o~n _ r~ ~ r cn ~
J ~ ~ O t72 (0 cv r'` ~ v ~ ~
d r 0 N ~I' N N + + O + o J d' ~ y' - • O + G O + O I '
~ ~ II ~ d' II N " 11 m II J tl J 1~ J ~ J J ,r fV r- M ~ ~ r ' II `,fi .11 ~ II ~ II
- IlJ W r-, aw aW a d J II; J , II -J II J W „ ~ - uJ - W
m a a n.
r`
A

Ol ~ _i
m
? v/
O~ O~ + + ' + _ 42.00. 4 41 0 + + 44 0_ 0 4 0
00 Nf~

s _ . _ , _ _ _ r, s ~ , _ .o _ _ _ _ I ~ ! PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
E ~ ~ _ o c~ ~ x ~ 1 h~ _ i _ 170 15
0 ~
N 4 PROJECT ENGINEER
_
N }

-R
, P ELIMINA Y PLANS R R
t _ i DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION

. ~ t
E 8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
Cary, North Carolina 27511
V i , tLl_ EV.. ~ _ N _ ~p ~ _ W Phone: [phone]
I` a0 ~ ~ p M to M Sv? , ~ , ~ , N OQ GD Sfl ~ ~ N ~ ~ _ N _ _ ENCJ:IN&ERINC~ Fax: [phone] d' N ~Y (Q Qy . SG M N . N ~ -
O N N _ ~ ~ ~ N : ~ ~ 110 _ _ ~ : _ ~ ~ ~ . ~ z ~ 0 ~ ~ N ~ ~t ~ r- ~7 ~ C1 d ° r; EA GO ,d, ~ d' oa cr Q ~ M ,
' ~ + ~ ~ ~ + o + © + a d' t ~ II II w [j + ...:p d ' t q , . , t ~ ~ ~ # O
II 'V II II v II II ~ n ~ ~ ~i It --I ~ . II J u h ~ ~ W u ~ u II J ~I II J II .J. II J
r ~ d F ~ _ LLI It --I d a. ~ p, a: ~ ,

- o
, _ a i.. 0
O _ , , ~ o
o
I ~ E - cf, -
_ - may. Q _ J~
: ~ ~ ~ , s x ~ cn
F t
_ s w
v., , _ , Z'

- _ ~ _ t k n n _ U
100 r
~ ~ ~n.~ ~ . . a , K k ~ ~ ..r k fl n
M
z ~ N - - ' ~ e`'; ~ p ~ . ~ ~ ~ p p i r ~ ~ ~ - M1 % ~ ~O, M M ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~
_ 00 ~ ~ p ~ < ~
© ~ ~z ~rj Q ~ ~ r ~ A t ?D Q ~ ~ a
'Cf. =f ~ II U..~f J ~ III? ~ II II; _.,,I t1 J e II 'II' ~ ~t t W I ~ II :J
W I ? J" W ' tL ;0. W; W a -o. n o. a as W
_ ~ ,.~r
3 _ _ k i t~
_ . s . i R ' 1 ~ 4 ~ i
p, ~ t... ....a.... F I ~ - ._.r
" t ~ . ¢ 3 r C - ~
45+ 0 46+00 47+ + 00 4 00 8 + 5 +00 4 0
n I . ~ w ~s_
b ~ k x _ ~ ~
o-
1'
~ s ~ ~ , I ~
• t
~ i ~ _ t : ~ i ~ ~ ~ i.
i ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ } < F
d _ :
F i
. _ _ f ;
4..
~ i. ',j: _
i _ _ - i
110 . . ~ ~ (0
~ p~ ~ M1 _ R ~
lA J
_ J ~ n t 4n II ~n u ,w U J U- J , W ; W II W II W 11 ..J _u~ !r ~ : ~ _ ~ n w
_ 4 a a ~ . ~ W . a aw dw a,~
O d _,.r
~ ~ - Y 1.. _ s i r . nnr,..w. , rc
O . , .
lt')
v ' - t
Q ` t
F-- { ~ ,
L1.1 ; a t V/
Z . a i I ~
100 - ~ ~ _ j i.~ 4 s ~ ~
~ - j .
. ~ . _ r ~
4- Q N - - - O _ _ < ~ (h _ ~ ~
W M , oo ~ Q.' M _ ; - ~[a N_
t13: - , M B + ~ _ + O t0~ s . O M w r?. , to
~ Il. ~fy II ~ ~t ~f, ~ u d t O
0 II J U J W ~ - I . W df._ -1 J a a a ~ _ , a w, If, ~ ~ t!) ~I to II J
W, _ _ ' LL ~ ~ W-
0 a
C Q
r-+ y
t_ , r C
Ql
~ ,
? i _
O~ ; _ t Om f
(VIA , _ + ~
5.1...00 ~m _ 2+ 5 +00 54+ _ m ~ . . 5 0 55 0 5

r._. . _ _ ~ _ ~ ~ _ . k ~ ~ ~ _ . , _ ~ . _ _ _ ~ PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. :
G , ,
i ! a u 170 16
120 ' PROJECT ENGINEER
N
N „y
1 ~
PE R LIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
_ ~ Y r
i
i 6000 Regency Parkway Suite 200 . ~ , _ _d_ ~ . ~ _F_.
Cary, North Carolina 27511 i _
Phone: [phone] ~ I ENGINEERING Fax: [phone]
! s y ; t
110 :rr ,.o~ oN ,~N_, 'm M ~ _ i y
fh ~y ~ ' ~ ~ " ~ r,,,
.o + ~ + O_ + o o + o + Q Ca + Q ~ o + a-^ r I~ r N ~ , r' W r 00 rs i e- Q! r 4- O II (p 1( + O } :O + O O ~ t 4 t p p r r-
N ..11. ~ Mt }ft 11 tl -.N U ~ tl N 11 ~ p` . ~ II+ II J II' J 'II J .J J J 1 ~ • O II ~ , p - I - .W . ~ J ~ ~ _ m, J _ _ _ _I!' .,.1
W ' IL W _ ~ W I IlJ _ I 11 Il~ W 11 J II a a ~ a r~ , a e _ ~ p. ~ p, ;111 d W .W_- _ W ' 4 a ' _-n; . p ~ _
o m ~ m i
~ - : a O •
r~ _ r fl
~ co M _ Fl -
. ~ . r ~ _ ~ _
- - . ~ Q ^T 1 _ _ / 1
~ i : h a ~ i
W ~ i a r ~ F ~ :
~ _g . S!M , ~
' 3 ~ t : ~ f. -
- T : a ~ - z ~ , -
V - - , . i- i... i S ~ E
100
Q ~q z., a • ~ ..p i. ter- - ~ > Y
e - - _
. r- o os _ Q T i... - .
M ' h r ,
+ O + O + O I i ~ N, W ~
It ,J II J, II J U I ;J r
4 .w _ a , „w.. a , _ _ _ Ill a F k.. - -.r. t - - a u~ ; -
_ _ _ . - ~ F - : f ._...._.....,.~...,~,~..o:._~,....ws_......~.,.»s:..~_.,~..~,~_ I
- j ~ g - I ~ -
_
i r r i > • _ r i
~ , _ . _
+ + + +00 60 59 00 58 00 70 5 + 2+00 + 6 00 63 61 00
: , ,
fi . z - _ i ~ n` 7 ~ ~ : ~ k, w T1~ ~ k
e ~ ~ - h ,..e . : . a r
~ t ~ ~ • . ~ _.F ~ b. t .F - j - [
` ~ i _ x ~ _ T. x-_.,_ -
3 ~ ~ f z , ~ ` i 3 ~ ~ - . ' - ! q -
• : ~ - _ I P m~_, A. . s
4 x _ _ q ~ - i s '
_ _ - F. ~ - - ` ~ : I ~ i z t ' < ~ s _ -
P . _ , _ - I - t ' -
_ 1 a . v. ».«.~..x~a.«+...~.. _ e ~ ,
z y ~ i C k - i _ -
~ + _ s - I ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ I
rz . S F I , k 1_ : _ _ t i. _ - ~ ~ ~ ,
I s , ' k 1 . • a,_ -._:~..,.~r,,.w6v:..p ....F, .;.w.-ear..,,. ata•.r+.'~_~."+.-x.~,~.. :_...a - v.=..rw. _ m .-ian~ ~ v< • -
- < ' ; i I e ~ ; t
t ~ t ~ j ' l.._i ~ . ,
4 r s ` i 1 . i i : s_ ~ , ~ + - b i m c ~ -
0 11 t l i ~ _ - _ - - . , k i '
O O a~ , „ O ~ ~ _ u...D- ~~p n • nl ~ r- q~ l'~ O lV 'r Q~ (n 3 ~ >
Q ter c9 ~ ~ M _ ~ h iri ! f § M c4_~ + ~J Q„~. _ ~ _ , r
~ Q t ~ ~ m II
Y ' it ! II (d 11 .tl s ~ - _ II - It J - ~ W n J_ ~n ~ I J II ~ I J W . _ . ,a- _ ~ ~ ~ ts~ tD II II
o. w ut- I! ~ ~ _..~r W 'o a a d a ~ a a i.. ~ .,F, . y. n~..~ 1 ~ ~ W W . a ~ • La
. Q ~ ;
o ~ ~ E + _ , , f , ; a I i - k ~ ;
t _ch Y _ _ 1 I 1 ~T\\
co _ ~ 1~ ~ ~ r _ _ ~ ! t - -ate j. ~ . >
, ~,NN ~ , _ i ~4~ ~ _ . - i ~ ~ j i
C ! { t ~i. - ; ~ ~ _ _ ~ mar ~ _ ~ ~ ~ 1 , , - t _ '
i t P ~ 1 f / ` i i t i
I i s ~~•r
~ ~ ~ ~ -ra+ .e-.. a i ` 7
S ; , , <
V ' _ ~ r , _ e ~ - - ~ l ; ! ~ _
100 . : ~ ~ i 1 4 ~ i - ~

k I
e _ .
a - _ r ~ m 1 n, ' ~J
M ~ I~ I~ N A ~ ~ N ~ . f ~ t i e ~ ,
N . • ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ N, "
O : ~O i f~0 II ~ 'll tl ' _ _
~ ~ 1t. J ; - I J _ { II J If L rt II 11 IG II J I J ! ~ ,
- ; .r W 4. uJ _ ~ ~ a N UJ ~ ~ D ~ - 4: ~ k
C I 0
~ F ? ~ ' t
C r
01 , r .
N a- ~ a ~ _ _ . r ~ , ~ { - s
? a
O~ ~ . a s Om 55 40 ~ . s~ . ~ 6+ V ~ e : ~ -
N~ . ~
~m _ . _ _ xr G

w r 4 P ` PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
> y - M ~ : p ~ i
m I ' ~ j ~ F -
_ ~ PROJECT ENGINEER
N _ ~ _
N F _ ~
j ~ ~ - P
w ,..,w _ RELIMINARY PLANS
_ 1 i DO NOT USS FOR CONSTRUCTION
; _ f
- . - i - ~
_ 110 _ ~ - afl _ _ u7
t~~ ,..r_,~..._.. ,,i~ CV p ap. v ~ r ~ b'j ~ ~ ~ c,.) t` M DD ~ 00 O (0 N W N d' • d' r u7 N N N
nl fV t'31 tt.. ~I. 00 ..~1- ' _
+ ~ + O + O O + D ~ O ! O + O
t0 II II ~ _ t It J _ F J- - l~ IJ ~ .J II J II II , i h 11 II I III ' . ~ :J I J II J !II II _ -i~ II ?
- w - ~ w ~ _ 111......, ~ ,11,x- - `w 1.L~ 1~. ~ t W 8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200 ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E Cl. ~ ~ Cary, North Carolina 27511 1. _ ~ _ _ Phone: [phone]
{ f i i : S `w} ~ _ _ Q ENCiIN~ERINGt' Fax: [phone]
I - - e -
i - e . _ .
~ ~ ~ I _
` j
s, tTMm:...u.~~-N gwvn tom.. .w.~:fu.,.,s-,n<.o.ox.b..- w.. aa>~a•unv~v...rva
" ~ s ~ f ~ i x ' b a T I _ _
Z t fj - ti_ _ _ E ; t
J - _ _ i _ ? ~r , '
100 _ ; . .._..v . r ,
. _ _ ,_...~...,.~w.. F - i, } c ~ - ~ ~ - ~ - ~ I ;
i s I t 7 i - t _ . ;
~ . 3 3 _ i j r,
i . - _ r
a ~ ~ - - ~ - c_ - ,0~ ~ ~ , J.,N ~ ~ _ ! t0 ~ V sch
s. ~ IA - O (D O M N } - ! N. N ~ i _ _ _ - 0 1 [5 ~ ~ 't~F Ol (V ~ ..141_ N . i
i _ ~ + TV
1., IN R `II _ II ~ .il ,J
w w ; w ~ a e i T , w r ~ JW,{ , ~ r~ , a ~ _
t I _
~ ,
_ s . t _ t _t _ _ , F
f , T ,:M.~ .~.~HU~.~_
_ _ ' s:
. _ _ 90 I ._..~~,_y...,~..a~..~~.~.,.,~,~:x.. ,N......v., . ~
. _ ._r...~ . _ _ , . , .
: i ~ i
_ - ~ - - _ ~i- I s i- t ~ ~ r
e , t c ~ _ -
+ + + 7' + 1 72 00 7 00 70 00 + 74+00 73 00
00 6 t
_ , ~ . , ~ i ~ g s ~ _ - - - - - ti
r ~ ~ - i a , v
i_ ; , I
~ ~ ~ ' _
€ ~ - ; r 1 ~ p r 1 ~
1 - d
i _ ~ - t { ~ ~ . . _ ~ _ F il' ~ ~
- z f r ~ _ _ _ . A - ~ F_ 3 r. ~
i * _ _ - - - . ,v. _ ~ _ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
, ; _ ; _ ..~.++a,w~~...,......,,. ,,.vi... v.. .a tee......:. ,1........,., s,.. .
~ ~ . i
_ _ . _ x c ~ f : ` e
i z. i I
r
. ~ ~w. ~ 1 4 ~ ~ . . - ..,-ix- - y i - , , , ` - ~
i _ i_ x r
- ~ 4 _ _ _ ! _ j
t- _ __t 1 0 1 . u i I
w _ _ _ . _ ~ - r~ S ~ 7 ,,.,,.v,, z ` , C 1
o : - , ~ _ ~ m o t~ r _ ~ r , u~ ~ m -u~ ' col _ _ •t 4 Z ~
~ , . I . r ~ CV N Oi tV 'N t~ N I N ui _N F
_ _ - _ - , ~ m ~ ~ 10 ~r ~ ~ r± e- ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ _11. _ - - n. II la. -1( ~ h I( 11 a, -11 ~ Tom' N -_h II _ 7
_ 11 ..;I a ? II J II J 11 J II FJ ' III; J ~ II J II ; J r
- 3 -
, _ ;
o t _
- o _ . _ E
p „e ~ 4
_ ~ ~ - ! F r
~ i ; ~ ~ i ~ _ ~ e ~ - s i . _ i -
i - - _ ~ _ s ~ 4
ri ~ _ ~ . ~ r~..;~_ _ I I . . » r/~ a a+u ~ _ 3 - u... ~ ~ ~ i
_ _ . _t _ ~ _ _ _ _ 4 - ~ I. _ ~ . i ~
W _ S i _ _ - - . P ~ 3 0 Z ~ . _ s - s
00 ~ 1
r . ~.Y rz e t . ~ t~..-. . , ~ . F
_ ~ - - t ,
a - ~ -
~ -
_ _ ~ ~ , fi ~ ~ o y END CONS1 t
O N ~ N N N END CONSTRtJCTIOI~
~ + o + o o _ _ O ST <7~58. _ ~ STA...7~58.88:
r. Ii r~ li ~ - ~ II - EL=1(~:~3 N 11 J II ~ ~ I~ J 'II J ,..a 'EL=102.53'..-
~ ~ w._ ~ w. ~ w . - w r q ~ _
t
~ _ _ _ _
~
Y i
i i
ry/y t -f - - _ l
Nf~ . ' , 54 ; + 76.0 -77± 7 ,
~0 ~m _

_ _ _ _ _
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEEP NO.
m ~~p~V AY ~("l77~V ~7 ~7 V N 79 ~l..J~~d 1~A \ ~ ~ V ~L ~~L.J~~ ~~L.J~ N
E~]E~~~IE~~7C][~I~T ][~~$~~fIE~C~C n0 /8 PROJECT ENGINEER
JI..AA \ ~~A. ~ ~JLAA V JL d J1~ ~~A ~ rll~.lld 11.e..:11`l.~~d-]l~`U11LJy ~~`Li
~~°~°~q PRELIMINARY PLANS
~~JI..A~~~~ REVEGETATl0 LOCATI011i: OFF 1VCSR 56l N TYPE OF WORK: WETLAND DO NOT U8B FOR CONSTRUCf[ON
!'10111 PLA11l
Cary, North Carolina 2]511
BUCK 8000 Regency Parkway Sui[e 200 Phone: [phone]
EN 62N88 RING ~ Faz: 919-083-5490
56l NEAR HALIFAX
AND A111D STREAM RESTORATI0111
r,....~~

NAD 83

r
N.'
JvY~M? P,kt;Y rt,
j\/j\/j~\/j\/ \//j\/j\/j\/j\/j\/j\/\\/j\/j\\/j\/j\/\\/j\/j\/j\/j\/j\
j\/j\/j\/j\/j\/j\ \j\\ j\\j\\ j/ /\\\\j\\j\\
j~\//~~ j ~~\~/j\/j~/j\~/j~/ ~~/j~/j~/j~/j~/j~/j\~ ~\~jj~//~//~ j/j~/j j/~//j ~/~~~/jam j/j~/j~ ~,..w
~ \\~j\
\j \\j\\j \\j\\j \\j\\j/
\ \ ~.~~L,OH;S 017-:7,
~ /'r',
~,;;Y
C Oi
V
m CONSTRUCTED BERM 'D BERM
r
a
m
n
m TOTAL ARfA TO BE PLANTED BAR£-AOOT TREE
PLANTING BIXINDARY
N 99 ACRES
c 0
a
c NnrFS, VEGETATION PLANTING
rn 1. PL4NT BAREROOT TREES 1N INDICATED ARMS ACCORDING TO DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS. P~N
a~ BAREROOT TREES SMALL BE PLANTED UP TO THE STREAMBANK OF THE NEW STR£AAl CHANNEL
0
ar om 2 LNE STAKES SHALL BE INSTALLED ON NEW STREAM BANKS OF REACHES 2 AS DESCRIBED 4O 2O O 4O 8O IN THE DETA145 AND SPEGFICATlONS.
M
3. PLANTING BOUNDARY WILL BE STAKED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO P[AIYTING.
tD[L SCALE (FT)