20041511 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20070831

DWQ Project No.: Oq " 1;51 ` County: i?asrtdo & 2 6 2005
DENR . WATER QUALITY
?GL y? C ?1C C Z . t LC"""A" NA STORW TER BRANCH
Applicant: ?r?yl YOhrti?.??
Project Name:
Certificate of Completion U12@[ROW[RO,
Date of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certification: 10 15124r.04
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, and any
subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North
Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650. This form may be
returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or the project engineer. It is not
necessary to send certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification
I, o ?,Q? (10?s4 AtWh, hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and
diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built
within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the
approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials
Signature: Date: Z? 2CSD S
Agent's Certification
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and
diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built
within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the
approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Date:
If this project was designed by a Certified Professional
I, , as a duly registered Professional (i.e.,
Engineer, Landscape Architect, Surveyor, etc.) in the State of North Carolina, having been authorized to
observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of the project, for the Permittee hereby state that,
to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that
the construction was observed to be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality
Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: Registration No.: Date:
a
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
October 5, 2004
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
Attn: Tara Disy Allden
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200A
Cary, NC 27511
Subject Property: Open Springs Stream Restoration Plan
UT to Deep River [03-06-08, 17-(10.5), C]
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
DWQ EXP No. 04-1511
Randolph County
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 0.1458 acres of wetlands, 6,193 linear feet of perennial
streams (3431' restored, 2726' enhanced and 36' for repla?cing existing farm crossings) for the
purpose of compensatory mitigation totaling 6,157 linear feet of stream restoration (totaling
4,521 Stream Mitigation Units) at the subject property, as described within your application
dated and submitted October 21, 2004 and all additional information submitted and received on
October 4, 2004. After reviewing your application, we have decided that the impacts are
covered by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 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.
Conditions:
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long 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:
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 21604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
Nose Carolina
At ura!!y
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 500/6 Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
Page 2 of 3
10/5/04
Amount Approved
Units Plan Location or Reference
Stream 6,193 feet Sheets 1-6
404 Wetlands 0.1458 acres Sheets 1-6
2. Stream Mitigation Units for this project will be credited according to the USACOE Stream
Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003.
3. The northern most "agricultural access reservation" easement on UT1 needs to be removed.
4. The two "future" major crossings on UT1 at 21+00 and on UT2 at 16+00 will require written
concurrence from the Division of Water Quality if there are any land use changes on this
property.
5. 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 accorda? ce 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.
6. 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 Preconstruction Notice Application. 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.
7. 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.
8. Monitoring Reports
All monitoring reports shall be submitted to the 401 Oversite/Express Review Permitting Unit
at the letterhead address.
9. 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
r_nVjFUFJ1T1U[Rdl odlIU diiu idnyc, L_w
Page 3 of 3
10/5/04
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.
10. 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 heqring.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water (duality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Cj ndi Karoly at 919-733-9721 or
Debbie Edwards at 919-733-9502 in the Central Office in Raleigh.
Sincerely,
AW K/dae
Attachments: Certificate of Completion
GC 3399
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Cc: Chris Huysman-Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc., 11 S. College Ave.,
Suite 203, PO Box 224, Newton, NC 28658
Andrea Wade-USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Daryl Lamb-DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
DLR Mooresville Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Filename: 041511 Open Springs(Randolph)EXP+401
MWA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor William Q Ross. Jr.. Secretary
Nan W. Klimek, P.E., Me=
EXPRESS PERMTT REVIEW PROGRAM
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Unit
Street Address: 2321 Crabtree Boulevard. Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 276042260
Morning Address: 1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Contact Information: Phone#: [phone]
Fax k: 919-733-6693
Fax To, Environmental Banc $ Exchange Fax #: [phone]
Chris Huystnan 828-465-3050
Subject: Open Springs Stream Restoration Date: 1015/04
Number of pages including cover sheet: 4
Notes or special instructions:
The original will be sent in the mail, If you have questions please call Debbie Edwards at 919-733-9502.
X01v&o OwWmwunt
1650hb18,MMCMWr'R*0.HwWr Pie2766r165D
Carolina
27601 tawwraliff
Phws'M EDuLCp MWk,(Mtirtlrn ACWM Bn*"r-50% RKe d.*IM Poor C.-Fsw
...t7H11IwSNV'd1 INHWIDW ZN510512I aO HOKd ZS2Ua
XO
waH
11SZ.TO
LV:60 SO-100
06VS£9'76
SZ'IRSald
aaow
awil aasdWis
awns luvis
SaOHd
HNOHd
£689££L6T6 'Ia1
S lNVg1 M-N4(i HHKN
6'7:60 HIIZ POOZ-S-100 HZKQ
MOIZME00 ONIMS
A F-IMA
"Tia
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
EXPRESS PERMIT REVIEW PROGRAM
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: Environmental Banc & Exchange Fax #: [phone]
Chris Huysman 828-465-3050
Subject: Open Springs Stream Restoration Date: 10/5/04
Number of pages including cover sheet: 4
Notes or special instructions:
The original will be sent in the mail. If you have questions please call Debbie Edwards at 919-733-9502.
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 One
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 NorthCarolina
Phone: [phone]/ FAX [phone] Internet: httn://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands Naturally An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer 50% Recycled/10 /o Post Consumer Paper

VT:T
ILI tA
Wetland and Natural Resource
Consultants, Inc.
Ms. Deborah Edwards
401 Wetland Certification Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
October 1, 2004 2 O C T 0 4 2004
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND TORS TER BRANCH
RE: DWQ EXP No. 04-1511 / Randolph County
Response to Request for More Information-Express Review Program
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Site
Dear Ms. Edwards:
On September 28, 2004, we received a copy of the Division of Water Quality's Request
for More Information-Express Review Program letter (Attachment 1). DWQ comments
are paraphrased and listed in order with the responses following each issue.
DWQ Comment: Morphological Measurements Table: Please submit the following
information that was not included in your morphological measurements table for your
reference reach and the proposed designed channel.
Response: We have included in this response a copy of a table that provides the requested
information (Attachment 2. Morphological Measurements Table). The table provides the
requested information with the exception measurement (m). The engineer has explained
that this measurement is not applicable for the design because the stream is directly
connected to the floodplain and therefore there is no bench. Alas, measurement (m) is
zero.
DWQ Comment: Pre-Construction Application Notification: Please clarify the
information that was submitted in the PCN; specifically, units of measurement, impact
justification and applicable permits.
Response:
(a) The units given in the original PCN are in feet, their respective acreage equivalents are
0.008 and 0.006. We have attached revised tables and all impacts are in acreage.
Newton Office Clyde Office
PO Box 224 wnrinc.com 217 Paragon Parkway, # 142
Newton, NC 28658 Clyde, NC 28721
828-465-3035 828-648-8801
828-465-3050 Fax [phone] Fax
(b) As part of the project negotiations, the landowner requested that the existing road
crossings be maintained to access high ground and allow for the established internal
circulation. We are clarifying this point based on our field evaluation with DWQ staff on
September 30, 2004; during that evaluation we found existing stream crossing that were
not otherwise clearly identified on the existing conditions map. We regret any confusion
that this may have caused and have included revised tables for the PCN (Attachment 3.
Revised PCN Tables).
As a point of clarity, the "major crossing" depicted on the plans will not be constructed at
this time contrary to what the plans indicate: the final construction documents will reflect
that the existing pipes will be replaced consistent with Nationwide Permit 3. The
crossings are outside of the stream mitigation project area which we define as the
conservation boundary. The attached PCN tables no longer include the "major crossings".
As discussed on site, there are no specific potential land use changes at this time and
development within the watershed will be limited due to the amount of space available for
development and the lack of municipal infrastructure. It is not expected that impervious
surface in the watershed would ever be greater than 10%.
(c) During our conversations with the Corps we indicated that the crossings would be part
of the project. However, during our site visit we discovered that pipes already existed at
the crossing points. These crossings will be re-constructed to current design standards
found in the submitted mitigation plan and the General Certification for Nationwide Permit
3 (Maintenance of Existing Structures)
DWQ Comment: Jurisdictional Wetlands: Have the locations of wetlands or hydric
soils been delineated by the Corps? If so, please supply the supporting information.
Response: The wetlands were delineated by our firm and presented to the Corps for their
approval. Included within the application as Attachment 5 are Wetland Delineation
Dataforms that support our determinations.
DWQ Comment: Perennial Streams: What data (evidence) support the contention
that these are perennial streams?
Response: The streams were evaluated by our firm and were found to contain crayfish.
Included within the application as Attachment 5 are Stream Quality Assessment
Worksheets that support our determinations.
Newton Office Clyde Office
PO Box 224 wnrinc.com 217 Paragon Parkway, #142
Newton, NC 28658 Clyde, NC 28721
828-465-3035 828-627-0051
828-465-3050 Fax [phone] Fax
DWQ Comment: Monitoring Reports: All monitoring reports are to be submitted to
the 401 Oversite/Express Review Permitting Unit at the letterhead address.
Response: Copies of monitoring reports will be submitted to the unit; we request that this
item be listed as a special condition of the 401.
DWQ Comment: Macrobenthos Monitoring: Your plan has not proposed benthic
monitoring, please call Larry Eaton to discuss.
Response: Historically Mr. Eaton has requested that benthic monitoring be required for
sites with more than 1000 linear feet of restoration. We will comply with his prior
requests for one reference site, either upstream or offsite, and two sample locations
within the project boundaries.
Please call with any questions that you may have.
&risysman
CC: Tara Disy Allden
Environmental Banc and Exchange
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200-A
Cary, NC 27511
Michael Ellison
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
3101 John Humphries Wynd
Raleigh, NC 27612
Andrea Wade
US Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of Neuse, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
Daryl Lamb
Winston -Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Newton Office Clyde Office
PO Box 224 wnrinc.com 217 Paragon Parkway, # 142
Newton, NC 28658 Clyde, NC 28721
828-465-3035 828-627-0051
828-465-3050 Fax [phone] Fax
A1C I
Q x l?Q Michael F_ engley.tiovernor
p William U. Koss Jr,. ticeret uy
r+ North Carolina Departmm of Envl7anta nt and Natural ACsnurgrg
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Dimetur
Division of Waw quat4y
September 28, 2D04
OWQ EXP No. 04-1511
Randolph County
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
Attn: Tara Disy Aliden
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200A
Cary, NC 27511
Subject Property: Open Springs Stream Mitigation Site
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION-EXPRESS REVIEW PROGRAM
Dear Ms. Allden:
On September 21, 2004, the Division of Water Quality (DWO) received your application
dated September 16, 2004 to impact 0.1458 acres of wetlands, 6,301 feet of stream
(3431 restored, 2726 enhanced and 144 impacted for road crossings) to construct the
proposed Open Springs Stream Mitigation Flan. The DWQ has determined that your
application was incomplete and/or provided inaccurate information as discussed below.
The DWQ will require additional information 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. Morphological Measurements Table
Please submit the additional information that was not included in your morphological
measurements table for your reference reach and the proposed designed channel:
a. meander length
b. ratio of meander length to bankfull width
c. Radius of curvature
d. Ratio of radius of curvature to bankfull width
e. Belt width
f. Pool slope (normal water surface)
g. Ratio of pool slope to average slope
h. Pool width
401 Wetlands Cert kailon Unit ,NlX ?li~C Lf/
1660 Mail SwAm Cenlar, Ralaigh, North Carolina 27669-1660
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 7604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] Internet: htttarlfh2o,enr,state.nc.uslnwdwalands
An Equal Opport niWAffirmadve Action Employer- 50%Recyd"10%. Post Consumer Paper
i7/2:d 0SOES917-8288:01 268922L6Z6 SaN1J-l81`1-0M0:WO?l 9ti;S1: b002-88-dSS
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
Page 2 of 3
8!28104
i. Ratio of pool width to bankfull width
j. Ratio of pool to pool spacirig to bankfull width
k. Riffle length
1. Pool length
m. Minimum Bench Width
n. Ratio of lowest bank height to bankfull height (or max bankfull depth)
2. Preconstruction Application Notification (PCN)
Please submit or clarify the information that was submitted in your PCN:
a. Table 2 (page 3 of 7)-What units are your wetland impacts given in, acres or
square feet?
b. Impact Justification-Within your Impact Justification, you state "The current design
strategy allows for the crossing to be installed now in anticipation of potential land
use changes;...".
Please explain further.
c. When verifying with the USACOE what Nationwide Permit was to be used, were
the proposed stream crossings discussed? And if so, did the USACOE determine
that they could be permitted under this Nationwide Permit or that they were exempt
from 404 permitting?
Please supply any documentation to support this.
3. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Have the locations entitled "Existing Wetlands"and/or "Existing Hydric Soil" been
delineated by the USACOE? And if so, please supply the supporting documentation.
4. Perennial Streams
What data (evidence) supports the contention that these are perennial streams?
5. Monitoring Reports
All monitoring reports are to be submitted to the 401 OversitelExpress Review
Permitting Unit at the letterhead address.
0. Macrobenthos Monitoring
Your plan has not proposed benthic monitoring. Please call Larry Eaton to discuss
this issue at [phone].
Please respond within five 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 Debbie
V/2-d 020=176288:01 268922L6T6 SGNTU3M-OMO:WOa_? 9L:Sti b002-82-d8S
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
Page 3of3
9128104
Edwards at [phone] if you have any questions regarding or would like to set up a
meeting to discuss this matter.
r
JRDldae
...-_
etlandst401
U it, DUWQ.
cc: Chris Huysman-Wetiand and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc., 11 S. College
Ave., Suite 203, PO Box 224, Newton, NC 28658
Andrea Wade-USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Daryl Lamb-CDWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Filename: 0415910penSprings(Randolph)EXP+hold
bfti:d 0S02S9t78288;01 E689=6T6 SONU-119M-0MQ:W0d_d LI;ST 0002-82-d3S
AM 7
Morphological Measurements Table / Open Springs Stream Mitigation Site
Revised October 1, 2004
Reference Reach Open Springs
Reach Name: Browns Gaines UT-3 OS-1 OS-2 OS-3 OS-4 UT -4
Drainage Area (sqmi): 0.064 0.13 0.13 0.102 0.109 0.125 0.156 0.0267
Classification: C 5 E4 E4 C4 E 4 E 4 E 4 C4
*Sinuosity: 1.13 1.21 1.47 1.27 1.32 1.20 1.30 1.31
Beltwidth (ft): 9.9 10.2 39 40 39 36 38 24
Meander Length 29.2 23.5 69 70 70 73 71
Meander length/bankfull width 1.39 1.62 8.1 10.8 10.8 9.1 14.2
Radius of Curvature 8.6 7.9 13 14 14 17 10
Radius of Curvature/Bankfull Width 1.2 1.3 1.5 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.04
Bankfull Width (ft): 7.13 6.3 6.0 8.5 6.5 6.5 8.0 5.0
CSA (sgft): 2.7 5.54 4.50 4.80 4.8 6.20 1.80
Mean Depth (ft): 0.37 0.88 0.53 0.74 0.74 0.78 0.36
Max Depth (ft): 0.75 1.26 0.80 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.50
Width to Depth Ratio: 19.27 7.16 10.6 6.8 6.8 8.4 13.9
Flood-Prone Width (ft): 24 27 23 24 25 29 12
Entrenchment Ratio: 3.37 4.29 2.7 3.7 3.8 3.6 2.4
Wetted Perimeter (ft): 7.55 7.16 8.69 7.30 7.30 8.85 5.29
Hydraulic Radius (ft): 0.36 0.77 0.52 0.66 0.66 0.70 0.36
Valley Slope (ftift): 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.018 0.021 0.020 0.010 0.030
WS Slope (ftift): 0.004 0.007 0.0100 0.0085 0.0085 0.0085 0.0100
Avg Riffle Slope (ftift): 0.039 0.038 0.033 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038
Avg Run Slope (ftift): 0.15 0.06 0.125 0.092 0.092 0.095 0.100
Avg Glide Slope (ft/ft): 0.05 0.05 0.075 0.050 0.050 0.052 0.055
Pool-Pool spacing (ft): 45.7 25.6 42 37 37 44 27
Avg Pool depth (ft): 0.60 1.17 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.1
Pool depth/BF depth (ft): 1.62 1.33 2.46 2.30 2.30 2.32 3.06
Pool slope 0.004 0.01 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.005
Pool Slope/Average Slope 0.84 0.714 0.625 0.71 0.71 0.59 0.50
Pool Width 6.3 5.3 8.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 6.0
Meander Width Ratio: 1.39 1.62 6.50 4.7 6.0 5.5 4.8 4.8
Materials D50 (mm): 0.2 2.9 9.5 1.0 10.2 7.0 X
Materials D84 (mm): 0.6 7.5 18.5 14.5 18.9 12.8 X
Materials D96 (mm): 0.9 14.1 26.6 28.9 28.0 21.0 X
Roughness (n): 0.017 0.026 0.031 0.030 0.038 0.030 X
Discharge (cfs): 8 22.4 16 20 20 26 7
Velocity (fps): 2.96 4.05 3.6 4.2 4.2 4.2 3.9
Shear Stress (lbsisgft): 0.1 0.34 0.32 0.35 0.35 0.37 0.22
* Sinuosity for reference reaches measured along meader wavelength only - not entire profile
m% 3
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.
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Numerous minor wetland impacts will be
required to re-establish a natural stream morphologv through the valley. Impacts will be to
wetlands that are supported by groundwater discharges; these wetlands will experience a
functional lift with the added hydrology from overbank events that will be restored through the
restoration process. The existing conditions reflect historic straightening and minor grading.
The restored stream is designed to have biannual bankfull events and will provide additional
hydrology to existing hvdric soils that do not currently exhibit wetland hydrology. There will
be a net gain in wetland areas. The attached maps illustrate the extent of wetlands and the
extent of hvdric soils on the site. This approach ensures that buffer plantings will be more
likely to be successful because species will be compatible with anticipated hydrology. The
restoritive actions are described in the attached mitigation plan.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland
Impact
Site Number

(on map)
Type of Impact* Area of

cres)
(acres) Located within
100 year
Floodplain**

(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream

(linear feet)
***

Type of Wetland
ATT. 4 SEE ATT. IMPACT TABLE FOR RESTORED STREAM ATT. 4
11 12' wide farm crossing 0.008 no adj marsh
19 12' wide farm crossing 0.006 no adj marsh

* 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.gov.
*** 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: 2 acres
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.1458 acres
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream
Impact No.
(on ma)
Type of Impact* Imapact
Length
(linear ft)
Stream Name** Average
stream width
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
lease specify)
UT132+00 replace existing farm x-ing 12 UT Deep River 4 perennial
UT1 16+35 replace existing farm x-ing 12 11 3 perennial
UT108+50 replace existing farm x-ing 12 it 2 perennial

Page 3 of 7

* 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.usgs.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: 3431 restored, 2726 enhanced
and 36 impacted for replacing existing farm crossings
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
No. (on

map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact

(acres)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody

, pond, estuary, sound,
(lake
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: n/a Expected pond surface area: n/a
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.
Wetland impacts are necessarv to restore the stream channels that are on the site and no practical
alternative desians would result in a natural stream morphology. Those areas that are impacted by
Page 4 of 7

ATFR
Q
I? r

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
September 28, 2004
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
Attn: Tara Disy Allden
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200A
Cary, NC 27511
Subject Property: Open Springs Stream Mitigation Site
DWQ EXP No. 04-1511
Randolph County
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION-EXPRESS REVIEW PROGRAM
Dear Ms. Allden:
On September 21, 2004, the Division of Water Quality,(DWQ) received your application
dated September 16, 2004 to impact 0.1458 acres of wetlands, 6,301 feet of stream
(3431 restored, 2726 enhanced and 144 impacted for road crossings) to construct the
proposed Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan. The DWQ has determined that your
application was incomplete and/or provided inaccurate information as discussed below.
The DWQ will require additional information 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. Morphological Measurements Table
Please submit the additional information that was not included in your morphological
measurements table for your reference reach and the proposed designed channel:
a. meander length
b. ratio of meander length to bankfull width
c. Radius of curvature
d. Ratio of radius of curvature to bankfull width
e. Belt width
f. Pool slope (normal water surface)
g. Ratio of pool slope to average slope
h. Pool width
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands
.One
NOCarolina
tcrra!!y
e_ e......i n.......a....:a..ina:......?:..., A. .... e.....1,...,.. enei n......??_aia not n..,.?n .............. n.......
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
Page 2 of 3
9/28/04
i. Ratio of pool width to bankfull width
j. Ratio of pool to pool spacing to bankfull width
k. Riffle length
1. Pool length
m. Minimum Bench Width
n. Ratio of lowest bank height to bankfull height (or max bankfull depth)
2. Preconstruction Application Notification (PCN)
Please submit or clarify the information that was submitted in your PCN:
a. Table 2 (page 3 of 7)-What units are your wetland impacts given in, acres or
square feet?
b. Impact Justification-Within your Impact Justification, you state "The current design
strategy allows for the crossing to be installed now in anticipation of potential land
use changes;...".
Please explain further.
c. When verifying with the USACOE what Nationwide Permit was to be used, were
the proposed stream crossings discussed? And if so, did the USACOE determine
that they could be permitted under this Nationwide Permit or that they were exempt
from 404 permitting?
Please supply any documentation to support this.
3. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Have the locations entitled "Existing Wetlands"and/or "Existing Hydric Soil" been
delineated by the USACOE? And if so, please supply the supporting documentation.
4. Perennial Streams
What data (evidence) supports the contention that these are perennial streams?
5. Monitoring Reports
All monitoring reports are to be submitted to the 401 Oversite/Express Review
Permitting Unit at the letterhead address.
6. Macrobenthos Monitoring
Your plan has not proposed benthic monitoring. Please call Larry Eaton to discuss
this issue at [phone].
Please respond within five 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 Debbie
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
Page 3 of 3
9/28/04
Edwards at [phone] if you have any questions regarding or would like to set up a
meeting to discuss this matter.
JRD/dae
cc: Chris Huysman-Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc., 11 S. College
Ave., Suite 203, PO Box 224, Newton, NC 28658
Andrea Wade-USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Daryl Lamb-DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Filename: 041511 UpenSprings(Randolph)EXP+hold
M MMA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor Wiilam a Rose, Jr., Secretory
Alen W. lftek, P.E., Director
EXPRESS PERMIT REVIEW PROGRAM
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Unit
Street Address: 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Malting Address: 1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NO 2769,9-1650
Contact Information: Phone #: [phone]
Fax #: [phone]
Fax To. Environmental Banc & Exchange Fax #: [phone]
Chris Huysman 828-465-3050
Subject: Open Springs Stream Mitigation & Stone I1ate:
Bridge Stream Mitigation Lv/cq
" 1
Number of pages including cover sheet: -3-4
Notes or special instructions:
The original will be sent in the mail if you have questions please call Debbie Edwards at 919-733-9502.
40t MIdk CdMO. Wtl
law Mri S'ntu Cesar' %fth, NA CSaMr ZMQ-1650
2321 Cr&MeuNwW.6U"2M R.W" t" riatie 2MU ,&Carolina
Ph-'- 19.7711M1FAX9197SSW3flMBm4tn /a,Zn ?,mnc u.5?aa?f!andc _
f.//?/ ?'}awrallII
M EyaI CDWnr'Anna>iwlufonEn4bRl-m1'.RkdrlRiPOrt Cmenr Pycr ]?/
'•'aSSIIWSMVHI ZNaKfl00a INHO ll dO aOKd SSUIa
NO
WOW
,.L£ .TO
5T:5T 8Z-d8S
050£59treZ88
SsZns3x
HGOW
SKIS GHSdraza
HKIS LEVIS
SSOVd
aNOHd
£689££L6T6 ZSZ
SQNVaJ,BM-Z5Ma 81VN
LT:ST Sfls i7OOZ-8Z-d8S SSEla
NOIRMNOO ONICES
??+?
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor Wiliam G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
EXPRESS PERMIT REVIEW PROGRAM
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 276539-1650
Contact Information: phone #: [phone]
Fax #: [phone]
Fax To: Environmental Banc & Exchange Fax #: [phone]
Chris Huysman 828-465-3050
Subject: open Springs Stream Mitigation & Stone Date:
Bridge Stream Mitigation (? yy/j7J
Number of pages including cover sheet: iY-Lf r
Notes or special instructions:
The original will be sent in the mail. if you have questions please call Debbie Edwards at 919-733-9502.
401 Wft& C.0.9 UM
1650 Ml9 S.MW GWw, AWgh. WhC9 Wn 2169416 08
zo,cmu..BW9ea0.sue,zsa.w,le?9n.wnWrwma.z+aot Caro na
PWOnc: 919.151765l FA%91419814iB9llnten?aC Wary. /m]nen. amm ne?Nm?a+„AS y
M Epup Opp %Wy'ff m& a Ad. EM*Y.-60°4 P-Yd e0%nil Ca-'F#w ??Am
'''Qa.LJJ ISNVH1 SNHWIDOQ IN2105121 3O HJKd 1SUI3
X0 : ss'IIIsau

JT .TO : HKIS QHSCTVIM
ZT:ST 8Z-dHS : swil JIUVIS
t'/v : SHOKd
06i75£9i76 : HNOHd
£689££L6T6 'IHZ
SQNV'IMM-6MQ ZRVN
'VT:ST Hlls t700Z-8Z-dHS HZERT
NOIZV R00 ONIMS
FTA
' :1k
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
EXPRESS PERMIT REVIEW PROGRAM
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 2769-1650
Contact Information: Phone #: [phone]
Fax #: [phone]
Fax To: Environmental Banc & Exchange
Chris Huysman
Subject: Open Springs Stream Mitigation & Stone
Bridge Stream Mitigation
Number of pages including cover sheet: --* 'Lf
Notes or special instructions:
Fax #: [phone]
828-465-3050
Date: The original will be sent in the mail. If you have questions please call Debbie Edwards at 919-733-9502.

401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Sulte 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htty://h2o:enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
NorthCarohna
Naturally
5poo

14
os,
P? C

... .. --- - LP
%vYt ------------ ---- --------- --_---
0 r
l/ I U'e'.c?l N9V.N ?D SU.Y;,I
D
D n
O n
O m
C 9
C C O 0
O n
O W W
N
O N
f0 N
OD N
J• N
W N
ut N
A N
W N
N N
-'. N
O +
l0 +
0G -4
J + +
ut
f
W +
N? =
+
p E m
o d
m Q
°
m
G N
m d 6 ?'
o' 3
3
g
m v
g ?.'
o
g ?2
o w s
$ <
d m
m N
° m m w
o m
o 3
p

:2

:2

R

c I

O 9

a

-
w
, v

-
w
L.
0

R

a
°

m

o
o

o

°

F
a

$

3
c

p
0

y
o
'

o

m

(n

o

2

m

F

3

m

•
°
W m m $ ° 3 R S v? a 3
A - m f n m 'm m S y n

_f
-
°
s m

'
0 0 5 F 3
' °
a w w F _

G g' ° c yo m a, m w
H x c m m 3 c F
O T = a s f.
N
N
N
? A
W
(D
co
CCD
D N
V IV
co A
" 0 inCDOD
O
W ? O
W V A
OHO
O
A A N
W
A A ( 0 0 co m V ( V O N
A O N (O E N O Ot co 0, 0, (Wn V V -?` W 0 N co
W M
Ol w W W W co DI M O
O 0 0 O O
A -• in V N W A DI
A V DOD (OTI C co 0 to
m
O m f N b A W
O co (O N O (AD
OD O co O rn(D (nvrn
W Ut AA?(n W N A
a a g ?
(c (c m '°
m d c
3 3 a
(nCD(D F Wv v 0 (n0?
CD itn m T 3 x ID
W W n D 3 7 O
-,
CL 'O O O 'O N
(D C o
CL n 3 0. m x
CL
o <D ca
v T r O O
C. ? O A ?
O O V
N W p L (n O w N
m (3) co co
?3 6x'3
m
o Do <
-4 CD
w
(0 co W
co (D
(W O N
V O N
_ n
O W
O
N
(VD O
N
0
O
7
O
C
N
C
N
D N A W N
r F a a a
fi w d 4
4? 'S x y Dmi
m, S S 3
> a 3 f, y '7
g m n m
r. a ? w
i $
1 - 0
0
N
CL
M

V
O
,?
W I
A O O
c;
al O,
0( M
S
co 0) (A 0) co al rl)
O
m
x

Cn rn
O
A o
(n
co

10 E; :E
0 O 3

O A
IV
N -
I3 N
N A
O Un
0 V O
W
IV W V W A O( A m co

D D
C C A ? V O
m m ro p. - W
- - O w Q OD
0 O O D F
O F O O
0 ?
D D m m
C C ?
m m

c
N C G p 0
u cil
m r r N (WD OD co
v
A m m (
o -4 m V
W - - V N
N
7
m
3
3
CD
O
w
imap:Hdebbie.edwards%40dwq. [e-mail]:143/...
Subject: Open Springs
From: Cynthia Van Der Wiele <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:58:34 -0400
To: Debbie Edwards <[e-mail]>
Hey Debbie,
Do we need to conduct a site visit for this one? The only questions I have are
regarding their morphological measurements table-- for both the reference reaches and
the proposed designs. I can get with you Monday.
Cynthia
1 of 1 9/27/2004 9:11 AM

EXP
Wetland and Natural Resource
Consultants, Inc.
September 16, 2004
Ms. Andrea Wade
Ms. Deborah Edwards
US Army Corps of Engineers 401 Wetland Certification Unit
6508 Falls of Neuse, Suite 120 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27615 Raleigh, NC 27604
r RE: Open Springs Stream Mitigation Site SI A??GR?p
WETLANDS / 401 GROUP
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLLW? W 2pp4
Randolph County, North Carolina SEQ `? 1 P
ON
Dear Ms. Wade and Ms. Edwards: QUP?,?"(`l gEC?
wp???R WATER QUALITY SECTION
Attached is a Pre-Construction Notification and supporting information for the proposed
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Site located in Randolph County. The attached mitigation
plan describes an ecosystem approach that restores and enhances both streams and
wetlands within the Cape Fear River Basin.
The attached mitigation plan and supporting documentation thoroughly document that
perennial streams will be restored and enhanced as described in the inter-agency Stream
Mitigation Guidelines (USACE, 2003). It is our recommendation that the Mitigation Plan
and its appendices be perused prior to analyzing the project based on the Pre-Construction
Notification Form because the plan so completely describes the pre and post construction
conditions. Also, the initial review of the plan will demonstrate that the project complies
with the mitigation guidelines and that all applicable design calculations were utilized.
We have compiled the following itemization of the application package in consideration of
the copious amount of information provided. The application includes the following:
1. Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan, inclusive of construction plans.
2. Agent Authorization.
3. Pre-Construction Notification Form.
4. Addendum to the Pre-Construction Notification Form with notes.
5. General Certification 3399 with notes.
6. USGS Topographical Quadrangle (WNR Attachment 1).
7. NRCS Soil Survey (Mitigation Plan Figure 3.).
8. NC DENR Stream Classification Index (WNR Attachment 2).
Newton Office Clyde Office
PO Box 224 wnrinc.com 217 Paragon Parkway, #142
Newton, NC 28658 Clyde, NC 28721
828-465-3035 828-648-8801
828-465-3050 Fax I 828-648-8802 Fax
9. Wetland Impact Maps (WNR Attachment 3 (both 8.5 X 11 and plan size)).
10. Wetland Impact Table (WNR Attachment 4).
11. Stream and Wetland Dataforms (WNR Attachment 5).
Please call with any questions that you may have.
Chris Huysman
Newton Office Clyde Office
PO Box 224 wnrinc.com 217 Paragon Parkway, #142
Newton, NC 28658 Clyde, NC 28721
828-465-3035 828-627-0051
828-465-3050 Fax [phone] Fax

Wetland and Natural Resource
Consultants, Inc.
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Attn: Ken Jolly, Chief Regulatory Division
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina, 28402-1890
-and-
NC Division of Water Quality
Attn: John Dorney
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604-2260

I, the current landowner of the property identified below, hereby authorize Wetland and Natural
Resource Consultants, Inc. to act on my behalf as my agent during the processing of permits to impact
Wetlands and Waters of the US that are regulated by the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors
Act.
Federal and State agents are authorized to be on said property when accompanied by Wetland and
Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. staff.
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. is authorized to provide supplemental information
needed for permit processing at the request of the Corps or DWQ.
Property Owner / Applicant: E 6 X 4J V ' T APIA LW
Project Name: o_ .5- Y;"AQ.S
r I/
Address: P?? Val M,
Address: ?..??.?( ??
Phone Number: o39 (p) -1 q L3 5-,"A t
Property Location:
Owners Signature:
Date:
Newton Office Clyde Office
PO Box 224 wnrinc.com 217 Paragon Parkway, # 142
Newton, NC 28658 Clyde, NC 28721
828-465-3035 828-648-8801
828-465-3050 Fax [phone] Fax
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. `*?" a 04-1511
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. 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:Nationwide Permit 27 verified
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: ?
5. 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: ?
H. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
Mailing Address: Contact: Ms. Tara Disy Allden
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200-A
Cary, NC 27511
Telephone Number: 919 / 459-9039 Fax Number: 919 / 463-5490
E-mail Address: tara ,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: Chris F[Mysman
Company Affiliation: Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants Inc.
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 224
Newton, North Carolina 28658
Telephone Number: 828 / 320-8120 Fax Number: 828-465-3050
E-mail Address: wnrincAaol.com
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-
Pagel of 7
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: Open Springs Stream Mitigation Site
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): n/a
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 8713255702
4. Location
County: Randolph Nearest Town: Ramseur
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): See Mitigation Plan I-2 for site vicinity
may. Take Hwy 49 east from Ramseur, then north on Low Bridle Road. (WNR Att. 1)
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35°46'13.65"N 79°37'54.85"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): 21.3 acre easement within 101 acre parcel
7. Nearest body of water(stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): UT Deep River, Class C (WNR Att. 2)
8. River Basin: Cape Fear River (NCDNR 03-06-09)
(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.ne.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: Site consists of pasture and woodlands as described in the attached
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan. The site consists of the riparian zones of perennial
stream channels that are currently pasturelands. Surrounding landuse is comprised of forest
land, residential areas and agricultural lands.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Development of a
stream mitigation site consistent with current design guidances as described in the attached
mitigation plan. See Open Springs Mitigation Plan Section 1.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The restoration of streams will fulfill DOT mitigation
requirements as described in the Executive Summary of the Mitigation Plan.
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.
No prior history.
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.
No additional stream or wetland impacts will be needed within the proiect area.
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
Page 2 of 7
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.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Numerous minor wetland impacts will be
required to re-establish a natural stream morphology through the valley. Impacts will be to
wetlands that are supported by groundwater discharges; these wetlands will experience a
functional lift with the added hydrology from overbank events that will be restored through the
restoration process. The existing conditions reflect historic straightening and minor grading.
The restored stream is designed to have biannual bankfull events and will provide additional
hydrology to existing hydric soils that do not currently exhibit wetland hydrology. There will
be a net gain in wetland areas. The attached maps illustrate the extent of wetlands and the
extent of hydric soils on the site. This approach ensures that buffer plantings will be more
likely to be successful because species will be compatible with anticipated hydrology. The
restoritive actions are described in the attached mitigation plan.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland
Impact
Site Number
(on map)
Type of Impact* Area of

Impact Located within
100-year
Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet)
***
Type of Wetland
ATT. 4 SEE ATT. IMPACT TABLE O STORED STREAM ATT. 4
11 12' wide farm crossing 347.1 no adj marsh
19 12' wide farm crossing 276.4 no adj marsh

* 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.gov.
***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: 2 acres
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.1458 acres
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream
Impact No.
(on map)
Type of Impact* Imapact
Length
(linear ft)
Stream Name** Average
stream width
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(pleasespecify)
UT132+00 farm crossing 12 UT Deep River 4 perennial
UT121+30 major crossing 54 4 perennial
UTI 16+35 farm crossing 12 4 perennial
UTI 08+50 farm crossing 12 " 2 perennial
Page 3 of 7
UT2 23+44 major crossing 54 " 4 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.usgs.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: 3431 restored, 2726 enhanced
and 144 impacted for road crossings
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic Ocean and
an other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water
Impact
No. (on
map)
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: n/a Expected pond surface area: n/a
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.
Wetland impacts are necessary to restore the stream channels that are on the site and no practical
alternative designs would result in a natural stream morphology. Those areas that are impacted by
Page 4 of 7
the stream restoration will be replaced through the wetting of hydric soils that currently lack
hydrology; wetted areas will be planted in wetland riparian tree species. Existing wetlands will
gain function through riparian plantings. Stream crossings are necessary to provide access to high
ground. The current design strategy allows for the crossings to be installed now in anticipation of
potential land use changes; no stream is crossed by more than one major crossing. Maior crossings
are located outside of mitigation conservation easements at the sites of existing crossings to
minimize impacts. Design considerations described in the Plan under Section III, Culvert Design
ensure minimal impact to the restored system.
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.
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.nc.us/ncwetlands/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.
n/a
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/wrp/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): n/a
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): n/a
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): n/a
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): n/a
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): n/a
Page 5 of 7
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 applicants (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 class C waters)?
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 n/a 3 n/a
2 n/a 1.5 n/a
Total n/a n/a
* 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.
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.
n/a
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.
Page 6 of 7
n/a
XH. 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).
n/a
Applicant/Agent's SignWture Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 7 of 7
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 (USAGE)/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 0) are checklist items.
The following items correspond to the numbering system on the Pre-Construction Notification Form
(PCN):
2
USE CHECK BOXES. TO TRACK PROJECT INFORMATION
SECTION 1. PROCESSING
c -?Y Y ? 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.
Y ? 5. State whether your project will require a CAMA Minor, Major or General Permit
RO U(Klk and give the status of the permit.
SECTION II - APPLICATION INFORMATION
1. 15 NCAC 2H .502(f) 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
b IiV-tZtis?0 supporting documentation.
t ? Please provide all of the requested contact information including a fax
k number and email address.
2. ? If the application is not signed be the applicant pleas attach -the agent authorization.
The applicant must sign the agent authorization letter. 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:
v? ? 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.
v V-? The most recent version of the NRCS Soil Survey Map - (required for projects within IV- 1V1t1'M10 PW. t a Neuse River Basin, Tar-Pamlico River Basin and Randleman Lake Watershed and
r commended for all projects) - Please cleanly delineate the site boundaries, etc. on the
-7 ap. If the delineation obscures any of the features, it is recommended that a clean copy
e 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/).
icinity map - Please clearly mark the location and approximate boundaries of the
roperty and project on the map. Please indicate north and scale. Please include
s "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.
\)NQ_ (\-\ kC.tAKk - 3
t' W1 It=rmlt -
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
)?- A '? 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.
4
Wetland Impacts (on the site plan):
1R??rTI? p Precise grading and final elevation contours must be provided. Existing vegetation and
?Yany 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.
jK? oadway or other crossings of riparian wetlands may require floodway culverts to
_ aintain 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.
Wk ? Flooding
? Draining
tream Impacts:
tream impacts must be clearly shown on the plans. The centerline as well as the banks
f the stream must be surveyed or located by GPS for the portion of the stream to be
impacted.
Culverting:
N
p:?+t(y,$
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.
0 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.
NA_ For longer culverts or culverts that will pass beneath substantial impervious cover, it will
l`? be necessary to provide adequate plan detail to show that discharge velocity/energy will
be adequately dissipated.
5
$; -??.-- 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-
11T1tVk"0 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
l 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.
oc Multiple culverts, wide culverts or sectioned box culverts typically require the use of sills,
tai 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:
t Stream relocations must be conducted as specified in General Certification numbers
t? 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
???X Work in North Carolina available on the Wetlands Unit web site) - not all of the
measurements are applicable in every instance.
1 ? 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,
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.
fit` Permanent conservation easement or similar means of protection must also be provided.
6
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.
Please provide the name (as depicted on the USGS topographic map and DWQ
?- ? "MkI? 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-1V NSW CA") of the water
body. This information can be obtained from the DWQ web site
hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/ReportstreportsWB.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.htmi.
I 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.
You must provide an attachment that explicitly describes what the proposed project
', ??? ?r?> ? ? 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 are 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
1. 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.
A u-N ?V.?
}-? Please include all proposed temporary impacts.
7
? 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.
--.?^s^•°?, 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.
--^ Each impact to a wetland must be clearly labeled and identified on the site plan. The
pe of impact must be clearly stated. If the impact is temporary, a specific plan must
e 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,
i _ 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 checklist 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, and
buffer impacts?
\il Can a building, parking lot, etc. be realigned to avoid impacts?
8
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
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
"newt" 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
9
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 compliance only - Also, see Section Xl):
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:
?1 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
hftp://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetiandstmitresto.html:
0 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/ncwetiands/mitresto.htmi:
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:
C 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-
10
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
Please provide the following information in regards to potential stormwater requirements:
0111,
0111
01-
The total acreage of the site. (acres)
The total built-out impervious acreage
The total area that will be disturbed
(acres)
(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
hftp://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/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
01K Answering yes to either of these responses automatically precludes you from the express
review process.
11
SECTION XIV - SIGNATURE
j 10 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 If.
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:
? it
16.
17.
18.
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.
14.
15.
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:
1. Wetland and/or riparian area restoration and creation projects which are for
compensatory mitigation or compensatory mitigation credit (and not including
tx1°? 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 arenot 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;
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"

r 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
c
da
c
ith 15A NCAC 2B
0200
All
l
ll b
l
d
h
d
s
`
` ac
or
n
e w
.
.
new
opment s
eve
a
e
ocate
,
-
- 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-classed trout
waters);

?L 8. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands or waters shall be
d
d th
i
l
i
d
t
th
d
ft
Di
isi
f L
d R
remove
an
e or
g
gra
na
e res
ore
er
a
e
v
on o
an
esources 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
W 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
n1 of No Significant Impact or Record of Decision is issued by the State
i Clearinghouse;
A 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
079° 39' 0.00" W 079° 38' 0.00" W 079°3T 0.W' W

v/,.t J Y-
J i7
h ?
i7
! 56
1

W, hi t pel
Cha
-
-
4

%

' .ice
lH
l4r
_?. _C o

? ?
? '
fir;
( _ \
T?
? .,
- iw?.=?..._„'`_m,...;•?
? l• ?''?,'
Y' ?
a ,
l - _ Ii if ?} .,
??? ._

7
''? 1\
' 560: Envipormental Bond and Exchange
'
%
O
Miti
ti
Sit
S

+
6
v
{ ? ' e!
pen
prings
ga
on
t -
1
a See also Mitigation Plan Se&ion 2

t

m?G Cti? .1

Y 'v
f' J
Y
r. I
t
,

A

Z
/ r
o
i r
Gz s/! a
e

,/
?
t

I
s 71 1 '\
W
?

?
H ttahdoiphI
9n
? ham:
?
18
$i eh
? I

f A J_ r f a i «?
' 3:
?
? k'
}
??
r
f a • r ' ?? r Q J . t 'I /? t ? ? i ?U'
? ?r
1 ?_.
8* ?v
079° 39 10.00" 079° 3W8' 0.00" W 079° 37' 0.00" W
Name: GRAYS CHAPEL Location: 0350 46' 13.65" N 079' 37' 54.85" W
Date: 9/10/2004 Caption: EBX
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet Open Springs Mitigation Site
Name of Stream Description Curr. Class Date Prop. Class Basin Stream Index #
Simmons Branch From a point 0.5 mile WS-IV;CA:* 04/01/99 Cape Fear 17-10-(2)
upstream of mouth to
R

1 ver
DEEP RIVER From dam at Randleman C 04/01/99 Cape Fear 17-(10.5)
Lake to Grassy Creek
Pole t 0
point 0.4 mile
downstream of
Randolph County SR 2116
Little Polecat From source to WS-III;HQW 08/03/92 Cape Fear 17-11-3
Creek Polecat Creek
Bull Run From source to a WS-III,B 08/03/92 Cape Fear 17-11-4-(1)
point 0.3 mile
downstream of
Randolph County SR 2111
Bull Run From a point 0.3 mile WS-III,B;C 08/03/92 Cape Fear 17-11-4-(2)
downstream of A
Randolph County SR 2111
to Polecat Creek
Polecat Creek From dam at Randleman's C 04/01/59 Cape Fear 17-11-(5)
water supply to Deep
River
Haskett Creek From source to beep C 03/01/77 Cape Fear 17-12
River
Penwood Branch From source to C 04/01/82 Cape Fear 17-12-1
Haskett Creek
Gabriels Creek From source to Deep C 09/01/74 Cape Fear 17-14
River
Bush Creek From source to Deep C 04/01/59 Cape Fear 17-15
River
Sandy Creek From source to a WS-III 08/03/92 Cape Fear 17-16-(1)
point 0.6 mile upstream
of N.C. Hwy. 22
Dodsons Lake Entire lake and WS-III 08/03/92 Cape Fear 17-16-2
connecting stream to
Sandy Creek
Boodom Creek From source to Sandy WS-III 08/03/92 Cape Fear 17-16-2.5
Creek
Mount Pleasant From source to Sandy WS-III 08/03/92 Cape Fear 17-16-3
Creek Creek
Sandy Creek From a point 0.6 mile WS-III;CA 08/03/92 Cape Fear. 17-16-(3.5)
upstream of N.C. Hwy.
22 to Ramseur water
supply
E6`L- O?'EtJ SPR?S I of Page tl
North Carolina Waterbodies Listed by County
Note: Waterbodies are listed in more than one county if they cross county lines.
1
.
Nt % 41
Name of Stream Description Curr, Class Date Prop. Class Basin
Report Date: 09110104
tecords Found: 136
Search Parameters:
County: Moore
Class:
sDes:
Name:
Desc:
index: ,h
Stream Index #

DEEP RIVER From dam at Randleman C 04/01/99 Cape Fear 17-(10.5)
Lake to Grassy Creek
Reedy Cree r u
Creek
Grassy Creek From source to Deep C 09/01/74 Cape Fear 17-25.5
River
DEEP RIVER From Grassy Creek to C;HQW 08/01/90 Cape Fear 17-(25.7)
a point 1.0 mile
upstream of Tysons
Creek
Bear Creek From source to a WS-III 08/03/92 Cape Fear 17-26-(1)
point 0.5 mile upstream
of Cabin Creek
West Branch From source to Bear WS-III 08/03/92 Cape Fear 17-26-2
Bear Creek Creek
Williams Creek From source to Bear WS-III 08/03/92 Cape Fear 17-26-3
Creek
Wolf Creek From source to Bear WS-III 08/03/92 Cape Fear 17-26-4
Creek
Bear Creek From a point 0.5 mile WS-III;CA 08/03/92 Cape Fear 17-26-(4.5)
upstream of Cabin Creek
to Robbins water supply
intake
Cabin Creek From source to Moore WS-III 08/03/92 Cape Fear 17-26-5-(1)
County SR 1434
Cotton Creek From source to Cabin WS-III 08/03/92 Cape Fear 17-26-5-3
Creek
Rita Branch From source to Cotton WS-III 08/03/92 Cape Fear 17-26-5-3-2
Creek
Mill Creek From source to Cabin WS-III 08/03/92 Cape Fear 17-26-5-4
Creek
Wet Creek From source to Cabin WS-III 08/03/92 Cape Fear 17-26-5-5
Creek
Sings Creek From source to Wet WS-III 08/03/92 Cape Fear 17-26-5-5-1
Creek
Page 1 of 8
ES1 row S?k%Q(AS z OF z
100`
EX", ,:? WETLAND
= EXISTING NYDRIC SOIL

EBX f OPEN SPRINGS MITIGATION SITE
PAGE 1 OF 4
100' I
= EXISTING WETLAND
€€
= EXISTING HYDRIC SOIL
(18) WETLAND IMPACTS 442.1 SQ.FT.
(17) WETLAND IMPACTS 349.9
(18) WETLAND IMPACTS 10117 SQ.FT.
(15) WETLAND IMPACTS 148.8
(14) WETL.MID IMPACTS 231.8 SQ.FT.Q
(13) WETLAND IMPACTS 259.8 SOFT. °tz,
(12) WETLAND IMPACTS 337.5 SQ.FT.
(11) WETLAND IMPACTS FOR ROAD 347.1 SD.FT.
(10) WETLAND IMPACTS 509.1 SO-FT,
.?' 40 t a:
r
1
f

y Y f
A a Jr +
{A
t j
EBX / OPEN SPRINGS MITIGATION SITE
PAGE 2 OF 4 4
MATCH f
UNE (9) WETLAND IMPACTS 139.3 SOFT.
It t.
1' = 100'
F
.614 ?Ff
= EXISTING WETLAND ?lf\p?`}?
= EXISTING HYDRIC SOIL -?
r?>? uNE
Itr
(25) WETLAND IMPACTS 234.6 SQ,FT.
?. .....---^' (24) WETLAND IMPACTS 211.7 SQ.FT.
X
(23) WETLAND IMPACTS 155.3 SQ.FT.
(22) WETLAND IMPACTS 59.5 SQ.FT.
(21) WETLAND IMPACT 204.1 SQ.FT.
(20) WCTLAND IMPACTS 91.1 5Q.FT.
"/ -- (19) WETLAND IMPACTS CHANNEL" AND ROAD 27&4 SQ.FT,
a ?
i
EBX f OPEN SPRINGS MITIGATION SITE
f PAGE 3 OF 4
1 100'
EXISTING WETLAND
lit
CA
= EXISTING HYDRIC SOIL
(27) WETLAND IMPACT 365.4 SQ.FT.
IlJWD IMPACTS 243.4 SQ.FT,
SPRINGS MITIGATION SITE
4
Impact Table Open Springs Mitigation Site
PCN Form Section IV. 2
(no wetlands within 100 yr floodplain)
Wetland Impact Impact Type Square Footage Distance to Stream Type
1 stream restoration 7.2 adjacent marsh
2 stream restoration 254.8 adjacent marsh
3 stream restoration 425.2 adjacent marsh
4 stream restoration 309.4 adjacent marsh
5 stream restoration 40.1 adjacent marsh
6 stream restoration 263.2 adjacent marsh
7 stream restoration 359.9 adjacent marsh
8 stream restoration 37.2 adjacent marsh
9 stream restoration 139.3 adjacent marsh
10 stream restoration 509.1 adjacent marsh
11 culverted road crossin 347.1 adjacent marsh
12 stream restoration 337.5 adjacent marsh
13 stream restoration 259.8 adjacent marsh
14 stream restoration 231.8 adjacent marsh
15 stream restoration 148.6 adjacent marsh
16 stream restoration 108.7 adjacent marsh
17 stream restoration 349.9 adjacent marsh
18 stream restoration 442.1 adjacent marsh
19 culverted road crossin 276.4 adjacent marsh
20 stream restoration 91.1 adjacent marsh
21 stream restoration 204.1 adjacent marsh
22 stream restoration 59.5 adjacent marsh
23 stream restoration 155.3 adjacent marsh
24 stream restoration 211.7 adjacent marsh
25 stream restoration 234.8 adjacent marsh
26 stream restoration 243.4 adjacent marsh
27 stream restoration 305.4 adjacent marsh
Total 6352.6 SF or 0.1458 acres
USACE AID4 DWQ 4 Site # (indicate on attached map)
i
?,;; STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET "
L
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: D 2. Evaluator's name: VAh`vASW'J" AI\)
3. Date of evaluation:4:;,P• to t zoo 4. Time of evaluation: `Z
5. Name of stream: T Do ? 6. River basin: (f? c C: •?
7. Approximate drainage area: I &S 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated:'- V)nO 10. County:

11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS To hee Ortho (Aeri ) Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note n - roads and landm and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
? RaQk- ?A(lC) PmS?V3 PLAN
14. Proposed channel work (if any): V-AXR(

15. Recent weather conditions: M
16. Site conditions at time of visit: DOA
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point?ES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area;:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? r9 NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial % Agricultural
% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Comments:
Evaluator's Signa ree v? ?a?assist Date CA
This channel evalua orm is intended to be used on landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT :RANGE
CORE
# . CHARACTERISTICS S
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)

3 Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max ints
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
a 5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
?..,. 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2
no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
'
0-5
0-4
0-2
= max points)
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flood
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
E~ no visible roots = 0-, dense roots throughout = max points)

15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
substantial impact =0 no evidence = max points)
'
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
h (no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
E!,

??
E
17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
z
lg Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max oints
W
K
19 Substrate embeddedness
NA*
0-4
0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5

? no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
hibians
Presence of am
? 21 p 0-4 0-4 0-4 2-
(no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
ra `
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
Evidence of wildlife use
23
0-6
0-5
0-5
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible. 100 100 100:
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: Ez ? 2. Evaluator's name: A v
3. Date of evaluation: ' ?0 "- '?-C' X° -- 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name of stream: V s E EP PIV 0? 6. River basin: f
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated: -? 10. County: ?C
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS po She t Orth eri ) Photo G S Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmar s and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
'?A X1G'l -t?003
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
-
;
?
15. Recent weather conditions: 1_??G.?
Site conditions at time of visit:
16
.
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: - Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation po
-?'
int'? 0NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ((YES) NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? (z NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 10 % Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial a0% Agricultural
% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) __)C Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -Frequent meander ,-Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 6 1 Comments:
Evaluator's Signa re Date-5? " w - C4
This channel evalultiea-fr? is in ended to be sed (July as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREG ION POINT RANGE
IC
IC
E
AR
C SCORE

# ST
S
RIST
S
ACT
H
Coastal Piedmont Mountain '
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5
no buffer = 0• contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive discharges = 0• no discharges = max oints

S Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
d' (no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
Entrenchment / floodplain access
' 0-5 0-4 0-2
p" = max points)
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flood
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
Z
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max omts
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 -Z
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA" 0-4 0-5
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points) -
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0-4 0-5
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
"E-4' 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points)
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
H ° no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
t/1 15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0 - 5
0 - 4
0 - 5
substantial impact =0 no evidence = max points
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
F (no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)
18 Canopy coverage over streambed 0-5 0-5 0-5
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4
Z
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
0 21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
O no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
' 4
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)

Total Points Possible 100 100 100:
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#_ DWQ # Site #1 (indicate on attached map) ".
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: ez"& 2. Evaluator's name: t-rV t f?
3. Date of evaluation: p__;, ` ko ° 4. Time of evaluation: Co
5. Name of stream: UT Vt5Z5P P6VEFP- 6. River basin: C41 Li
7. Approximate drainage area:sr, 8. Stream order: 1
9. Length of reach evaluated:± 3 f 10. County: Q?>eYLPA-
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GP Topo Sh t Ort ) Pho CIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (n roads an landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: pp
16. Site conditions at time of visit: -00A
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed _([-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES S If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial ?% Industrial k&-D/o Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: l 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: -Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a• brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
T
Com
Evaluator's Date
This channel evaluatt form is intended to be used onlyvas a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREG ION POINT :RANGE SCORE
# CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
I Presence of now / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max oints
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points
3 Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0-5

ints
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max po,
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 0-4 0-4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
a
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0- 4 0- 4 0- 2
y{ (no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)
7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
' 0-5 0-4 0-2
= max ointS
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flood
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2
acent wetlands = max points)
no wetlands = 0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
CD
extensive channelization = 0• natural meander = max ints)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4 19:h- 11>
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)

I1 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
-NA*
0-4
0-5
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5

•?
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
13 Presence of major bank failures
severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints 0-5 0-5 0-5
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
0-5
0-4
0-5
substantial impact =0 no evidence = max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
E (no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)

17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
E (little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0 - 5
0 - 5
0 - 5
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose stcvcture = max
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0-4 0-5 0-5
C
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
O' no evidence = 0• common, numerous types = max points)
'
C
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)

Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAI: SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: C3P?+i? (2-??=1
Applicant / Owner: -

Investigator: 1-f Q 4 Date: a -64
County:
l?O 4

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X. No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No X
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X, Community ID:
Transect ID: 13 t r
Plot ID: C 501L
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

2. 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
g, 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
D0-4 6 VCr-V'- cui r) ( nc
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other _ Inundated
_ -Saturated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: !C4 (in.) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
1-5 1 iQ 6??Z . Niw0(i
1 40V 1NP\1JX5 N. Q,0;V %--V 4A - Lj-?4NA 3) UAL.

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):1'a1C Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): AFB-'vVeA1 tC Confirm Mapped Type? Yes

Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Mu sell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
1 '6 - J 7
V" SIC
{
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy
Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
?Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes V_ No
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: M2&W 600 6e)='?
Applicant/ Owner:
Investigator: I-NSNV1di Date:
County: 16;hNLXLFft
State:

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes A, No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes Nom Community ID:
Transect ID:
Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
r , t
(
2Z??? 6V 0 10.

W 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 151,
Remarks: V3, iTt-k-1

HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
_ Other _ Inundated
,Saturated in Upper 12"
'?t No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (?w1?(in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Water-Stained Leaves
_ Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) X FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: t'D ?ji
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class:
Tonomy (Subgroup): 4Ai-ILA, 2??nfirm Mapped Type? Yes
?
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
%NAiVN 51

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy
Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 'e- No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes 9 No
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes K No
Remarks:
?V
s
•
•
•
•
•
•
OPEN SPRINGS
CAROLINA
MMI Submitted by
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200-A
Cary, North Carolina 27511
[phone]
Prepared by
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
3101 John Humphries Wynd
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
[phone]
MITIGATION
April 8, 2004
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
J, U4-..1511
Table of Contents
Section I: Introduction ..............................................................................................................I-1
Prniect Descrintion ..............................................................................................................I-1
Project Site .... ...................................................................................................................... 1-2
Section III: Study Area .............................................................................................................. II-1
Physiography, Topography and Drainage and Landuse....................................................... II-1
Soils ...................................................................:.............................................................. 11-1
Vegetation ......................................................................................................................... 11-3
Natural Resources of Special Concern ................................................................................ II-4
Existing Stream Conditions ................................................................................................. II-4
Section III: Restoration Plan ................................................................................................... 1111 -11
Restoration Summary ....................................................................................................... 111 -1
..........
Reference Reach Analysis -
Typical Design Sections -
Typical Design Meander Pattern ....................................................................................... 111 -4
Longitudinal Profiles ........................................................................................................ 111 -5
Riparian Buffer Restoration .............................................................................................. 111 -5
Culvert Design ................................................................................................................ 111 -5
Structures ....................................................................................................................... 111 -7
Section IV: Stream Flow Analysis ............................................................................................IV-1
Section V: Sediment Transport Analysis ....................................................................................V-1
Section VI: Post Construction Monitoring and Success Criteria ............................................... VI-1
Success Criteria Components ............................................................................................ VI-1
Method of Reporting on Success Criteria ...........................................................................VI-2
Stream Restoration Monitoring ..........................................................................................VI-2
Remedial Actions ..............................................................................................................VI-4
Section VII: Administrative and Regulatory ............................................................................VII-1
Summary .......................................................................VII-1
Conservation Easement ....................................................................................................VII-1
Section VIII: References ........................................................................................................VIII-1
WETLANDS 1401 GROUP WETLANDS 1401 GROUP
SEP 2 1 2004 SEP 2 0 2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION WATER QUALITY SECTION
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC TOC-1
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan
Table of Contents
List of Figures
Figure 1: Open Springs General Location Map ......................................................................... 1-3
Figure 2: Watershed Map ........................................................................................................ II-1
Figure 3: NRCS Soils Mapping at Open Springs ....................................................................... II-2
Figure 4: Location of Browns Crossroads and UT-3 Reference Reach Sites .............................. III-2
Figure 5: Location of Gaines Reference Reach Site .................................................................. III-2
Figure 6: Proposed Road Crossing UT-1 ................................................................................. III-6
Figure 7: Proposed Road Crossing UT-2 ................................................................................. III-6
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics ............................................................. II-4
Table 2: Summary of Design Morphometric Parameters ........................................................... III-3
Table 3: Riparian Buffer Species .............................................................................................. III-5
Table 4: Summary of Hydrologic Evaluation ............................................................................ IV-1
Table 5: Comparison of Proposed and Allowable Velocities ..................................................... .V-1
Table 6: Comparison of Proposed and Allowable Shear Stresses ............................................... .V-2
Table 7: HEC-RAS Copeland Method Summary of Results ........................................................ .V-3
Table 8: Final Design Changes for Channel Stability ................................................................ .V-3
Table 9: Changes to Width to Depth Ratio and Bankfull Shear Stress ........................................ .V-3
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Existing Conditions
Appendix B: Soil Boring Logs
Appendix C: Letter from NC Natural Heritage Program and Categorical Exclusion
Appendix D: Hydrologic Analyses
Appendix E: Reference Site Data
Appendix F: Design Plans
Appendix G: Details
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC TOC-2
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan
Executive Summary
This report supports the stream mitigation design to restore and enhance portions of four unnamed
streams in Randolph County, North Carolina. Existing channel stability has been adversely
• impacted by unfettered cattle grazing throughout the property and channelization. The project has
been developed by EBX-Neuse I, LLC, to help meet the compensatory mitigation requirements of
the NC Department of Transportation (DOT) as solicited through the DOT's Full Delivery Project S-
1 The goal of the Open Springs Site project is to improve water quality and habitat through
• stream restoration measures along UT-1 and UT-4, riparian buffer restoration and bank stabilization
along UT-2, and riparian buffer restoration along UT-3.

A conservation easement will be placed over the preservation acreage consisting of a fifty-foot
buffer extending from the beltwidth of the restored streams. Livestock and cattle will be excluded
from all areas protected by conservation easement. Riparian forest buffers will be established
throughout the project. A native plant community will be established to include multiple strata
and a diverse mix of species.
Natural channel design methods have been applied to maximize stream potential at the four
unnamed tributaries to Deep Creek. Design parameters have been developed from reference reach
data found at two offsite streams within 15 miles of the project site and a stable portion of UT-3.
Conceptual designs were verified with intense analyses of channel hydraulics and sediment
transport. The designs presented herein provide for stable cross-sectional geometry, an increase in
planform sinuosity, and restoration of riffle-pool sequences and other stream bed diversity to
improve benthic habitat.
The proposed mitigation practices will result in the restoration of 3431 linear feet and
enhancement of 2726 feet of stream. In addition to channel improvements, 14.5 acres of buffer
enhancements along with conservation easements will be provided. The total proposed
improvements constitute 4521 stream mitigation units (SMU's) as detailed in the following table.
Stream Restored
Length (ft) Mitigation
Category Mitigation
Ratio Stream Mitigation
Units (ft)
UT-1 3175 Restoration 1:1 3175
UT-2 2330 Enhancement 2.5:1 932
UT-3 396 Enhancement 2.5:1 158
UT-4 256 Restoration 1:1 256
TOTAL 4521
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC ES-1
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan
Section I
Introduction
• PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Open Springs Stream Mitigation Project is located on a 101-acre site in Randolph County,
• North Carolina. Four unnamed streams that traverse the site exhibit diminished habitat value as a
result of past and on-going agricultural activities. The site was identified by EBX-Neuse I, LLC, as
having potential to help meet the compensatory mitigation requirements of the NC Department of
Transportation (DOT) as solicited through the DOT's Full Delivery Project S-1. The objective of
• this project is to provide at least 4520 stream mitigation units (SMU) to the DOT through the full
delivery process. The mitigation units would be accomplished through the restoration and
enhancement of stream and riparian habitats as defined in the inter-agency Stream Mitigation
• Guidelines (USACE, 2003).
Four unnamed tributaries to the Deep River flow across the project site. The streams are referred to
• in this report as UT-1, UT-2, UT-3 and UT-4. These streams are currently in a disturbed condition
due to the impacts of unrestricted cattle access, dredging and other anthropic channel
• manipulations. UT-1 is the most degraded resource and is the focus of restoration efforts. Up to
3175 mitigation units are achievable by restoring planform, section and profile features on UT-1.
• In addition, a small tributary enters UT-1 at about station 14+75, referred to herein as UT-4. The
bed of this trib will need to be raised to maintain a stable confluence with UT-1. An existing slope
discontinuity approximately 175 feet upstream of the confluence is the natural location to tie-in
grades, and the sinuosity designed for this small tributary yields an additional 256 linear feet of
stream. Therefore, the total potential SMU's from stream restoration on UT-1 and the UT-4
tributary are 3530.
•
UT-2 is the master stream and, while locally disturbed by cattle, it is in relatively good physical
condition. Proposed enhancements on UT-2 include cattle exclusion, localized bank stabilization
and debris removal, riparian buffer planting and control of invasive/exotic vegetation. UT-2 has a
• total length of 2397 feet on the subject property. An existing farm crossing will be maintained and
53 feet will be held out near the east property line to accommodate a future crossing, leaving 2329
linear feet of stream to be enhanced. Using the 2.5:1 ratio for Level II stream enhancement
(USACE, 2003), approximately 931 SMU's are generated from UT-2. UT-3 flows through a
• regenerated pine plantation and is also in good physical condition. However, the riparian habitat
along UT-3 is in poor condition, and recommended enhancement efforts are riparian buffer
planting to increase diversity and control of invasive/exotic vegetation. At the 2.5:1 enhancement
• ratio, 395 linear feet of UT-3 will be required to deliver the total 4520 SMU's.
This document presents a Mitigation Plan to accomplish such mitigation on the streams at the
. Open Springs site, and provides the technical basis for the restoration designs. The proposed
project will improve physical habitat and water quality by establishing more natural hydraulic
• geometry to previously impacted stream segments and by restoring riparian forest buffers. Cattle
exclusion from the riparian buffers around mitigation areas will provide additional water quality
• benefits.
PROJECT SITE
The Open Springs Stream Mitigation Project is located in Randolph County, North Carolina,
northeast of Ramseur (Figure 1). The project site is bound to the north and east by Ferguson Road
and Low Bridge Road, respectively. The 101-acre parcel is being used for agricultural purposes as
• a cow/calf operation. The surrounding area is rural, and covered with a mix of small farms, woods
and modest homesites.

Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC I-1
• Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Section I
Introduction
Ridge WdId O - t
? decoy 5? ?' `.3
m Rd -` rte" .. ! ??,•s
o Idston ({? o
5. 1 Q, c7
Open
Springs j s
Site
IC ? ? ,y ? I 477 ?'?
J ors 1 53
5 atfaoe 0 f ill - 1_:-=?' ?}4
?1 r" c?' old
r\ iifertdl» '?
?'J 02
7
•?"'?}.. Sri I /,
20?
i61 7 of
ee d r 82 -?
101
?, J ?anesgt CAI ' b4?"?`?`5 S<` cl?o 'I Bu?QessFarm r_
1 d
Figure 1. Open Springs General Location Map
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan
1-2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
Section II
Study Area
PHYSIOGRAPHY, TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE
The Open Springs site is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province and in the Carolina Slate
Belt. The region is underlain by felsic metavolcanic rocks which can be seen in outcrop at several
locations along UT-2. Topography on the subject property is gently rolling and elevations range
from 568 at the downstream end to approximately 620 feet at the upstream end of the project. The
site is within N RCS cataloging unit 03030003, and NC Department of Natural Resources, Division
of Water Quality sub-basin 03-06-09 of the Cape Fear River Basin (Figure 2). The primary drainage
features on the subject property are unnamed streams designated UT-1, UT-2, UT-3 and UT-4,
which generally drain in a westerly direction as shown in Figure 2. UT-2 is the master stream and
eventually discharges into the Deep River on the west side of Ramseur. UT-1 originates just north
of the project area but receives the majority of its base flow from springs located in the northern
part of the site.
. W4/4Y 1?B.4 r -\' - •Sa?7•'•'•'1"'.?i..`. i l? { L.> 4 i.+a'? "' ?p . }r{
J11. 4} _
?a Low Bridge Rd.:? i L_
` k a 7
"` Fer usan Rd
y
1c ti ahiicaupe?l4 I T ,
'J U
UT-2 ""'. r v + r
gyp} ? ? F
,,??sk w
Watershed Boundary
UT-3?
+
.? s'?,'b. t, r?+k?• .rr,bnr`s-ok .:n?? ?
Figure 2. Watershed Map
SOILS
According to the Randolph County Soil Survey (NRCS, 1995), the subject site is mapped within the
Callison-Lignum, Callison-Misenheimer, and Chewacla soil series (Figure 3). All soils within the
watershed are classified as SCS hydrologic soil groups B and C, which range from fair to well
draining soils. WK Dickson installed ten soil borings along UT-1, UT-2 and UT-3 to verify soils
mapping in these series, to generally evaluate growing conditions, and to identify potential design
constraints imposed by bedrock. Boring locations are shown on the Existing Conditions Map in
Appendix A, and Boring Logs are provided in Appendix B.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC II-1
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan
Section II
Study Area
J? Exis ing aC
Wa r d Ge
2
B
C
?O

a6 HeC
2 CaB

BaC U -1 WtB e
e guso Rd.
GaB
eB -2 BaB
BtC2
B ers d
ae J?
oun a
T M2 va
l GeB2
j C
Cb CbC
,r N
p
eC2 STp NTS
BaB O
Ut
Figure 3. NRCS Soils Mapping at Open Springs (BaB & Bt132- Badin Tarrus complex; CaB-
Callison-Lignum complex; CbC- Callison-Misenheimer complex; ChA- Chewacla loam; GeB2 &
GeC2- Georgeville silty clay-loam; HeC- Helena sandy loam; WtB & WtC- Wynott-Enon
complex; W- Water).
The Callison-Lignum soil series is moderately well drained to somewhat poorly drained soils on
two to six percent slopes. The Callison surface layer is comprised of light gray silt loam with pale
yellow mottles. The subsurface extends to a depth of thirty to thirty-six inches and is yellow and
gray silty-clay loam, silt-loam, and light gray silt loam saprolite. Bedrock is typically encountered at
a depth of thirty-six to forty inches. The Lignum surface layer is pale yellow silt loam. The subsoil
extends to a depth of forty-seven inches and is silt-loam/silty-clay, brown, yellow, and red in color.
Bedrock in the Lignum series is generally at a depth of forty-seven to sixty inches. Auger borings
and soil samples collected in these areas generally confirmed the SCS soil mapping data.
The Callison-Misenheimer soil series has moderately well drained or somewhat poorly drained
soils on six to ten percent slopes. The Misenheimer surface layer is comprised of yellowish brown
silt loam. The subsoil extends to a depth of eight to sixteen inches and is yellowish brown silty-clay
loam. Bedrock is encountered at a depth of sixteen to twenty-two inches. Soil survey mapping of
these areas was also confirmed by field investigations.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC II-2
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan

Section II
. Study Area

The Chewacla series is described as somewhat poorly drained soils with a slope of zero to two
• percent. The surface layer consists of yellow brown loam. The subsoil extends to a depth of thirty-
four to sixty-four inches and is comprised of yellow, brown, and gray loam with brown and gray
mottles. Bedrock is encountered at depths of more than sixty inches. There was one soil boring
• advanced in the Chewacla soil series as mapped by the NRCS. This boring exhibited color
characteristic of the Chewacla series, but depth and texture of the horizons was found to more
• closely resemble the nearby Callison-Misenheimer series.

• VEGETATION
• In November 2003, vegetation was surveyed along the designated stream reaches to identify and
characterize the existing plant communities in the approximately 100-foot wide riparian corridors.
The Open Springs site consists of four different vegetation communities. These communities
• include Areas A through D and are shown on the Existing Conditions Map in Appendix A. Areas A
. through D are described as follows.
Area A has a mature tree canopy (average 12 inch Diameter Breast Height (DBH)) and well-
developed understory community, however this area consists of largely weedy species such as,
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip poplar (Liriodendron
S tulipifera), cherry (Prunus serotina), and red cedar Uuniperus virginiana) which indicates past
• logging activities. Shrubs consist of elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), American holly (Ilex
opaca), winged elm (Ulmus alata), and a few patches of autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata) and
• Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). The herbaceous community includes: Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), Rosa multiflora, Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), running pine
• (Lycopodium flabelliforme), and arrowhead ginger (Hexastylis arifolia). This natural community is
a mesic mixed hardwood forest. This community is not currently being. impacted by agriculture
practices or invasive species.
• Areas B and C represent a heavily cutover area with little floristic diversity. This riparian corridor
has few large trees and includes thick patches of invasive species. The shrub species include, red
cedar, tag alder (Alnus serrulata), sweetgum, and black willow (Salix nigra). Dog fennel, multiflora
rose, blackberry, Chinese privet, and catbriar (Smilax rotundifolia) are present in large contiguous
f
patches. This area would benefit from the removal of invasive species and the planting o
additional native tree species.
•
Area D
The vegetation community of Area D is being severely impacted by grazing throughout this reach
unlike Area A. Dominant tree species include, sourwood (Oxydendrum arboretum), willow oak
(Quercus phellos), tulip poplar, red maple, river birch (Betula nigra), and black willow (Salix nigra).
The shrubs include: multiflora rise (Rosa multiflora), blackberry (Rubus argutus), witch hazel
(Hamamelis virginiana), deciduous azalea (Rhododendron arborescens), Chinese privet, American
• holly, Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and elderberry. The herbs include: water hemlock (Cicuta
maculata), daisy fleabane (Erigeron philadelphicus), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium),
Lespedeza bicolor and broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus). The average DBH of trees is less
• than 12 inches. This community would greatly benefit from the exclusion of cattle, removal of
invasive species, and the planting of various native mast-bearing hardwood species.

NATURAL RESOURCES OF SPECIAL CONCERN
A letter was sent on behalf of EBX to the NC Natural Heritage Program requesting information
• regarding natural heritage areas within and around the Open Springs site. In a written reply dated
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC II-3
• Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan

. Section If
Study Area

October 21, 2003, the Natural Heritage Program stated that no record of rare species, significant
. natural communities, or priority natural areas were found at the Open Spring Site. A copy of this
letter is provided in Appendix C.
•
The Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form for the Open Springs site is provided in
. Appendix C.
. EXISTING STREAM CONDITIONS
Base data including aerial photography and topography were initially evaluated. U.S. Geological
. Survey (USGS) 1:24000 scale (Grays Chapel 7.5' quadrangle, 1974) topographic map and 1951,
1973, 1993, and 1999 aerial photos were also studied. Drainage areas were determined for
. several potentially key locations throughout the study area, and anticipated bankfull hydraulic
geometry calculated from regional curves.
Black and white aerial imagery of the project area was obtained from USGS for the years
1950/1951 and 1973 and color infrared for 1999. Coverage for 1993 was obtained from in-house
• commercial software. A combination of the aerial images and USGS mapping were used to identify
changes in land use and channel location. The locations of the three unnamed tributaries were
noted in the aerial images for the years 1950/1951 and 1973 using imaging software. If the stream
• or land cover had been altered during that time span, the type of modification and time period
were documented. If the stream showed no signs of alteration during that time, the aerials for
1973 and 1993 were compared. This process was repeated for each tributary. UT-1 was observed
S in the same general location in all of the aerial photos. UT-2 and UT-3 were very difficult to locate
• due to cover consisting of trees and understory vegetation.
Standard field methods were used to obtain geomorphic field data from representative stream
reaches along UT-1. Field measurements included pebble counts, longitudinal profiles and cross
sections at riffles and pools. Bulk samples of bed and bar materials were collected in the field and
analyzed in the lab. Calculations of hydraulic geometry based on field indicators of bankfull stage
correlated well with the regional curve for the rural Piedmont at all reaches except OS-4. Bank
Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) values were estimated for each reach in an effort to estimate the
• potential for bank erosion. A summary of the existing hydraulic geometry, morphometric data and
BEHI data is provided in Appendix A. Also in Appendix A is an Existing Conditions Map
• identifying cross section locations and reach breaks.
The BEHI ratings measured along UT-1 of the Open Springs site supports the need to stabilize
• stream banks to reduce erosion. Ratio's of bank heights to bankfull heights ranged from 2 to 4.5
• between reaches OS-2 and OS-1 and 1.1 to 3 for reaches OS-4 and OS-3, respectively. These
values indicate the presence of high to extreme channel incision through much of UT-1. Channel
banks are primarily composed of gravel, silt, and sand. Bank erosion is primarily the result of
• active planform adjustment, hoof shear, and the lack of vegetation due to cattle grazing. Table 1
summarizes the channel characteristics found along UT-1.

Tahlp 1-Summary of Channel Characteristics
Location Drainage
Area (acres) Classification Bank Height
(ft) Channel
Area (Sq. Ft.) Bankfull
Area (Sq. Ft.) BEHI Rating
OS-1 65 134c 3.7 19 4.1 40.4 (Very High)
OS-2 70 E5 2.1 6.8 5 39.7 (High)
OS-3 80 E4b 2 11.4 5.5 34.5 (High)
OS-4 100 B4c 1.7 7.9 7.9 39.8 (High)
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan
11-4
Section II
Studv Area
UT-1
This stream flows in a southwesterly direction through the property and drains 105 acres of
pastureland and 25 acres of woods. UT-1 exhibits a low sinuosity and slopes ranging from 0.01 to
0.025 ft/ft. The channel bed is primarily comprised of gravel with riffle-pool bedforms. Most of
the stream classifies as an E-streamtype; however, portions of the upper and lower segments are B-
streamtypes. The upper portion of the tributary (reach OS-1) is classified as a 134c but exhibits a
very high degree of incision. This local entrenchment is a result of anthropic manipulation.
Existing wetlands are present in several locations within the overbank areas of UT-1 and most areas
occur along the northwest side of reaches OS-2 and OS-3. A spring seep feeds into OS-1 from a
wetland approximately 160 ft south of the upstream limits of the project area. Reaches OS-1 and
OS-2 also show evidence of erosion and instability resulting from hoof shear and grazing. Riparian
conditions along UT-1 are very poor. Woody vegetation is limited to one small patch along reach
OS-3b and near the UT-2 confluence.
UT-2
UT-2 is the master stream receiving both UT-1 and UT-3 and flows west through the Open Springs
site. This unnamed tributary is a gravel bed stream draining approximately 585 acres at the
downstream limit. Overall, the channel is in good condition but does exhibit localized bank
erosion and debris jams. Locations of bank instability are due largely to hoof shear and poor
riparian conditions. Poor riparian conditions are a result of invasive/exotic vegetation and cattle
access.
UT-3
UT-3 is a first order stream receiving a drainage area of 85 acres. The stream runs in a
northwesterly direction and discharges into UT-2 near the middle of the property. UT3 is in good
physical condition; however, the riparian buffer along UT3 is in poor condition due to the
dominance of invasive/exotic plant species and the absence of riparian species.
UT-4
This first order tributary originates on the north side of Fergusori Road and flows in a southerly
direction into UT-1. It is incised and the banks are severely trampled by cattle. Woody riparian
vegetation is absent and the channel is straight.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC II-5
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan

Section III
Restoration Plan
RESTORATION SUMMARY
Along UT-1 and UT-4 a natural channel design approach as been applied to develop stable
hydraulic geometry parameters. Reference reaches were identified to assist in the development of
. design cross sections and profiles that will allow the channel to maintain its features and prevent
the stream from either aggrading or degrading. The design presented herein provides for stable
cross-sectional geometry, an increase in planform sinuosity, and restoration of riffle-pool sequences
• and other streambed diversity to improve benthic habitat. About 3530 linear feet of stream has
been designed, most of which will be installed on the existing floodplains. Flood events larger
than the bankfull event will be carried downstream in a designed floodplain that relieves the
• channel from the high shear stresses that presently occur in the incised channels. Modifications
• will be made to the existing channel in those areas where the channel is being crossed or used as
the primary area of conveyance. These modifications may consist of installing bank or channel
revetments, rock structures and or altering the channel area and shape to the appropriate size.
The proposed design calls for filling the existing stream with material excavated from proposed
channel and floodplain areas. From a preliminary evaluation, a balance with cut and fill is
• expected from the proposed stream improvements. A more detailed evaluation will be performed
at final design to confirm this balance. Native material revetments would be installed as needed to
• reduce bank stress, provide grade control and increase habitat diversity. Increases are expected to
the riparian wetland areas due to an increase in bed elevation that will result from the existing to
• the restored condition.
Forested riparian buffers shall be established to have widths of at least fifty feet on both sides of the
• restored stream. After channel construction, riparian buffers shall be ripped to a depth of at least
1.5 feet and/or sub-soiled to ameliorate soil compaction caused by grazing and construction. An
• appropriate riparian plant community will be established to include multiple strata and a diverse
mix of species. Cattle shall be excluded from all stream and buffer restoration areas by fences.
Restricting cattle access to these areas will maximize the water quality improvement benefits of the
d in the western
hi
ld
t b
f 50 f
t
id
h
b
ff
eve
no
e ac
ee
cou
er w
t
o
u
buffers. Along UT-1, a riparian
overbank near station 2+00. A fence prohibits obtaining the full 50 feet width. Deficiencies in r??
• buffer acreage will be made up on the eastern side of UT-1 and will be situated to protect any steep
slopes adjacent to the standard 50 ft buffer on that side of the stream.
•
The proposed UT-1 stream and buffer restoration will reduce bank erosion from the mouth to the
downstream side of the Ferguson Road culvert. By reducing the supply of fine sediments from the
banks, restored bedforms will remain stable. Finally, the reductions in nitrogen, biological oxygen
demand and other pollutant loadings that will be achieved with the Open Springs restoration work
• are substantial benefits to the watershed. Incidental to the stream restoration at the Open Springs
site, new riparian wetlands will be created. No effort has been made to quantify these wetland
areas.
i
REFERENCE REACH ANALYSIS
A number of potential reference reaches were evaluated to ensure that valley morphology,
particularly slope, hydrology, aspect, bedform, and sinuosity, was comparable to stream potential
at UT-1. Reference reach data were collected from three unnamed streams located within the same
hydro-physiographic region as the Open Springs site (Figure 4 and 5). These unnamed tributaries
were identified as reference sites due to their apparent physical stability, proximity to the
mitigation project, and similar hydro-geomorphic settings.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC III-1
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan
Section I11
Restoration Plan
ti
The measured longitudinal profiles, cross sections and pebble counts for the reference sites are
shown in Appendix E Deference reach data were reduced to dimensionless ratios for design
applications to account for differences in catchment size utilizing the NC regional curves that
describe relations between hydraulic geometry and drainage area. Table 3 describes the stream
restoration design parameters derived from the reference reaches.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC III-2
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan
Figure 5. Location of Gaines Reference Reach Site
Figure 4. Location of Browns Crossroads and UT-3 Reference Reach Sites
Section III
Restoration Plan
Browns Crossroads Reference Site
This reference stream is classified as a C5 streamtype with a valley slope of 0.0136 feet per feet.
This site is being used to design the OS-1 reach because of the spring-fed hydrology and had the
same southwesterly valley aspect (subdued relief similar to design reach OS-1).
Gaines Reference Site
This reference stream is classified as an E4 streamtype with a valley slope of 0.0125 feet per feet.
This site along with the UT-2 reference site found at the Open Springs site are being used to restore
the OS-2, OS-3 and OS-4 reaches along UT-1.
UT-3 Reference Site
This reference stream is also classified as an E4 streamtype with a valley slope of 0.0128 feet per
feet. This site was chosen because of its proximity to UT-1 and apparent physical stability.
T'rL.Io 7 - Gmmarv of rlncian Mnrnhnmefrir Parameters
Reference Reach O en Springs
UT--1
Reach Name: Browns Gaines UT-3 OS-1 OS-2 OS-3 OS-4 Trib.
Drainage Area (sqmi): 0.064 0.13 0.133 0.102 0.109 0.125 0.16 0.0267
Classification: C 5 E4 E4 C4 E 4 E 4 E 4 C4
*Sinuosity: 1.13 1.21 1.47 1.27 1.32 1.20 1.30 1.31
Beltwidth (ft): 9.9 10.2 39 40 39 36 38 24
Width (ft): 7.13 6.3 6 8.5 6.5 6.5 8.0 5.0
CSA (sgft): 2.7 5.54 4.50 4.80 4.8 6.20 1.80
Mean Depth (ft): 0.37 0.88 0.53 0.74 0.74 0.78 0.36
Max Depth (ft): 0.75 1.26 0.80 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.50
Width to Depth Ratio: 19.27 7.16 10.6 6.8 6.8 8.4 13.9
Flood-Prone Width (ft): 24 27 23 24 25 29 12
Entrenchment Ratio: 3.37 4.29 2.7 3.7 3.8 3.6 2.4
Wetted Perimeter (ft): 7.55 7.16 8.69 7.30 7.30 8.85 5.29
Hydraulic Radius (ft): 0.36 0.77 0.52 0.66 0.66 0.70 0.36
Valley Slope (ft/ft): 0.01 0.01 0.012 0.018 0.021 0.020 0.010 0.355
WS Slope (ft/ft): 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.0100 0.0085 0.0085 0.009 0.0100
Avg Riffle Slope (ft/ft): 0.04 0.04 0.033 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038
Avg Run Slope (ft/ft): 0.15 0.06 0.125 0.092 0.092 0.095 0.100
Avg Glide Slope (ft/ft): 0.05 0.05 0.075 0.050 0.050 0.052 0.055
Pool-Pool spacing (ft): 45.7 25.6 42 37 37 44 27
Avg Pool depth (ft): 0.60 1.17 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.1
Pool depth/BF depth (ft): 1.62 1.33 2.46 2.30 2.30 2.32 3.06
Meander Width Ratio: 1.39 1.62 6.50 4.7 6.0 5.5 4.8 4.8
Materials D50 (mm): 0.2 2.9 9.5 1.0 10.2 7.0 X
Materials D84 (mm): 0.6 7.5 18.5 14.5 18.9 12.8 X
Materials D95 (mm): 0.9 14.1 26.6 28.9 28.0 21.0 X
Roughness (n): 0.017 0.026 0.031 0.030 0.038 0.030 X
Discharge (cfs): 8 22.4 16 20 20 26 7
Velocity (fps): 2.96 4.05 3.6 4.2 4.2 4.2 3.9
Shear Stress Ibs/sgft : 0.1 0.34 0.32 0.35 0.35 0.37 0.22
* Sinuosity for reference reaches measured along meader wavelength only -- not entire protile
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC III-3
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan

Section III
Restoration Plan
TYPICAL DESIGN SECTIONS
Typical cross sections for riffles and pools are shown on the design plans in Appendix F. Two types
of typical pool sections were developed to account for pools located on straight reaches and pools
on meander bends. Side slopes of channel banks and other features of the reference reach
channels were noted and used as guides when developing the proposed cross sections. Typical
cross sections at riffles were designed using an in-house spreadsheet based on Manning's equation,
using roughness values determined from Limerino's equation. NC regional curves were used for
preliminary confirmation of hydraulic geometry and channel capacity.
TYPICAL MEANDER PATTERN
A design plan showing the proposed channel alignment is provided in Appendix F. The design
meander pattern was developed using both sine generated curves and basic geometry. The initial
design was modified in the field using realtime GIS and GPS technologies to ensure appropriate
landscape position and reduce land disturbance. The resulting planform utilizes some existing
channel features and creates additional meander bends that will provide energy dissipation while
maintaining sediment transport.
Proposed sinuosity, wavelengths, beltwidths, amplitudes and radii of curvature were generated
using commercial spreadsheet software and standard equations. Dimensionless ratios developed
from the Browns, Gaines and Open Springs reference sites were used as input data. These values
have been adjusted by the software to account for the design slopes and bankfull flows calculated
for the Open Springs Site.
LONGITUDINAL PROFILES
Design profiles for UT-1 and the Unnamed Tributary to UT-1 are shownon the plans in Appendix
F. These profiles extend through limits of the proposed restoration of UT-1 and the Unnamed
Tributary to UT-1. The profiles were designed using the reference reach bed features with
adjustments made for changes in drainage area and the design bankfull energy gradients for the
Open Springs site. Longitudinal geometry for riffles, runs, pools and glides were developed from
reference reach dimensionless ratios and applied to the proposed profile at the Open Springs site.
Log structures and rock structures are being used to control grade and provide additional habitat
diversity.
RIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATION
Two riparian buffer planting areas are identified: the flat, reconnected floodplains, and the
adjacent hillslopes. Species to be planted in each area are listed on the following table, and are
intended to restore communities comparable to the Basic Mesic Forest (Piedmont Subtype) and
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest as described by Schafale and Weakley ; Plant materials
will be a mixture of containerized stock, bare-root whips, seedlings, live stakes nd cuttings. After
channel construction, riparian buffers shall be ripped to a depth of at least 1.5 fee and/or subsoiled
to ameliorate soil compaction caused by decades of intense grazing. The flood lain species mix
shall be planted on an approximately 8' x 8' spacing to establish 688 trees an shrubs per acre.
Upland plants will be installed on 8' x 9' spacing for 622 plants per acre. Riparian habitat
plantings will be augmented with transplants, cutting bundles and live stakes i stalled for stream
bank stability. t n ,3?
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC III-4
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan

Section III
Restoration Plan
TAIP *1 - Riparian Buffer Sr)ecies
U land Species Flood lain Species
Red Oak Quercus rurra Win ed Elm Ulmus alata
Green Ash Fraxinus ennsylvanica River Birch Betula nigra
Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera Red Maple Acer rubrum
White Oak Q. alba Sycamore Platanus occidentalis
Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Blue Beach Carpinus caroliniana
Gray Dogwood Cornus racemosa Water Oak Quercus nigra
Redbud Cercis canadensis Sweet Bay Magnolia Magnolia virginiana
Loblolly Pine Pinus taeda Elderberry Sambucus canadensis
Silk Do wood Cornus amomum
CULVERT DESIGN
Five stream crossings are proposed as part of this project. The following describes the location and
nature of each of the road crossings:
? UT-1 at Station 32+00 - farm equipment crossing
? UT-1 at Station 21 +30 - "major" crossing (to support future development)
. ? UT-1 at Station 16+35 - farm equipment crossing
? UT-1 at Station 8+50 - farm equipment crossing
? UT-2 at Station 23+44 - "major" crossing (to support future development)

Two of the proposed crossings were sized to meet Noi
(NCDOT) design requirements for a local collector road
these two crossings and the associated right-of-ways are
all crossings will be fenced and gated and recorded as
The access areas were deleted from the conservation ez
streams are not counted in the restoration credits.
Hydrology
The hydrological analysis phase involves the determination of discharge rates of runoff that the
drainage structure will be required to convey. The two methods utilized for the peak discharge are
as shown in the North Carolina Division of Highways Guidelines for Drainage Studies and
Hydraulic Design. The first method is presented in U.S. Geological Survey, Report 87-4096 (4)
and is used for watersheds exceeding one square mile. The second method is the hydrological
procedure and charts presented in Appendix C, N.C. Division of Highways Hydrological Charts.
The drainage areas for each method were obtained by using the latest U.S. Geological Survey
maps. The percent impervious was calculated to be less than three percent. This, combined with
observations of current landuse, validated the original assumption to use the rural classification
versus the urban classification. The entire project site is zoned as agricultural; therefore, it is
assumed that the proposed conditions and runoff values will be similar to the existing conditions.
h Carolina Department of Transportation
A plan view and cross-section detail of
presented in Figures 6 and 7. Access to
assets within the conservation easement.
iement areas and the lengths of impacted
• Hydraulics
The hydraulic analysis of the proposed culverts at Open Springs was performed using the US Army
Corps of Engineers' HEC-RAS computer program. The option chosen within the program calculates
. the water surface profile for steady, gradually varied flow in channels and floodplains. Cross-
sections for the HEC-RAS model were created and input automatically by extraction software along
with the previously described topographic mapping (DTM). The extraction software is an interface
between the DTM and HEC-RAS that allows electronic development of cross-sections, reach
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC III-5
• Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan

Section III
Restoration Plan

lengths, and other input data from digital topographic mapping. Cross-sections were developed
• from the 1-foot contour interval topographic mapping generated from field-surveyed data
collection. As part of the Quality Control for this project, a field visit was made by WKD personnel
to verify the surveyed data and to determine other various stream characteristics.
•
The HEC-RAS model calculates water surface profiles for steady, gradually varied flow, both sub-
critical and supercritical, for user-specified discharges. The standard step backwater analysis for
sub-critical flow was modeled for all crossings at Open Springs. The model calculates the effect of
• obstructions, such as culverts, and building structures in the channel and floodplain on the water
surface profile. The hydraulic computations are based on the solution of a one-dimensional energy
• equation with energy loss due to friction evaluated by Manning's equation. Input data for the HEC-
• RAS computer model include the following:
? Cross-section geometry of the channel and floodplain,
• ? Roughness coefficients to describe the characteristics of the channel and floodplain,
? Size, shape, and characteristics of culverts and roadways along the stream reach, and
• ? Energy loss coefficients for flow in the channel and at roadway crossings.
Design Requirements
The culvert design includes the following requirements: roadways with culverts larger than 3 feet
in diameter have 1.0 foot of freeboard during the 25-year storm event; headwater depth to culvert
depth ratio shall be less that 1.2; and water surface elevations do not flood habitable structures for
elevations equal to the 100-year storm event + 1.0-foot elevation.

Selected Design
Corrugated aluminum pipe-arches were selected to minimize costs and maximize hydraulic
efficiency. The selected culverts were chosen with consideration given to the proposed bankfull
widths. A minimum culvert width of 80% of the bankfull width was selected to minimize erosion
from contraction and expansion losses. All culverts shall be buried 1.0 foot per U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers guidelines for fish passage. The following is a summary of the selected culverts:
? UT-1 at Station 32+00 - 81" x 59" aluminum pipe-arch project from fill
? UT-1 at Station 32+00 - 81" x 59" aluminum pipe-arch mitered to slope
? UT-1 at Station 16+35 - 81" x 59" aluminum pipe-arch project from fill
? UT-1 at Station 8+50 - 81" x 59" aluminum pipe-arch project from fill
? UT-2 at Station 23+44 - 103" x 71" aluminum pipe-arch mitered to slope
STRUCTURES
Structures will be incorporated into the channel design to provide additional bank stability. Native
materials and vegetation will be used for revetments and grade control structures when applicable.
During construction, new stream banks will be stabilized with sod mats harvested onsite. Other
bank stability measures include the installation of cuttings bundles at three to five foot intervals
along the tops of banks. Typical details for proposed structures and revetments are in Appendix G.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC III-6
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PROPOSED gOAI
2' MIN COVER
RI

PROPOSED ROAD CROSSING
6" ABC STONE
T EXISTING GROUND
PROP. 81" X 59" ALUMINUM PIPE-ARCH
BURIED 1'

SECTION A-A
NTS
PROPOSED 60'
R /W
3 3
6' SHOULDER 24'
MIN. 12'
1/4'_1 a" a• - 6' SHOULDER
V/FT MIN.
J1 il- _
3 3 EXISTING GROUN_D
PROPOSED ROAD CROSSING
6" ABC STONE
SECTION B-B
NTS
FIGURE 6
F,
PROJECT
SE MANAGER

DRAWING 35CALE

OPEN SPRINGS STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT

C -11

3101 JOHN HEIGHPoC wmo
RALEIGH
NC 27612
DRAWN
BY PROJECT DATE !!I PROPOSED ROAD CROSSING UT-1 ,
[phone]
Oh
AMH PREPARED FOR m
APPROVED BY PROJECT NUMBER AT STA
21 +00 IDICKSON
SAS 30440
RA
00
` . Office Locations:
.
.
FILE NAME PLOT DATE ENVIRONMENTAL BANC & EXCHANGE, LLC community infrastructure consultants North Carolina Georgia
South Corolino Florida
1
0
•
0
•

PROP. 53 LF 0 '&-N36-
ALUMINUM FLOODPLAIN
PIPE-MITERED TO SLOPE
I a _
PROPOSED 65' RIGHT OF WAY
-R/W
R/W R/W
5+50
'.
;a PROP. 53 LF OF 103" X 71"
ALUMINUM PIPE-ARCH
MITERED TO SLOPE
BURIED 1'
\\\\ \ I\b
2' MIN COVER
PROPOSED ROAD CROSSING
6" ABC STONE
- T L
TTWIN 36" ALUMINUM FLOODPLAIN EXISTING GROUND
CULVERTS
PROP. 103" X 71" ALUMINUM
PIPE-ARCH BURIED 1'
SECTION A-A
NTS
SECTION B-B
NTS
FIGURE 7
PROJECT MANAGER
MSE DRAWING SCALE
OPEN SPRINGS STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT a 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
RALEIGH
NC

DRAWN BY
"O"

PROJECT DATE

REPARED FOR PROPOSED ROAD CROSSING UT-2 ,
??/K
(919) 7820495
?

APPROVED BY
SAS
PROJECT NUMBER

0.FZA .RA

I

AT STA. 16+00

Office Locations:
1/DICKSON
FILE NAME PLOT DATE
DATE ENVIRONMENTAL BANC & EXCHANGE, LLC
hfrastrUCtUre consultants North GorOllno Georgia
communitr
South Corolino Florido
"--6" ABC STONE ON ROADWAY
3:1 SLOPE TYP.
I R/W
3 3
6' SHOULDER 24'
Cr MIN. 12'
t/4'/1F1 _? 4' t 4• 6' SHOULDER
t/4 MIN.
11
3 3 EXISTING GROUND
LPROPOSED ROAD CROSSING
6" ABC STONE
. Section IV
Stream Flow Analysis
• Hydrologic analyses of the watershed were performed to validate the design channel geometry and
bankfull flows. Peak flows and corresponding channel cross sectional areas were determined
• through standard hydrologic methods for comparison to design parameters. Peak flows in this
. study were estimated using the following methods:
. ? NC regional curves;
? USACE HEC-1 computer model and SCS hydrology;
? USGS regional regression equations for rural conditions in the Piedmont;
. ? Rational method;
• ? USGS gage data.
USGS annual peak series data was analyzed to determine the accuracy of the NC Piedmont
• regional curve as applied to the Open Springs site. Data were obtained for two gage stations in
proximity to the project area and having drainage areas smaller than 2.0 mi?. The two stations
selected were Robeson Creek near Pittsboro, NC (drainage area= 1.13 miz) and Sugar Creek near
. Tramway, NC (drainage area=0.85 miz). Flood-frequency curves were developed using the
maximum annual peak discharge data for the two stations. Bankfull discharges calculated from the
regional curve were then plotted against the flood-frequency curves to determine the bankfull
. recurrence interval. The recurrence intervals were 1.3 years for Robeson Creek and 1.2 years for
. Sugar Creek. Since the recurrence interval for bankfull discharge is approximately 1.4 years, the
regional curve can be used with confidence to provide estimates of bankfull discharge for the
project stream.
0 Evaluations were made at the upstream and downstream limits of UT-1 and in both cases the
bankfull flows found using the regional curve compared well with those determined for the 1-year
. event in HEC-1. A summary of the hydrological analyses is shown in Appendix D. The bankfull
flows selected for design agreed very well with the NC regional curve and were generally lower
than those developed in the HEC-1 model for the 1-year flood event.

Tahip A _ Summarv of Hvdrologic Evaluation
----------
Open Springs Site (Ex. Conditions)
Methodology UT-1 U/S Limit UT-1 D/S Limit
Drainage Area (S q. Miles) 0.088 0.208
Drainage Area (Acres) 56.5 133.2
Ex.Conditions Regional Curves 16 28
Ex. Conditions USACE HEC-1 - 1-year Q 21 47
Ex. Conditions USACE HEC-1 - 2-year Q 33 73
Ex. Conditions USGS Reg. Regression Eq. 2-year Q 25 45
Ex. Conditions Rational Method E q. 2-year Q 15 33
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC N-1
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan
Section IV
Stream Flow Analysis
T_L1.. A C..........-.......4 UL-.J-1-;, P-h.n4inn
Reference Reaches
Methodology Gaines Browns
Drainage Area (S q. Miles) 0.13 0.064
Drainage Area (Acres) 83.2 41.0
Ex. Conditions WKD Surveyed Bankfull Flow 22.4 ft3/sec 8 ft3/sec
Open Springs Site (Prop. Conditions)
Methodology UT-1 U/S Limit UT-1 D/S Limit
Drainage Area (S q. Miles) 0.088 0.208
Drainage Area (Acres) 56.5 133.2
Proposed Conditions WKD Selected Design Flow 16.0 ft3/sec 27.0 ft3/sec
Note: WKD Bankfull flow was determined using field indicators of bankfull stage
and standard equations.
All flows given are in cubic feet per second (cfs)
WKD Bankfull for proposed conditions were determined at design riffles with Manning's equation
24 inch dia. RCP located at Ferguson Road (Amax approx. 23 cfs)
At the upstream end of the project an existing 30-inch diameter RCP controls flow under Ferguson
Road. This culvert exceeds the capacity of a bankfull event and therefore no reductions to flows
will be seen in the downstream reaches being restored as part of the project. Design bankfull flows
for the proposed stream at the upstream end of the project will be approximately 16 cfs while at
the downstream limits bankfull flows were calculated to be approximately 27 cfs. Therefore no
adjustments were needed to bankfull flows to account for the attenuation effects of the culvert at
Ferguson Road.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC IV-2
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan
. Section V
. Sediment Transport Analysis
• SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS
An evaluation of sediment transport was made to verify the design of the restoration channel along
UT-1 and UT-4. The goal of the design is have a channel that can move sediment without
. aggrading or degrading. Sediment carried downstream at a rate larger than that being supplied will
result in degradation, incising, and channel instability. Conversely, a channel that does not have
the force to effectively move incoming sediment will result in aggradation and channel instability.
Stable channel design is an iterative process of adjusting channel shape and bed slope until shear
. stresses are low enough to not cause erosion while meeting sediment competency requirements.
Channel stability is a function of cross-sectional geometry, bed and bank material, channel slope,
. meander pattern, and vegetative cover of banks and riparian areas. Because of the critical
importance of channel stability in meeting project goals, WD Dickson evaluated several
approaches in a natural channel design. Using several approaches reduces the reliance of results
• from any one approach and therefore results in a more reliable design. The evaluation of channel
. stability considered the following:
• Allowable velocity
. • Allowable shear stresses
• • Hydraulic geometry relationships
• Sediment transport analysis
• Because of the relatively high channel slopes found at Open Springs, degradation was the more
critical concern for the stable channel design. The proposed design revolves around reducing
channel shear stresses and velocities to acceptable values while keeping the width to depth ratio
within an appropriate range for the design stream type.
Entrainment calculations using the Andrews equation are based on non-cohesive materials. The
Andrews equation does not account for the significant stabilizing effect that electrochemical bonds
. have on channel stability. Because the Open Springs channel has bank and bed materials that are
relatively cohesive, the Andrews approach for calculating entrainment is not appropriate.
. Allowable Velocity Approach
• Published data is readily available that provides velocities causing incipient motion (or initiation of
motion) for different bed and bank materials. A comparison of calculated velocities to these
"allowable" velocities is a simple method to help determine channel stability. The following table
• compares the proposed velocities calculated using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
HEC-RAS Model (Version 3.1.1) with the allowable velocities for two industry accepted sources for
a gravel channel.

Tahip S - Comparison of Pronosed and Allowable Velocities
Allowable Vel. USACE Allowable Vel. Soil
Reach Rankfull Q2 Vel. Q,o Vel. report EM-1110-2-1601 Conservation Service
Vel. (ft/sec) (ft/sec) (ft/sec) (ft/sec) TR-25 (ft/sec)
OS-1 3.56 4.5 4.7 6.0 3.25/4.8
OS-2 4.17 4.4 4.6 6.0 3.25/4.8
OS-3 4.17 4.4 4.6 6.0 3.25/4.8
OS-4 4.19 4.4 4.6 6.0 3.25/4.8
Note: results for allowable SCS velocities assumed 8 mm gravel and both sediment free and
sediment laden conditions for SCS allowable velocity.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan
V-1
. Section V
Sediment Transport Analysis
The calculated velocities from HEC-RAS are average values for a cross section. These average
values may underestimate velocities in sections of the channel that are constricted or located on
. meandering bends. The existing 30" diameter culvert at Ferguson Road controls flows for the
larger flood events such as the 2-year and 10-year. Relatively small increases to peak flows are
seen in the larger flood events and therefore relatively small increases to velocities are
. experienced. Review of the above table shows that the proposed channel will not result in
. excessive erosion for all of the evaluated peak flows.
Allowable Shear Stress Approach
. Allowable channel shear stresses are a function of bed slope, channel shape, flows, bed material
(shape, size and gradation), cohesiveness of bank materials, and vegetative cover. Similar to the
previous check on channel stability, a second approach compares channel shear stresses to
. allowable shear stresses found in industry accepted publications. Historically shear stress has been
the most common tool for assessing channel stability. Shear stress is the force exerted on a
boundary during the resistance of motion as calculated using the following formula:

Allowable shear stresses in the following table are based on a 12 mm and 20 mm particles.
Tahip 6 - Comparison of Proposed and Allowable Shear Stresses

Reach Proposed Shear Stress
at bankfull
(lb/ft2) 12 mm Particle
Allowable Shear Stress
(lb/ft') 20 mm Particle
Allowable Shear Stress
(Ibfft2)
OS-1 0.33 0.2 0.4
OS-2 & OS-3 0.35 0.2 0.4
OS-4 0.37 0.2 0.4
Unnamed Tributary to OS-3 0.22 0.2 0.4
Note: Allowable shear stresses for cohesive clays with average compaction to above average
compaction are 0.32 to 0.43 Ib/ftz (Chow 1959). Shields Diagram was used to estimate the above
allowable shear stress.
Review of the above table shows that the proposed channel will not result in excessive erosion for
each of the design reaches. The calculated shear stresses are for average channel conditions at a
riffle for the subject design reach. Higher stresses will be seen in areas of the channel such as
constrictions or meander bends. It will be necessary to provide additional protection in those areas
that exceed allowable shear stresses. Based on experience, structures have been proposed in this
project to minimize channel instability in those areas of high stress on meander bends.
HEC-RAS and Copeland Method of Stable Channel Design
• The Copeland method found in the hydraulic design module of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
. (USACE) HEC-RAS Model (Version 3.1.1) was used to design a stable channel for the following
input:

? Gradation of bed material (D16, D5o and D84)
? Valley slope
? Side slope of channel banks
? Manning's "n" for channel banks
? Estimated sediment input supply from upstream
The undersized culvert at Ferguson Road will result in a reduced supply of larger gravel materials.
Therefore relatively low values were used to estimate the incoming sediment supply from
upstream. The outaut from the HEC-RAS model confirmed the shear stresses and velocities found
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan
V-2
Section V
Sediment Transport Analysis
with the design widths being considered. A summary of this analysis is shown in the following
table:
T_LI_ LJrf- D A C !"......I?.,.a AAn+hna Qnmmarv of Racndtc
Bottom Width Depth Energy Slope Velocity Shear Stress
6 0.8 0.0116 4.36 0.64
8 0.6 0.0123 4.12 0.49
Final Design Changes
The following table shows the design changes made to the conceptual design channel to ensure
channel stability:
T.. L.I,. O C:..?I fl..c:rr.. !'hannnc fnr rhannal CtahilitV
Reach & Stream Type v Channel Bankfull Width (ft) Channel Bankfull Slope Oft)
Concept Design Final Design Concept Design Final Design
OS-1 (C-stream type) 8.1 8.5 0.014 0.10
OS-2 & OS-3 (E-stream
type) 5.8 6.5 0.016 0.085
OS-4 (E-stream type) 6.2 8.0 0.010 0.085
The above increases to channel width and slope resulted in the following changes to width to
depth ratio and shear stresses:
T_u.. n i-L.------ r,. XAI:.J+h +,. no-+h Ratan and RanLfndd Shear Ctracc
Reach & Stream Type Width to De th Ratio an full Shear Stress (Iblftz)
Concept Design Final Desi n Concept Design Final Design
OS-1 (C-stream type) 12 16 0.48 0.33
OS-2 & OS-3 (E-stream
type) 7.3 8.8 0.71 0.35
OS-4 (E-stream type) 6.9 10.3 0.73 0.37
Altering the width to depth ratio has a significant impact on corresponding channel shear stresses.
Adjustments to channel width must consider the stream type being used for design. Changes to the
width to depth ratio for each reach stayed within the allowable range for the design stream type.
Approximately 22 rock structures were added from the conceptual design plan to dissipate energy
at concentrated points and to facilitate consistent channel slopes and floodplain connections
throughout the project. The consistent slopes result in acceptable shear stresses on proposed
channel banks and channel bed. As shown on the plans, the proposed design calls rock cross
vanes and bank revetments to provide additional protection from erosion.
Stability Summary and Design Recommendations
As shown in the preceding sections, the proposed channel will meet long term goals for bank and
bed stability. The proposed changes to design channel widths and slopes will minimize shear
stresses and channel velocities and still provide capacity requirements for flow. The proposed
design results in channel slopes that vary from 0.0085 to 0.0100 feet per feet. These slopes are the
most appropriate slopes to reduce shear stress, meet channel capacity requirements and not require
an excessive number of drop structures. This is the most cost effective design that minimizes
required grading but is also stable.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC V-3
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan
Section V
Sediment Transport Analysis
WK Dickson recommends that the existing gravel found within the channel be stockpiled during
construction and placed on the restored channel bed. This will help support channel stability and
conserve aquatic organisms.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC V-4
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan

Section VI
Post Construction Monitoring and Success Criteria

STREAM RESTORATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
The stream restoration success criteria for the Open Springs Site will follow accepted and approved
• success criteria presented in the site specific mitigation plans developed for the EBXN-1 Neu-Con
Mitigation Banking sites as well as the Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued on April 2003. Specific
• success criteria components are presented below.

• Bankfull Events
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the 5-year monitoring period. The two
bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until
• two bankfull events have been documented in separate years.
Cross Sections
There should be little 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 (for
f
bili
or
ty (
example down-cutting or erosion) or are minor changes that represent an increase in sta
example settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio).
Cross-sections shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method and all monitored
• cross-sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design
stream type.
•
Longitudinal Profiles
h
bl
ey are
e, e.g. t
The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are remaining sta
not aggrading or degrading. The pools should remain deep with relatively flat low-flow water
• surface slopes and the riffles should remain steeper and shallower than the pools. Bedforms
observed should be consistent with those observed for channels of the design stream type.

• Stream Vegetative Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffer on the site will
be based on the recommendations found in the WRP Technical Note and correspondence from
review agencies on mitigation sites recently approved under the Neu-Con Mitigation Banking
• Instrument.
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 3-year old
• planted trees per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period. The final vegetative success
criteria will be the survival of 260 5-year old planted trees per acre at the end of year five of the
• monitoring period.

Up to 20 percent of the site species composition may be comprised of invaders. Remedial action
may be required should these species (that is, loblolly pine, red maple, sweet gum, etc.) present a
problem and exceed the 20 percent composition. Beneficial species regeneration should be noted
within the monitoring reports.
Species selection will be based on reference reach vegetation of from reference literature.
Photo Reference Stations
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
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC VI-1
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan
Section VI
Post Construction Monitoring and Success Criteria
degradation of the banks over time. A series of photos over time should indicate successional
maturation of riparian vegetation.
Reference Site
A reference reach will be identified with a stream order, habitat designation and Rosgen
classification similar to the project stream.
METHOD OF REPORTING ON SUCCESS CRITERIA
An as-built report documenting stream restoration and enhancement will be developed within 60
days of the planting completion on the restored Site. The report will include elevations,
photographs and sampling plot locations, and a description of initial species composition by
community type. The report will also include a list of the species planted and the associated
densities.
The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress
toward achieving the success criteria referenced in Section VI. The restored stream morphology
will be assessed to determine the success of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be
undertaken for 5 years or until the final success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer.
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to
NCDOT. The monitoring reports will include:
1. A detailed narrative summarizing the condition of the restored site and all regular
maintenance activities;
2. As-built topographic maps showing location of monitoring gauges, vegetation sampling
plots, permanent photo points, and location of transacts;
3. Photographs showing views of the restored site taken from fixed-point stations from a
height of approximately five to six feet. Permanent markers will be established to ensure
that the same locations (and view directions) on the site are monitored in each monitoring
period;
4. Vegetative data, as described below;
5. Identification of any invasion by undesirable plant species, including quantification of the
extent of invasion of undesirable plants by either stem counts, percent cover, or area,
whichever is appropriate;
6. A description of any damage done by animals;
7. Wildlife observations; and
8. Reference and stream data.
STREAM RESTORATION MONITORING
Bankfull Events
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of
a crest gauge and photographs. The crest gauge will be installed on the floodplain within 10 feet of
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC VI-2
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan
• Section VI
Post Construction Monitoring and Success Criteria
the restored channel. The crest gauge will record the highest watermark between site visits, and the
• gauge will be checked each time there is a site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred.
Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on
the floodplain during monitoring site visits.

Cross Sections
Two permanent cross-sections will be installed per 1,000 linear feet of stream restoration work,
with one located at a riffle cross-section and one located at a pool cross-section. 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, if the features are
present. Riffle cross sections will be classified using the Rosgen stream classification system.
Bed Material Analyses
The project stream reach is composed of bedforms in the sand and gravel size sediment fraction.
Since the median grain size (D50) is similar to the reference reaches studied, it is unexpected that a
substantial change will occur. Grab samples will be taken to indicate any changes in stream
bedform. Grab samples will be taken at no less than 6 cross sections.
Longitudinal Profiles
A longitudinal profile will be completed in years one, three, and five of the monitoring period. The
profile will be conducted for a length of restored channel. Measurements will include thalweg,
water surface, inner berm, bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of these measurements will be
taken at the head of each feature, for example, riffle, pool, and the max pool depth. The survey will
be tied to a permanent benchmark.
Vegetative Monitoring
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a wetland mitigation site is dependent upon hydrologic
restoration, active planting of preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native
plant community. In order to determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation-monitoring stations
will be installed on approximately 2 percent of the restoration site. The size of individual
monitoring plots will be 0.1 acre. Vegetation monitoring will occur in spring after leaf-out has
occurred. Individual plot data for woody species will be provided. Plot data will not be averaged
over the entire site to obtain a single figure for stem density. Permanent plots for the sampling of
planted species shall be randomly located in each of the target communities. The enumeration of
the density of planted species will equal the number of remaining stems in the plot divided by the
plot size in acres. Individual seedlings will be marked such that they can be found in succeeding
monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference between the previous year's
living planted seedlings and the current year's living planted seedlings.
At the end of the first growing season, species composition, density, and survival will be evaluated.
For each subsequent year, until the final success criteria is achieved, the restored Site will be
evaluated between July and November.
Photo Reference Stations
Photographs will be used to visually document restoration success. Reference stations will be
photographed before construction and continued for at least five years following construction.
Reference photos will be taken once a year. After construction has taken place, reference stations
will be marked with wooden stakes.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC VI-3
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan
Section VI
Post Construction Monitoring and Success Criteria
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 should make an effort to
consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Structure photos. Photographs will be taken at each grade control structure along the restored
stream. Photographers should make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each
photo over time.
Benthic Macro i nverte b rates and Fish Sampling `
No benthic macro-invertebrate or fish sampling is required on the restored site at this time. Should
sampling eventually be required by the review agencies, appropriate sampling methodologies and
success criteria will be implemented and will be based on those accepted and approved by the
review agencies for the Neu-Con Mitigation Banking Sites.
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
In the event that the site or a specific component of the site fails to achieve the defined success
criteria, EBXN-1 will develop necessary adaptive management plans and/or implement appropriate
remedial actions for the site in coordination with the review agencies. Remedial action required by
the review agencies will be designed to achieve the success criteria specified previously, and shall
include a work schedule and monitoring criteria that will take into account physical and climactic
conditions.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC VI4
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan
Section VII
Administrative and Regulatory
SUMMARY
The proposed Open Springs Stream Mitigation Project will improve physical habitat and water
quality by restoring natural hydraulic geometry to impacted stream reaches along UT-1 and UT-4,
and by restoring/enhancing riparian forest buffers along all four streams. The improvements will
result in 3431 linear feet of stream restoration and approximately 2725 linear feet of riparian buffer
enhancement. This resultant total for proposed improvements is 4520 SMU's.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
A conservation easement will be placed over the preservation acreage consisting of a fifty-foot
buffer extending out from the beltwidth of the proposed restoration design. The total easement
area is 14.5 acres. Livestock and cattle will be fenced out of all areas protected by conservation
easement. The easement limits will be clearly marked by the use of fencing, marker posts, signage,
or other appropriate means. Crossings shown on the plans shall be assets within the easement.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC VII-1
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan
Section VIII
References
Chow, Ven Te. (1959). Open-Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Fischenich, C. (2001). "Stability Thresholds for Stream Restoration Materials," EMRRP Technical
Notes Collection (ERDC TNEMRRP-SR-29), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development
Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Harrelson, Cheryl C., C.L. Rawlins, John P. Potyondy. (1994). Stream channel reference sites: an
illustrated guide to field technique. USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO.
NRCS, (1995). Soil Survey of Moore County, North Carolina. USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
Shafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley, 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 325 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (1991) (change 1, 1994). "Engineering and Design -
Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels," EM 1110-2-1601, Washington, DC.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC VIII-1
Open Springs Stream Mitigation Plan
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
r
O
U
cu
a>
ca
a)
`r-
-0L
A
r
1
F-
D
c
i
2
U
W
O
(1}) U01jen919
Y
m
W
m
O
O
ii?
0)
3
s
rn
c
0
co
a?
U
C
(6
N
0
N
y
C
O
IL
a?
U
7
N
f6
V ,
1
F-
_O
tB
o
4- U
Y
r ?
1 co
r ?
)
U)
O
'
V
U
a
44
X
A
'A
4-1
x
Q

N

iR
U
C
N
O C
r 0
N
O
c
0
a
v
c
0
C7
0
44
x
3
A

(U) uOIJen913
.o
a
m
U
(O
7
N
f6
I---
}D
VJ
_O
o
Om
o
Y
N =
U)
0
?`
v /
U
x
?i
4-I
X
Q
x
c
'o
CL
v
c
0
C9
0
F-
U
C
N
c
0
N
L
0
2
(4) uo1}en913
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Open springs
Reach Name: Reach OS-1
Sample Name: OS-1 Riffle
Survey Date:
---- 11/21/03
-----------------
---------
---------------------------
-------------
Size (mm) TOT # ITEM % CUM
-----------
-----------------
0 - 0.062 -----------------
0 ---------
0.00 ----------------
0.00
0.062 - 0.125 0 0.00 0.00
0.125 - 0.25 0 0.00 0.00
0.25 - 0.50 0 0.00 0.00
0.50 - 1.0 24 23.76 23.76
1.0 - 2.0 0 0.00 23.76
2.0 - 4.0 5 4.95 28.71
4.0 - 5.7 7 6.93 35.64
5.7 - 8.0 9 8.91 44.55
8.0 - 11.3 12 11.88 56.44
11.3 - 16.0 23 22.77 79.21
16.0 - 22.6 13 12.87 92.08
22.6 - 32.0 7 6.93 99.01
32 - 45 1 0.99 100.00
45 - 64 0 0.00 100.00
64 - 90 0 0.00 100.00
90 - 128 0 0.00 100.00
128 - 180 0 0.00 100.00
180 - 256 0 0.00 100.00
256 - 362 0 0.00 100.00
362 - 512 0 0.00 100.00
512 - 1024 0 0.00 100.00
1024 - 2048 0 0.00 100.00
2048 - 0 0.00 100.00
D16 (mm) 0.84
D35 (mm) 5.54
D50 (mm) 9.51
D84 (mm) 18.46
D95 (mm) 26.56
Silt/Clay (%) 0
Sand (%) 23.76
Gravel (%) 76.24
Cobble (%) 0
Boulder (%) 0
Bedrock (%) 0
Total Particles = 101.
Q)
ry
r
U)
O
r
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
°o
0
r
N
N_
N
U_
C6
aaui J IUGOJGd
RIVERMORPH BANK EROSION HARZARD INDEX (BEHI)
--------------------------------------------------------
River Name: Open springs
Reach Name: Reach OS-1
BEHI Name: OS-1 BEHI
Survey Date: 01/07/04
---------------------------------------------------------
Bankfull Height: 1 ft
Bank Height: 4.5 ft
Root Depth: 2 ft
Root Density: 4 %
Bank Angle: 80 Degrees
surface Protection: 0 %
Bank Material Adjustment: Silt/Clay 0
Bank stratification Adjustment: None 0
Erosion Loss Curve: Yellowstone
- warning - The Near Bank shear stress (NBS) was estimated.
BEHI Numerical Rating: 40.4
BEHI Adjective Rating: Very High
NBS Numerical Rating: 0
NBS Adjective Rating: Very Low
Total Bank Length: 300 ft
Estimated sediment Loss: 15 Cu Yds per Year
Estimated Sediment Loss: 19.5 Tons per Year
RIVERMORPH NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN REPORT
River Name: open springs
Reach Name: Reach OS-1
--Reference Reach--
Browns Reference Reach; Reach 1 ( C 5)
--Boundary conditions--
Drainage Area:
valley Slope:
Bankfull Discharge:
Bankfull cross sectional Area:
Mean Depth Calculation Tolerance:
--Sediment Data--
Riffle Bed
Riffle Bed
Riffle Bed
Bar Sample
Bar Sample
Bar sample
material ID:
Material D84:
Material D50:
ID:
Dmax:
D50:
--Entrainment options--
shields Entrainment Function
0.09 sq mi
0.018 ft/ft
20 cfs
3.8 sq ft
0.2 ft
OS-1 Riffle
18.46 mm
9.51 mm
50 mm
10 mm
---------------NCD Results---------------
--Alignment--
Meander wavelength:
Channel Length:
sinuosity:
Radius of Curvature:
Bankfull slope:
Meander Belt width:
Meander width Ratio:
Deflection Angle:
--Riffle cross sectional Properties—
width to Depth Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Floodprone width:
Bankfull width:
Bankfull Mean Depth:
Bankfull Velocity:
Bankfull Hydraulic Radius:
Bankfull shear Stress:
Required Roughness (n):
Entrainable Particle size:
23.7 ft
30.81 ft
1.3
4.93 ft
0.01382
9.4 ft
1.09
1.06 rad
19.32
2.82
24.3 ft
8.6 ft
0.44 ft
5.26 ft/s
0.4 ft
0.345 lbs/sq ft
0.0180 ftA(1/6)
18.3 mm
--Rosgen stream classification--
Reference Reach C 5
Proposed Reach C 5
Existing Reach B 4c
--Sediment Transport Competency--
Ratio - Riffle Slope / Bankfull slope: 8.9
Ratio - D50bed / D50bar: 0.951
critical Dimensionless Shear Stress (1): 0.0871
Required Mean Depth (1): 1.71 ft
Ratio - Di bar / D50bed: 5.258
Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress (2): 0.0088
Required Mean Depth (2): 0.17 ft
minimum Required Mean Depth: 0.17 ft
t
U
U) LL w c
LL 4)
Y O U. co
m ? f"
U
• O ? ? O + X
N
1
O
L
U
O
N
N
O
^L
f
I
C
i
C

rn
3
co
r
rn
c
0
<6
a?
C
f6
0
(4) uoi;en91=1
10
N
N
N W
0 k
CL
d
U
G1
R
10.
r?
F-
D
rn
C
_O
i-?
a)
O
VJ [p
U
N. C
C
r ?
1 m
N
I
U)
0
U)
U
N
C
0
CL
v
0
0
0
C7
0
N
r-I
X
Q
M
cM
w
X
3
O
N
r

U
C
o C
- O
N
O
LO

(4) U0I}2AG13
N u
.o
CL x
v
m
't
N
41
m
r
D
0)
C L?
O
II
N y.a
o x
Q U q
O 'D
LJL
N
co
N
U)
0
U)
U
M
r
II
4-i
N ?
c S
o
a
-o
c
0
C7
m

N
U
C
to
0
Q
N
0
(4) u01}en913
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Open springs
Reach Name: Reach OS-2
sample Name: os-2 Riffle
Survey Date: 10/28/03
-------------
----------
---------------------------
----------------
Size (mm) ----
TOT # ITEM % CUM
---------
----------------
0 - 0.062 -----------------
0 ----------
0.00 ------------------
0.00
0.062 - 0.125 0 0.00 0.00
0.125 - 0.25 0 0.00 0.00
0.25 - 0.50 0 0.00 0.00
0.50 - 1.0 53 53.00 53.00
1.0 - 2.0 1 1.00 54.00
2.0 - 4.0 3 3.00 57.00
4.0 - 5.7 7 7.00 64.00
5.7 - 8.0 7 7.00 71.00
8.0 - 11.3 2 2.00 73.00
11.3 - 16.0 16 16.00 89.00
16.0 - 22.6 4 4.00 93.00
22.6 - 32.0 3 3.00 96.00
32 - 45 3 3.00 99.00
45 - 64 1 1.00 100.00
64 - 90 0 0.00 100.00
90 - 128 0 0.00 100.00
128 - 180 0 0.00 100.00
180 - 256 0 0.00 100.00
256 - 362 0 0.00 100.00
362 - 512 0 0.00 100.00
512 - 1024 0 0.00 100.00
1024 - 2048 0 0.00 100.00
2048 - 0 0.00 100.00
D16 (mm) 0.65
D35 (mm) 0.83
D50 (mm) 0.97
D84 (mm) 14.53
D95 (mm) 28.87
Silt/Clay (%) 0
Sand (%) 54
Gravel (%) 46
Cobble (%) 0
Boulder (%) 0
Bedrock (%) 0
Total Particles = 100.
O
O
O
O
T-
ry
N
i
0

O
O
O
vl-
O
° .N.
Cn
N
U_
O
Irl-

aaui_? juaoaad
RIVERMORPH BANK EROSION HARZARD INDEX (BEHI)
River Name:
Reach Name:
BEHI Name:
Survey Date:
open Springs
Reach OS-2
OS-2 BEHI
01/07/04
Bankfull Height: 1 ft
Bank Height: 2.2 ft
Root Depth: 1.2 ft
Root Density: 7 %
Bank Angle: 90 Degrees
surface Protection: 0 %
Bank Material Adjustment: Silt/clay 0
Bank stratification Adjustment: None 0
Erosion Loss curve: Yellowstone
- warning - The Near Bank shear stress (NBS) was estimated.
BEHI Numerical Rating: 39.7
BEHI Adjective Rating: High
NBS Numerical Rating: 0
NBS Adjective Rating: Very Low
Total Bank Length: 450 ft
Estimated sediment Loss: 11 Cu Yds per Year
Estimated Sediment Loss: 14.3 Tons per Year
RIVERMORPH NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN REPORT
River Name: Open Springs
Reach Name: Reach OS-2
--Reference Reach--
Gaines Reference Reach; Reach 1 ( E 4)
--Boundary Conditions—
Drainage Area:
valley slope:
Bankfull Discharge:
Bankfull cross sectional Area:
Mean Depth Calculation Tolerance:
--sediment Data--
Riffle Bed Material ID:
Riffle Bed Material D84:
Riffle Bed Material D50:
Bar Sample ID:
Bar Sample Dmax:
Bar Sample D50:
--Entrainment options--
shields Entrainment Function
---------------NCD Results---------- ----
--Alignment--
50 mm
10 mm
meander wavelength: 15.6
28
20 ft
ft
Channel Length: .
3
1
sinuosity:
Radius of curvature: .
3.24 ft
Bankfull slope: 0.01612
19
6
ft
Meander Belt width: .
1
1
meander width Ratio: .
06
1 rad
Deflection Angle: .
--Riffle cross sectional Properties—
width to Depth Ratio: 7.16
29
4
Entrenchment Ratio: .
24 ft
Floodprone width: 6
5 ft
Bankfull width:
Bankfull Mean Depth: .
0.78 ft
Bankfull velocity: 4.55
61
0 ft/s
ft
Bankfull Hydraulic Radius: .
614
0 lbs/sq ft
Bankfull shear stress:
Required Roughness (n): .
0.0299 ftA(1/6)
Entrainable Particle size: 36.9 mm
0.109 sq mi
0.021 ft/ft
20 cfs
4.4 sq ft
0.2 ft
OS-2 Riffle
14.53 mm
0.97 mm
--Rosgen Stream Classification—
Reference Reach E 4
Proposed Reach E 4
Existing Reach E 5
--sediment Transport Competency--
Ratio - Riffle slope / Bankfull slope: 5.39
Ratio - D50bed / D50bar: 0.097
Critical Dimensionless shear Stress (1): 0.6378
Required Mean Depth (1): 10.71 ft
Ratio - Di bar / D50bed: 51.546
Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress (2): 0.0012
Required Mean Depth (2): 0.02 ft
minimum Required Mean Depth: 0.02 ft
M
0
U
(a
a)
ca
a)
d
r
1
FL
c
C
2
U
rn
LL
Y
ro
W
CO
m
O
I-

m
a?
3
rn
c
0
m
a)
C
lA
0
()J) U0I18A813
w
a°
U
t0
7
N
l0
r?
I-
D
CD
c
_O
o
m
U
N.
E 7
C
t ?
' co
M co
U)
0
U)
U
N
C
O
a
a
c
0
O
44
x
a
'A
44
x
a

w
x
A
Lf)

U
C
(Q
N
C
Q
N
L
Q
2
(4) U01jena13
N
C
CL
U
d
i6

1
O
N
`o
O?
O Cc:
LL
N `
vJ
U
44
X

W
X
Q
W
X
N ,Q
O
IL
'O
C
7
O
(7
O
LO

N
U
C
N
0
C
O
N
O
2
(}4) UOIJeA919
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: open springs
Reach Name: Reach os-3
Sample Name: OS-3 Riffle
Survey Date:
- 10/29/03
------------
----------
----------------
---------------
-
Size (mm) ----
TOT #
------ ITEM %
---------- CUM
----------------
-----------------
0 - 0.062 ----------
0 0.00 0.00
0.062 - 0.125 0 0.00 0.00
0.125 - 0.25 0 0.00 0.00
0.25 - 0.50 0 0.00 0.00
0.50 - 1.0 11 11.11 11.11
1.0 - 2.0 0 0.00 11.11
2.0 - 4.0 8 8.08 19.19
4.0 - 5.7 3 3.03 22.22
5.7 - 8.0 12 12.12 34.34
8.0 - 11.3 23 23.23 57.58
11.3 - 16.0 20 20.20 77.78
16.0 - 22.6 14 14.14 91.92
22.6 - 32.0 5 5.05 96.97
32 - 45 3 3.03 100.00
45 - 64 0 0.00 100.00
64 - 90 0 0.00 100.00
90 - 128 0 0.00 100.00
128 - 180 0 0.00 100.00
180 - 256 0 0.00 100.00
256 - 362 0 0.00 100.00
362 - 512 0 0.00 100.00
512 - 1024 0 0.00 100.00
1024 - 2048 0 0.00 100.00
2048 - 0 0.00 100.00
D16 (mm) 3.21
D35 (mm) 8.09
D50 (mm) 10.22
D84 (mm) 18.9
D95 (mm) 28.33
Silt/Clay (%) 0

sand (%) 1.11
Gravel (%) 88.89
Cobble (%) 0
Boulder (%) 0
Bedrock (%)
Total Particles = 99.
C)
0
0
0
V-
a)
44--
.N_
0.
M
U)
0
0
0
0
?'\
E
CD
C) N
C/)
U_
o ?
r
aaui-I lu9OJ9d
r-
RIVERMORPH BANK EROSION HARZARD INDEX (BEHI)
River Name:
Reach Name:
BEHI Name:
Survey Date:
Open Springs
Reach OS-3
OS-3 BEHI
01/07/04
Bankfull Height: 1 ft
Bank Height: 2 ft
Root Depth: 2 ft
Root Density: 8 %
Bank Angle: 80 Degrees
surface Protection: 4 %
Bank Material Adjustment: silt/Clay 1
Bank Stratification Adjustment: None 0
Erosion Loss Curve: Yellowstone
- warning - The Near Bank shear stress (NBS) was estimated.
BEHI Numerical Rating: 34.5
BEHI Adjective Rating: High
NBS Numerical Rating: 0
NBS Adjective Rating: Very Low
Total Bank Length: 400 ft
Estimated Sediment Loss: 8.89 Cu Yds per Year
Estimated Sediment Loss: 11.56 Tons per Year
RIVERMORPH NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN REPORT
River Name: Open springs
Reach Name: Reach OS-3
--Reference Reach--
Gaines Reference Reach; Reach 1 ( E 4)
--Boundary Conditions—
Drainage Area:
valley slope:
Bankfull Discharge:
Bankfull cross sectional Area:
Mean Depth Calculation Tolerance:
--Sediment Data--
Riffle Bed Material ID:
Riffle Bed Material D84:
Riffle Bed Material D50:
Bar Sample ID:
Bar Sample Dmax:
Bar Sample D50:
--Entrainment options--
shields Entrainment Function
---------------NCD Results---------------
--Alignment--
50 mm
10 mm
meander wavelength: 16.7 ft
channel Length: 21.71 ft
sinuosity: 1.3
47
3
ft
Radius of curvature: .
01536
0
Bankfull slope:
Meander Belt width: .
6.62 ft
meander width Ratio: 1.1
06
1
rad
Deflection Angle: .
--Riffle Cross sectional Properties—
width to Depth Ratio: 7.16
29
4
Entrenchment Ratio:
Floodprone width: .
25.7 ft
Bankfull width: 6.
84
0 ft
ft
Bankfull Mean Depth: .
0
4 ft/s
Bankfull velocity:
Bankfull Hydraulic Radius: .
0.65

Bankfull shear stress:

(n):
h
p
0..623 /sq ft

lbsfts(1/6)
ness
Required Roug
Entrainable Particle size: 37.5 mm
0.125 sq mi
0.0200 ft/ft
20 cfs
5 sq ft
0.2 ft
05-3 Riffle
18.90 mm
10.22 mm
--Rosgen Stream classification--
Reference Reach E 4
Proposed Reach E 4
Existing Reach E 4b
--Sediment Transport Competency--
Ratio - Riffle slope / Bankfull Slope: 5.39
Ratio - D50bed / D50bar: 1.022
critical Dimensionless shear stress (1): 0.0818
Required Mean Depth (1): 1.44 ft
Ratio - Di bar / D50bed: 4.892
critical Dimensionless Shear Stress (2): 0.0094
Required Mean Depth (2): 0.17 ft
minimum Required Mean Depth: 0.17 ft

W m
LL U) 0 LL
2 Y LL
?? 00 ~
0 , • Q +
.0
M
1
0
U
N
a)
a)
'r-
O
^L
LL
1
FL

0
O
E
rn
N
3
co
rn
s=
0
M
U
C
(6
y
0
(4) U01leA013

N
C
'O
a
a>
U
7
N
iC

Irl-
FL
Z)
_ 0
o
U
v
? c
if y
M ca
m
O?
v
U
4-4
X
A
N
44
x
G1
44
N A
c 3
0
a
0
0
0
C7
O
0
4""
U
C
N
0
(Sf
O
N
L
O
T
(4) UO[JeA913
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Open Springs
Reach Name: Reach OS-3b
Sample Name: OS-3b Riffle
Survey Date: 12/16/03
Size (mm) TOT #
---- ITEM %
---------- CUM
----------------------
----=--------------
0 - 0.062 ----------
0 0.00 0.00
0.062 - 0.125 0 0.00 0.00
0.125 - 0.25 0 0.00 0.00
0.25 - 0.50 0 0.00 0.00
0.50 - 1.0 46 40.00 40.00
1.0 - 2.0 0 0.00 40.00
2.0 - 4.0 13 11.30 51.30
4.0 - 5.7 11 9.57 60.87
5.7 - 8.0 15 13.04 73.91
8.0 - 11.3 16 13.91 87.83
11.3 - 16.0 12 10.43 98.26
16.0 - 22.6 2 1.74 100.00
22.6 - 32.0 0 0.00 100.00
32 - 45 0 0.00 100.00
45 - 64 0 0.00 100.00
64 - 90 0 0.00 100.00
90 - 128 0 0.00 100.00
128 - 180 0 0.00 100.00
180 - 256 0 0.00 100.00
256 - 362 0 0.00 100.00
362 - 512 0 0.00 100.00
512 - 1024 0 0.00 100.00
1024 - 2048 0 0.00 100.00
2048 - 0 0.00 100.00
D16 (mm) 0.7
D35 (mm) 0.94
D50 (mm) 3.77
D84 (mm) 10.39
D95 (mm) 14.53
Silt/Clay (%)

Sand (%) 40
Gravel (%) 60
Cobble (%) 0
Boulder (%) 0
Bedrock (%) 0
Total Particles = 1151.
C)
0
C)
r-
n/
Cle)
U)
O
r
0
0
0
T-
o N
° .N
Cn
U
U_
o
Ir-

aaui=j juaoaad
RIVERMORPH BANK EROSION HARZARD INDEX (BEHI)
River Name: Open springs
Reach Name: Reach OS-3b
BEHI Name: OS-3b BEHI
survey Date: 01/07/04
Bankfull Height: 1 ft
Bank Height: 3 ft
Root Depth: 3 ft
Root Density: 7 %
Bank Angle: 55 Degrees
surface Protection: 10 o
Bank Material Adjustment: Sand 10
Bank stratification Adjustment: None 0
Erosion Loss Curve: Yellowstone
- warning - The Near Bank shear stress (NBS) was estimated.
BEHI Numerical Rating: 42.4
BEHI Adjective Rating: Very High
NBS Numerical Rating: 0
NBS Adjective Rating: Very Low
Total Bank Length: 100 ft
Estimated Sediment Loss: 3.33 Cu Yds per Year
Estimated sediment Loss: 4.33 Tons per Year
O
U
N
cu
a)
LP
O
L
a
r
I
I-L
D
i
c
e
C
x
U)
O
LL
Y
m
IN-
W
U)
m
O
F-
0)
0
co
0
m
rn
3
c6
s
o?
c
0
co
ov U
C
c6
0
O
O
N
O
O
(4) u01jene13
M

C w
0 x
m a
U
f0
N
N
16

V-
FL
0
'Fa II
w
,--, o x
N C9 o
c
m
U)
0
U)
U
II
w
y x
c ?
CL
v
c
0
O
M
tc)
N
O
N
iR
U
C
D
N
L
Z
0
Lf)
0
(4) UOIJen919
NJ
C
d°
U
(O
7
N
f6
lp?
1
O
(a i
i'1 0
U
^O C
12-
(0
N ca
1 m
U/
O
U)
U?
w
c
.a
CL
v
c
0
0
C9
O

N
I
w
x

C
I
w
x
A
w
OD
N
I
w
x
3
0

U
C
N
6
C
O
N
O
2
(4) uOIJen91:1
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Open Springs
Reach Name: Reach OS-4
sample Name: Riffle
Survey Date: 12/16/03
Size (mm) TOT # ITEM % CUM
--------------------
-------------------
0 - 0.062 --------------
0 ----------
0.00 -------
0.00
0.062 - 0.125 0 0.00 0.00
0.125 - 0.25 0 0.00 0.00
0.25 - 0.50 0 0.00 0.00
0.50 - 1.0 1 0.94 0.94
1.0 - 2.0 1 0.94 1.89
2.0 - 4.0 16 15.09 16.98
4.0 - 5.7 0 0.00 16.98
5.7 - 8.0 63 59.43 76.42
8.0 - 11.3 0 0.00 76.42
11.3 - 16.0 25 23.58 100.00
16.0 - 22.6 0 0.00 100.00
22.6 - 32.0 0 0.00 100.00
32 - 45 0 0.00. 100.00
45 - 64 0 0.00 100.00
64 - 90 0 0.00 100.00
90 - 128 0 0.00 100.00
128 - 180 0 0.00 100.00
180 - 256 0 0.00 100.00
256 - 362 0 0.00 100.00
362 - 512 0 0.00 100.00
512 - 1024 0 0.00 100.00
1024 - 2048 0 0.00 100.00
2048 - 0 0.00 100.00
D16 (mm) 3.87
D35 (mm) 6.4
D50 (mm) 9

D84 (mm) 12
81

D95 (mm) 15
Silt/Clay (%) 0
Sand (%) 1.89
Gravel (%) 98.11
Cobble (%) 0
Boulder (%) 0
Bedrock (%) 0
Total Particles = 106.
C)
0
0
0
vl-
ry
d'
0

0
0
0
Ir-
?'1
E
E
00
o N
N
U)
_N
U_
o ?
Ir-
aaulU lueOJGd
RIVERMORPH BANK EROSION HARZARD INDEX (BEHI)
River Name:
Reach Name:
BEHI Name:
Survey Date:
open Springs
Reach OS-4
OS-4 BEHI
01/07/04
Bankfull Height: 0.9 ft
Bank Height: 1 ft
Root Depth: 1 ft
Root Density: 6 %
Bank Angle: 90 Degrees
Surface Protection: 0 a
Bank Material Adjustment: Sand 10
Bank Stratification Adjustment: None 0
Erosion Loss Curve: Yellowstone
- warning - The Near Bank shear stress (NBS) was estimated.
BEHI Numerical Rating: 39.8
BEHI Adjective Rating: High
NBS Numerical Rating: 0
NBS Adjective Rating: Very Low
Total Bank Length: 400 ft
Estimated Sediment Loss: 4.44 Cu Yds per Year
Estimated Sediment Loss: 5.77 Tons per Year
RIVERMORPH NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN REPORT
River Name: Open springs
Reach Name: Reach Os-4
--Reference Reach--
Gaines Reference Reach; Reach 1 ( E 4)
--Boundary conditions--
Drainage Area:
valley slope:
Bankfull Discharge:
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area:
Mean Depth calculation Tolerance:
--sediment Data--
Riffle Bed Material ID:
Riffle Bed Material D84:
Riffle Bed Material D50:
Bar Sample ID:
Bar Sample Dmax:
Bar Sample D50:
--Entrainment options--
shields Entrainment Function
---------------NCD Results---------------
--Alignment--
Meander wavelength:
channel Length:
sinuosity:
Radius of Curvature:
Bankful l slope:
Meander Belt width:
Meander width Ratio:
Deflection Angle:
--Riffle cross Sectional Properties—
width to Depth Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Floodprone width:
Bankfull width:
Bankfull Mean Depth:
Bankfull velocity:
Bankfull Hydraulic Radius:
Bankfull shear stress:
Required Roughness (n):
Entrainable Particle size:
0.156 sq mi
0.013 ft/ft
23 cfs
6.2 sq ft
0.2 ft
Riffle
12.81 mm
6.98 mm
50 mm
10 mm
18.6 ft
24.18 ft
1.3
3.87 ft
0.00998
7.38 ft
1.1
1.06 rad
7.16
4.29
28.7 ft
6.7 ft
0.93 ft
3.71 ft/s
0.73 ft
0.455 lbs/sq ft
0.0324 ftA(1/6)
25.7 mm
--Rosgen stream Classification—
Reference Reach E 4
Proposed Reach E 4
Existing Reach E 4
--sediment Transport Competency--
Ratio - Riffle Slope / Bankfull slope: 4.63
Ratio - D50bed / D50bar: 0.698
Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress (1): 0.1141
Required Mean Depth (1): 3.09 ft
Ratio - Di bar / D50bed: 7.163
Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress (2): 0.0067
Required Mean Depth (2): 0.18 ft
minimum Required Mean Depth: 0.18 ft
OPEN SPRINGS MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Reach Name: Reach OS-1 Reach OS-2 Reach OS-3 Reach OS-4
Drainage Area (sqmi): 0.102 0.109 0.125 0.156
Rosgen Stream Classification: B 4c E 5 E 4b E 4
Reach length (ft): 302 102 99 96
Valley length (ft): 294 102 97 93
*Sinuosity: 1.03 1 1.02 1.03
Beltwidth (ft): 4 5 6 10
Valley floor width (ft): 50.00 40.00 20.00 30.00
Width (ft): 4.06 4.30 5.58 23.28
Cross Sectional Area (sqft): 4.07 5.00 5.50 7.93
Mean Depth (ft): 1.00 1.20 0.99 0.34
Max Depth (ft): 1.42 1.72 1.20 1.74
Width to Depth Ratio: 4.06 3.58 5.64 68.28
Flood-Prone Width (ft): 6.99 20.00 20.40 31.00
Entrenchment Ratio: 1.72 4.65 3.66 1.33
Wetted Perimeter (ft): 5.47 6.33 6.86 24.60
Hydraulic Radius (ft): 0.74 0.79 0.80 0.32
Valley Slope (ft/ft): 0.018 0.021 0.02 0.01
Water Suface Slope (ft/ft): 0.016 0.019 0.025 0.0126
Avg Riffle Slope (ft(ft): 0.06 0.17 0.13 0.05
Avg Run Slope (ft/ft): 0.10 0.17 0.21 0.17
Avg Glide Slope (ft/ft): 0.06 0.06 0.22 0.10
Pool-Pool spacing (ft): 17.71 12.06 11.40 15.25
Max Pool depth (ft): 2.15 2.20 2.70 1.74
Avg Pool depth (ft): 2.00 1.50 1.60 1.20
Pool depth/BF depth (ft): 2.00 1.25 1.62 3.53
Channel Materials D50 (mm): 9.51 0.97 10.22 7.00
Channel Materials D84 (mm): 18.46 14.53 18.90 12.81
Channel Materials D95 (mm): 26.56 28.87 28.00 21.00
Roughness (n): 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03
Manning's Discharge (cfs): 22.80 29.50 29.40 26.45
Velocity (fps): 5.60 5.90 5.34 2.91
Shear Stress (lbs/sgft): 0.74 0.94 1.25 0.46
APPENDIX B

• open Springs Soil Characterization
•
November 26, and December 30, 2003• Sunny Good light conditions.
Unnamed Tributary # 1(UT-1) Borings 1 through 6

UT-1 # 1
Description:
0-2"
" Granular Sandy Loam, 10YR 4/4
YR 5/4
2-8
8-10" Granular Sandy Loam, 10
Gravelly Clay, 10YR 5/4; Common, distinct mottles, 7.5YR 5/8; Common 4-6 mm quartz

10-14" gravels
Gravelly Sand (some clay), 7.5YR 6/8; Common 5-20 mm quartz gravels
. Auger refusal at 14". Quartz cobbles. No water present in the boring.

• UT-1 # 2
"
0-3
3-14 Granular Loam, 10YR 3/3
Subangular/Blocky (SUB), Silty Clay, 10YR 6/3; Common, faint mottles, 7.5YR 5/8;
Oxidized root channels
14-20" Fine Sandy Clay, 10YR 7/2; Common, faint mottles, 7.5YR 6/8
• 20-27" Gravelly Fine Sand, 10YR 8/6; Common 5-25 mm gravels starting at 22".
Auger refusal at 27". Quartz cobble. No water present in the boring.
•
. UT-1 # 3
0-8" Light Orange Granular Loam
8-12" Light Orange Granular Loam
. 12-16"
" Light Orange Granular Loam
16-18 Light Brown Granular Loam
18-22" Light Brown Granular Loam with gray mottles of clay
22-24" Light Brown Loam with gray mottles
24-30" Light Brown/Tan Loam, moisture noted at approx. 28"
. 30-32" Saturated Light Brown and Gray Loam with some sand, fine
32-36" Light Gray Loam, saturated
36-40" Light Gray Loam, saturated
"
. 40-48" Light Gray Loam, saturated, some small quartz stones approx. <1" diameter at 47-48
l
"
48-58" , heavy grave
Light Gray Gravelly Silty Sand, saturated , refusal at 58

• UT-1 # 4
0-6" Light Brown Loam, granular fine, moist
. 6-12" Light Brown/Tan Loam, granular fine, moist
12-18" Light. Brown Mottled with Gray Loam, moist
18-24" Light Brown Mottled with Gray Loam, moist
. 24-30" Light Brown Mottled with Gray Loam, moist
ist
l
<
30-36" oam, mo
10mm,
Light Brown/Tan mottled w/ gray, some coarse pebbling approx.
36-42" Abrupt Change to Light Gray Gravelly, silty sand, stone approx. <1" diameter, moist
"
42-48" Back to Light Brown/Tan mottled w/ gray, gravelly silty sand, stones less then approx. <1
. diameter, moist
48-52" Back to Light Brown/Tan mottled w/ gray, gravelly silty sand, stones less then approx. <1"
. diameter, moist. Refusal at 52", gravel/rock.
. UT-1 # 5
0-6" Dark Brown gravelly organic silt, stones from coars med. To approx. 1" diameter. 3
attempts spaced 4' apart refused at 6". 4th attempt RHS approx. 10' TOB
. 0-6" Dark Brown Loam, some small gravel <.5" diameter
6-10"
12-16" Dark Brown, loam, saturated
Water in hole, gravelly dark brown loam, coarse sand, gravel size approx. 1" diameter

• 16-24" Water in hole, gravelly dark brown loam, coarse sand, gravel size approx. 1" diameter.
Refusal at 24", water in hole, large gravel, larger than 1"

UT-1 # 6
04-" Dark brown coarse pebbles <.25", fine to med. Fine silt/loam
• 4-8" Dark brown fine to med. Loam, dry
d
ry
8-14" Brown loam, granular fine to med. Fine,
14-18" Brown loam, fine to med. Fine
18-24" Brown mottled with gray loam, small pebbles <.25", some fine sand
• 24-30" Brown and gray mottled with orange, fine granular loam, with some sand and some small
pebbles <.5", dry
30-36" Gray mottled with brown, fine granular loam, slightly dense, some sand (fine), dry
36-42" Gray mottled with brown, fine granular loam, slightly dense, some sand (fine), dry
"
• 42-48" Light gray mottled with brown, loam. Refusal at 48-49", wet loam bedrock, some rock <1
diameter
•
Unnamed Tributary # 2 (UT-2) Borings 1 and 2
UT-2 # 1
0-1" Granular Silt Loam, 10YR 3/3; Few 2mm quartz gravels
1-8" Granular Fine Sandy Loam, 10YR 7/6
• 8-14" SUB, Silty Clay, 10YR 7/4; Few, distinct mottles, 10YR 6/8
14-20" SUB, Gravelly Silty Clay, 10YR 7/4; Common, distinct mottles, 10YR 618
Auger refusal at 20". Quartz bedrock or cobbles.
• No water present in the boring.
Quartz gravel was present throughout the profile, with gravel 2-5 mm in size common in the first 8",
and ranging up to common 10 mm gravel in the lower profile.
UT-2 # 2
Description:
0-2" Granular Silt Loam, 10YR 5/3

• 2-16" SUB, Clay Loam, 10YR 6/6
16-32" Granular Medium Sand (some clay), 10YR 7/6; Common, faint mottles at 26", 10YR 6/8
m
20
3
m
-
32-38" Gravelly Coarse Sand, 10YR 7/1; Common, distinct mottles, 10YR 5/8; Common
quartz gravels
• Auger refusal at 38". Quartz cobble.
"
.
Water present in boring at 38

Unnamed Tributary #3 (UT-3) Borings 1 and 2
•
UT-3 #1
Description:
• 0-1" Granular Loam, 10YR 2/2
14" SUB, Silty Clay, 10YR 6/8
4-2211 SUB, Sandy Clay, 7YR 6/8; Common, faint, green-grey mottles, 5G 6/2; few 10-20 mm
gravels present in a 2" layer starting at 6" below surface.
k
d
"
.
roc
. Quartz cobble or be
Auger refusal at 22
No water present in the boring. Quartz gravel present throughout streambed.

UT-3 # 2Description:
0-2" Granular Silt Loam, 10YR 4/4
24" Granular Silt Loam, 10YR 6/6
4-2011 Gravelly Silt Loam, 10YR 6/6; Common 2-10 mm quartz gravels starting at 4" below
•
surface.
20-31" SUB, Fine Sandy Clay, 5YR 4/1; Common, distinct mottles, 5YR 4/6; Oxidized root
"
.
channels in the horizon, and a 1" layer of organic matter at 26
•

31-40" Very Gravelly Sandy Clay, 10YR 6/1, Common 5-30 mm quartz gravel; Common, faint
mottles, 5YR 416
Auger refusal at 40". Quartz cobble and stone.
Water present in the boring at 28".
APPENDIX C
ID-252S230859, PAGE
DEC-01-03 16::19 FROM:PERRY OFFICE .
HCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Miohacl F. Easley, Governer William Cs. Ross, Jr., Smmtary
October 21, 2003
W. Chris Huysman
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc.
. P.O. Box 224
. Newton, NC 28658
Subject: Randolph County Strew Restaratian Sites; Grays Chapel quadrangle, Randolph
County
D= ?&. Huy==
• The Natural Heritage Program bas no record of rare species, signif mt natural communities, or
priority natural areas at the sites nor wkbin a mile of the sites. Although our maps do not show
records of such natural heritage elements in the project area, it does not necessarily mean that
they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not bees surveyed The use of Natural
heritage Progr= data should not be substituted for actual field =Yqs, pattioularly if the
project area contain suitable habitat for rare species, signifieaannt natural communities, or priority
? natiu-al areas, _
wcWW at
. You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database .
< Mrw.n T-ml?nho/scmh htmt> for a listing of r arc plants mid r orals an s ??
natural communities in the county and on the topograpbic quad
the at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further infonnation.
? Sincerely,
Barry a LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist
Natant Heritage Program
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] \ Fax: [phone] \ Internet: www.enr.staw-nC.us
In Yr 50% RtcycledX:XTA ?w Cenwnler pop or
Ae EaUal OPPOrcunityl p ucnalive Acuazs 5mp y

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM

• Cape Fear River Basin Stream Mitigation
• Open Springs Site
Randolph County, North Carolina
Prepared for the North Carolina Department of Transportation
by EBX-Neuse I, LLC

A. Project Description:

• The project will provide compensatory wetland and stream mitigation as required
under Section 401/404 of the federal Clean Water Act for unavoidable wetland impacts in
the Cape Fear River Basin.

• B. Purpose and Need:
The mitigation project as proposed includes approximately 4,520 linear feet of
stream restoration. The mitigation credits from this project will be used by the North
• Carolina Department of Transportation to fulfill Section 404/401 permitting requirements
• for unavoidable wetland impacts in the Cape Fear River Basin (CU 03030003).
C. Proposed Improvements:

• As stated previously, 4,520 linear feet of stream are proposed to be restored
through the project. The restoration shall restore the nature and condition of the land to
.
provide the ecological functions that were in place before the land was historically
manipulated for agricultural purposes.
•
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are circled:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction,
adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking, weaving, turning,
• climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement (3R and 4R
improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
• c. Modernizing gore treatments
• d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes, including safety
• treatments
• g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)

• Categorical Exclusion - Cape Fear River Basin Stream Mitigation
Open Springs Site
Prepared by EBX-Neuse 1, LLC
• Page I of 6
?J
i. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the installation
of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards and
flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade
separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour repair, fender
systems, and minor structural improvements
d. Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of right-of-
way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Acquisition and construction of mitigation sites.
9. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is not
inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a street with adequate
capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.
Categorical Exclusion - Cape Fear River Basin Stream Mitigation
Open Springs Site
Prepared by EBX-Neese /, LLC
Page 2of6
10. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and ancillary
facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required and there is not a
substantial increase in the number of users.
11. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger shelters,
boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements) when located in a
commercial .area or other high activity center in which there is adequate street
capacity for projected bus traffic.
12. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used predominantly
for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is not inconsistent
with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise impact on the
surrounding community.
13. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land acquisition
loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and protective buying will be
permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These types of
land acquisition qualify for a CE only where the acquisition, will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned construction
projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No project development on
such land may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ N/A
Right of Way $ N/A
Total $ 894,960
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II actions
Acquisition & Construction of Mitigation Sites YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or
important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
X
Categorical Exclusion: - Cape Fear River Basin Stream Mitigation
Open Springs Site
Prepared by EBX-Neuse 1, LLC
Page 3 of 6
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (1/10) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been
evaluated?
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes?
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business?
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any minority
or low-income population?
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? N/A
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or land
use of adjacent property?
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
X
YES NO
X
X
X
X
X
YES NO
X
X
X
X
X
Categorical Exclusion - Cape Fear River Basin Stream Mitigation
Open Springs Site
Prepared by EBX-Neese I, LLC
Page 4 of 6
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? N/A
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge be
replaced at its existing location (along the
existing facility) and will all construction proposed in
association with the bridge replacement project be contained on
the existing facility? N/A
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places?
X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which are
important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation
Act of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a component of or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and
Scenic Rivers? X
Categorical Exclusion - Cape Fear River Basin Stream Mitigation
Open Springs Site
Prepared by EBX-Neutse I, LLC
Page 5 of 6
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided below.
Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
Project has no unfavorable responses in Part E. Please see attached information
supporting favorable responses, including an environmental screening report,
correspondence from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, and the State
Historic Preservation Office.
G. CE Approval
Project Description: Compensatory § 404/401 Mitigation
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
Date Contract Representative, NC DOT
- -z' I Li
Date

212H
Date

Categorical Exclusion - Cape Fear River Basin Stream Mitigation
Open Springs Site
Prepared by EBX-Neuse 1, LLC
Page 6 of 6
n
u

Wetland and Natural Resource
Consultants, lnc. s*.?.
cto er 7, 2003

NC Natural Heritage Program
NC Division of Parks and Recreation
• Attn: Mr. Stephen Hall
1615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1615

Re: Request for Federally Threatened & Endangered Species Review and Comment
Randolph County Stream Restoration Sites

• Dear Mr. Hall:
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that
might emerge with respect to federally threatened and endangered species from
• wetland and/or stream restoration projects conducted on the attached sites (USGS site
maps with approximate property lines enclosed).
The Randolph County Stream Restoration Site has been identified for the purpose of
• providing in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel impacts. Three separate
sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded and denaturalized.
These stream restoration sites were selected based on their high probability to restore
high quality stream habitat where it has ceased to exist.
The stream channels slated for restoration are all currently straightened ditches through
agricultural fields. These sites have been actively farmed since the 1960's on a rotation
of various row crops. These straightened channels have been maintained to function as
• agricultural field drainage features, with routine maintenance consisting of dredging,
mowing, and the application of defoliants.

Conceptual mitigation plans call for the restoration of these channels to their historical
• state. This process will involve the restoration of natural channel pattern and profile
and the reestablishment of forested riparian buffers. No mass grading is proposed; we
propose only minimal grading and as such do not anticipate any conflict with any
protected species.

All mitigation sites will be protected through a conservation easement. These
easements will not encompass any structures. The easements on the preservation sites
will maintain the current ecological state of the site. Please forward any conceptual
protection mechanisms or verbiage germane to your expertise that you would like for us
to consider as an amendment to the easement.
Newton Office
PO Box 224
Newton, NC 28658
828 -4465 - 3035
828&465-3050 Fax
www.wnrinc.com
Clyde Office
217 Paragon Parkway, #142
Clyde, NC, 28721
828."627 0051
828,"6274,0052 Fax
www.wndnc.com

We believe that it is appropriate to reach a "No Effect" determination for each of the
federally threatened and endangered species listed as no adverse impact will occur from
• the proposed restoration efforts. These determinations are supported by the following
facts specific to each listed species within Randolph County and in the vicinity of the
proposed mitigation site:

Cape Fear Shiner: (Endangered--Current Occurrence)
No aquatic habitat will be lost through the channel restoration of these
channels. The preferred habitat of water willow beds were not observed
during our site visit.
Schweinitz's Sunflower: (Endangered--Current Occurrence)
i No specimens were observed during our review of the site. Intensive
agronomic applications of pesticides and defoliants have resulted in a
• community type that is tolerant to these chemicals. The preferred
habitat of roadsides, old fields, and woodland openings is not currently in
existence within the agricultural fields slated for restoration.

We wish to obtain your concurrence that no impact assessment or additional studies are
needed. Your correspondence will be forwarded to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation for consideration as part of our due diligence for each mitigation site.
• Our due diligence for the project will consist of a site map, the above list of the species
and its preferred habitat, and the conclusion that there will be no effect on federally
protected species.

We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to
contact us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site
disturbance associated with these projects.

incerely,
CC Huys an

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

i ? • t
v
t v:

•
y?w
?
?
- ?{
?
- PSG,. - -
l-y
?jy
•te a _ _ -
e ?

O

Cd
L

,..:
_ .r : .
Q1-
i -?
L
- "
... ... . . _ ;?,x:. In

- 1 C1.

{

co

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
October 21, 2003
Mr. Chris Huysman
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc.
P.O. Box 224
Newton, NC 28658
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Subject: Randolph County Stream Restoration Sites; Grays Chapel quadrangle, Randolph
County
Dear Mr. Huysman:
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare. species, significant natural communities, or
priority natural areas at the sites nor within a mile of the sites. Although our maps do not show
records of such natural heritage elements in the project area, it does not necessarily mean that
they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The use of Natural
Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if the
project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or priority
natural areas.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at
<www.ncsparks.net/nhp/search.html> for a listing of rare plants and animals and significant
natural communities in the county and on the topographic quad map.' Please do not hesitate to
contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,

Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
HEL/hel
1601 Mail Service Center. Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] \ Fax: 919-71>- 3060' Internet: www. en r. state. nc.lls

?44?
Wetland and Natural Resource r•_
Consultants, Inc.
=,?;,•
October 7, 2003

State Historic Preservation Office
North Carolina Division of Archives and History
• Attn: Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

• Re: Request for Historic Preservation Office Review and Comment
Randolph County Stream Restoration Sites

Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley:
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that
might emerge with respect to architectural or archaeological resources from wetland
and/or stream restoration projects conducted on the attached sites (USGS site maps
• with approximate property lines enclosed).
The Randolph County Stream Restoration Site has been identified for the purpose of
providing in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel impacts. Three separate
• sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded and denaturalized.
These stream restoration sites were selected based on their high probability to restore
high quality stream habitat where it has ceased to exist.

No architectural structures or artifacts have been observed or noted during preliminary
surveys of the sites for mitigation purposes. We have enclosed copies of USGS topo
maps that include the proposed stream mitigation project sites. We ask that you review .
• these sites based on the USGS topo maps in your office to determine the presence of
• any architectural or archaeological resources.
Conceptual mitigation plans call for the restoration of these channels to their historical
• state. This process will involve the restoration of natural channel pattern and profile
and the reestablishment of forested riparian buffers. No mass grading is proposed; we
propose only minimal grading and as such do not anticipate any conflict with your
guiding legislation.

All mitigation sites will be protected through a conservation easement. These
easements will not encompass any structures. The easements on the preservation sites
Newton Office
PO Box 224
Newton, NC 28658
828 -465 J-3035
828 X465 4 3050 Fax
www.wnrinc.com
Clyde Office
217 Paragon Parkway, # 142
Clyde, NC, 28721
828627 0051
828,627 -0052 Fax
www.wnnnc.com
will maintain the state of the site. If there is any conceptual protection mechanisms
germane to your expertise that you would like amended to the easement please forward
them when you reply to this request.
We believe that no impacts will occur from restoration efforts, however, no surveys by
archaeologist have been conducted, and we wish to obtain your concurrence that no
impact assessment or additional studies are needed. Your correspondence will be
forwarded to the North Carolina Department of Transportation for consideration.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to
contact us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent or site
disturbance associated with these projects.
Sincerely,
Q"r?is Huys an
WNR, Inc.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Historical Resources
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
November 24, 2003
Claris "Huysman
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc.
Newton Office
PO Box 224
Newton, NC 28658
Re: Reviews of County Stream Restoration Sites and One Review for Tar-Pam Wetland
Mitigation and Stream Restoration Sites, Multi-County, ER03-3022 through
ER03-3026
Dear Mr. Huysman:
Thank you for your letters of October 7, 2003, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic
resources which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the
undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
0?1_41 1? -'
i avid Brook
L
WNVW. h
cr.state.ne.us
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] • 733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 [phone] . 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 2 7699=16 1 7 [phone] • 715-4801
Transaction Screen Assessment
Open Springs Project Area
Randolph County, North Carolina
15 December 2003
Prepared for:
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
10055 Red Run Boulevard, Suite 130
Owings Mills, Maryland 21117-48600
Prepared by:
Environmental Resources Management, Inc.
200 Harry S Truman Parkway, Suite 400
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
and
Environmental Resources Management-Southeast,
Inc.
7300 Carmel Executive Park, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28226

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION I
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 2
3.0 Conclusion 2
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A COMPLETED TRANSACTION SCREEN QUESTIONNAIRE
OPEN SPRINGS PROJECT
i
•
•
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On 29 October 2003, Environmental Resources Management (ERM)
performed an environmental transaction screen assessment at the 27-acre
Open Springs property located in Randolph County, North Carolina. The
transaction screen assessment was performed in accordance with the
Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Transaction Screen
Process as defined by ASTM E 1528-00, and the scope of work outlined in
ERM's proposal to Environmental Banc & Exchange LLC, dated 21 October
2003.
Ms. Dena Castonguay of ERM's Charlotte, North Carolina office
conducted the site reconnaissance. During the site reconnaissance, ERM
completed a transaction screen checklist in conformance with the scope
and procedures of ASTM E 1528-00, which is attached as Appendix A. In
addition, ERM supplied Mr. Burton Rudolph with an environmental
questionnaire to be completed by the property owner(s). ERM reviewed
the completed questionnaire following the assessment.
The site comprises approximately 27 acres of cleared, agricultural land
situated along three tributary streams. The streams flow west and
southwest and empty into the Deep River approximately 3.25 miles
southwest of the subject property. The subject property is situated in the
southwest quadrant of the intersection of North Carolina State Road 2479
(Ferguson Road) and 2481 (Low Bridge Road), and access to the property is
provided along Ferguson Road, to the north. ERM observed clear, flowing
water in the three tributary streams at the time of the site visit. No
structures or debris were observed on the subject property.
According to Mr. Rudolph; the subject property was forested land until
1973. At that time, the land was cleared and utilized for agricultural
purposes, specifically row crop production. Mr. William Allred, the current
property owner, purchased the property in 1984. Mr. Allred currently
utilizes the property for agricultural production and pastureland.
According to Mr: Allred, the site currently utilizes fertilizers in agricultural
applications.
According to Mr. Rudolph, no private drinking water wells or
underground septic systems are present on the subject property. In
addition, Mr. Rudolph is not aware of any underground storage tanks
located on the subject property. No indication of UST's water wells or
septic systems were observed during the site reconnaissance
ERM performed a visual survey of adjacent properties during the site
visit. Adjacent properties to the south and east appear to be undeveloped,
EK\d
I BX 0011220 - 1-)/];/-1003
heavily wooded areas. Adjacent properties to the north and west appear
to be cleared for agricultural use.
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Key findings from the transaction screening assessment are presented
below:
• No bulk quantities of hazardous chemicals were observed during the
site visit. According to Mr. Rudolph, fertilizers are currently used on
the subject property for agricultural applications.
• ERM did not observe any aboveground storage tanks during the site
visit; furthermore, no evidence of underground storage tanks, such as
fill holes and vent pipes were observed at the site. Mr. Rudolph is not
aware of any underground storage tanks located on the subject
property.
• ERM did not observe any debris or evidence of solid waste dumping
on the subject property.
• According to Mr. Rudolph, no private drinking water wells or
underground septic systems are present on the subject property.
• ERM did not observe any transformers or other oil-filled equipment
on the subject property; therefore PCBs do not represent an
environmental concern to the subject property.
• No areas of stained soils or stressed vegetation were observed during
the site visit.
• Based on ERM's review of the adjacent properties, no obvious
environmental concerns were identified.
3.0 CONCLUSION
Based on the site reconnaissance, interviews and review of relevant files,
no recognized environmental conditions, as that term applies to ASTM E
1528-00, were observed at the subject property.
ERM 2 GHX 001 t220 . t?/ t5/2003
Appendix A
Completed Transaction Screen
Questionnaire
Open Springs Project

Transaction Screen Assessment
Facility Name: An Date of Site Visit:
Location: ncl"%ti /VG - it/o?th of e4.nseur?
Interviewiee Name/Title: ,
il//4 How Long? ??/?
Time at this location: Crcr",7 e Ajre e _ / Y8y Previous Locations?
Facility Operations: G'91re/;" e17 -" g1I 17 7 7%,-ee 71i'/-'a
- J''?ic,::r?as
Number of Employees: A1114 Shifts: I//4
Building Specifications: /J//,4 Lot Size: o? 7 Q c,e
Water Service: LI4 Sewer: 14-
Electric: Nat. Gas: All
Permits: A0
Site History: cor -rI /-rnd 4- /973 /irr /?.iv// O?? -'511 rce 117-?
Adjacent Properties: 1.04k r"a/ re.fy?& 17 it 0 Gc.1ye gel ?w Wleoe)
Were any of the following observed? Provide comments as necessary.
Hazardous Chemicals/Petroleum: /v 011-LC
Waste Oil: /Vae_
Pesticides: N,2
Drums/Bulk Storage Containers: q/p n e
Aboveground Storage Tanks: ?preC.
Underground Storage Tanks: Ato'/e.
Solid Waste: O n e
Hazardous Waste:
Parts Washing Stations:
Vehicle Maintenance:
Oil-filled Equipment/PCBs:
Sources of Air Emissions:
Coating/Painting Operations:
Boilers:
Asbestos:
CFCs:
Wastewater:
Floor Drains:
Stormwater:
Ponds or Lagoons:
Wetlands:
Water/Monitoring Wells:
Septic Systems:
Spills/Leaks:
Stressed Vegetation:
Notice of Violations:
Previous Environmental Reports: V f)"'?
Soil/Groundwater Contamination: Q
Burned or Buried Debris: r°
Fill Material: t?
0A
ails?
Dr2
OAti
(.:nom

r
/fo 1?fe-
Alo At

Environmental flaric ? Ewharl?,;c , LLC
(„:ulk r . m)(' 11<Idr r? u, E_rnirc,nmr .u. i Eti' f;l

-Ms. Beth Harmon
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Office of Natural Environment
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
RE: Open Springs Mitigation Site
Environmental Screening Report & Invoice
Dear Ms. Harmon:
i of ..; .! k e,. i5 .:i._ .i. •.. ?i.ii:. I

January 21, 2001
Please find enclosed the following regarding the Open Springs Mitigation Site:
• Environmental Screening Report - including Categorical Exclusion, agency scoping letters
and responses, and a Transaction Screening Report. The Categorical Exclusion is to be
signed by an N.C. DOT representative.
• An invoice for 5 percent of the contract amount, as specified in the contract.
I very much appreciate your attention to these items. Please call me at [phone] if you have
any questions or need additional information.
Best regards,
Tara Disy Allden
Southeast Regional Manager
APPENDIX D
Summary of Hydrologic Evaluation
Project: EBX Open Springs
Conditions: Existing
Prepared by: DJK
Date: 1/05/04
Location: BSN 1 - Ferguson Road
Drainage Area = 56.5 Acres
Drainage Area = 0.09 Sq. Miles
Impervious Area (%) = 3

Bankfull flow determined using the November 2003 NC Piedmont-Rural Regional Curve = 16 cfs
Location:
Drainage Area =
Drainage Area =
Impervious Area (%) = Total Area (mouth of studied stream)
133.2 Acres
0.21 Sq. Miles
2.5

Bankfull flow determined using the November 2003 NC Piedmont-Rural Regional Curve = 28 cfs
Note: 24 inch dia. RCP located at Ferguson Road (Amax approx. 23 cfs)
Recurrence Interval
(Years) USGS Q
cfs HEC-1 Q
(cfs Rational Q
cfs
1 NA 21 NA
2 25 33 15
5 47 NA 21
10 67 NA 24
25 99 NA NA
50
100 129
163 NA
NA NA
NA
Recurrence Interval
(Years) USGS Q
(cfs) HEC-1 Q
WS) Rational Q
(cfs)
1 NA 47 NA
2 45 73 33
5 g4 NA 48
10 118 NA 55
25 173 NA NA
50 222 NA NA
100 279 NA NA
o:\projects\ebx\30440.00. RA\g_design-calculations\excel\flow-comparison.xls
Project: EBX Open Springs Site
Prepared by: DJK Summary of Hydrologic Evaluation
Date: 1/12/04
Discharge Per Acre For Proposed Conditions and Reference Reach
Methodology UT-1 Upstream Limit UT-1 Downstream Limit
Proposed Conditions Open Springs Site 0.283 0.203
HEC-1 - 1 ear Q 0.372 0.353
Regional Curves
Rational Curve- 2-year Q 0.283
0.260 0.210
0.247
Reference Reach at Gaines Site 0.269 NA
Reference Reach at Browns Site 0.195 NA
Regional USGS Regression Equation for NC
Project: EBX Open Springs
Conditions: Existing
Prepared by: DJK
Date: 1/05/04
Location: BSN 1 - Ferguson Road
Drainage Area = 56.5 Acres
Drainage Area = 0.09 Sq. Miles
Impervious Area (%) = 3

Location: Total Area (mouth of studied stream)
Drainage Area = 133.2 Acres
Drainage Area = 0.21 Sq. Miles
Impervious Area (%) = 2.5

. RCP located at Ferguson Road (Qmax approx. 23 cfs)
Note: 24 inch dia
Recurrence Interval
(Years) Blue Ridge-Piedmont
Equation (rural) Drainage Area
(in square miles) Rural Discharge
(cfs)
2 135 DA ^0.702 0.09 25
5 242(DA ^0.677 0.09 47
10 334 DA)^0.662 0.09 67
25 476(DA ^0.645 0.09 99
50 602(DA ^0.635 0.09 129
100 745(DA)^0.625 0.09 163
:
Recurrence Interval
(Years) Blue Ridge-Piedmont
Equation (rural) Drainage Area
(in square miles) Rural Discharge
(cfs)
2 135 DA ^0.702 0.21 45
5 242(DA ^0.677 0.21 84
10 334 DA ^0.662 0.21 118
25 476 DA ^0.645 0.21 173
50 602(DA)"0.635 0.21 222
100 745(DA)^0.625 0.21 279
o:\projects\ebx\30440.00. RA\g_design-calculations\excel\flow-comps rison.xls
Rational Method for Raleigh, NC
Project: EBX Open Springs
Conditions: Existing
Prepared by: DJK
Date: 1/05/04
Location: BSN 1 - Ferguson Road
Drainage Area = 56.5 Acres
Drainage Area = 0.09 Sq. Miles
Impervious Area (%) = 3

Note: 24 inch dia. RCP located at Ferguson Road (Qmax approx. 23 cfs)
Location: Unnamed Tributary to UT-1
Drainage Area = 17.1 Acres
Drainage Area = 0.03 Sq. Miles
Impervious Area (%) = 2.5

Recurrence Interval
(Years) Factor
C- Intensity
(in/hr) Discharge
(cfs)
2 0.13 2
.00 15
5 1
0. 21
10 0.13 3.30 24
mouth of studied stream)
Area (
Location: Total
Drainage Area = 133.2 Acres
Miles
Sq.
Drainage Area = 0.21
2.
5
Impervious Area (%) =
Recurrence Interval
(Years) Factor
C- Intensity
(in/hr) Discharge
(cfs)
2 0.13 1.90 33
5 0.13 2.80 48
10 0.13 3.20 55
2.90
3
Recurrence Interval
(Years) C-Factor Intensity
(in/hr) Discharge
(cfs)
2 0.13 1.90 4
5 0.13 2.80 6
10 0.13 3.20 7

o:\projects\ebx\30440.00. RA\g_design-calculations\excel\flow-comparison.xls
APPENDIX E
W m
x U) m F LL
U
0 0 P ? O +
N
4-
0
^L
LL
U
C6
N
N `
U
C
N
L
a)
4-
a)
V
C
v
C

rn
a?
3
co
r
w
rn
0
co
N
U
C
y
0
(74) u01jenaj:l
w
d
U
7
N
f6
IN-
0
0?
`o
r ?
W2
U?
''^^ Y
m
m
C
fcn
V
I
W
x
'a

4-I
x
A
M
u)
II
W
y x
c A
•a 3
a
v
c
0
0
0

U
C
Mn
0
(i3
C
O
N
O
m
(4) UOIJeA91:4
Vl
C
O
a
U
7
N
R
10-
/1
^`
W
N
U'
Y
C
co
a
0
W
x
61
I
44
x
A
M
II
44
N x
C ?
O
IL
.0
C
7
O
0
Ln

U
C
(?6
rn
0
c
O
N
O
2
(4) U0I;eA2l:;
LO
m

tq n
C 4
(L x
.R
U ?
7
N
iC
10-
tt?? )
II
`./ N w
`o x
/^^ U !a
vJ
UY
Cl) m
Vf?n
II
w
x
N 3
c
0
IL
v
c
0
0
O
0
Cl)
Lf)
N
O
N
?R
U
C
to
L
C
0
N
O
2
0
Er)
0
(g) UOIJBn213
2
s
CL
?o
0
a?

O
O
LL
i O
J C
U?
C
cu
0
x
a
M
ri
W
X
A
Q
m
u
w
y X
c ?
'o
CL
v
0
0
C7
0

U
C
N
C
O
N
O
(4) U01leA21=1
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Gaines Reference Reach
Reach Name: Reach 1
Sample Name: Gaines Riffle
Survey Date: 01/06/04
Size (mm) TOT #
----- ITEM %
---------- CUM
---------------------------
-------------------
0 - 0.062 ---------
0 0.00 0.00
0.062 - 0.125 0 0.00 0.00
0.125 - 0.25 0 0.00 0.00
0.25 - 0.50 0 0.00 0.00
0.50 - 1.0 19 17.27 17.27
1.0 - 2.0 22 20.00 37.27
2.0 - 4.0 33 30.00 67.27
4.0 - 5.7 0 0.00 67.27
5.7 - 8.0 24 21.82 89.09
8.0 - 11.3 0 0.00 89.09
11.3 - 16.0 11 10.00 99.09
16.0 - 22.6 0 0.00 99.09
22.6 - 32.0 1 0.91 100.00
32 - 45 0 0.00 100.00
45 - 64 0 0.00 100.00
64 - 90 0 0.00 100.00
90 - 128 0 0.00 100.00
128 - 180 0 0.00 100.00
180 - 256 0 0.00 100.00
256 - 362 0 0.00 100.00
362 - 512 0 0.00 100.00
512 - 1024 0 0.00 100.00
1024 - 2048 0 0.00 100.00
2048 - 0 0.00 100.00
D16 (mm) 0.96
D35 (mm) 1.89
D50 (mm) 2.85
D84 (mm) 7.46
D95 (mm) 14.08
Silt/Clay (%) 0
Sand (%) 37.27
Gravel (%) 62.73
Cobble (%) 0
Boulder (%) 0
Bedrock (%) 0
Total Particles = 110.
N
ryo
N
N
V
E
E
N
N
U_
ca
CL
J9UIJ IUGOJ@d
RIVERMORPH BANK EROSION HARZARD INDEX (BEHI)
River Name: Gaines Reference Reach
Reach Name: Reach 1
BEHI Name: BEHI 1
Survey Date: 12/16/03
Bankfull Height: 1.1 ft
Bank Height: 1.1 ft
Root Depth: 1 ft
Root Density: 4 %
Bank Angle: 45 Degrees
Surface Protection: 3 %
Bank Material Adjustment: Bedrock 0
Bank Stratification Adjustment: None 0
Erosion Loss Curve: Yellowstone
- warning - The Near Bank shear stress (NBS) was estimated.
BEHI Numerical Rating: 26.0
BEHI Adjective Rating: Moderate
NBS Numerical Rating: 0
NBS Adjective Rating: Very Low
Total Bank Length: 100 ft
Estimated sediment Loss: 0.36 Cu Yds per Year
Estimated Sediment Loss: 0.47 Tons per Year
LL m
y O
U m ~
O 0? O

4-
O
^^L
U
N
N
N
U
C
m
L
a)
(Y
U)
0
L
m
V
C

rn
3
s
rn
c
_o
N
U
C
N
U)
N
0
()4) UOIJBAOS
O
M

y
c
'o
d
m
't
O
l6
7
N?
I.y
`
O
VJ C
Uw
Y
cc
in
L
m

O
C w
•0 X
n. A
3
'o
c
3
0
0
LO
N
0
N
4-7
X
R
ie
M
LO U
r ?
cu
_N
cu
O
N
O
I
44
X
R
Q
7
n

2
(}}) uORen913
N
C
O
CL
U
U
flf
7
N
f6
to-
W
r?
V
N
U
C
UR
Y
Cl)
0
ML
W
44
x
s?
LO
w
X
A
rn
c
II
W
X
H
C ?
O
0-
.0
c
0
C7
O
N

U
C
.Ln
0
C
O
N
O
2
(4) U01jeA213
(h
N "
C W
CL x
s?
U
f6
3
N
f6

0 fl
0
44
M o x
U=
V/ f6
C: co
0
m
M
W
x
N
C 3
O
CL
v
c
V
0
z
Q?
U
C
_N
0
O
N
O
2
(4) UOIJen913
N
y II
C W
d X
A
U ?
7
G7
t0
10-
W
II
?./ rn ya
`o X
A
!!^^ U_ A
VJ
Uw
Y
N m
0
ML
W
N
II
w
x
CO)
c ?
.o
a
v
c
0
l?
O
i2
U
C
(6
v
Q
0
N
O
(g) uOl}en913
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Browns Reference Reach
Reach Name: Reach 1
Sample Name: Browns Riffle
Survey Date: 01/02/04
Size (mm) TOT # ITEM % CUM
----------------
-------------------
0 - 0.062 --------------
224 ----------
22.40 -----------
22.40
0.062 - 0.125 190 19.00 41.40
0.125 - 0.25 190 19.00 60.40
0.25 - 0.50 190 19.00 79.40
0.50 - 1.0 206 20.60 100.00
1.0 - 2.0 0 0.00 100.00
2.0 - 4.0 0 0.00 100.00
4.0 - 5.7 0 0.00 100.00
5.7 - 8.0. 0 0.00 100.00
8.0 - 11.3 0 0.00 100.00
11.3 - 16.0 0 0.00 100.00
16.0 - 22.6 0 0.00 100.00.
22.6 - 32.0 0 0.00 100.00
32 - 45 0 0.00 100.00
45 - 64 0 0.00 100.00
64 - 90 0 0.00 100.00
90 - 128 0 0.00 100.00
128 - 180 0 0.00 100.00
180 - 256 0 0.00 100.00
256 - 362 0 .0.00 100.00
362 - 512 0 0.00 100.00
512 - 1024 0 0.00 100.00
1024 - 2048 0 0.00 100.00
2048 - 0 0.00 100.00
D16 (mm) 0.04
D35 (mm) 0.1
D50 (mm) 0.18
D84 (mm) 0.61
D95 (mm) 0.88
Silt/Clay (%) 22.4
Sand (%) 77.6
Gravel (%) 0
Cobble (%) 0
Boulder (%) 0
Bedrock (%) 0
Total Particles = 1000.
Percent Finer
0
0
-v
0'
CD
CD
3
0
O
0

00
Mol
O
CD
RIVERMORPH BANK EROSION HARZARD INDEX (BEHI)
River Name: Browns Reference Reach
Reach Name: Reach 1
BEHI Name: BEHI 1
survey Date: 12/16/03
Bankfull Height: 0.8 ft
Bank Height: 1 ft
Root Depth: 0.7 ft
Root Density: 3 %
Bank Angle: 50 Degrees
Surface Protection: 7 %
Bank Material Adjustment: Bedrock 0
Bank stratification Adjustment: None 0
Erosion Loss Curve: Yellowstone
- warning - The Near Bank shear stress (NBS) was estimated.
BEHI Numerical Rating: 30.7
BEHI Adjective Rating: High
NBS Numerical Rating: 0
NBS Adjective Rating: very Low
Total Bank Length: 100 ft
Estimated sediment Loss: 1.11 Cu Yds per Year
Estimated Sediment Loss: 1.44 Tons per Year
REFERENCE REACH MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTfCS
Reach Name: Browns Gaines UT-3
Drainage Area (sqmi): 0.064 0.13 0.133
Rosgen Stream Classification: C 5 E4 E4
Reach length (ft): 126 118 1.47
Valley length (ft): 120 105 39
*Sinuosity: 1.13 1.21 6
Beltwidth (ft): 9.9 10.2
Valley floor width (ft): 60 75
Width (ft): 7.13 6.3
Cross Sectional Area (sqft): 2.7 5.54
Mean Depth (ft): 0.37 0.88
Max Depth (ft): 0.75 1.26
Width to Depth Ratio: 19.27 7.16
Flood-Prone Width (ft): 24 27
Entrenchment Ratio: 3.37 4.29
Wetted Perimeter (ft): 7.55 7.16
Hydraulic Radius (ft): 0.36 0.77
Valley Slope (ft/ft): 0.0136 0.0125 0.012
Water Suface Slope (ft/ft): 0.0044 0.007 0.01
Avg Riffle Slope (ft/ft): 0.03916 0.038
Avg Run Slope (ft/ft): 0.145 0.056
Avg Glide Slope (ft/ft): 0.05 0.05
Pool-Pool spacing (ft): 45.68 25.6 6.50
Max Pool depth (ft): 0.99 1.82
Avg Pool depth (ft): 0.6 1.17
Pool depth/BF depth (ft): 1.62 1.33
Meander Width Ratio: 1.39 1.62
Channel Materials D50 (mm): 0.18 2.85
Channel Materials D84 (mm): 0.61 7.46
Channel Materials D95 (mm): 0.88 14.08
Roughness (n): 0.0168 0.0259
Manning's Discharge (cfs): 8 22.4
Velocity (fps): 2.96 4.05
Shear Stress (lbs/sgft): 0.1 0.34
* Sinuosity for reference reaches measured along meader wavelength only -- not entire profile
APPENDIX F
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
UT-1
V?
J
UT-2
i?
?I
-yc
Itt J' : 9- `?'
H \?
n
6
t1
UT-3
II
I I
`I
4
Al'
\
iI
i
I
7z?\"
?oo
?ti

PROPO
SED CULVERT
CROSSING
PROPOSED CULVERT
CROSSING
l?
S
PROPOSED CULVERT
CROSSING
PROPOSED CULVERT
CROSSING
PROJECT NANACER DRAWING SCALE ENVIRONMENTAL B A N C & EXCHANGE
LLC
/
jall _
5540 CENTERVIEW DRIVE
• AAA??, SUITE 315
DRAWN BY
RHN PROJECT DATE
04/04 J
OPEN SPRINGS STEAM MITIGATION PROJECT RALEIGH, NC 27606
[phone]
APPROVED BY PROJECT NUMBER i
DICKSON Offi

$NW
HW
T° RA ons:
ce LOCOt
li
i
N
h C
G

FILE
NAME

PLOT DATE DATE SHEET INDEX
ort
oro
no
eorg
o
community Infr06tTUCtUre Consultants
F
st0te_sNEE15_OS de9 South Carolina
lorida
APPENDIX G
SHAVE LOG FLAT TO
?ACCEPT BRACE POST

BRACE PO
ST
3:
L 4 "
?
LOGS SHOULD BE

z
4
BURIED IN BANK
AT LEAST 6 FEET. m k
p
#4 REBAR; 1/2" DIAMETER

BRACE POST

FILTER FABRIC I N VANE ARM\FOOTER LOG
DRAINAGE 20-30 RACE POST (MINIMUM DIAMETER = 12")
(SEE SPECS)
1/2 BANKFULL WID TH CLOSE-UP OF BRACE POST
PLAN VIE W
NOTES FOR ALL LOG VANE STRUCTURES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, AND HARDWOOD.
2. CROSS LOGS SHOULD BE BURIED AT A MINIMUM OF 5 FEET INTO BANK.
3. VANE LOG ARMS SHOULD BE BURIED INTO THE BANK A MINIMUM OF 6 FEET.
4. SET ELEVATION OF TOP OF LOG CROSS PIECES TO DESIRED ELEVATION OF STREAMBED.
5. DEPTH OF FOOTER LOG SHOULD EQUAL 1.5 x MAX SCOUR DEPTH.
6. DIAMETER OF COIR LOGS SHOULD EQUAL 1/2 DIAMETER OF LOGS.
7. USE FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE AND COOIR LOG TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.
8. NAIL FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE TO TOP OF COIR LOGS USING 3" 10d GALVANIZED
COMMON NAILS WITHIN A 2' SPACING ALONG LOG.
9. NAIL COIR LOG TO VANE LOG AS SHOWN USING 8" GALVANIZED
SMOOTHSPIKES ON 3' SPACING.
10. NOTCH IS FORMED BY MAKING CUTS WITH A CHAINSAW 1-2" APART
AND THEN KNOCKING OUT SECTIONS WITH A CHISEL AND HAMMER.
11. ANGLE OF NOTCH SHOULD MATCH ANGLE BETWEEN LOG ARMS OF
CROSS VANE AND THE STREAMBANK.
NOTES:
1. PRE-DRILL HOLES FOR REBAR WITH 5/8" DRILL BIT.
2. AFTER PLACING POSTS DRIVE REBAR (THROUGH POST
AND LOG AND BEND ENDS AS SHOWN.
3. REBAR MAY BE REPLACED BY LAG BOLT OR LAG SCREW
WITH APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER.
TOP OF BANK
FLOW
?q- BRACE POST
STREAMBED
1' BELOW MH MAX---.e FOOTER LOG
SCOUR POOL
BRACE POST PROFILE VIEW
LOG VANE - DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT MANAGER
ME DRAWING SCALE
NTS 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
RALEIGH, NC 27612
WK
DRAWN BY PROJECT DATE [phone]
J` 4/2004
DICKSON
APPROVED BY PROJECT CT NUMBER Office Locations:
SHW 30I4000RA community infrastructure consultants North Carolina Georgia
FILE NAME PLOT DATE South Carolina Florida
DETAILS 4/2004
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
BANKFULL
ELEVATION

?uu
17 CUTTINGS BUNDLE
O.C. ALONG OUTSIDE
OF MEANDER BEND
- STREAM BANK
E
E
INGS BUNDLE
.C. SPACING
CUTTINGS BUNDLE TYPICAL SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT MANAGER DRAWING SCALE 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
ME NTS RALEIGH, NC 27612
DRAWN BY PROJECT DATE wR (919) 782-049$
JL 4/24
DICK
APP
ROVED BY PROJECT NUMBER Office Locutions:
SHW 3044000PA community Infrastructure consultants North Carolina Georgia
FILE NAME PLOT DATE South Carolina Florida
DETAILS 4/2004
CUTTINGS BUNDLE TYPICAL PROFILE
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE: ACCEPTABLE SPECIES INCLUDE
BLACK WILLOW (SALIX NIGRA) AND SILKY
DOGWOOD (CORNUS AMMOMUM). 4" TO
6" DIAMETER BUNDLES OF LIVE STEMS TO
BE INSTALLED AFTER SOD MATS.
PROPOSED STREAM BANK
I B

REBAR

A

_ LOG-/

FLOW
LOG
A

I B I

YKVYUJLU JJMLAM 0-1 -
REBAR-/
GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
0.2" MAX
PROPOSED STREAM BED FLOW
ELEVATION

REPLACED CHANNEL BED -- ?.
MATERIAL.
"F'4LTER.FAgRIC? ,.
GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
SECTION A-A
NOT TO SCALE
EXISTING STREAM BANK
,...__.,. _ww _". ..",.,...,?„_ ..,...,. 6" MIN.
PROPOSED STREAM BED LOG TOE PROTECTION
"
ELEVATION MINIMUM LOG
10
LOG TOE DIAMETER
NOTCH LOGS S TO
TO FIT
GRADE CONTROL LOGS
REBAR: 5/8" MIN. DIAMETER
4' MIN. LENGTH OR
DUCKBILL ANCHORS
INSTALLED PER
MANUFACTURERS
INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.) 30' TO 45'
FROM HORIZONTAL
NOTE: LOGS TO BE SALVAGED FILTER FABRIC
FROM PROJECT AREA. SIZE AND
SPECIES MAY VARY.
GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
SECTION B-B
NOT TO SCALE
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3' 100 GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 2' ALONG THE LOG

PROJECT MANAGER
DRAWING SCALE
r -4111
3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
ME NTS RALEIGH, NC 27612
[phone]
DRAWN BY
JL PROJECT DATE
4/2004
I DICKON
APPROVED BY PROJECT NUMBER Office Locations:
SHIN 3044000RA community infrastructure consultants North Carolina Georgia
FILE NAME PLOT DATE South Carolina Florida
DETAILS 4/2004
SOD MAT SHALL BE PLACED
WITH TRACK HOE OR LOADER
BANKFULL ELEVATION
=III III - I
? 11=
11= .r' III=
PLACED SOD -11II?= LOW FLOW W.S.
COMPACT WITH BOTTOM
OF EXCAVATOR BUCKET [=[I III =- IW
11?11=11?II-1111_I :IIII1 1IIIII?IIn_I Fizf II-II-
STREAM BED
SOD MATS: HARVESTED ON-SITE
0.75' MINIMUM THICKNESS
SOD MAT - TYPICAL DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT MANAGER DRAWING SCALE 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
ME NTS
AW RALEIGH, 27612
DRAWN BY PROJECT DATE [phone]
JL 4/2004
BY ROJECT N
PROJECT NUMBER
P ' DICK ON Office Locations:
SHW 304400DRA
e
?
_ community infrastructure consultants North Carolina Georgia
FILE NAME PLOT DATE n,i
_ South Carolino Florida
DETAILS 4/2004
PLANTINGS
OF STREAMBANK
NOTES
1. PLANT BARE ROOT SHRUBS AND TREES TO THE WIDTH OF THE
BUFFER AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
2. ALLOW FOR 6-10 FEET BETWEEN PLANTINGS, DEPENDING ON SIZE.
3. LOOSEN COMPACTED SOIL.
4. PLANT IN HOLES MADE BY A MATTOCK, DIBBLE, PLANTING BAR, OR
OTHER APPROVED MEANS.
5. PLANT IN HOLES DEEP AND WIDE ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE ROOTS
TO SPREAD OUT AND DOWN WITHOUT J-ROOTING.
6. KEEP ROOTS MOIST WHILE DISTRIBUTING OR WAITING TO PLANT
BY MEANS OF WET CANVAS BURLAP, OR STRAW.
7. HEEL-IN PLANTS IN MOIST S6IL OR SAWDUST IF NOT PROMPTLY
PLANTED UPON ARRIVAL TO PROJECT SITE.
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
CROSS SECTION VIEW OF BARE ROOT PLANTING
PLANTINGS
TOP OF STREAMBANK

NOTES:
1. WHEN PREPARING THE HOLE FOR A POTTED PLANT OR
SHRUB DIG THE HOLE 8 - 12 INCHES LARGER
THAN THE DIAMETER OF THE POT AND THE SAME DEPTH
AS THE POT.
2. REMOVE THE PLANT FROM THE POT. LAY THE PLANT ON
ITS SIDE IF NECESSARY TO REMOVE THE POT.
3. IF THE PLANT IS ROOTBOUND (ROOTS GROWING IN A
SPIRAL AROUND THE ROOT BALL), MAKE VERTICAL
CUTS WITH A KNIFE OR SPADE ST DEEP ENOUGH TO
CUT THE NET OF ROOTS. ALSO MAKE A
CRISS-CROSS CUT ACROSS THE BOTTOM OF THE BALL.
4. PLACE THE PLANT IN THE HOLE.
5. FILL HALF OF THE HOLE WITH SOIL (SAME SOIL
REMOVED FOR BACKFILL .
6. WATER THE SOIL TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS AND FILL
THE REST OF THE HOLE WITH THE REMAINING SOIL.
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
I
CROSS SECTION VIEW OF CONTAINER PLANTING
Plantinq Specifications Detail
NOT TO SCALE
,
PROJECT MANAGER DRAWING SCALE 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
ME NTS RALEIGH, NC 27612
DRAWN BY PROJECT DATE [phone]
JL 4/2004
DICKSON
APPROVED BY PROJECT JECT NUM BER _ Office Locutions:
SHW 3044000RA community infrastructure consultants North Carolina Georgia
FILE NAME PLOT DATE South Carolina Florida
DETAILS 4/2004
1
i
F-
Q
O
N

J
J
LL
Y
Z
Q
m
Z
00
N
_
p

E O
L Q_
J
Q L
W
0 W
Q I-
O Of
J Z
0 C)
LLJ
LiJ
LL m
co ;
O Z
O
°
O
\
C14

x
LL- -i
w
O LLI Z

LLI e Z
O O U
Z
X
LLI
:2 m W
l
Z U' ^
000-
U ~
v
w
F- D
O :2 W
LLJ
W
Q
0-
F-
0
O
J
S ^
Z_ ? Q.
? 0
Z 1-
v
LLJ
00 J
\
Ln
Z_
ci?
Q
m
LJ N
LL)
1-
Q
0
w
J
Q
U
N
O
F-
O
z
p N N .210
} 0 O 3N f40 02
L
U1 N
W Z co
2
a?rn
j -J
= J c
Q C O O
Z? ? c,5
S O 'O O
O 00 U V
O_ N L L
M V
zr_
O
O Z VOI
C
Z?_
y?+
7
C
0
V
? c
`c
E
O
V
W
O Y z O wO
Z W\' W O
Sa z? v? n o v
o a a a
W
?d m
3 m p w ?
y 3
c < ? a x w °
a o °d
Jd?
BANKFULL LIMITS OF
PROPOSED CHANNEL
PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN SURFACE
\- 5/8" REBAR
FLOODPLAIN SILL - SECTIONAL VIEW A --A'
FLOODPLAIN SILL
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT MANAGER DRAWING SCALE 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
ME NTS RALEIGH, NC 27612

[phone]
WN
DRAWN BY PRwEGT GATE
JL 4/2004
SON
APPROVED BY. PROJECT JECT NUMBER _ Office Locations:
DICK
SHW 3044000RA community Infrastructure consultants North Carolina Georgia
FILE NAME PLOT DATE South Carolina Florida
DETAILS 4/2004
MINIMUM DIAMETER 12"
FLOODPLAIN SILL - PLAN VIEW
NOTES:
1. BOULDERS MUST BE AT LEAST 4' x 3' x 2'.
2. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE BEGINNING AT THE MIDDLE OF THE HEADER
ROCKS AND EXTEND DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER ROCK, AND
THEN UPSTREAM TO A MINIMUM OF TEN FEET.
3. D ODE OF VANE ARM BETWEENDTHOERARMOAND SRAM BDANK ACE FILL ON UPSTREAM
g 3 4. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER ROCKS FIRST AND THEN HEADER QP) ROCK.
OTTOM OTT0M 5. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIVVNS.
WIDTH OF WIDTH OF 6. AN EXTRA BOULDER CAN BE PLACED IN SCOUR POOL FOR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT.
CHANNEL CHANNEL 7, USE NATURAL STONE CLASS 1 TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF BOULDERS, AND
a 0• TO 30 FLOW NATURAL STONE CLASS A TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF NATURAL STONE CLASS 1.
N 8. AFTER ALL STONE HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE
STRUCTURE WITH ON-SITE ALLUVIUM TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCK.
9. START SLOPE AT 1/2 TO 2/3 BANKFULL STAGE.
A
Y
m A•
LEAVE 1' - 2' GAPS
SCOUR
POOL
s ?
ENGINEERD) PER
?OCTUCEM DIROECTION OF (E
J-HOOK VANE - PLAN VIEW NATURAL STONE CLASS A ? qI'r HEADER ROCK
BACKFILL (ON-SITE ALLUVIUM
OR NO. 5 STONE)
FILTER FABRIC ?Vt FOOTER ROCK
FOR DRAINAGE 2. NATURAL STONE CLASS 1
(SEE SPECS) .--10' MINIMUM
J-HOOK VANE - SECTION A - A'
1/2 TO 2/3 BANKFULL- HEADER ROCK
WATER FLOW--
STREAM BED ELEVATION- /-/ TO 1 %
BACKFILL (ON-SITE ALLUVIUM"` FOOTER ROCK
OR NO. 5 STONE)
NATURAL STONE CLASS A SCOUR POOL
NATURAL STONE CLASS 1 (EXCAVATED)
J-HOOK VANE - PROFILE VIEW
J-HOOK VANE - DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT MANAGER DRAWING SCALE
ME NTS
DRAWN BY PROJECT DATE
JL 4/2004
APPROVED BY PROJECT NUMBER
SHW 3044000RA
FILE NAME PLOT DATE
DETAILS 4/2004
DICKSON
community Infrastructure consultants
3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
RALEIGH, NC 27612
[phone]
Office Locations:
North Carolina Georgia
South Carolina Florida
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
!
•
•
•
!
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
BANKFULL
ELEVATION
ROOT WAD PROPOSED GROUND
2
iti ?. ?.i'
%
'.+• •• •FILL
ti ?. t ti ?•? ??•
//'''?:.} • +. ? fit,.
L- 1 •4'• .. mot'
FROM BANKFULL ELEVATION
SLOPE EXISTING GROUND AS INDICATED
BY PROPOSED CONTOURS ON THE
INVERT ELEVATION
TOP OF FOOTER LOG
IS AT INVERT
SUBGRADE -

PLANS.
MAXIMUM 2:1 (507) SLOPE
BOULDER
(AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER)
14' MIN. BOLE LENGTH
`"BOULDER ••
FOOTER LOG 28" MIN. DIAMETER SHARPEN END OF BOLE AS NEEDED
TO DRIVE ROOTWAD INTO BANK
ROOT WAD REVETMENT - TYPICAL SECTION
ROOT WAD REVETMENT - DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT MANAGER DRAWING SCALE i 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
ME NTS RALEIGH, NC 27612
pRAwN BY PROJECT DATE [phone]
J` 4/2004 DICKSON
APPROVED BY PROJECT NUMBER _ O((ICe Locations:
SHW 3044000RA I community tnfrostmeture consultants North Carolina Georgia
FILE NAME PLOT DATE South Carolina Florida
DETAILS 4/2004
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
BOTTOM BOTTOM BO?TOM
CHANNEL I CHANNEL I CHANNEL
20' TO 30'
c? PB`g ?i?,l 'GIG d1T ii
J\ J ?
zN A'FLOW \ ¢? NATURAL STONE
m? m- CLASS A
ll
\
BACKFILL (ON-SITE ALLUVIUM) 1.
?
t TREAMBED I
z
SCOUR POOL / 57 STONE

P (SCOUR POEEO??L))
T
A FILTER FABRIC FOR
DRAINAGE 1
1'-2'
BETWEE
N R1 N
PER DIR
E
BOULDERS OF ENGINEER
f- 10' MINIMUM -?
ROCK CROSS VANE - PLAN VIEW
ROCK CROSS VANE - SECTION A-A'
HEADER ROCK
WATER FLOW -?_ 47,, TO 107 SLOPE
STREAM BED -??
ELEVATION
BACKFILL
(ON-SITE ALLUVIUM) FOOTER RO(
SCOUR PO(
/57 STONE FILTER FABRIC
FOR DRAINAGE (EXCAVATE
NATURAL STONE
CLASS A
ROCK CROSS VANE - PROFILE VIEW
NOTES:
g ?J5 E LE p
2. BNSTALLRFILTERTFABRIC FORSDRAINAGE BEGINNING AT THE MIDD E OF THE
HEADER ROCKS AND EXTEND DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF TH BOTTOM
FOOTER ROCK, AND THEN UPSTREAM TO A MINIMUM OF TEN FE T.
3. DIUPSTREAMCSIDE Of VANE ARMFBETFWEEN THE AR ST E BANK.
4. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER ROCKS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP)
ROCK.
5. CONTINUE N1TH STRUCTURE FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS.
. AN EXTRA BOULDER CAN BE PLACED IN SCOUR POOL FOR HABITAT IMPROVEME
7 BOULDER
7. STON?TO FILLSGAPS ONIUPSTARPEAM SIDESOF NATURAL T'
8. AFTER ALL ESTONE HAS BTEN PLACED FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE
THEUHEADER ROCK N-SI ALLUVIUM TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF
9. START SLOPE AT 1/2 TO 2/3 BANKFULL STAGE.
ROCK CROSS VANE - DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT MANAGER DRAWING SCALE 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
ME NTS RALEIGH, NC 27612
[phone]
DRAWN BY PROJECT DATE -
JL 4/2004
DICKSON
APPROVED BY PROJECT CT NUMBER Office Locations:
SHW 304400DRA ' community Infrastructure consultants North Carolina Georgia
FILE NAME PLOT DATE South Carolina Florida
DETAILS 4/2004
NOTES:
1.
2-
3
N
J
J
li
Y
Z
Q
M
4.
1/ 5.
6
BOTTOM .
7
DTH
W .
I
CHANNEL Q
TO
BI
ROCK VANE - PLAN VIEW
j BE AT LEAST 4' x 3' x 2'.
' FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE BEGINNING AT THE MIDDLE OF THE HEADER
XTEND DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER ROCK, AND
%M TO A MINIMUM OF TEN FEET.
BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER ROCKS AND PLACE FILL ON UPSTREAM
ARM, BETWEEN THE ARM AND STREAM BANK.
K AND PLACE FOOTER ROCKS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) ROCK.
U ER FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS.
1LDER CAN R PLACED IN SCOUR POOL FOR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT.
SSTONE CLASSIATTTOFFILLGGAPSOONUUPSTREAMSSIDEOOFBNATURAL
)NE HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE
TH ON-SITE ALLUVIUM TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER
AT 1/2 TO 2/3 BANKFULL STAGE
NATURAL STONE CLASS A HEADER ROCK
BACKFILL (ON-SITE m
ALLUVIUM)
FOOTER R
FILTER FABRIC FOR 1lft-2` NATURAL STONE
DRAINAGE (SEE SPECS) 10' MINIMUM CLASS 1
ROCK VANE - SECTION A - A'
OCK
TOP OF STREAM BANK
WATER FLOW___z_
STREAM BED ELEVATION)
BACKFILL (ON-SITE
ALLUVIUM)
NATURAL STONE CLASS A?
NATURAL STONE CLASS 1-
ADER ROCK
"- FOOTER ROCK
SCOUR POOL
(EXCAVATED)
ROCK VANE - PROFILE VIEW
ROCK VANE - DETAIL
wrTO sw
PROJECT MANAGER DRAWING SCAL 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
ME NTS E RALEIGH, NC 27612
DRAWN BY PROJECT DATE `- [phone]
JL

APPROVED BY 4/2004
N
PROJECT NUMBER

?
DICKSON

Office Locations:
S"" 30"0°°R` community Infrastructure consultants North Carolina Georgia
FILE NAME PLOT DATE ` South Carolina Florida
DETAILS 4/2004 , I .
o ?
a
oC?

o a
Q °a
? U
I
?? 1
a oa v
Z
O <
v~Wi °uF c°? a O
F-
U
za W
N I
I

J
O N
J n
O O
? Z O
Z
0
z O
w z C) W
a

W W
Cl! O
Q:

aso
W a
z

U

a U

W
\ m
Z J °

O
w N
O
KZ?
?

? N
?? CE:
?
O
Cd
N 2 V

Kd' V v o
- Z
G ?
LY) m Y
G m
O O
??
O O
i
W p6 m

W
it 5
'o
P5
3 od° wa P

Z ? ? J
li.

? J
d ° W
W O
Z 4 d
? I u
?? 1 U
u? J W
O
r- ° J H

C)
Z o
U ° O ?
z
w U
a° o
CD <
Q::
w
J
N w
W
W
a
w
N
Q::
w

J? V W o
a?
?&z
-

a R m°
?°

' o
o
o
a
0
a ? b

F,
0 N_ N
Z -N
O_ O
?D
mod'
3
04 i?4
W_ Z0N0

S
a=rn
w O
D
S -J- N
Q
Zo C
3 c c
=
O
0 b o
o
i U U
O_ N « w
M U >
o o
O Z Ul

O
Z?
r+
7
05
U

V
?O
- C

C
A N

K
N ao o z o r R
m
m °
3
rc a a
a o a
NATURAL STONE CLASS A
BERM' ood
1
BERM-
FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE
UNDER NATURAL STONE
(SEE SPECS)
NOTES:
1. CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.
2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT
ON-SITE BEFORE WORK BEGINS.
3. MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS.
DO NOT EXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM. COMPLETE ONE
SIDE BEFORE STARTING ON THE OTHER SIDE.
4. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING AT RIGHT ANGLE TO THE FLOW.
5. GRADE SLOPES TO A 2:1 SLOPE. TRANSPLANT SOD
FROM ORIGINAL STREAMBANK ONTO SIDE SLOPES.
6. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE
CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOES NOT ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL.
7. A STABILIZED PAD OF NATURAL STONE CLASS A, 6 INCHES
THICK, LINED WITH FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE
SHALL BE USED OVER THE BERM AND ACCESS SLOPES.
8. WIDTH OF THE CROSSING SHALL BE SUFFICIENT TO
ACCOMMODATE THE LARGEST VEHICLE CROSSING THE CHANNEL.
9. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE
RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING TO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED.
FORD STREAM CROSSING - DETAIL
NOT TO S ME
PROJECT MANAGER DRAWING SCALE 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
ME NTS \ /?/ RALEIGH, NC 27612
DRAWN BY PROJECT DATE W R [phone]
' N
DDICK"R
W ROVED ROVED BY PROJECT ECT NUMBER
ffice Locations:
- O
aw
SNW 3044000M community Infrastructure consultants North Carolina Georgia
FILE NAME PLGT DATE South Carolina Florida
DETAILS 4/2004
CHANNEL PLUG
PLAN VIEW
OLD CHANNEL TO BE DIVERTED q?
FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE /4y
SHALL BE PLACED BY OVERLAPPING /
WITH THE FLOW OF WATER
NEW CHANNEL TO BE CONSTRUCTED
y
CHANNEL PLUG
PROFILE VIEW
UNCOMPACTED BACKFILL
CHANNEL BLOCK
PACTED BACKFILL SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE
(MIN 1.0' THICK)
CHANNEL PLUG- DETAIL
NO? 70 sm
PROJECT MANAGER DRAWING SCALE 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
ME NTS RALEIGH, NC 27612
DRAWN IRY PROJECT DATE [phone]
JL 4/2004
I M
DDICK
PROVED BY
T PROJECT NUMBER Office Locations:
610A
9NW 3044000RA community infrastructure consultants North Carolina Georgia
PILE NAME PLOT DATE South Carolina Florida
DETAILS 4/2004
-FLOW
INTAKE HOSE
PUMP
WORK AREA NSTREAM
CHECK DAM
DISCHARGE HOSE
NOTE: HOSE SHOULD BE KEPT
OUTSIDE OF L.O.C.
(NSTREAM SEDIMENT TRAP
-----__STABILIZED OUTFALL WITH
VELOCITY DISSIPATORS
PUMP AROUND DETAIL
NOT TO se"
PROJECT MANAGER DRAWING SCALE
ME NTS
DRAWN BY PROJECT DATE
JL 4/2004
APPROVED BY PROJECT NUMBER
SHW 3044000RA
FILE NAME PLOT DATE
DETAILS 4/2004
?l W
3
D K
DICKSON
community Infrastructure consultants
3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
RALEIGH, NC 27612
[phone]
Office Locations:
North Carolina Georgia
South Carolina Florida
A F."AA
70?la
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Division of Water Quality
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
EXPRESS REVIEW ACCEPTANCE LETTER
Project Name: Open Springs Stream Mitigation
Randolph County
Environmental Banc & Exchange
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200A
Cary, NC 27511
Fax #: [phone]
Subject Property: Site is located North and East of Ramseur, Randolph County
Dear Sir or Madam:
On September 8, 2004, the Wetlands/401 Unit of the Division of Wacker Quality received a Fax/email request from
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. regarding a projecVknown as "Open Springs Stream Mitigation"
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 $2,000.00 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.
Sincerely,
Oda-VaL.
<s?
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
AW K/dae
cc: Daryl Lamb- DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
File copy
Central Files
Chris Huysman-Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc., 11 South College Ave., Suite 203, PO
Box 224, Newton, NC 28658
Filename: Open Springs Stream Mitigation
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: h"://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer-50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
September 8, 2004
NorthCarohna
Nahmallff
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Envirdnment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley. Govemw Wiliam G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alen W. Klimek, P.E., Director
EXPRESS PERMIT REVIEW PROGRAM
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Unit
Street Address: 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 276042260
Mailing Address: 1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Contact Information: Phone ft: 919-733-0203
Fax #: [phone]
Fax To: Environmental Banc & Exchange Fax #: [phone]
Chris Huysman 828-465-3050
Subject: Open Springs Stream Mitigation & Stone Date: 9/8/04
Bridge Stream Mitigation
Number of pages including cover sheet: 3
Notes or special instructions:
The original will be sent in the mail. If you have question. please call Debbie Edwards at 919-733-9502.
amv.maa,w ataaU'A
ssowrs??aeC<mer.n.banrumra.wnazrcae,uwRe Carolina
2321 Ca" SA-4, Su r0. wve1g',H Mc.*. 21601 xaa?M,
PMe'91GP$17661FPX0,9.1348t63f im`wka:6 '?' w? aAMMAY
M E"OPem gfkarw-A Empbyar- 50%eaCyC1aN10% NO e.-I PW
• • •QBZS, KSNVH1 1NHKf100Q ZN80'32I 30 80Kd ZSHI,4
NO : ssznsax

1a8T,TO : HKIZ (IaSCIVI8
Zi7:5T 80-d8S HKIS JIUVIS
£/£ saf)Vd
OSO£99i78Z88 : HNOHd

£689££L6T6 Zas
sQNK imm-?5ma aKVN
VV:ST CM VOOZ-8-dsS • asva
NOIRI2IIt N03 ONIMS
T
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Duality
Michael F. Easley, Govemor Wiliam G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
EXPRESS PERMIT REVIEW PROGRAM
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 27699-1 65 0
Contact Information: Phone #: [phone]
Fax #: [phone]
Fax To: Environmental Banc & Exchange Fax #: [phone]
Chris Hnystnan 828-465-3050
Subject: Open Springs Stream Mitigation & Stone Date: 9/8/04
Bridge Stream Mitigation
Number of pages including cover sheet: 3
Notes or special instructions:
The original will be sent ur the mail. If you have questions please can Debbie Edwards at 919-733-9502.
sa+ weanaumrsnm um
manlws??«cenrer.Iwu?9n,Namcamrn.sros9•,nso ne
2321 GabZ eode .W. Sur 250, R.sigh, NaM G.roea 27604 Carolina
Ftn S19M-1785: FAX e,P73MMfIn-htz-A ¢ tusk
Ao EgMCaxm oR'Amr-AwnEW"(-60%RKJdW0%PWG-=rFSa
•••QH1ZIKSNK2i1 nDW IN510821 aO HZ)Vd ZSHIa
NO
W051
..LS,00
OV:ST 80-dHS
£/£
06V9£9i?6
silinSHU
aaow
alis aasdVz21
aril luvis
S30Eid
SNOHd
£689££L6T6 'IHZ
SQNK7Id.gM-?5MQ HKVN
Tip:9T QSM VOOZ-8-dSS BZFZQ
NOINUM00 ONIMS
SEP-08-04 03:14 PM WNRiC
f,
Wetland and
Natural Resource
Consultants, Inc.
Fac
5284653050 P.01
Hk U v I Ng=n Offtce
11 South College Ave,
Suite 203
PO Box 224
Newton, NC 28658
Phone: 828 / 465-3035
Fax: 828 / 465-3050
ram P,gm I
Plto m utter 918/2004
AM„
Q Vent © FW IIWOW ? Pkme Comnu tt [I ftmme Reply ? rleme Recycle
:1 AM SeND %M (? TVIG AATA'f-" "9
FOIL Dims C yr pi ppu CATIONS
v?.??w s + ? tt1+u?i C?MI %XV5' VA%W AA??,,?a W MA VACA PrP?"CNI O?j '
VLJF.,a6E; CAL-k-" VJ t n*
sous 11'tn
i
SEP-8-2004 WED 13:41 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 1
SEP-08-04 03:15 PN WNRC
8284653050 P.02
MT146L INTEREST IN PARTICIPATION IN THE EXPRESS PERMITTING PROGRAM
FOR THE 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION,
ISOLATED WETLAND PERNWITING
OR STREAM ORIGIN DETERMINATION PROGRAMS
February 28, 2004
Version 2
Applicant Name: &-N V
Applicant Address:
Applicant's'phone number: 4q (q - !46q- q0,39 - Fax number:, H 4
Applicant's email address: TAIM A CC71KA
Consultant Name (if applicable): Out-
Consultant address (if applicable): B2 Sox
Consultant's phone number: AM • 3Za ' 31 ZD Fax number: 4 (6T. o6O
Consultant's email address: WMQ" ?.+ AfL, 60AA _
Type of action requested under the Express Review Program (check all that apply):
It 401 Water Quality Certification
E3 isolated Wetland Permit
O Riparian Buffer Approval
o Stream Origin Determination
# of Determinations Requested
Nance of Project: bV4N I N S SM@F M
Property size (acres) _14 ;J County: n _
Nearest named stream (from USGS topo map):
Please provide a brief description of this project (attach site plan if available):
MM f Jmw RALTXC Q Ol LL Q 5SO l.rT kf-j
2, (v LF IN QED L n??1? C;?
El fi(--U-;a- f 'RCN v?3?u, P v t0 E
Please attach a map of site location using USGS 1:24,000 map and county soil survey.
SEP-8-2084 WED 13:41 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 2
SEP-08-04 03:15 PM WNRC 8284653050 P.03
t ,
Location of project site - please include reference to the county, nearest name town and highway number:
Ilk
AN ?SEM 1?t 321lotal QD ?N L1SU1til d
Proposed impacts:
Acres of wetlands
Acres of isolated wetlands
Linear feet of streams
Linear feet of isolated streams
Square feet of protected stream buffers
Has consultant or applicant attended any DWQ-s onsored training sessions in the past two years`' If so,
please list which ones,
-(___ !."??TT?f??c 3 , Z;(,Y}3
Which other environmental permits will be needed for this project? Please list them below:
11+41) MG\b11-J CAr\)TQ U 9iLk- ' -
Does this project require approval under the State Environmental Policy Act or National Environmental
Policy Act? -14V-0?
o"
Does this project require approval of a Variance from the NC Environmental Management Commission"
Are yo-u?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.
----
'this form roust be submitted via email (c/o 401 exprgs(ftoinail.net), fax [phone]) 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 Debbie Edwards at 919-733-9502 if you have any questions regarding this form.
2
SEP-8-2084 WED 13:42 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 3
SEP-08-04 03:16 PM WNRC
Open Springs Mitigation Site
Wetland Irn act Number Square Fqc!kMe
1 7.2
2 254.8
3 425.2
4 309.4
5 40.1
6 263.2
7 359.9
8 37.2
9 139.3
10 609.1
41 347.1
12 337.5
13 259.8
14 239.8
15 148.6
18 108.7
17 349.9
18 442.1
19 276.4
20 91.1
21 204.1
22 59.5
23 155.3
24 211.7
25 234.8
28 243.4
27 305.4
8284653050 P.04
6362.0 ¦ Total Square Feet
SEP-8-2004 WED 13:42 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 4
SEP-08-04 03:16 PM WNRC 8284653050 P.05
89' o.o0 W 7V W O.W W M 3r 0.00" w

\IV

„ ?C6 ?-
??
J
.
.
?
?
,t hy,, ?p' _, •,,?; . .,
t ',1 .; .• ,; ?
,`?•
,

, _jkj

+,•`
007

Pei
ni

..

r.
' _
a
'
'
• 592
«
•
n
{ ; _ -i

160

'IV
.6 er

Fi

Z

•••- ,. j ... 7 :' Sri...

"

11S 1
r.?

1
VY
lp?
It, Z-.

,
•
?
?
?
?? ?
• ??
t ? .
'µ`
:
, b
? ?,
?•.
?
`5
,
•
? t
11•
\ •
`•1? '
•
,• • `
61
:v
S ir<
,
1.
?
<
i

•?
t ,
` I ?
? f "- ,_ r '?0•
?,'
: l r' .J •?? -
(' ? ? ? 'S? 5 y
/ 'I ?'? ?'r ? j5 y4`
_ O

i
SP-8-2004 WED
CapyrW(C)107,MWtKh.kv.
13:42 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS
P. 5
¦ 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:
Environmental Banc and Exchange
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200A
Cary, NC 27511
DWQ# 04-1511 - Randolph
A. Signature
1- M ? Agent
X l A7/1irc1.'„ ? Addre
B. Received by (Printed Name) C. Dale of Delivery
i /1
D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 17-11 Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: ? No
? Express Mail
A Return Receipt for Merchandise
? C.O.D.
3. Service Type
9Q Certified Mail
? Registered
? Insured Mail
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee)
? Yes
2. Article Number 7004 1160 0002 2706 6172
(Transfer from service label)
Dc C..r.r, !1811 onnx n, ,opt P=+.- ao..;; + 1-.1
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
LISPS
• 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 Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
Permit No. G-10
EBX-Meuse I, LLC NCDIV NC Division of Water

DATE INVOICE 'NO DESCRIPTION
INVOl EA1NOUhIT..:.
©EDUCTION .:
BAI ANCE
9-20-04 401/401Prm Express 401/404 Prmt- 2000.00 2000.00
WETLAND S / 401 GROUP
SEP 2 .1 2004
WATER QU ITY SECTION
CHEC
K 9-20-04
CHECK
2240
TOTAL> 2000.00
2000.00
DATE UMBER
N
PLEASE DETACH AND RETAIN FOR YOUR RECORDS
N J xx a
I-,y Z-U. U3rc
4.0 O Z REMOVE DEBRIS
z~a z w 8
c°~o~ P o
wUW P P ~-~i1K ~ o ~ _ ~ +
a O~~ r - % c _ntii ~t ~ r B
W~i= MAINTAIN EXISTING ~ ~O+CZ' - N o ry~x ~.I o
p ~ ~ DRAINAGE '
z ~ a 12 2' EXCAVATE/GRADE SLOPE ~FN EXISTING CHANNEL BANK
oaf - `i~2'"~ ~ ~ s° N INTENSE VEG STABILIZATION ii i ~ ~ ~ ~ APPROX. 30 LF ALONG SOUTH
~zo - - _ w~<w IF NECESSARY MAT MAY = _ - 8 ~ ~ BANK
~ o z o BE PLACED AROUND BAS _ _ t9kp0 0 1
pJ~U OF EXISTING TREE. _ VARIES o~w NO FlLL SHALL BE ~ ; ~ TOTAL BL EROSION _ 1, TOTAL BUFFER ~ ~
W3w PLACED AROUND TREE CONTROL MAT n ~ INTENSE VEGETATION RESTORATION 2.6 ACRES n u STABILIZATION APPROX. ~~d~
W Z ~ ~ RESTORAI rc ~d - 30 LF ALONG SOUTH io 7
KZ°a SwLL~ E _ ~ . ~8*, BANK ~i i ~ qi~ ~ i,' `a ~ cp
BANKFULL DEPTH &c~i~m I oa NSTALL COIR FlBER MAT PER PROPOSED FI ~ooo MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS - BASE FLOW + PROPOSED FENCE---~.? X' j 8
awo (MINIMUM OF 2 ADJACENT MATS) _ _>°w i ire >xso ~
Z~zW ROLANKA BIOD-70 MATTING OR EQUIVALENT - _ - - PROPOSED GATE ~ _ooN AS NOTED IN ABOVE TABLE _ _ - _ - QED GATE ~'~,~s' INTENSE VEGETATION 5 , s ' STABILIZATION APPROX. t
o~oa - 25 LF ALONG SOUTH 1 BANK
RE-SHAPE UPPER BANKS ~ F ~ ~ EXISTING k p , 0
zW~m EXISTING TOE TO REMAIN SIDE SLOPE VARIES `yy~oaQ N.T.S.
QOyy ~ / ~O ~ -+ri
~ NOTE: BANKFULL DEPTH 70 BE DETERMINED BY ENGINEER IN THE FlELD YoVw I 1B
;FZtn ~~p~p "o x y ~0 x
GaUQ ~~~w 1. LAY BACK BANKS 30 LF ON NORTH i
uWZ~ BANK AND STABILIZE (SEE ABOVE ~ ~ ~ ° ~ DETAIL S"o ~~~na ~ 0 ~S x~0
$o~~ 2. REMOVE OEBRIS UOON b / a 4 I
o~ o~~' / ;
6 ~
iy ~o O 7 v
Jqx
1 i PROPOSED GATE 7r
k I k
4
. k t t i +
I I 1 i ~ t , r i> s 4
i ± ~ f~ l f V~ _ oo _ i #s
4 it
I °f•P- ~ t f - ~ I Ilf~ ~ ~x ~ st 'N Z
i ~ ~ ~I ~ I i I ~ 4~'' - Op S
~ ~ ~~II 11 'f II i~(j ~
'b ~ ~ 1 ' 1 V'; ~ 17j '1~~ ~ 1 1 I fi~% ~ xpp 5
~ ~ ~ ~ +I ~ I I T I ,.x ~ I ~ I AN IC PATED LIMIT OF S
~ f `,~'f• SEr= SHEET 2 FOR STREAM CONSERVATION EASEMENT ~ ~ ~k ~ ; ~ RESTORATION ~~+so o°
1. FlLL CHUTE CUTOFF ON SOU ~ + ~ 1~ ~ I o nj ~UTOFF ON SOUTH BANK 3 9
r---______-~-~___- ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ i ` ~ ; ` ~ I N}
~ ~ I ~ REMOVi; i
t f . DEBRIS ~ i ~ ~ o
r ~ ~ x ~ ~ r Y3
~ i ~ I tl
~r y ' to I I ~ . ~I a~ , > ~ S
I x kf
• ~ r~ ~ ~ i; • </1 ~ ~ a ~ J.
c ~x °=k '/~~x
1
~ o
ih yx ~ i o
r. ii /J ~ o , s xp6 UPSTREAM LIMITS OF 2725 STREAM u
ENHANCEMENT SMU'S FOR UT-2 & UT-3 ~ v 4
_ x ~ x i ` s ~
~ FILL CHUTE oo I
' ' CUTOFF k S r
0 ii ~i €z m
i iii C A
~ ; ,r INTENSE VEG F ANTICIPATED LIMIT OF i , ` STABILIZATION APPROX. CONSERVATION EASEMENT ~ .
~ II ~ I 15 LF ALONG BOTH II 6 ~ BANKS I, ; I ri E'~ '
q; i ! ~ u
s
r LIMIT OF 50' RIPARIAN BUFFER Y
t`1 g
!fig al
6/ry
h - ~ ~ ~
8 x',~
t~ a~
`a 'a~n
k f>VI 2

~/j/~`
W' 1,
ZS 3
4 I

OI d
o_
/ ~
• ~ LEGEND
k E
g C r v ` RIPARIAN BUFFER ENHANCEMENT
1 i f s i
y ` 3t
d E{ rt RIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATION {
9 ~s ~
I i - ANTICIPATED LIMIT OF CONSERVATION
` ~ - ~ EASEMENT
' RIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORAl10N A A i RE
I i ~ i ~ i
' NOTES: J ~ ~ ~
I 't 9 ~ ~ ~ 1. PROPERTY LINES SHOWN ARE BASED ON DEED BOOK 1153
3 ~1+ ~ PAGE 339.
ej ~ ~I t ` 2. TOPOGRAPHfC MAPPING AND ELEVATION DATA OBTAINED
S ' FROM WK DICKSON FIELD SURVEYS PREPARED IN NOVEMBER i
1) f 4 2003. ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO NGVD 1988 WITH A 1-FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL.
s HORiZONTAE SCAEE: 1 = 70
- - - - r_....~.~ - - - - - -.....c
PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS PROPEEll FOR REVIEW AND COORDINATION J
PROJECT MANAGER DRAWING SCALE 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND RELEASED FOR DATE
MSE 11" = 70'
DRAWN BY DATE RALEIGH, NC 27612 PROJECT 919 782-0495 APPROVALS WK AMH 03/30/2004s OPEN SPRINGS STREAM MITIGATION PLAN L6]
APPROVED BY PROJECT NUMBER BIDDING NUMBER PREPARED FOR
3OJECT N DICKSON Office Locations: REV. N0. DESCRIPTION DATE FILE NAME PLOT DATE community infrastructure consultants North Carolina Georgia CONSTRUCTION REVISIONS 4/2/04 South Carolina Flori
da RECORD DWG. ENVIRONMENTAL BANG & EXCHANGE, LLC UT-2 & UT-3 STREAM ENHANCEMENT

(/j J ? Q
~YU ~3~ LEGEN D
WO
ZOQ Z
Oz$ / / V A UO ~ ~ ~ A WOODS LINE
WV~ / ~ W / ~Z~ / ~ \
W Q A A A A 1 O- A FENCE LINE -x-x-x-x-x-
w~~ / MAJOR CONTOUR - - - - - -
~ ~ `-V 1 A ~ \ / ~O~ V ~ ~ V ~ /
\ ~ / , MINOR CONTOUR
i ~ 7Q~ ~ _ / ~ ~ TOP (1F BANK ---~s-----~-----~a---
~dti ~ ~ - / l y i ~ZO~N ~ / ~I I ~ 1 BOTTOM OF BANK ---~-----se-----ee---
~ QW j i / ~zn. - - - ~ ~ ~~1 /
d~~o - _ ~ ~ i ~ /
~UOW ~ E ~V ~ j ~ j ~ ~ W ~ LIM~T~ ~ ~ / 1 \v j 1 ~ ~ / PRO_ PQSED
W ? ~ I- C~ISERVAl1ON ~ ~ ~ j j i 1 / ~ -~o EASEt~1ENT r r r j ~ ~ r CENTER OF CHANNEL
~ pJ / ~F f r ! ~ ~ F-Z~a , \ / 2~ ) / 1 I 1 I i ~ ~ ~ ~ j
C9~wW ~ ~ / j I ~UWm Ii LIMITS OF BANKFULL CHANNEL
Q U~ ~ / / I, LIMITS OF CONSERVATION
2YW o Q / ~ ~ j\ ~1 _ ~ ~ l UFJ~ ~ ~ / > ZOO WO - \ ~ ~ EASMENT (TO BE FENCED) P~
w / , / F'~y ,p ~ ~wo~ / I ~ ~ ~ v MAJOR CONTOURS
~WmW o;., , ; tq
~ ~ owom ~ ~ ~ v MINOR CONTOURS
Vow= may; ~ _w ii ROOTWAD
Ow "J ~ ~ \ h YpVQ i/ i ~ ~ ! 1 LOG VANE
W ~ _ k z ~ i r ~ 3F_w "ti ` ~ .g - ~ f' i r ~
oa ~ ~ ~ 1 CUTTINGS BUNDLE
IH~K ~ ~ ~ ~ i i~ i~ I I \ CHANNEL PLUG
~ X LOG GRADE CONTROL
c°~ooN ~ S ~ ' ~ Q ~ ~ f ~ ~ s 1 ~
- ~ ~ ~ ~~~.a~ ~ 1 ~ I S, --1~----^~ ~ ; ..~T~. ji~~ - J 1 I I ~ LOG TOE PROTECTION ~3
~ _ _ `v~ U~_4 ~ j , ~ FORD CROSSING
~ . ~
~ ~ a ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ . 1 v u~irs of CULVERT CROSSING
X , ~ _ I~~ ~ O ~ ~ CONSER`V~ATION v ~ ~ FLOODPIAIN SILL
CROSS VANE
\ I ~ ~ \ , ~ ~ ~ ~ v
S7 . ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ / k ~ _ _ _ ~ SF~ 2 FOR P OSED GATE ` ~ RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
NOTE: SOD MATS TO BE PLACED ON ALL
? ' r" ~ NEW CHANNEL BANKS
~ \ ~ \ / / \
i / ~ ~ ~ \ 30 p 45 30 60 120
~ ~ l ~r_ ~ / t'\ ~ ` ` ~V `
n
( IN FEET )
6.0
5.0
BANKEUEE E~EUATION 6.0
0.4 BA~KFU[-~ E~EUATION
0.4 BANKE'~~~E E~EUATION
0.4 1.3 0.6 3
0.9 1.2
0.6
0.5
3.5 1.7 0.8 4.0
TYPICAL RIFFLE DESIGN UT TO UT-1
NaT To s~AtE TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER POOL UT TO UT-1 TYPICAL STRAIGHT REACH POOL UT f0 UT-1
NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE
595 595

ANI~FULL StA E -
_ .............................:.........:......ENERGY GR D~.....:.......
590 ~j GY GRADIENT . 590
QA
585
M ~ ~ ' c0 c~ N M r : ~ M ~ O (A O) O O . 585
pp O o> 01 O O 6i ~ ai O :O O O :O OJ rn : ro a1 rn : rn o0 : ao 9> d~ rn rn rn
rA :v1 ~C1 ~ :N > >
W > > > > > > 'l > > J J W W W:W W:W EJ 4J W IiJW W:W J. W........W ...W . .W.
i i O . O O O: O O O O O O O O:O O O ~ p0 O.
0 0 0 0: 0 O :O O O O:O Q O . d. _ - r...~...M........~.:.~....~..........~:d;..
O + ~ <0 ~ : N r7 M : ~ t0 : O ~ 00 a0 :01 M ~
Q~ e Q a' QQ a d dQ a~ d:d dd :d d¢ d 580 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 80
-0+50 0+00 0+50 1 + 00 1 +50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50
FOR REVIEW AND COORDINATION
PROJECT MANAGER DRAWING SCALE RELEASED FOR DATE
MSE 1" = 30' 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
oRAWN BY PROJECT DATE RALEIGH, NC 27612 APPROVALS r= AMH 03/30/2004 [phone] f OPEN SPRINGS STREAM MITIGATION PLAN OPEN SPRINGS DESIGN PLANS [XJ6
BIDDING »i- - APPROVEO BY PROJECT NUMBER PREPARED FOR
MSE 30440.00.RA DICKS 0 N Office Locations:
REV. N0. DESCRIPTION DATE RLE NAME PLOT DATE communit infr48tnicture North Carolina Geor is CONSTRUCTION y consultants g South Carolina Florida ENVIRONMENTAL BANC & EXCHANGE UT-4 STA. 0+00 TO STA. 2+56
REVISIONS RECORD DWG.

N J
22 a Fyn
O~~ LEGEND
FOZ Z1-a ~il Z \
ZN~ ~ \ S OZ~ \ , 1 ~ EXISTING
~ ~ t,!' t l WOODS LINE
WZwY ~ ~ ~ GATE Fa ~ FENCE LINE -x-x-x-x-x-
~~z ~ cvanorv
'~w ~ ~ EASEM~T _ a1 MAJOR CONTOUR - - - - -
o~~ i ~ ~ / Oho ~ r ~ ° MINOR CONTOUR
~ f ~ TOP OF BANK ---1H-----r~-----Te---
oQ~ i ~ / a V n ` w
WK'JW ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ \ a _ ~ ~ ! ~ BOTTOM OF BANK ---ae-----se-----ee---
Roza ~ ~ Q ~ > ` J
°ow ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PCE
W~W~ I ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ i wZ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ pp~~ t PROPOSED
\ ~F,:ZO VV ~ { f_. ZOO I , ~ ~ 1 e~ i 0 a W, CENTER OF CHANNEL
sUwm ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 LIMIT~, OF BANKFULL CHANNEL
~ \ /
LIMIT`; OF CONSERVATION EASMt_NT (TO BE FENCED) PCE
_ooo ~ q~ ) S c.r~
o i o o ~ i i \ > _-t MAJOR CONTOURS
v `~Fmw ~ ~ 1 GJ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~~r X MINOR CONTOURS
pQ0 X ~ f ~ 'i ~i .i i ~ ROP ~ Y as ~ ~ ~ / ~ I ~ o~ x , ~ ~ ~ ~ , CRGSSING ROOTWAD
~ x ~ , ~ l a
YZUa X ~ ~ ~ l I 1 ~o9$""Z ~ ~ ~ i~u % I ~ZW I V ~ /r ~ 1 ~"7 T 3F-~' ~ ~ ~ ~ /i y _ ~ ' 1 T LOG VgNE
'S / , /i - 1 CUTTINGS BUNDLE
i / ~ - r ~z ~ X Qom` ~ J d:/ i~ ~ 4' I I I
_ _ n ~ CHANNEL PLUG V^
a~Y~ T6 _ - - ~ ~ nd ~ N LOG ~:RADE CONTROL
_ C~ _ ~ off- - _ ~ ~ - d t1 LOG l0E PROTECTION ~z
--0 - ~
~ ~ _ ~ ~ . j i i ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ GA1E ~ i FORD CROSSING
3 CULVt RT CROSSING
~ ~ ~ ~ 8(~ ~ ~ , - a _
FLOOUuLAIN SILL
-mod _ - - - - - - ' ' ~ - ~d - ~ - ~ ~ ~ CROS•. VANE
RIFFLt GRADE CONTROL
LIMITS OF - - i ~ C~ISERVA710N ~ - ~
~--EASEMENT _ - _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _i ~ NOTE SOD MATS TO BE PLACED ON All
NEW ~'HANNEL BANKS
~ - ~ ~ _ _ ~ V - _ f \ - c a
30 0 15 30 60 120
d
i i - - _ , G~lfi I - , - , ~ _ ail
( IN FEET )
8.5 8.5
U. 5
BA~KEUE~ E~EIIATI N 0 0 1.0 ~ 1. ~ ? 0.8 BAf~KE. ~~EVAT~ON CATION BAN
K~~I _ E~EUATIO
0.5
0.7
1.2 1.0
3.25
0.3
TYPICAL RIFFLE DESIGN - OS-1
4.7 0.3 3.0 0.8 1.0
NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER POOL OS- 3.25 . 3.25 1.0 POOL OS-1
NOT TO SCALE
TYPICAL STRAI _ GNT I~EACN POOL OS 1
~~!OT TO SCALE
62 _ 0
6 20

615 _ _
615

. .
_
F T . ~f E
RAD NT A7f• K 610 ~Y ~
ENER
_ . 61 0
00 _ _
N
W
z ~
- J
M ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~
605 U ao bo ri ~ 00 60 ~ r of ~ o : M : rn~ ro : eD n
c4 ~ti r0 O <o co ~D c4 O w N
Q > > > ~ so ~ J J.... t>UJ 6 05
W : W W iW W W W i iW J i J JJ J: .1 J W W W W W W W; lil
pp QQ QQ 0..... .0.... Q . O
O O ~ O fA ~ o~ O r . ~ m N ~ fi h O ~ 00 CO Mcp d) ~ 01 f~J 7 ~ : (0 : N : d• d
~ ...r N N CU N N N N N ~ M M h7 ~ M N N N: N N
M ~ ~ M ~ ~........d......,.a. Q ~
600 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : :
~ ~ ~ :
28+ 50 29+00 29+50 30+00 30+50 31+00 31+50 32+ 00 32+50 33+ 00 33+50 6 - 00 50 34+
00 34+50 35+00 35+50 36 - +00 36+ 50 3 7+00 37+50 3
8+00
FOR REVIEW AND COORDINATION J
MSE 1" = 30' HUMPHRIES WYND
a pA~ RALEIGH, NC 27612 RAwN ey PROJE [phone] APPROVALS H 03/30/2004 rPPROVED eY PROJECT Whom BIDDING OPEN SPRINGS STREAM MITIGATION PLAN OPEN SPRINGS STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT [X6
[AM MANAGER ORAWNG SCALE 3101 JOHN RELEASED FOR DATE
MSE 30440.00.RA DICK'SON Office Locations: PREPARED FOR
REV. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE EE NAME PLOT DATE community inh=t uCturE North r lin CONS1RUCT10N consultants Ca o o Georgia ENVIRONMENTAL BANC & EXCHANGE UT-1 STA. 28+50 TO STA. 32+74
REVISIONS 04/02/04 South Carolina Florida l.o. RECORD DWG.

(n Q LEGEND
~3a ~ - ~ ~ _ 0 0 _ - ~ ,
LL ~ - - ~ \ O - _ - ~ ~ ~ \ ` ~ EXISTING
~w _ WOODS LINE ~Y~YYYYYYYI.
~ ' ~ , ~ F N - -
~ ~ _ E CE LINE -x-x x x-x-
~ PEE .P ~ p ~ ~ ~ MAJOR C+l - - - _ - _ NTOUR
N Z ~ ~ ]~W~. ~ ~ C ~ ~ MINOR CONT UR 0
moo, _ \ , ~ p Ott \ ~ t ' CC \ , ~ ~
O \ ~ ~ ~ ~ Frm - / PC ~ PCE"~ TOP OF BANK ---Te-----~-----1e--- ~ c~ b
j~Z ~ / oar IJi~115~-OF ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ \ s, ~ BOTTOM OF BANK ---es-----as-----es---
a?~ CONSERVA~ttOPt^- -i ~ ~f'C/~ W~JW 'I' %A PGY ` v~. s
aoia EASEMEN i ~ tij WC90 ~ l ~ + ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` PROPOSED i ~ , ~
W ~ w ~ ~ PRP05ED 80 R~iN a1 ~ - , 6 ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ` CENTER ~1F CHANNEL ~ ~
Nita ~ ~ X ~ .
F.WK \ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LIMITS Ot BANKFULL CHANNEL ~ ` ` h w
KUWm ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ t N V A I o 0 0 ~ PROPOSED 54 LF OF ~ ~ I ,,y~v ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ LIMITS Ot CONSERVATION ~
QNU~ ~ Q~~r ~,pw_~uu~y~.~ ~ ~ ~ /1 / 1 COI J.7 M1LVIIIII~V~ I r / ~ ~ W ( I ~ ~q EASMENI (TO BE FENCED) PCE ~ ~
~ ~ lAJ k 1 `~7 I v Z~ , ~ PIPE ARCH k5 ~ r / ~ / ~ MAJOR (~1 6 NTOURS
- REMOVE EXISTING O ~ ~ ~ ~-i i ZOO 24' RCP A _ ~ ~ ~ y` ~ ~ MINOR C++
~ ~ A NTOURS ~ ~
\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ROOTWAI+
Y as ~~a3g ; `"-rtlt==- , ' _..-a,~ _ _~-88 _ - r _ _ _ _ s f, ~8 , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` O ~ LOG VANt
\ V ` ~ CUTTINGS: BUNDLE ~ _ ~ ~ -
I ~ ~ CHANNEL PLUG . N '
~zi~ ~ _ - ~ ~ i i i ~ =~g1_ ~ _ - w o ~ _ ~ %J / ~ ~ ti Q ~ - - -~--~>.r~,~=._ «~a-~_ ,c-~;-%,~.; LOG GRAnE CONTROL
~~fllQ iii ~ . \ ~ ' O I O / O a~xz ~ ~ ~ I ~ ' 00~~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~
ooov, N / ~ i ~ . ~ y~. _ _ i - - - _ _ - -tea / _ ,k~ ~ - _g~_„ ~ LOG TOE PROTEC110N
' ' ~ LIMITS OF - ~--0 FORD CRnSSiNG ' ~ - O
~ ~d 3~d ~ ~ - j , O ' ~ i i CONSERVATI~I `
It ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ d 3~d - ~ . V ~ CUL RT EASEMENT ~ CROSSING -
59~' O`~~~ 1 ~ ~ 3~d - _ O ' ~ ' 1 < , ~ , ` / FLOODPLaIN i ---~l3 S LL
- _ ~ , 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~d 3.7d ~ ~ ~ CROSS VnNE
r' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 39~ ~ ~ ;
~ ~ ~ ' i - _ ~ _ RIFFLE GLADE CONTROL - ~ /
/
~F ~ ~ ' ~ ~ - ~ NOTE: Step MATS TO 8E PLACED ON ALL
~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ NEW CHANNEL BANKS ' i 30 p 15 30 60 120
( IN FEET }
7.5
7.5-
BAI~{~EUEE EEEVATIOf~ TIOf~
BANKF~~~ ESE 1; ATia~
6.5
0.5 BANEEUEE EEE~ATIOf~ 0.5
0.7 1.3 1.8 1. 7
1.0
0.4
2.75
0.3 3.8
3.C 3.0 0.7 5.4 -
TYPICAL RIFFLE DESIGN OS-2 & OS-3 NoT To scn~E TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER POOL OS-2 &
)L OS-2 & OS-3 TYPICAL STRAIGHT REACH I OOL OS-2 & OS-3
NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALI
. . . . _ _ _ LL..._...._
A N R G ENER Y G A I _ ,..085
ANK1: ULL
60 5 €RG.Y,.. GR ...........:.0..00 EN 85 E STA
605
0 0085 _ FULt..ST ~E...~.....~... . . _ _
E ERGS GRADIENT
NT AT :BAN FULL.
....E ERGY GRADI O:Ot~
STAGE _

6 00
BANKF 60 0
ENERGY GR~DIEN AT .

......:....................,.........:...A IE N.T.,AT.. ANKF.t1. _ _ E N
. STAG - ©.0092 .
T AT BANKFIlLL p,Dl
:.ENERGY - • .a~?085 0 AOE:
O 595 :
+ 595
W

. . .
. .
• ~ p r:ro O Md ~ t0 (4 d i0 N~~7 O cD (fl<j ~ ...~....~..N.... ....~.~...~..N...~....~... ~
............M_ . r;.........::.........:..... ao: r c6 ai ~ ~ ~ o O W off 00 rn O O (4 . Kl N : M M ~ d ~ ~ u7 tD N ~ ~ ~y.. ,......:.r ~ ...N N ~ t~ N . M roc} d~ d ~ st ~ d~ et ~ N ~ O V7 Nit)
590 0 O.cO ; ~ .OO © : O C5L] O _ ...0.......:.0..._Q ....OO C3....4.QO..O...O.: ......OOr-O. :0.....:.....~.......fl........Q......~. ~ ~ O to : O c0 O O cp cfl t4 . cfl t0 tp c0 ......0 t0 c0 ~p tp c~ W cflt0 ~D c0 c0 . cfl cp _ O cD c0 cfl cD c0 cci tq c0 ~q cD :
J J J~ J Ji J~ J tJ J J. W W W:W W W= W: W:W W~,{ _ W ~W W ' > > ~ > > Q 590 il J w w J J W J J J~ J i J i J J J ji J J~ J J~ J J~ J J i J J .J J J J J i J iJ ~ J:
....0... O 0 fJ :.0.0. Q:.....~ i....... O.O . ~ A...i... O O W. W W W W Ly~W W :W W=W W W W W ~ WW W W 4! W: W W :W W W W W W :W W~ W= ~_.i.......... O O ~ i o.0 8 S oO~O O: o o~ oO oo O ~ O. Q. O._.O.O. 0 00 O O:O .O. 0.~..~........0.00..0.. ~.~:....0. .O.`0........0..~.... .....0. ..Q...... _.5~.....
O:O O O: O: O:~ O O O : ~I\ ~ r O C7 ~ co cq : ~ I~ c0: ~p ~ :d~ f~ ~ O d~ ~ M N: M t~: N :M O O 00.:. O;.O..__:O O O . . . ,:O
O : ~ ~ N +D ' ~ 00 0~0 00 N N O r d Oi : ~ : ~ r c0 p d OD N di= d' 00 r NI Ol : 00 op ~ cD ci! O tD r N ~f O m O O ~ M O : r 00 O c- ~ r''S M<t d tlJ Op OJ : 0> O N r!1 d d t~ tD r CO 6i N ..a
N N M t~ r1 N N . N: N N: N:N N N N N N • . •.......Q... ~ d : d d : d d d : d ~ ~ : ~ cD t0 tp tp tOCD O O : t0 cD : cfl r : r : r r r n ao V N: N N N N N N N N N N N (al N N(y N N cV N N: N N N N ci! N N N N r N N ry N
Q Q d' d z .................;.....a.~...... a .a a a . a a a. a:a......a.Q.... a~.Q...~..._...~.~a..~.. •..Q.... Q...~....~.. ~.Q. d.......~...~.....~...•.. .
~ ~ : to Vl ~ ~ Ul V1 Uf UJ Uf n
19+00 19+ 50 20+00 20+50 21+00 21+50 22+00 22+50 23+ 00 23+50 24+ 00 24+ 00 24+50 25+ 00 25+50 26+00 26+50 27+00 27+50
R~~........ w., w w _ _ 28+00 28+50
1'iGLIM1IVAFIY UKAWINUS FOR REVIEW AND COORDINATION
PROJECT MANAGER DRAWING SCALE RELEASED FOR DATE
MSE 1" = 30' 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND DRAWN BY PROJECT DATE RALEIGH, NC 27612 APPROVALS
AMH 03/30/2004 WK [phone] r--' OPEN SPRINGS STREAM MITIGATION PLAN OPEN SPRINGS DESIGN PLANS ([X6
APPROVED BY PROJECT BIDDING NUMBER PREPARED FOR
MSE 30440.00.RA DICKSON Office Locations: FREV.NO.l DESCRIPTION DATE FILE NAME PLOT DATE community infrastructure con North Carolina CONSTRUCTION consultants Georges ;
REVISIONS 4/2/04 South Carolina Florida RECORD DWG. ENVIRONMENTAL BANC & EXCHANGE UT-1 STA. 19+00 TO STA. 28+50

_y -
s ~ ~ , - PROP~D GATE
~
1 ~oz I ,i/~~4J ~ ~~LJ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ LEGEND
~
coio~ ~ i ~ gi ~ ~ rir ~ d ~ ~ ~ 3~d ~ 3~d EXISTING
wUOw ' ~ g~ ~ li 580 ~ / ~ZY ~ , 1~ ~ K \ ~ ~ ~ ~ / 1/,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ; ~ ~
O-f \ ~Q' n ` a ~ W A OODS LINE EET 9 FOR n~
w~~ ~ `v Q s ~ ~ SEE EET 9 FOR ;~W \ / / - +O~_.-_~ , UNNAM TRI~UTAR TAM TRI TARY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (MOVE ~ RCP FENCE LINE -x-x-x-x-x-
o~~ A i / Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ,
_ \ ' - ~ , \ _ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~5;0' ~ ~ MAJOR - - - - - - _ ~ ~ CONTOUR -
~ \ oa ~ _ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ MINOR CONTOUR
- _ TOP OF BANK ---~e- ~e-----~e- _
__,,2 ~ ~ ` _ • ; ~i 4t,
WHO ~ , / / v\ ~ ~ ~ BOTTOM OF BANK ---es-----es-----ea---
w°w~ - ~i - ~ / ~ / l O _ _ ~ _ _ O , ~ ~
~ .~o - _ - ~ ~ r Q ~ ~ / ,~~oJ ~ _ it ~ 590 / - ~ _ - ~ ~ ~ i ~ - - ~X ~ ~.~r
~w~> it ~ ~s - Y ~ ~
~~wm _ - - SL i ~ v p i ~ ~ CENTER OF CHANNEL ~ ~ ~ O ~
J~O~ ~ ~ ~ / _ , ~ ~ CYO ~ ~ LIMITS Of' _-PROPOSED-.12 ~ J, ~ _ ~ _ ~ BANKFULL CHANNEL
i ! ,rJw _ ! - 000 - PCE - to ~ ~ X r_ i / 81 X 59 ALUM1NUAl O
PCE _ _ - ~ ,d ~ o~ ~ _ - - - Q oz°o E - ,,y - PIPE ARCH ~ j~ Y / LIMITS OF' CONSERVATION PCE Q ~ ~ EASMENT (TO BE FENCED)
~ ~ WO ~ i ~
owom - - - - _ ~ / ~ , - ,r~+ r - MAJOR CONTOURS ao ~ i i r 597 O~, _
v~~i ~ 5 , / ~ i ~ i 0 0 ~ y 85 ~ ~ . % > i ~ t ` ~ MINOR CONTOURS Q Q r r
Y 2 V a ~ r ~ / i ~ I / / ' 1 ~ W 1- 1 ~ ~ ! ROOTWA
A ,.r X ~ ~ PROPOSED GATE i D PCE i r
-81- of ~ ~ I _ i r t , LOG VANE i ~ i i
~ ~ P I I ~ c r~ ~ , ~ , i CUTTING., BUNDLE
/ ,Pc
_ _ _ t,~.- / ~ ~ _ CHANNEL r ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ PLUG r ~
~ ~ 1 i~ / i~ t ~ , ; LOG GRADE CONTROL
~ /i ~ X O i v i ~ ~ ~ ~ ; LOG TOE. PROTECTION - -
t ~ ~ / ~ i
/ i y ~ i ~ U} ~ T' - i i ~ ( ~ i FORD CR ~ , ~ OSSING ~ ' , i
o ~ o / ~ ~a _ ~ s i ( ~ x - o, X ~ ~U3 ~ ~ .y / ~ , / CULVERT CROSSING '
~ , 0 0 0 ~ ` FLOODPt AIN SILL
0 , ~ ~ ! i r i i
/ / ~ i a ' i~ i~ CROSS VANE i ~ i
! ~ ~ ( / / ~ ~ RIFFLE ~;RADE CONTROL
~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ / r
/ , / / , , i / ~ NOTE: SOD MATS TO BE PLACED ON ALL
NEW CHANNEL BANKS
d / / ,~J --~-3~d~- 3~d 3~d / / !
- , ~ ~ ; / ~ ~ 30 i ~ 0 15 30 60 120
~ / _ ,
_
- „ ( IN FEET )
7.5
BAI~KFUEE E~EI~ATION 7.5- ~N
TION
6.5
0.5 BANKFU~~ E~EIIATIOf~ 0.5
1.3 1.8
0.7 1.
1.0
0.4
2.75 0.3
3.8 - 3.0 3.0 0.7 5.4
TYPICAL RIFFLE DESIGN OS-2 & OS-3
NoT To sCa~E TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER POOL OS-2 & OS OS-2 & OS-3
NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL STRAIGHT REACH POOL OS-2 & OS-3
NoT ro s~a~E
5 95 595
N BANKFiJLL _ R
g E STAG 0.008:
F NT AT BANK U R G Y
S.T ~G
590 T .0095 0 G A
S E Al BA KFUh- 5 9 O
f T..gANi(f'.l3LL............... T A Y ORAII N ENERG
0:0085 STAG = .
F T 8 E IEN A~ AKlK U L G. Y :FU L
R N E 5 S .........STAGE...=...0.©0.......
L
KFU . . . Y.. A 1 GR D . ENE GE 0.0085
5 8 5 STA 585
. . o : . . o
o ~ TAGE o FULLS . . .
~ Y ~AOjENT AT N . ENERG
d7 .
W z
. .
J z
~ O ~ O O N O O ~ pp pJ K1 ~ cp (4 00 IX~ ..0.~......iD........0.... .M .r ....~...,....N N ~ N 5 8 0 I ~ o ~ ul rn ~ : °J ao a, rn ~ ~ ~ N ~ r~ m rn ~ o ~ ~ ~ m : o -r rn ~ ~ ~ ~ M iti ~ O O ~ ~ 00 O~W N N ~ n.... ....0..... . N O opts N t0 ~ p OJ 00 N cD t0 : O ao ~ d~ N N ~ cD cD : d• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r : O d~ ?t rn t O N `t ~ c(} M
-------U ~ " ro Q xl ~l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a~ ro ~o ~ ~ ~ ro ~ ~ o r ~N~ro oo~ rn z580
I-- N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ill ~ N : ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ iA N ~ ~ ~ N : ~ ~ :tf? ~ ~ : ~ ~ O Ad UO Q7 N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ rn rn m : ~ ~ rn rn rn rn :rn rn ~ rn ~ U' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u7 ~ u7 ifl N ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ N N ~ N F-
> > w W w w W w w w ? ~ > w w: w: w w w w w w w w. w w.. .w W w .w.....W:...~~...........w......... wW W J :J J J J J J J J: ~ J: J J J J J J J J J J' J J w J :J J J: J w ~ J W J J W W W W W W W w W: W W: W W IaJ W W W 4J LU w W W W ~ j W :W W= W: W W J J J W w :w W ~ w w w ........~W..:. ~W.....w.. .w.... W ....w . J J ~ J - J .1 J : :J J .I J :J J JJ :J :J J~ J J~ J J' J:W W WW :W W W W W : W
w 41w W W i t i ..............0 O q ....0 f3 W W W W W W W W W W W W WW :W W W W W W W W:J J;JJ J J J J J J J i ; O O C3 .
O O O O p O O O O O : O O i...O...Q . ...................O O .......>.O ` ...0 ..........0 O ...p .O .p p.......0 ...p a 0 0 0: o:a og o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0: O O O: O O . . ~ N1 N ~ N O O N! Q....... p O . p O In O i O O O 00 i0 i >0.....0 .00 O ..Q ..0.:...p0 O......: .©O_. - <O-©......O.O .p .................0... ~ O O O ~j ~ p ~ O Op0 O O 00 O O
O c4 O Nt d' I~ a0 O O O , N 0~ : I~ r N ~D 00 ~ I~ 00 O m ~ h O ; r ~ ~ r~ ~ i[1 ap N (4 0~ OJ N N # ......tM c4 n r O O N N M . N O : r ~ 0> i~ ~ i[i ~ i[i ~ W p~ ~ N O . t0 4» 00 M E') ~ i~ : ~ ~ = N N 41 ~ O ai : d1 : ~ ~t ai M ~ :d' p O ~p : ~ + ~ _ ~ N cfl c0 : I~ n c O O : N ~ r r 00 : 0> N ~ ~ ~ c0 cfl r rn ~
b O O O O ~ N cV N N M rn O f r = Y- N Y ~ : ~ ~ rl r~ : t~ M ~ sF ~ ~ d' d . ~ ~ co . _ ~ cfl : ca ~ n r . r r . n : n ao eo au m ~ ~ ou ao 0o ro
c Qa a Q a a e a d Q............Q..d...... ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ Q: Q a Q.... ..~......Q.....~.Q.... :..Q..4...Q.Q......QQ......Q.......~.Q...~Q..., ...Q......Q...Q... ~ . Q ...Q..,. Q..Q... . Q.. .:.._.....:......Q - - Q a ........Q a a:Q Q a - a ~ Q ~Q Q.. Q.....Q... . Q.:... .Q ;.....Q:Q... ....Q..Q.QQ...Q.....Q..Q..._Q.Q..Q.... ..Q...
~ ~ N ~ ti : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ 575
9+ 50 10+00 10+50 11 +00 11 + 50 12+00 12+50 13+0 1 +50 0 3 14+00 14+50
50 15+00 15+5 0 16+00 16+ 50 17+00 17+ 50 18+00 18+50 19+00
rn~~~mu~r~n 1 unhn~nua rVK KtVICW AND GppRDINATION J
PROJECT MANAGER DRAWING SCALE RELEASED FOR DATE R MSE f = 30 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
DRAWN BY PROJECT DATE RALEIGH, NC 27612 APPROVALS OPEN SPRINGS STREAM MITIGATION PLAN OPEN SPRINGS DESIGN PLANS L/6
[phone] AMH 03/30/2004 WK
APPROVED BY PROJECT NUMBER BIDDING s M SE 30440.00.RA DICKSON Office Locations: PREPARED FOR
REV. N0. DESCRIPTION DATE FlLE NAME PLOT DATE community infrastructure consultants North Carolina Georgia CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL BANC AND EXCHANGE UT-1 STA. 9+50 TO STA. 19+00
REVISIONS 4/2/04 South Carolina Florida RECORD DWG.

N_ Q
Y (_7
U~~ ~O
ZOQ
i-W~I ~ \ ~ ~ 1 OZ~ ~ ~ A~ ~ v ~V ~ i
UO ~ WUO ~ \ \ ~
ZY I \ \ ~ ~ V A A _ A O~Q ~ ~ ~
{ ~ ~ ~ ~ W i- i ~ 1 \ ` ~ LEGEND
~'of + ~ vv ` ~ ACF ~ ~v v ~ I ~ \ ~ E)( STING
o ' r ~ o ~ ~ ~ - o~o ~ i ~ ~v ~ `
Fry / ~ \ \ \ \ I wooDS LINE
U~2 ~ u^^"~-ems ,i ~ ~ ~ V ~ OQF i c ~ 1 DaW e~-~"ter \ - ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ FENCE UNE -z-z-x-x-x-
~ Z O 1 `V ~ ~ \i d ~ i L~`~~ V 1 ~KQW \ ~ ~ i~ A A ~ ~1 ~ 1~~
OZ2 I ~ \ ,i ~ \ ~ Ctl O ~ ~ ` ~ ~ MAJOR CONTOUR - - - - - - i '
O~~U I ~ _ V ~ \ ~OOW I ~8~~ ~ _ ~ \ _ _ ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ IlMITS OF ~ ~ MINOR CONTOUR CONSERVAT10~1 ~ '
~ ~ 8S ~ EASEMENT i } TOP OF BANK ---te-----~-----~e--- ~ ~ ~ i.
~ Z O ~ / 1 ~t1s y ~ ~ i f ~ i ~ ~ ~8 _ _A~ ~ v vv v ~ ~ , ~ ~ \ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ PEE A BOTTOM OF BANK ---ea-----ae-----as--- ~ ~ G~ 1
.~U6. / / 1 ~r.s ~~l ~ ~ X ~ ~i ~ ~ 1 V t J~O~ ~ ~ i ~ / / ~ ` ~ P RROPOSED GATE ~ ~ ~
Q U ~ / ~ ~ / i ~ ~ / ~ / V A / ~ ~ ~ t\ ~ \ \ ~ ~ - . ~ PROPOSED
~ ~ ~ - H" v X m i~ _ i ~ ~ ~ i ~ / CS ~ A ,
o I O VI ~ °i o X ~ ~ ~ / k, ~ o ~ . _ ~ i k ~ ~ CENTER OF CHANNEL _ _
CJ1 Cis z`~im~ ice/ /i *v ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ I ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ LIMITS OF BANKFULL CHANNEL _
r as ~/ii 1 ~ 1 ` LIMITS OF CONSERVATION
oo~x ~~ii l v i ~ / ~ ~ o ~ ~,r i~~i~ f/ y ~ , ~ k ~r X ~ ~ ~ ~ . . PCE EASMENT (TO BE FENCED)
Y= ~ ~ r~~ ~ .oUw w~! ~G, v ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ 3F3y v ~ F~ ~ ~ ~ ~.1 ~j , ~ ~
.0 7p ~ / ~ ~ ~~tl ~ ~ i / ~~ppUZ ~ 1~(I ~ ~ % ~ M JOR CONTOURS $ es ~ i fi~~ ~ ~ ~
Ga U < l p~ \ / x ~ /ij1 ~ ~f~t v ~ ~ ~ ~ J~ 1 xi~rc v / II'I v ~ ~ ~ / _ ~~I ~ ~ a gee ~ 4 ~ MINOR CONTO R
~ II \ ~ / ~ / O 1 ~ ~ • - _ _ ~ a ROOTWAD
y. ~ ~ CE • ~ \ ~
_ / ~ ' ~ LOG VANE
r/''' i - , - ~ CUTTINGS BUNDLE
i ~ , - _ ~3 ~ ~ `
t~ ~ - _ A GI X ~ ~ " _ ~ ~ ~ ~ CHANNEL PLUG
I i ! ~ Tom'- ~ V / C- O LOG GRADE CONTROL s8?+
~ ~ 1 I ~ ~ ~ A / k t ~ l l~ ~ ~ _ ~ / ~ j i i~ _ _ ~ ` LOG TOE PROTECTION
~ 1 /+l / i i i ~ ~ ~
, ~ FORD CROSSING i ~ ~ ~ X
~ 1 I~ ~ ~~iQ~A~~ - ~ /4 ,i ~ i ~ r EA~IENT x., ~ CULVERT CROSSING
r~ !~gi ~ i i ~r i t i i i _ ~ 1 1 ~ ~ l ~ FLOODPLAIN SILL
d~ I I ~ l - ! 1 ~ ! A b ~ ~ ~ 0 ~
li f ~ 1 ! ~ l 1~ ~ ~ 1~ - ~F f) y ` - CROSS VANE ~ ~
~~I l ~ I ROPaSED 12 LF OF P~ 81` X 59` ALUMINUM RIFFLE GRADE CONTROL
~~1~. ~~l 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 / ' ~ PIPE ARCH -
I ~ ~ ( 1 ~ mil f ~ ~ ;tall ~ Iv' t I NOTE: SOD MATS TO BE PLACED ON ALL
1~ i I ~ i ~ ~`i l~ ~'r~ / n ~ NEW CHANNEL BANKS
lll ~ l~ Diu m , i II 3gd
/ / If
lli l~l !I ~ PROPOSE4 GATE ~C~ 30 0 15 30 60 120
It _
------~jd
y (IN FEET )
8.5
8.0 8.5
BAN~CEUEE EEEUATIi)~I
~ r ~ ~ BANf~FU~E EEEUATfON 0.5 0.5 BANhFU~~ ~~E~IA ~ i0~ ,Tf ON -
0.8 0. 2 1.3
1.0 1.7
1.8
3.5
0.4
TYPICAL RIFFLE DESIGN OS-4 6.8
NOT TO SCALE
4.8 3.0 0.7
TYPICAL STRAIGHT REACH POOL OS-4
TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER POOL 0 NOT TO SCALE DER POOL OS-4
NOT TO SCALE LE
580
0 58
g...._......~.........:.........
A E . O.UDB ~ BA KFUL,L STAG .
GR Y NERDY„GRADIE
. . .
575 O . 575
A _ d. _ o
A IENT AT ~ANKF ENERGY GR w
_ - -
: ~ ~ ~ ~ rn ~ ;..o...... ;rn... ~ d~ ~ ~.r.Q ~ ~ O p p ~ O.. apr ~ r N: ~ ClO ~ to 00
N: ~ d' ~ ~ ~ ~ u1 ~ .vi :co c0 cD:cO cp cp a0 a0 of Qi... uJ... ,...0......~....o.. N 0.... ~ - c0 ' fi r c0 r f~ r P I~ r r r
r ~ r: r .r r .r i` r r; r r r ~ r r r. r ~ t° r r:rr r €~r- r . u~ ~ ~ ~ :u~ +n :..~n an r r r ~ rr rr r r: r r= r rr r r: r r ao: r m ro rr ro ~r U ~ ......a~.. .~.K?.._..~,n... ..u~...:....~n.......,r~.u~.............!~.....:....u~.._....u~._.ua.:.........:_~n.. .u~....:.......~n.u~....:.u~..., in..
> ~ > > ~ > > > ~ > ~ > > > ~ > > > ~ > > > > > y 570 W: W W W w W W W W: :W W W :W W W: W y > > > > » > > > > ~ w w W w www u~w w w w » > > > > > ~ > y> > j> Q
J= ~ LJ J S ~J J J~ J J_ J J: :J :J J: J J J: J LJ iW W J :J J J J J J- J J:J JJ J- W W W W W W w W W W W W W 570 _ J J J ~ J J J ;J J J~ J J ~J J J
O O O: O d O O: O: O: O p O O O O p p O O O: :O p 0 0 0 O O: O O O~ ,.:0 c}O O Od' OO N~ Od~ O: O O O O O O O O O O: O p OO O O: O O O p O O O 0 0 p00 00 O i O O p0 O O O O p O 00 O .--0 p O pO O O O O QO O O O O O O O O O= O O :O 00
O ~ Oil 6i f!3 O Qa? 00~ d): cp I~ d' r ~ ~ ...~.~..~.p....h..,..~ ~ OO N: ~ rO ON N ~ NF ~ Or r: ~ N ~ 00 O O r~ t d' O: O r~:Nth N: r . o ri 0 .............N........r..........~........•. r.. c- N i ~ ((1 i r 4TH N N d'.t c0 r 0~ i ....~..~........0........N.~.....M...¢ O ~
O-........_.Q....:....0 ..:.........:.....0 ..........:.........0.-........-...0......... ......................-r.._.....r.:...~.. -.....;....c......-.. :.......,................:N....._..N..:........................:_ __..._.....N.._....--N ~ M ~ ~ d' d d' d' d If! _...!n........~...~..itQ..~........._......~ ............_4A.~.~.._..5450... _...:...(9..c....<P ..:......i...._....[.................:...._.:..........c_1~...;....1~.......W D0._..;..................i...06. .._.00....... OJ + m 01 ~ ~ m +
aw a a: a aw; aw w ~ aw a:a Q~ d Q Q~ d~ d d a a a Q a aQa a¢ d 'd Q - OQ 44 _..Q? . . a a :aa a a: a Qaa as d Q: a Q Q dQ d Q d a s d aQ Q cQ
I- J ~ I- J I- : H I^ J F- J J I- J F- J f- : F- F- I- I- I- I-H f- f= h f- I- H F- I- ~ : F F- I- I- f- N I- 1- : F- I- F- ~ F= N. W...w{,~....:k~.1.Ut ........:.........~11.1~4..;......U1.lel.. W....:.... W....{n;.. :..f~. .....:4n......:..Ul..:....... ....fn..:. ........::(n... ....lJi ....Uf..... ....UI...........:.....(n:.........' ........;(A.... .......~/1.U.l.:.Ul. .....(n Ul .....VJ............ .....v~............u,..cn..~n .............c~........ ......en....... ....,......._....cn..;.......... u~.....:......_ .....:....~........~...~.:.........~..ur....... .m....>.......u~.cn.....cn...~.,n..
0+00 0+50 1 +00 1 +50 2+00 2+50 3+00 + 3+50 4 OD 4+50 5+00 5+00 5+50 0+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50
DQCI I~AIAI A QV 11Q A W11?I~±C ene ee~~~e~it • ~~n /'~~'1ne111~1 A T1~1~1
_ IF ~10.1bu¦u mol ¦ v"J% ¦ n~L7v rVn nGrIGR F11rY VVVI'SVi1\NI IVry J
PROJECT MANAGER DRAWING SCALE 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND RELEASED FOR DATE MSE 1" = 30
DRAWN BY PROJECT DATE RALEIGH, NC 27612 APPROVALS OPEN SPRINGS STREAM MITIGATION PLAN OPEN SPRINGS DESIGN PLANS ~
AMH [phone] 03/30/2004
L APPROVED BY PROJECT NUMBER BIDDING MSE 30440.00.RA DICKSON Office Locations: PREPARED FOR
REV. N0. DESCRIPTION DATE FILE NAME - PLOT DATE community infrastructure consultants North Carolina Georgia
REVISIONS 4/2/04 South Carolina Florida RECORD DWG. ENVIRONMENTAL BANC & EXCHANGE UT-1 STA. 0+00 TO STA. 9+50 6

°z ~ ~ 4
j -~i, g N ~ 4,
W F"'-
1 3 a ~
1
d- ~ ~ j J pp 1 Q 1~
I ~ ti ~ ~ ~ r
~ O W
%p I ~ ~ ~
1~ W ` ~ p
2 ~ n W Y tiaz
4 lac ~~m
. ~ ~l

i ~PCE :~l-14 ~,i- iii
~ i A
I F N wo 4 §
' u.
'yj, i PROPERTY LINE
~ ~a~ r V/
1 f , ~f~ M HI! .:5 ~i r~,,,:: ~ „ ~ ~ O
F i i ~ yy ~ - ` 2 O
_ - ~ J Q m ti
; s. , ;r = ~ _ , s ii`
- w; ya ~ , h
o F 1;.
~ n P, r=' ..y... ~,i f~
0 i, $ _ ! I r.. (U
U ~
Q - ~T~
_ _ o , v ~ ~ a
z ~ a - rR~ L r ~ ~J _t
~ C D D ~ n a
N QQ'
H U .N. Q , _ ,~Z~
a '~2 O _
- ,LS.SOS - _ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q - Q
s o z a _ ~ Y _ ~ _ _
~ 0 - -
3
n 10
N v ~ ~ ~ rn { ~r4.~ 4 i, r, a n r
F- L~
i d N
i ~ ~
- _ ~ M PC ~ E ~
35~ ~ iii,. - M
4 od `.~d~.___~~ _ ~
_ a - st9 a a~,
~ } _ I P W <0
1r ~ _ p :i:_. ~ -
3 ~ r - ~ w ~ ~
_ _
~ , 3 - ^ d _ u~ P ~
~ ~ .Ni j r i I ~ ~ I ~ ~
I ~ ~ ~ i ~ ti
~ v,. ro 4 0
i~,~,` i ~ W LAJ N
~ --3~d-_._-- ,z ~ ~ i
3Jd ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -b , P ~ O ,z:,` -
i.i~ (n _ W.. 1 _ r ~ O n N
a~ ~ ~ N W /L~l
~ Jy N CJ ~2 N p• j0 J `J
~ ~ \ H. m ~ ~ >~p r.- Q ~
' \ r7 r Q r ~ _ N .Aft n~._~ ~ 0 F~
d ~ ~ W c^ W ~W
o F ~ ~ ~ O ~ W a ~z
~j ~ Q Q V1 a _ _ d O Y ~ ~ a; + \ l 2 ~ Q
i'\`~~` 3 - Oi ~ t0 Q QZ ~ ~ W Q
r o u~ o
~i rr ~ ~r~`~\~ ,~1, N Q F ~ ~ r ` `b ~ U ~ Q ;x
Q O O O ~ d N ~ . _ N ,r,, ~ ~ C
. , ~ y
` N O U m Z 9" ~ Z Q Q . d ' ~
r W r ~ - JJ ~ H F- U Z i A
` ~ r r Q O ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ Q r ~ z ca
~ \ as N ~ - U
r ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ i - ~ Z (n ~ ~ _ - S H _ Q d~ ~
~ i U ~ ~ i _ ~ ^ ~ Q ~ d , A
~ ~ N ~i,I d r i 3 r ` - - ~ n~, { -
\ N Z
Q F- ~ s
r ~ L~ L~ J ; jr 0 d QG6
_ ~ O ,c - U1 U1 ~ ~ ~ ~ q~ o-
~ i ~ ~ 07 ~ ~ ~~r ~9 41 ~ r ~ D7 ~ `f~, 1n t~ F.. 4~ ~`1tA ki., ,7 4 .ice 1 ~ /
`r r `d- r V E'} M f- 71
~ ~ i.-~ r z QV ~ , r rr ~ ` QV tr r ~ (n ~ ' j f / a U
~ r U Q
a Q. ~ V y~.. i'if C d
_ ~ rV ~~r Z O Z
Q J ~ ~
1 ~ Q ~ H I ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ 3 H U ~ ~ ~ W Q ~ ~ pj ~
r , , ',J~''~, a ~ ~ 3 ~ U N W
\ ~~r r - a 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z - N U ~
~ 1 1 o ~ r - ~ , ~ r _ ~ Q p Q I~i
A '`0' , ~ z ~ n. M p _ `JJ 3 ~ U ~ M ~ ~ a
V A ~ ~ ~r `r, Q ~i~1 a Z Fes- c cD 3 U ~
\ ~ Q Q ~ Q I j O ~ 0_ M
r \ r ~ ~ r r r `i_ ~J Z I~ ~ ~ ~ " ~Ja a Q 3 Q ~ I
a i 'r H r~ ~ O ~ Z ~ M Q ` ~ ,
- _ v ~ ~ ~
rr r r ~ \ .d r . r i _ ~ , r ~ , ~ x
r r ~ i r r r u ' - 3~ - ~ ^ Fes- O ~ U N W
, ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ r r ~ i ~ ,I r ~ ~ _ ~ ; , ~ Q _ ~ Or r' ~ Or
t ~ i. ~ it 4... r' ~ ~ ~ r.- ~ - ~ r t rr i i ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ O ~ ~ ~ ~ Q
r rr ~ l ~ ~ 1 I l r i ' ~ ` Z U1 I ~
~ ~ r' ~ i i i ~ ~ r i i O Q 't C
r j _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W Z
`t' ' _ ~ ~ r r r ~ d ~ ~ s y~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ fir, , i ~ ~ ~ i ~ Q, i ~ p ~ R" Q
1r ,~Fyn i" ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . n~ C( ! i I~ ~ I ~ r Z
~~.u~ :L.i I ~ ~ rr ~ rug .u 4:: rre i I I~ i S6 ~ ~ of , 2 s ~ o 1, M ~ `;U Zo Q U
a ~ 'r ~ ~ ;
`t\ ~ ' 3~d U O' ~ N r
~ QC's' ~ , 1 ~t 1 ~ A~~ 3 ~ ¢ (n l,_ ~ a O ri H I ~ N
~ i 1 •1„ / I ~y` ~ 11 / I ~ , N Ui G
I 1 I I ~g Z Oi U1 Q H N ~ ~
I ( ba 1 I ~ 1 r7 U - ~ ~ 0 - ~ Q Q ~ ,,w y I^\ SS _ ~ d d'
r I ~ ~~1 ~ a ~ U Q Q n-
~ \ ~ 1 t ~ _ _ - Q _ rn ~ U I w ~ v O d Z Q U
.i \ _ _ Z ~ Q d
I l C~ _ - - W Z ~ d
„~2A ~ SE,i k ; :4~,d~,~~ .I,.r,"; f _ ~~V~fl4 1 i ~ t~ 1 1 I ~ t ~ _ . ~ _ ~ a cn _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ F
_ ~ ~ 1 ~ _
1 ~ ~ ~ ~d 3~ ~ ,~i..,y . _ ~ ~ l
~ • ~~4 1 ~b- ,h ~ i I r r,. _ F-
I I , 1-- ~ I it ~ ~ ~ rr I ,a ~ ~ U In l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ Q N U d 4
_ ~ ~ ~ F- Q - ~ - ~ _ U 00 IL
1 ~ ~ ~ I ~ i ` ~ ~ ~ + ~ _ ~ Q d' C7 4 `
I \~t ~ - ~ t \ ~ ~ N
1 t <~~l 1~ tt 1 t\ At ~ ~ ~ ~ Z U F QG
W tt 11 \I t I 1 Q Q . _ ~ ``~y~. - n
t 1 ',.1~' t \\I 1 V+ ~ I~u~ t 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ i ~ r n ~ ~ \ I ~ v G a I iy ~ ~ _
(9 t i 1 tt ~ 1 Z, t ~ ' ~ ~ M tin W
l tt 1 1 1 ~ ~ A I ~ ~ ~j i v Q Z Q r ~ nt tixi I~ Q U' ~ 1 . a 1 ---_-O' - - ~ ~ ' ~
I'' F- ~ 1 ~ w ~ I
d
1' ~ I ~ I ~ ~
~ I, ~ ~ i ~ ~ i ~ II a 1 I\ ~ ? ~ ~ Q ~ I .1 1 ~ ^ ~l .1 ~ 1 1
U Q 1 i _ r _ J I J
a . y . a _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1
~ o ` y ~ - _ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 r l" ~ ~
~n ~ a J I ~ I 1
i ~+H1 5 I ` ~
n ~ , _ h , 1 , 1 ~ i , „ ~ ~ _ ~ , ~c~;, ~
S ~ i I 1 1 1 1 ~ ~
1 11 i 1 / r I I K~, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ I ~ ~1
~ - P.,. ' ~ 1 1 i ' 1~ i r ~ li Iq
9Z - ~ u~ ~ ' ' - - v ~ Al ~ r 1 1 \ r 1 1 ~ _ ~ I11, yl r r a ~ ~ ~
~ I 1 ~ 1 ~ i ~ 11 tl I _ _ ~i ~
~ ~ .
~ _ tv'..,.. 1 1 I \ 3~d 1 \ 1 I, ~ '
~ I ~?-'-~~d--==x_30 I 1` ? ~ ~ 1 ~ I d_'-`~--_ ~I ~ i 1 1 3~d------- 1
i i ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ r- - 1 d ~ 1 I , It i I 1 ~ 1 +r
r ~aa , 1 II- ~1
i ~ ~ 1 I j I ~-"I~M p mr I I 1 IIW II 111 ..-ON
P~'Y ~ ~rl- y. - 1 I ' 1-~_ 11114 II ~'-ii•I I / 1 T I tl ppI~~P 1 r ; Yom,' ,'1~- ~r iHa 9
_ ~a ~ 1 ` II w~ ~ I ~ ) I ~
~ a i'~ ~ r i
,r, ~ w^. a;~, „e . - _ - 1 i \ i 1 ~ I 1 X111 i li. ~ `I1
_ _ - ` ,y , ~ 1G / I IIIU ;II I a
~ , , i F e i ~1 S11` ~~t / 1 Il~ ~I /
r 4+^. y i. ~ 1
uil'. ! ~ ~~~P ~ 1 1
t, P~7 A 1~ II I1~ r
~ ~ 4 r yy 11'
~yr~ ~ F__ ~ ~ , I 1 ",i f ~ .aF~,y „ ;
,~',1r1 rt1 a q, F r.
~ - I , ~'y~` r- ~ , Y I Yr" I
' a ;i r ~ - d 2. ~r rr,~'i ~ ~ t - :`7,.~ i C ~~iA'='V L I^.~ ~t" t4~ Jy ~.1 `I,. i,. >
n ~ a;• _ ~ (K ~ ~-~n~k~~' ~ -fir, ~ I r,; ~~y~~ y MYR4~ 'I. eyael7t,.~ EPl'~+ "aWbv'~tiw
I_ 1
< i'
x .~'r '

~ ,
Itj a I P` fF~ r ~ ~ y>, ~
+s 1Y ~a~ r
I :ma
I
. v:,. k
l':
i ' L.
~ ~ i;`~ ~',~:r~ ~ i i
i
M i
i,
. 4 y1l~' - `1 ~ I 1 "
~s tl : r., , z „ ;d R}
1 I 11 ~V .r.S~~ i~~. 1 ~m~ ^ 1 ~ r~ ~ib` 8. •M.S.:
~d., 1
i
l"
i~ .C ~ 1)
I f
II
f