20041612 Ver 1_Complete File_20041206

o`'oF W a r?9p?
`? r
p Niiim?wmrslflw Y
Mr. Jeff Jurek
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1619
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
D November 23, 2004
DEC 0 6 2004 DWQ# 04-1612
DENR - WATER Alamance County
ELANDS AN S-rowwAR 7Y
WH
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mr. Jurek:
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program has our approval to conduct stream restoration,
enhancement, and preservation activities, in accordance with the attached conditions, along a total of 13,705
linear feet of two unnamed tributaries to Sandy Creek, and a portion of Sandy Creek itself, located on the
Meredell Farm, near Liberty, Randolph County, as described in your application received by the Division of
Water Quality on October 10, 2004. After reviewing your application, we have determined that this activity is
covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3399, which can be viewed on our web site at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. This Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 27
when it is issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should secure any other applicable
federal, state or local permits before you proceed with your project, including (but not limited to) those
required by Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge, and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also,
this approval will expire when the accompanying 404 permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General
Certification.
This approval is valid only for the purpose and design that you have described in your application. If you
change your project, you must notify us in writing, and you may be required to send us a new application for a
new certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification and
approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this
project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A
NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification, as well as the additional conditions listed below:
1. Appropriate sediment and erosion control measures which equal or exceed those outlined in the most
recent version of the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual or the
North Carolina Surface Mining Manual (available from the Division of Land Resources at NCDENR
regional offices or the central office), whichever is more appropriate, 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; IONTUs in DWQ Classified trout waters). Such measures must equal or
exceed the requirements specified in the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and
1Vo°` Caro ina
,Vaturally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Certification Unit 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 Phone [phone] FAX [phone]
2321 Crabtree Blvd. Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 Internet http//:h2o.enr.state.nc,us/ncwetlands
Customer Service Number: 1-877-623-6748
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Mr. Jeff Jurek, NCEEP
Page 2
November 23, 2004
Erosion Control Manual. These measures must be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites,
and waste pile (spoil) sites, including contractor owned and leased borrow pits, which are associated
with the project.
2. 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 measures; in wetlands or waters is
unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within sift months of th? date that the
Division of Land Resources has released the project.
3. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, on riparian areas beyond the
footprint of the impacts depicted in the Pre-Construction Notification. All construction activities,
including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion (control "Best
Management Practices" shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality standards,
statutes, or rules occur.
4. Upon finishing the project, the Applicant shall fill out and return the enclosed "Certificate of
Completion" to notify NCDWQ when all work included in the §401 CertifiQation has been) completed.
This certificate should be returned to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the NC Divlision of Water Quality at the
address listed on the form. Along with the Certificate of Completion, please send photogiaphs showing
the entire restored stream reach.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatoryjhearing. You
must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition
which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final
and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
If you have any questions, please telephone Daryl Lamb in the DWQ Winston-Salem Regionali, Office at 336-
771-4600 or Cyndi Karoly in the Central Office in Raleigh 919-733-9721.
ce elyp
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
AWKJcdl
Attachments
cc: Andrea Wade, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Field pffice
Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
Central Files
Wetlands/401 File Copy
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney Regional Contact:
Non-Discharge Branch WQ Supervisor:
Date:
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name NC EEP: Meredell Farm Stream Restoration County Randolph
Project Number 04 1612
Recvd From APP
Received Date 10/1/04
Project Type stream restoration
Recvd By Region
County2
Region Winston-Salem
Certificates Stream
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req.
F _F 27 Stream O YO N ?- 17-16-(3.5) WSIII CA 30,609. F- 13,000.00
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet
I F__ I F_
Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? O Y ON Did you request more info? O Y ON
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? 0 Y O N
Is Mitigation required? O Y O N Recommendation:O Issue O Issue/Cond O Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) 355116
Comments:
Longitude (ddmmss) 793801
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Number 1
Facility Name NC EEP: Meredell Farm Stream Restoration County
Project Number 04 1612
Regional Contact:
Date:
Daryl Lamb
11 /24/2004
i
i
I
I
4
i
I
i
4
I
I
I i
cc: Regional Office
Central Office Page Nuknber 2
I
Peirw%rnAanta fnnntinmmri frnrn nsnn I%-
Triage Check List
Date: I0l"Il -v Project Name: _,NL tEP " McyerteI/ 64r, S ytaw, s-pr,
DWQ#: a y-1 c -
County: _ 9,4,4d r,4
To: ? ARO Kevin Barnett ? Wa.RO Tom Steffens and Kyle Barnes
? FRO Ken Averitte ? WiRO Noelle Lutheran
? MRO Alan Johnson ® WSRO Daryl Lamb
? RRO Mike Horan
From: Lkr? 67a6A Telephone : (919) WS-7,171
The file attached is being forwarded to your for your evaluation.
Please call if you need assistance.
? Stream length impacted
? Stream determination
? Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USFW topo maps
? Minimization/avoidance issues
? Buffer Rules (Neuse, Tar-Pamlico, Catawba, Randleman)
? Pond fill
? Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching
N Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
? Check drawings for accuracy
? Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concern
Comments: W I? ?? } t fr bc° a,-cril ; -k for rcr fcr?h?? 7
M2 Aye?evtnre
Well ne'd IV !"Aducl( 6e„J?-y m6nddr,`'!? Pre rYri 2,Y.-6 4e;r ceniT, 0,1
-, os stem
? I1 IaI elllent
PROGRAM
MEMORANDUM: 041612
TO: Cyndi Karoly
FROM: Jeff Jurek
SUBJECT: Permit Application- Meredell Farm
DATE: 9-28-04
PM @ Pm 0 W Pm N
Q
O C T 0 1 2004
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETl N AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Attached for your review are 2 restoration plans (1 sent to Winston-Salem) for the Meredell
Farm Stream Restoration project in Randolph County. Please feel free to call me with any
questions regarding this plan (715-1157).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
attachment: Restoration Plan (2 originals)
NCDI A
ERR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net

Office Use Only: ()4 1 6 1 2 Fonn Version October 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing @
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project: 0 C T 0 1 2004
® Section 404 Permit
El Section 10 Permit WE7UWDNSANDSTTORMWA RIBTYRANCH
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation),'\,check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Mailing Address: 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone Number: 919-715-1157 Fax Number: 919-715-2219
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
2. Agent 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:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 5 of 12

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 4te 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 ?ootprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, he maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Sol Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included a the applicant' discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution prposes, 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 pre ers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size p1 t. 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 provid d.
1. Name of project: Meredell Farms Stream Project
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):_
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): _
4. Location
County: Randolph Nearest Town: Liber'
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Off Ramseur Julian Rd.
I
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sleet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at thel time of this application:
Agriculture-li
9.
7. Property size (acres): 30 ac
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Sandy
River Basin: Cape Fear
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen desi
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/adm
major river basins. The
Page 6 of 12
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Stream Restoration
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Track Hoes, loaders
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: Agriculture-crops
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 bf the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
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:
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 7 of 12
i
i
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Located within
100-year Floodplain**
es/no Distance to
Nearest Stream'
linear feet
Type of Wetland***

* 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.itov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetla?ds on the property: 1.0 ac
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.0
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams (SCE PLANS)
Stream Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
linear feet
Stream Name** Average , idth
of Stream
act
Before It Perennial or
Intermittent?
leas specify)
i

* 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 stream 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 USG$ at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usas.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., ynM.topozone.com,
www.inapguest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 13,000 FT
Page 8 of 12
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number

indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact

acres
(if Name p Waterbody
applicable) Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean etc.

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. 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.): \
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
_SEE PLAN
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 9 of 12
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and M dification 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 environme t are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relati v e value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of a propriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropria a 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 stre s; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhanc ng, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed. j
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation planjmust be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for pro essing. Any )application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shal be placed qn 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 Nortb Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strrngide.html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The escription 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 b?sin, type and amount (acreagdlinear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement,`\ creation, or preservation), a I 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.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands (Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that paymenI into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements.' Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetland Unit if paymlent into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the) application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2oxe r.state.ncm/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):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): I
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): f
Page 10 of 12
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
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 (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify V
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone I extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 11 of 12
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / En ancement, Prdservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage
Discuss stormwater controls
downstream from the property.
(both existing and proposed) ? versus total acreage on the site.
proposed in order to protect sur ce waters and wetlands
i
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and 4disposition (non !discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity) of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes El No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes El 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. llowever, 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).

Signature Date
is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
Office Use Only: .1 61 ^ Form Version October 2001
04-161
USACE Action ID No. DWQ N
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing LR@ ?
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project: 0 C T 0 1 2004
® Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit WET wDSANDSTTORMw RA RRANM
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), ',check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Mailing Address: 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone Number: 919-715-1157 Fax Number: 919-715-2219
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
2. Agent 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:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 5 of 12
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the prope
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed s
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properti
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific f
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible,
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soi
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included al
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger th
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prel
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size pla
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the appl
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provide,
i
ty with respect to local
to plan showing property
!s. Both the vicinity map
?otprints of all buildings,
he maps and fans should
Survey with t?e property
the applicant's discretion,
listribution purposes, the
?n 11 by 17-inch format;
:rs full-size construction
s. If full-siz6 plans are
cant will be informed that
1. Name of project: Meredell Farms Stream Project
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): _
4. Location
County: Randolph Nearest Town: Libery
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Off R seur Julian Rd.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at
Agriculture-livestock
7. Property size (acres): 30
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Sandy
9. River Basin: Cape Fear
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/
that senarately lists the
time of this (application:
?Odd major river basins. The
i
Page 6 of 12
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Stream Restoration
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Track Hoes, loaders
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: Agriculture-crop
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 (whero applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments 6f the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
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:
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 7 of 12
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Located within
100-year Floodplain**
es/no Distance to
Nearest Stream
linear fee'
Type of Welland***

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited tb: mechanized clea ng, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structu 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 $ervice Center at 1-00-358-9616, or
online at http://www.feina,izov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetla?ds on the property: 1.0 ac
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.0
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams (SEE PLANS)
Stream Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
linear feet
Stream Name** AveragWidth
of Stream
Before !Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
le se specify)

* 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/strai htening, etc. If strum relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated stre s must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as U (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USOS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uses.eov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USES maps (e.g., w?w.topozone.com,
www.mapguest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site:: 13,000 FT
Page 8 of 12
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number

indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact

acres
(if Name p Waterbody
applicable) Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean etc.

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. 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%mbankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): \
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
_SEE PLAN
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 9 of 12
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and odification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitig tion will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environm, nt 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 4ppropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practic ble 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 pr cessing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence sh ll 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 Noah Carolina, 'available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strrnp,ide.html.
i
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description shl uld provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river b?lsin, type and 4mount (acreag /linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, ",creation, or preservation), ?: 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.
i
SEE PLAN
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payme4 Check into the NC RP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements, Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlans Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional informationi regarding th application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at hqp://h2o.$nr.state.nc.us/ /index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate boy, on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):'
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 10 of 12
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
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 (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. Ali proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 11 of 12
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / E hancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) v
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect
downstream from the property.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
total acreage I on the site.
ice waters and wetlands
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.
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .050:0) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes El No ® j
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficntly in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. an a plicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencin lowever,
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).
??f/_o
Signature Date
is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant i$ provided.)
Page 12 of 12

PR OJECT: D 92R MEREDELL FARM
N G ? ?IIn
9 O qo
o
o C`11 0 4
T p m p p? n©nn *.y ?
_ U a cn
m 2 ]) I-
N o p
Z CD
Wz
Cl
0 0 0
? 0 0
O O O Z
Z
(A (A CA o
M o o
N
r
oAo C y
z z z u n u u ?
? O
vi A w w Dm
ow.V°au?°',°o oZ h
+c
o -I OA n
T T T °° .
M m m m y C)
m C)
y b
Cl) m_ b o
D Z
gc:
2 2 I ?' I ° lZi ''C b x?
co
2 2 I ° iTa O
v N A
I
I y b
b i ?m cn°° y O'`? ?! y
Dc? ac
I o z + z ? I., ? ? n
E Q c C c
C
y
? Q o O I* coo O N W w .. y
o? I ch ° :v a O o
T2
CA
s o n N I to
$ I ,xy Cn r O
En
W
N mm co
S c" z z m I x ?1 G?
c o 0 DG_7 I n '+]
$ m ccz
a N,?
z Cl)
o Cm y
D -1 z
V NNE p
I
-- -----?a°R-4ooCj)ICI o
W V C D A -----?
11 0
b II oD mz I
° G) 0 I
z
o c
? b w w? ch m ?f cn m 03
=?C m acl) DO I DG)
?C cZ
it
c?x Drn ? Zr o°C
-I
m
CD m z o.
? DD wQ
to CA) N)
+? RO11 +° -CI
1 °C1?Z ' o ?N
o `ir 1 0 O
b Sisk n 4
-M
r
2 A ?!
rn
0
y %0
? N 3
,y E8 dVN
r

m ?

- ? f
?° • 1 - I i
D b ? ? I
1 I
`
_
i

i A
.?
.I
w w° ? s N -o T -o -v 'o oo
p a p- •p •v m -v ?n A -o -0 -o -o -e -0 A m
y o Q= Q O O O x" " p ° O 9! 9 H < c H O O O O O O c too-
to c @ 3 O •p .a. C O « •O -? 3 'C 'C -r = <D ID Q Q -0 -0 'O 'O 'O O a' <D
°' 0 c c 3 -1 -I m A A ?0 3; P 3' O G7 A w A N H o
m c 'o W Q H 0 W 0 y o O rt (p p ip cc 0 3 c c c s° s o 0 0
Q 7 p y- p O 3 "d O O -S« rt rt ?Q A '? d d '?+ <D W 7 <N W ?D p 0 ¦
vii W O O O O O O O 'Sn 3 W tr p Q O CL 7 N CA < N
<D S c O 0 0 A CC,, CC W
Q O y G `?' p C 0, 0, '+ ` C O 3. W
T
Oo ??1 = p ? y, ? p• p• ~' 3 n n 3 `pG 0 `pG '? ` 0 r1 fl ? 7C O• 'T1 O m to '? y II
2 x ^v fD N 0 fm 2 O ?D ID ? r? C r? ?1 J t`D p m a 'n '17
=
7 -ci. N
A ` J fl- 0
T M O y ,.PTO c? `0 ( G'0 M (D
°? < ? 0 1 ? N a 7 ? 7 ` ` ? C Q (DS co ?D y
s:
0 >; CD
Q -v 'o -o ?- p D
y ? C? ? O O ? ''f7
m
N Q 3+ '' O C ?,Ll Q C
CD 0
N
n I I I I I F I I m
Q ? I 4 Y I I I I 1 I I y m
IT
.? I I I ? I I I I I ? CA - to c cr a ` C ? p O O p p O O 11 iG ` W 0 O <D ?? Q ? p ? fD ? )C M X M )C X, p ? O ?
7 ?D ID ° -Q.? 7 N N fn ?D S. .p.. N frtD_ 0- <9 O' 0 .6. CA- y .N'* '.Op rt G rt fV Q Z
p .? < 37 <D 3 ?* fD 'O CD Q -? M C -O 0 CD 'p O O' Q.
N n p -? S C 'O Q S -? _: 3 °' p =.
?- o O y -j ::E Cn .Z ..i o r 3 0; -, o A p o .» o m o o 0, cD ° 0 0 o to p. c fp
fOD 3 <C 0 N C W T 7 W ID Q i p p (D (D A N fOD -Q? -3+ fD N lD 0 CD to
CD ;r n a9 7 Q -V O O O DO (D 'O 'O O fD W n t9 m
H N Q O N*+ 3: O -1 O S O W S 7 S' N? p '9 y y C p' S O C.
A 0 O % p H O O S O O p Q N Q' 7 O lD fD 7 3 p p X
-ci 7 Q H S 3 3 j- O CD fD O S N O tr rt O A-0 N O CD CD c !^
CD 3 3:
0 w -0- =r
y 3 -i Ox 7 O O O' O O p Q. ° O ?D <D
o° ? W o o ? Q.z y O
0 0 ? 0 2 !?
ro o x °- CL y
rt
34
®ee"ff0e®moooa®I?©lio.Boo®cs®®®®®o?- a + o-... I ? II O ??
Z
mm m r = -n m m m m 7o A -I A N m D ?n O 70 0 m c 0 0 m 0 m N 0
<D p 0 0 0 % 0 0 O O O Q Q Cr x• ID <D 0 7 <D ?D CD a W '* t9 CD a M Q 0 t?D
N N O O IQ H' 3 O O O m O O N --r c -.. p_ p y, a n r^. H. n _. H• n to n N n 0 ai on
?Q fQ 3 /p O to " to O
0 '0' > > O c S 3 <D G 0 <D ~ tD 0 O H 3 W O Q fp <p O !p 4
to to m A 3 O(Q r Z c 0 r Si r -^ o m `z o o' ?a?p Q ?°?pp" p' W e c ?°?pp' c C Q 0 ? r t?
7 p ° A C <D 3 Z 3 CD (D 9 r C m= Oi d T d„ I C C_ a 0- d p' y ?D p_
3 O •O._• Q p 3 c O 7r <D n a -n CD ?_ <D f'?D W O ?' 'n N C 7 W Q
0- (D Cn CD
fD fD 3 O CD p- 3 K FD p O 0 ?' N N• cD S ? , a r 7 * p W
'7 rt <D 3 0 to -1 O < fD O O r r 7 .Z N _r
d C_ Qp 7 O "' G b O C O ?• 3• N A O O m r 3 7 O N r 7
y O l2 0_? p_ ra r n O A m'a S O O N N W CD CA
p. p. o_ A Q p cD o- H C to
(D Cr
p W gyp' fl. O C N ID W O lD iTs
O n
C. 3 N ?. 7 `Z N O Q N O
C;D
tD p O C in
c " m 3;
CA' to m p O O
H It v m C
?» V N
Il??lli? I IIII?? y I I I I.I I ?I
mal
m m m 1 e e s i n I t }? •
I I I ? I I I I I I
+ I I ? I I I I I I I I I I I.
I1?11111
3°o < O x _N N r -I T A -n W m G1 ?q A A 2 N N to 0 A 'o N A 0 0 m w
SN p O A O C. 3 3 S Q O c K p. < Q S "? C Q O 9. 3 cc p 0 ° S C H° C
A y 7 W S O lQ tQ rt 'f < `? Ip O -? -? O' O O. H 3 C = 3 3 3 7Z' O -? fD Q 7 d
7 ' a t9 <D lD = O G. c N ? Oi, to y y 3 3: A S c O Q
N G O tp < _ c C > > 3 C = to
3 f7 tD 2 lD <D G W ?. ?Ni. p O• A C ? ID ? 3 vO, ~
p O' N O O W O N O
a C O ?
O c C 3 Q. -? ti
? C ? VJ
c
fD Q
O O
p y A
IN* Q °
n ?
a 1 .1 I ? r y
g I? p I I I I I I? f l ?r C
)0 *0 me
10
I v ,j a
I ? ? 1 1-l I ?
i
rr.\019 %R Lesion\Plons\0192R_EEP_PSH_01S.dan

2"Almz
N
2)C 0 ?
CL (5D
S
0
0

L
00
0
0
0
Q. C (D N .
(D °1 0
3 O m m ;00 O
n
°
°
? m A
C) O ;o O O
O
° ?
yam =
? z
I 'n 7
o o
C v
i ? t
i?
m
z
° v
° O 0 ?
*> L
5

<
g?
m
m ?+ m
m o
m
o ?
z D
z
m °
p
to z
m
?vr

c o
25 S, y -I -G Gl

co cn m
O
?
? <

G7

<
z
V1 7 .w ID ai m z rt
r h
_ m C
3y?o 55 D
Pr
y j NN
o (D
°
r-1
X 3
7 D) ?O,, M
pq?q
z z
8?f?
_°x y
z °
m
j
o 0) go °'rc
m

y
°' 0-3

!] tvn

m

z ` ( I O

p

0
o r

C ? O K fD ?
M-0

Er D)
w
3 O
C_

0

m

z 9

m

'D

q c
0
r

c

w
t
o,
D s
m? ac n O m z T v
m
z m
it m RL M• G• Z z I m z m z
O°=r (a S
g v
°O m z m p C?

=r
9 <
r rit
G) t
n
D mm
r
¢
@vm
N zi -mi m
O =? Z :p
0 z
r
r- O m?
? m cn °m m-0 CD =MEc
?
c
cnr_ <7?
-i< h
0
9 <
cnz mG)mz
-j? ?Z?G) h
0
m --10)0 n?
080 mm mZ h
0 8.0 ?Dm?h h
0-10 u20 0D 0
or- o ZDav
i o m?? cx0 m?a ?DW?0 m
?D G)r
oo? ?O Z ? 0i?to
wz c rcnm Z T cn?0
mmz x v

vrrim m 0
z T- 0XA0X p

Z 7C0Dm
mm m Z
vm
z

?c

?
?
Dm
ZN 0? z Dtn m v
z m m Z m
N r D xxT.
N h
m rn
o rn rn rn
o
$
?

Cl) ?v
-n
m
Nv
-n
m
m D
o-0 v

m D
o-0 v O

m C3j i
i
n Z?
Z M
Pv
o?
Z o x RaRtt z
< ;a z -mot
m CrJ m
0 o m
:_4
z 3
- Z
r
2
m
m ?=
m
m ripw
f
y
m = ow I? ° "
° n
m2?
?
y C)ul ??C?C?
n lm
-
j
Vi
? C ymm DRtoQ
z O m ?
m
R

fn
- <

m mr^ 3v
Qm

m C
o 00

m ?00

v
D? ? Z2
z
I

Nn N
N A
?c
o0° %5 , cn
ZD? a n
C)

®

T

0

o cn
m
Z rn

mm
C/S

m
n o V) rtl

-i a?
x? ? n m co

Z -?
4 D n m C)

-io ?
x m n :rj

z m

z r h rt1 C

?o A tr ?I
m? m g

Z D
? r

2 Z m
0 A O
C
C?
rr O?? C m
9T
fn

o

n
v m

c"p G7
Z
Z `t
mZ O
v ?? T 7?

N
h tTI mp =?
ooD
2?Cy

3? T

h

m G)
n
? NSao

?

n G)
CA
yz? m
0 n
r fn

z m z

w
C z za mn

S o a
R? Z? z m
>
? a
o
CrJ

°
22
C

o
m ti?
8 ?m 2 ?
m ? -a 2Z
z
mcn
a m
m ilO
? c
z 2
mcn m
?
o y
r p
m0 20 Or -4
c ?
p 8? n N Z
Orn X
pnNi I "' ow ow y m CO]

n
0

m
m
"o rl
n
U)

m ?+ m

m m

m m m

m czi, m

,®
-

aoD
-?I cnrn

m y
Dn
zm NNNN

m
cn D
z OcNn(nncNn
?
0
mm
?D 0
?M 00000 m
z ?
D 00 Z D m 0 cn m z -I l
o -
m m o m ca
3
zv
m
? m
zv

z

m
m ?0
09 X0
0
c? 2C ? o
1 Sr
..
0X
W
c
z

;? o

rr:\0192RQDasign\P1ans\0192R_EEP_PSH_02.dgn
9/9a/aq

N ? y

® $
T3 4 v
c) j

C
CA
N
CA x

o

I
I I
i I
?
ao

0D 2E m
D

D

,
. F?ow
v D

5 m
N
I I

n
?I221

. r

+ Oo N N H G _
N
8Fa
Gwzz g \

\ .TI

r
I 1_/ - A A N O O V T

a? omm? In C FO
z

0
Q
A N UI C, O C 8 5o z ?
1'1?0pp
°C
?
? I-
r Z
z
r

O A A w o o .I T
N INC OlW41rC.
II Iyyz?
vz°p ?. Q
N
p

O

v N
p+v++N

O
AaNacoO
r S?DN

O M O
r m
z
NO O 4 1,

-T

.
`.'

Z
=2 0
Wo < T

?, NmN+om'*I
V C G C Ce W r
RR1I -i 19 m
N
m
N C
r
r

W N + ?W
A O N N+ 6 O
oo?owoo
Vd\

z
_
W
m

m? y
g x
g ?"
g og o
=3=0

0 "n
rrn Z
n
n
vpg? d` F O ooq 0 -1

o_? a
iti
S
z
#-.
CA
W
o0jo o? D c m

ova=
m C
?
z
O
off. o
',.
..?.., .. ., W 0
= Z
N
r m
>6
P O

D '
.
K In Z o
-4
Z .'3:'..
. m
. n
m m N
O
M.
z? ?
y

O P
, VWNP (J N+ N O
pzM _
??
p??>c?6 N
Zma p y
1?
rN-?mi<pz Ei
$
ix I NM 00

o
I

z
g =?n c
D 7C S TyI -1
m
OOOO
? TOP OF BANK M M
N N -1
Am$?A _ J
C .,
)y p Wm
. K A
i1
?
,?c
p
#r6ii 0i?r4;$g1
m
D TOE OF BANK

D p. mg

z ? ?rr mop
M Q)
Fo
m3?°?
-.1 8 mis
Cy m??gz c
Dmy ?fs'70 ?+°iOb x
°•
p

I..... 3!0 zg
m N 7c
?m ?

z

`r zmg
2-i
m°g
D +
' m8 'z< \ 8mN
ZiA?ooz ?
a o zc m

m :? D
UN Q
m mOmO
v g +
?m
r Q0
Om O 8

?
?+ to m-I
pQ
?z° m3 ? 6 ? ? z i n
D
?
4
?c o
m
Z
m
i
N
m
®
r
D
D T
r4i
rn
v
N
O
059am P 8q
C
m? S
_ 0 OF BANK 3p ?
oO
-i Ntn v

? ?Q
T
?m

y C

\I
QQ
o
'rEHIP ?
t4i?
m
m TOP OF BANK p?rlm?;

yD Z

zc (n
?
D
5
?
? ?3 2p

o IZmnO
l
OO i
No2 z°

mm
<?

N
® T

~
m
O o-I? MCI
n pm N+ m8i m
> `zs
mN O
W ?n
z
Z
D
' N /?
V/ N T
=1 A

? y p y
om N
z m
D O
mz

vo

O
07 Z
m c i
v
m
m c
Z N
m D O
z
m
m

N y
m c y
n = L
O
O v
my

m
Z ; Z C O r T
.y v ® <y 0OCc??
N Z
0?
D
W A z
AC b
M 8?
y s z 0 g
ir o
m z rn
' O R
e
° ?? #> o
m $ ?
z 2
z
y
m m
° A y z
+
S
t ,
r9?\2iA2R tesign\Plens\0192R_EEP_PSH_02A.dgn
X , , ,
go A
ow?p
V;O
m
-f-1 OU
O
m
AT
N9D?
WO >o O ?oooS
" Q
m c?cff
=Z

Z?O
G y ?
Om
m
C
I
f
-p
Omy?
k ,m0
) z
08 O
0>9% 2
6HUB Cib
z
m= °go 8
r+ x m
m. gg
o6QZ 4 o,g
?T °
$m 0
zp
Z FLOWR opim?0 p
ovm
P Om

p ` \ r?zmS-1 x??-i° T
° o
v?i
0
K Ay
_
z
m
?i

m0
m y
x =1.10 6
Yp +ymi
y p

z
y
2T
'" immpmz
!n 0-OOpTC m o?0
Om
? Ill
o
y
III G)
zzwA ?2 04 Z zOpm?m
5g
P m13mp
ommgg
o m
O+
poi
;0 HI
CUTM g mF??

- 5 .0 m III
m 0
13 W
9
R m mp=1??^m
° ?"em
g F
;
D
1? m can

y mp m $
22
=
M
g
oo
°
m
O
6°
!I1 T T
22
1
D 0 m
z < l7
0
h! g
?
?
O
s z
W
?
y
?o??
? ?
1 °
e
W! N
?y ry
yZ? C
(? Y S z
Zy m
p m z z
c?< <
s
`?
z
8
m 0 0

?
° T
mm S
?A
8
O
? S
b¢
-DI=O
?CC
N
i?A
- n
S
u?z °
E
c,

O z
Z
T

wy- '?

Z
b
TI

FLOW
n6fl STREAMBANK
H
Op

14 m
czi???m111m mS P Q / ?y \ C r
59? A O z m

i IZ I
O
9 1 z ?- O n

m
5
z'
O C
". \T0
? 1
F
?
F
°o r
m mo STREAMBANK
€?

? D

z

m y

a
8 o

?
!

?
°

l
A
o
m
I Q$
G
? O
t?
So
N C
6 1 22
MO m
S e m
A
j \ V

Z
m ;u

o

X
\ \ 0

\

?
T \ \
\ N
m z? -TT
y
r 0!
8
_ n
rn
O
\ \\ A
?
0 2
2
\\
\ \\ a
?? V,
??Z :
SS
$
i(?
TY?I? z
A
V
F p
?m$
i

?
8
t .
r9e4192 %esign\Plens\0192R_EEP_PSH_02B.dgn
.r
p vPrN? W N.. Cm

f rnc1n my v-m
S
H
BANKFULL STAGE
A.
i
-? y Ohm
in
l s
2 MA F?F OAS,
m?? ?I iyogm + c
8
ma p
9 o ( \
Z a
5 °
fo °?
MIS
MIS
z
^
?o
m O2?°e
5 8 .
r Pm
m
o
H E mT3v
mmn?m???
pTQ 0?py
f
/ ly
Y
O?m
g
T
PMEC2210
pO„mm?
oP
"H

-?,
v0
Zoe
_
y
ZO OO OZAg5?O?Z ?n rT
m y m c S y Aq 3j . G) 0 88 BANKFULL STAGE
mOO?y G m?
Qimpv? mm OO
mQ
m 5; m mv?
m 2
o°
aoi
m m ,
T m?T2 F 8°
O
m
z0

v

m
o
o
cm
9 z 0
py
l5
5Q?jp
{
Q
y0 9x
m W

F S
NCO g
g
m
a O 0

O

F
O
0

r

M
O

a
my 1 O C
~ Z z5

M
Om T
Z E9

9 pm
`

D

,3 A
t F
m
Z
i

0 a 5
m ?
m

o
o
j?
Cl)
g
rl
n y
d 3 m
m ?$
m
Z 3 2 :5
y .
D ?
D
m
1
m
m r I:j z

„ n
_ x

• ? a
7
m
7-
;

M..?

r , ? r
o

?. ? ? e
/ppr0? A ? /
: • / Z
G7
3
?
l /8Z,/
?
1
r" / i i
® / ff 0

i/ ,• '? r e?' /
A /
/ y '^
/

r
D
?
n
5

zZ?v
F
o m
D
z;mD I Om r

ZOnO ? F ti

mo`$
fn I
m?Zm O
6 p n I
mAF

?O
0

S

I
1

C ? 0
N y 1
l6§
N
?
Wfo
c
<
mci .
pm Oma F C '?1
?mp < A g
.,n
=g ?F
. A z
m T

m N Ll
-* #? No.

,0
4

Z O
O $ ;
m gyyg {?
?Yz3 b
m s r
0)

?? o

t , t ,
i
92R_EEP
O t t ?. l i? 1 t k
O A.. M r°j ! Ii Sr 1 + J' ` ' i i pQ -, t ' }t ~
-Di'VJ' N 'r ,.j i 'f?r{, t`#A, It! # f ?i <
e
i
CA rj)
"L ,,,- ,r / . i`r, {r • 1f t't , I # rrF E '? t ?i # \ \ `< ..
i #
... ?'J; '• r ! Ir ly '' it t F' Jr, r ,
f
,
655
... " ...+ {_
f
i
Cp?
, w
,
:
64
?
t .•'
(4) 0
m
o r ?.
m _ ".
• k
ti I} • <J ? ?'.?J /.. ?/ ? ?' ' "j'!' d !' `' ! J' !? r'? ? ft tt ? #t ?? ? _ i
•f/f } • ?'.. %'!?'f - t t /!? ? 10 Lys j ? ' 1 t € ? r
v W'? i V;t \ y t 1 i t 'I
rtt S ? i lk?' }.\i t? ?'NbLL?j ^S,fi"'_ I t E S F # ,? rr S # ; C? ?? t ?\.\
f7 m i ; t t1 t t i E , \
? .'a t ..+-' tit ;' ' } ! 1 ? ` 1 r ( t \ I \ \
i ? ,t I't'' S i'y ,.... ,J>. 'i11,"c \ t E ,, < • '\ 't 't \ i ! \ \ ',
l ,
< \
D®\ \ {rn??i\ \\\ ?'®\?, \\\1\' \'` \ ~ y\ ```., \\``,,'l \l:Ilk` \k ti l}•''v,,` t t!, `'?j ``Iy\\\ \\ _.._._
m\ \?,??\\,`\'``\\il,i,t, :, t ':{ ?t` t i ,,1.,\ \\ ,? ,`i y\? t k \ •\ `\ ??•...
k\`tt, t ? i ` 1 O ; `` '\ \ \ i; `'i'? y i \ 1 t \\\` `, \\ \ \ \ \
k`l ,
'ktt}?kiik,il,,?; E t f iS iy\ :\???t.i?IO•,•?`\t.t' \\`\\\ \ \ ,.
\ iS}: }
}t }It .Sttt ?k1i # tlati?`ty
t ' t ! t`,?f•,I•'tkti} ,t}itt i' € ,',t ?' i1 y ?? } .;4
3 ` t: !; t,Ilii:i}tt,,,}k?tt t 11 `?,I1' } 1 i 1
:}ti`t', ' t •i i € #
I k, ?', 1 i •, t%it+• ;{?? ,i4 Sif \t i y i ; }
t t`s ! # i ;•E .} '' `{?i,'' 50°j
?' ? '' # i € ! { £ r S E f i ,i t t #?LL?: 1 t i t . o } ! { ; t ? $ ?
35.56 bfl . { i # 1r r
/' € . i? ? ! ! ' # i I .::., ..=?-?• i....•- t t NQ ;Lll1 i € ,r € € ' t Z
/ / ! / ; ti # t+ ` ?# '+ r' f#, ; t ' 1 ; €# # i } ? i ; t # € € ## z o
m h / ,, ?.•i i •'r t' t/t.f?f ;fr? '#"j r # r, r t?.tk E i i{.I E?' 7 # ?',
'??
Irl y , , A / , , 91 3HS 3N z
0 3p W
,8
92R_EEP
'd1S
-Lo 00'
3NI1H?1?.•- i s . € ' ft
? ? f ; ,' f ; / , ',. ? % i ? ' 1 r J il,.'` ; ! t ? € i • '=y ,'I ' I ._y. ' ' ;l € '' `i `I € 't ', i ?? `•,y ? \. t??
CT?
K?,/,i '#_' eE? ti 1 t ! ? € I i }, itt ': ,? i ,. ? ?\\ "`'"' ,? •'.'", I r
r ,
f•
? f : rf ram
s r ,S;?I / /' ? I # ,'\\ iti€tl 4 € S 1` ; 1 1• \ t 1:
f 3;
m y
z t\ j: t i \ `', t t \ \ CB' im
€€ b q \
',1 ?tom. r ? 4 `?, c? '' a . ?` ?\ ` ` Z ` \ \ y .» » ... __. / ,• /. ?f
%
t o . ?
i \ it \` L \ \ ti / ?
615
i ,
` s
t
'jm
Chi l O. i ': ' 1' \ \'` \ \ _
rTIN
,
610
61
I •.
l fI ,' ,/ g? Ir t• € ,i of •? 1 i `?'`! iN???'SS` 1,€€\, ...,* \ \ ?` ....... ........_ .__ .._ / ' ?,, s ? ? w? ? ; ?' f
d ?r' it I F t :i I t € 1 1 •i; .\ ' ?„ ,' 1
00i'L
#1 ' ' f - , . ?' f1 `, , ? I ?:,? l € x00 ,. `l •.- ? ? ?' . , J ,
?3? (f f 'r• ' r' Pf ! f r= , / ? t 17 t : i 31 \ ...li R? ?.r °i ,'¢? ? ,r /,
t ,r
Qtz
/ ? i l f; S r , lg t N ;? O f
( r , j`V= g r, ' ' 1, t' ;IRE € • , w ;'?'?"•'. , ."?,'::„ "' O f' d?
00" st: O2
1 # , d ...t t / / g// /
m cl a°
' // ?/I /' + T E i r tt ! ,_ (r?/1/ /,f xQti\r ?.! ///'i?f// /, m,o?7 / ... __ _.. ...
,
r
i
• D
Cl) M.
M,Q zq/
',' t /• 11 !!J /r, f.?f1/ f. J i 'jg
14/g /Rl
,z///f
/'''®/ ''J J,, ' r ./ rp„^,?`` _ i SP 'tt?'i•' ? t . N ? S f / ' / /? f .
/ / r / ?. '' ,;•, - ' Sri v D ,D, !
gtg
CO-1
co 110
+-+Q I S, 1# , zM ?'. ))p i tI? O i ' / J g f / f/ /; j ( OQ i f1p 0 COO I I ;K O
4
m 1., i/d/' 'i,lgfi f%/ dy5 / 1 Z II \ yng 8? T
y
s r
Pil
V V A A V I 1
1 \ f / )
? ? \ 1 ,? J// i t; I 1 •
} 1 s ,,
i
,
v O V \ ff / t ? ? S
0.
,
00
\ }}
\q / 's`>,f/xQ,
NAD 53
1 I y
,
t ?
t
I I
,
i t I I
1
J
OV9
, I I I l J? ?? r
I JI I ? { ? 1 1 I I r J i' T I / •, '' r W.... ~?\
or,
. 7l7
,
"J
J /
ylt 14,
/
/
r ,
,
M ,
tjj
I Z-
Lu F.,
Ar 10)
, ui I
1
,
i
r
,
J
, \ •
r
?° I / V A t
\ r .. a .
O /
GO
Q
X(
-0 or9
\
i
}1, \
,
r
u6p•SO-HSd-d33"tlZblO\suo
I
f e r ?,

ys
t / j 4 F
, r .{ ! , # t", `ids M? , f t /" f / ., 1 I f 1S
,
r r
i
,•' F ! r / ,. ............... _.......... .r / / / r / / tit ,
i
d
595
M C:
?O/W
MO rm
co CY
J 3 P I Fz n M/0 > / / r d r
} ? ? { # tmTl C4 f ",' '? / J• ,. ,
I I ,y {i (/ ®® %' t + pd(3 ?+ ti QD+gk ?f j { ' rr. •/! i, J ' /' /' / /' r?
{ F i? j1J f;rl` xpO
• ! # ( •S' j ?r ? ? # r '? J?i'V/^ff ?f? :? ?' t ##T # ?• r, ? J i J,,
t r
," f ? '? 4, #; ''• rr ;rd# fJ a; #:y?x?i' I ' dt / f? t P{ .J l f
{` / 1, ' f' f Jf J, { / ,. i + t } J' /( I' d f' p d 7, f #
f'?7 ,i, ,f ,f ? ? { ? F ? ..P % d',/ ///' J ' %"/J ( ? J rI t?• t \• f i' d {. # j ? ! !, ff / /../ it ,'/// p i! P F .\
f # ,i # " I / / / ? / i f I
{
m
f t` /, •' t d % ! , ; 1, r` { j dJ #
"
P!
JJ /
u i f ' ; i• i d# i# {• # ' .fn0,
' t ' / Cra - f d i t? W »-
Pfl t fd j ?$ - { - Vv Jp ?/ JJ, ,
' f / / 1 i• # ! 1 ! ; f ! ( t ( i ice! j l j j { ? ! Si' ?'; 1 ?\ /
d ? 4 r pt r / ? 'r'c?'rri,;ii',' t? s??y '' ? t •.?
FF ;' + ?'' Sj 1 r, ,•r f #'??J ? I ,i .I t S• ,`'t C7 ,t ,`, 1?
1 } /_ l J d x6`1 'jN
o ;a ## i i ( / 1/ ' ( J !ij,Y 1 ? 4'. ! ? , '' 1 1 1 ? s t '{ 1 tt ??
/? '? // ? ? ?'dr? S•? !1 } dl?oi,,?i Fitt ? 1`t `i 1\ 1 \ ?\ \ ?? ,. /a?
y ` t t \ \ \
,
i
/' J JP t / Obi} # 1 \ lt\ \\\', :S' t t .,
,
oo?
1
l \
t '
cri,
1 i Lr \ l 1 \ ` l???
v' i .\ \ t i t 1 4 t `\ ? \ W
D ?2J / / / 11 1f J i .' ' Z
m ? hr / / d(,°J ,? ;?d J,ir # r dyCJ,A` #?g ??
6 "
y
O P# J a ??
i ?8
i
i
92R_EEP_PSH_08.dgn
dls
CAT
f / L 133 d ? , , ? ;` ? ? .t 1 w ....... _............ _?
i
$ d j r 17 1 f y i !' 7 f` 7 t I $
7 t t; tx ti- 01 f 7 I \i
t r f / S?, O y ! f I /
\, It 2 i' 'J ( t ?? s \tt\?? \\ \ S e.?.... /
.i \ S('F` \ ` 1 i t` ( r \ ?!I } t } I In
?$ •l \ \' .•j }•` t `€('i i tm •t_ 11 't } 'ti i .$ f ///
\ \ i t 1 4 ; i y t SXO, t t ?t `\ 1 \ 1 7
?+'° \ \, 1 i '} t ,t ? t ??!,I t r \ \ \ , \ ?\ `'`. `\ \\ df t
y \ • \\\y\\\?`,` \\\?'\\ t, ._. -\ i:` ' fVy' .,.\ ice' ``y ,? \` \\ `\ \ ?? ` l?; ? i? ?,,?{{?? ..
rn'
\ \ b'
\\ '.\\®,`` ykj?\\
Fri) co f
M C5
M?o
mn -p
Jif
,oV
14
\
00
\ \ `.
Cl)
mvo \ \
M C \ \
m w
f Dpm ?0 °
fn _1 O -?
0
°-° K 'D
M.0
C
N-' Mo
N Cl)
mZm W?
v?co a
z
OX m X11 .
D /
mp
?m
?D=
i Z D
ox, a t
v z q
i -.. \ m o f? `
\ r

?
cnm a

? H a Ul

O
a

92R_EEP
mow"
,
i
I(
v 3
N..
i
v
\i
.
. O
Y.
l
lbo-
,€ I ; t
? ? ? t Ir ( // 1, f!? ? \. ?\a\ \'? L? `t ' ,; }} ? ? ?? ,1 '?i 0•,,,, ,?., ....
L
,
,
r t `i \` \\ `\ ?tt \ Spa ` \,?\\ ; ,\ \\ \ _.._....._...--..•....
i
kj,
• A \
i
r
:
•
.. j
i
\
:
4630
d T # \ \ \ \ `\ \ \ \
i \
f
'
CD F7
,
,
,
t \ ?\ ? to ,?,\ , l'\ \ _........_ .._. __. ? ?• .;
II : i \\
,
,
r
E:315 .. ..... W
1 4 € t ;'
"2 7 t 7 ^y
' ? ! d i ! r ! 0
r? r Jp ?? p i' I• ? If ( '
1 d 1% ?'I t' t i f %t t%'P f f ( A? Y.
to o (' r /?? // /' / i 1di f( t pp tp r' pd 0?z o
O R7 ( p r r ? (• i? ?? € ? # ?
o.N y
0
i
I/M/? na
i
remwrocrc\uasign\rians\ni7cn_eer
w
,r .
i
i
JI
' t
?O ?. f
CO i " ,tip? `r / { -• ', f
J CAS S \ °\ J 'J! ?d / //? /?; ,'fJ i '! i ?, /
d €; t i cO m -4 C'V
{ ! ', i• ? {1 / J m ? / 'l ? t ,tt /? ?' ! f / i/:t°j?Si / ? CA i /
{ L??
1 r• 1 i • j r ? 1 , ,(/? ? cR fi---c,.'..^.-.--•? :t; /' ? /(Dy /i / f , / / / ! ? ? '' i ? / , /
C t 7r ? 1• ' 1 ,' - ? t ? '?''v4„ r?"'°''" ,f ?' i ,'?%i,?ri •i/ /f,l ?? /// '' / •
?3 rf 1 r "t f r j' j 1 is f1 i ? \ ? ? ` l©?(??/ .,. ' ®/ : / / , / s , _ € / / i / i ®f , • i
t i t t I i ?? ?, 3 1 i i ® J J d
+' I i t f / f % J / d f J' t, t €!f f I / f t f
•
J t j t J / / _r' P r !r js 1 1 f %' fi t t 7
1 t `` SFr t / d I f
s t t 1 f / ,??
I I t o -i . { er 1 i( ; S
/s /, ?+? \ ',l i 1 1 `. ,1 f 'ijf // /t `!'{ 0 1 t la„ + J i f I r i L { S i j {
cz)
CD +
\ ?\ . \'. ,t ,fr Z `\ It: i 1 Ca t t 1 ti 0 \ t '
\ `\! tt `•i\ ,i\ t to S `, t},} S'' i + •/€ / JJ{t ?? //? rfi?? '.\ ~t i I 't } ?I ;, t S `.` ```, t? S\ `, ?t ,S
\ `• \ 1 i \ E { . } 1 } C , / ! i' Ir i 1 kV t i S ?l '3 t `\ 0 ?
} * t t 11}; ,'t\?t}?I tt,"i? r t t i t 1 i i 1( 1 (`\ \ \ S 1
'? i\ ` s.S? 'j •;} S i },lt .,1', `(4;',?1, (,! r , N ? ?' '\ S \'` i t i•, ? S ,i1 ?i\ \ ? '?k CSt ?k ? l} `
;ie
1 f tr /' I f f 't• t I f °! ?tf t { i { i t i# 1 .
{j J !, t (f .t , r I f 1 f t r 1 / f if t,,•1 ,`ii ` } ,
i, t • I J € , ?/ f f !,, 1, t 1• £s { tt \ O? 40'.?^^ ,''t S t+ `t ,1 S 't ,i\ S1 S `
€ tt'tf ? f;'{,€: ?'il ..S?t t ? ;;, ;f I ? ( t t 1 t \ ?\ \
t f f ' i ! { I ? f t I ,,t ? ?,\ ` it ' \i ? `s 7 1 ?t t ?i t 1 '\ :; \
€t f, j' '; t r; € ? 3 t ? ; ! 1 I , „!?,• \ \ t ? t t ,``t( 1 ?1 ?} S ,t. 1S \ ? ?\ \,
• r, t ? ; i t ,t S,' } 1 ? J ?'r ,{ SO t \ , \ \? \ ??, \\ .\` a \ `' , ? ? `.\` e \
?? 1 fr d rf #!ii t 1 ?(7i tSl\\ •\-,•i toy°?\ 1 n\\\;? `-,\° ,.`S\t\ \ \ `• ,\ \\ 1 i \ ,`
tr € ,J I'e t ?Q? t1r / I?,! is{l;i,, S;,}•' `? \ 1\ ??\
/1 t 1 d { € jf • 1 ! / i \ rJj t m .? `1 1 \ \ t i
t % 3 1 -' t `'f .{ i11ft; /.^'?7i % •?1 S m? SS• , si ?\\ \ \\ S t t
/? ?' J I ;, ! ? t?f'J f '/•/" ,' it r i 1 / !tt€;p ?I (: `,```\`L ,, \ \'',,\` \ ?`\',\ ? ,\?` \`.
CO I 'M
r p t \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ` \ ` \ \
jC4 , ? ? / f ? I ( T ! ,' I : Pr t f'; .?.? f, /%?I.:•'„/?' ? ssl ? Id i / / ? t,? f (n ? 1 ? , \ \ ? ? \ \ \ ' . \ ', \ \ \ `' \ \ \
y,, / i , f .? ?Ifjr{'Ox 1 , a \ ? \ \ 4 \ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ `caavk\'??'t--\
I;e
/r.OG ' `JJ,f?i ^^ s { t 1 \r-. \ i \ \ \ y?``_ . \\ \? \`\ ; \\
.,
f t f J I? 'f',i ??Ilt?,^ \ •?,., `""..,yrtl' ? f€ °?.. \t `i \\ , \\\'`...........,::..., ,,., ?,`, -_ •\?? 4 ,\
l
g?
CA)
_ \ \ '0
.\ \ \ .. \\. \`'\\\Sl';\WkNAi. ??. \ 1 It \ \ \®, \ 11? 8"A
"1ATCHLINE SHEET 11
STA. 17+50.00 UT3b
i
9/•2R/.ZQQ9. - .
i

STA. 17+50.00 UT3b
co) :0
1 i µt'gk'f;t me0 m 0 \ - 1
m v -i
! k€ 4# ftiltt\1 r \ 0 D D
15 a
r
I 3 €' f'r I.M00. nil S'
€ d o#0 7r3r7r'#;I,f. V I \ ! 't
! I ? t ? to t tt;' ''i;1 I = \
€ i : I i 1(f3j+`, ;il+j %t 1 Ox ' ??\ \ i \
qj, 00
: j f J ?, : ,t1 ? 1•
€ t?I ? 7p t
?5 ` 1 ? if ? } )?;;ji:`i,l, a ? i ?'w (q'tir1 ! \. ?

I

6
?
r

J { {

t
.

I ` mom
-
. n m
-1 m -1;
o o' )
vZ-0' f
T 'n
ti
/ ?
Cn
z
Z"
'

14 K-
K J
1 i'sl !
. i 1 ;?'\``\ \ •ti<``i??ili ,?1i O j ?? \,~?\ I.. d,,•"" tom, tt ? ?, ?
m
\ \ \ ? \ •\\'\ ?`;"54,1}}fi{ti?y ? 1 ,i ? t 1 •,!,,. , '? \ ?\ \
? ``\ i kkt;ti:lltfy?f , ? j ? ts°3? ? 1 1 \\.
f i s 3 5'::`s5{1ki'l,. l II K l l K-
5;•ii; ctD \ 1 1 .
Q \ ` i i i, t \
r' 1V
0) /e
it \? \ \
? i 1!!t :S 1 d ww r 4 ti ?5? `\ . ?.?
~-M Mg- K- K
WIT
1 N,
3"t I Kr
cn,
40
®®t _ _... \ \ \ \
(A?b: P sr I ?? \ rl
' FE C)
oin
1 K- K- Ii. cp
Kr 43 (P
Oyu
?t 1
K_ 0%
? / ,I /!, :/ ? Jrrf .F `c% I ro,, /? ? ? IQ0+0Z
qLn Kr
K If
i /ii G t ! `\ \ Z
-40
i
- -` \
r' !
P ... Y
1
fns'
,
to avri ? ?'1 ; \ \ \
l1 -m1Z/ I f ;
/J
kit ?t,
r
K- ?
,
? r
K- K-
11
tl+ ? / ! d / d / / 5 s, i N S as
r / d l 'i 51 I ! z ?..
,1 tit \ \ \ ?\ \ \ O $8
, \
MATCHUNE SHEET 10
i
i
92R_EEP_PSH_12.dgn
• ,r' 1 i ? \' r f /f;C € 't. f11}'!:`j1f 1 I } \ ....
.•,° "" ^'" i i t x f J f / r ( Y E t i C?r r" r f # ? \\ ..
,
t ,
I
......... .....
.._
r
Ail
Cal t b0 .:1 1 \
J
r
6
i
1 \
,
r'
r
r \\ 1 \
?, ... ` / /? // // t' t If r E i ? .? l ? :`\ \t t•t t `? tl Q \ ? ` •\ _._. ..._. .... f rp
620
i
r ? ?it 1• ?} `\` ?
r.
t
,.. 1
rr `??? ' I d 't r
' tt
61(l / f /' r\3 i /f ?\ ( t 0 I
' r'tr Pp tr' ,'' c#f ,fir`} j ; ;,=t, 1\\`\,? '`\ `\ \\`?\ `\\ ``\ \ \\ f ,
• ,, - ._ / /? i"•If ft ft, rr•?d'" a?, ` '^"°"?.?•r-€ I ? ?` ''i \ '\\ \ '\\\\ \?\ `\ '\ \ ? ` \' ,.....,. ', .\G"3 /
i
,
1
J i ; I ! •' it )? , ? ! i t : t / /, / / /
t' t% I J r " ?• r / ''' r i / f r / ? ? ' ' # ,i t t /f li
JCt33}&J r / / /` : \' # J ' t'' 'Cst. rr t} f`. r € t €\,, / 'O
tJ3
Cb,(?' an
T9 A
/MATCHUNE SHEET
STA. 118+50.00 UT5 N
_8
a J1 t ? r . :t ? ,
.ene\0192R_EEP_PFL_13.dgn
-4 co co 0) -4 00 co
O O O O O O O O
00
G p
O
,
CO
O
O
I N ......;...?...,.. a a....; r.1441444 :.._ t.t...t....' +
OD
+
;F..q... t ...... i . p

N
O+
O
N
N
+
O
O
N
W
+
O
O
N
0
0

i
111-14
I

i

1

N

w

t

:

3

.
I'.....

i i i ?
O _c..
i n A

(A CA
co cyl
0 Ln
O CA
O CA
O O O CD

Ci, m
4 00 co
O O O O

...... ..a t
e

. e e..'

}
O
O
i

L -? -

:

a
g

+ .p ... .... . ...... ... a ..:.. .. ? .... '

e?
#

.. a .. ,
e

....: Z

.. a

.... ?

..{. .

b .

..... a .e...
:
.....
3 1
........ s ....
•••
........
:..... .... .

... .. ... . e.... .....
}

. ... ..... .

..
..
i i
...i.....i. e
.....q...

:

.. ?.F'....

...:..... . ..

:
I"`1
+
: .

O
: ..e...o...

RA_! i
2 5
_,....,.. ..
Y
+ ;.
C582. ?
a ..a
7 L. .. • .. a-i... e e. 1
1=1 g79 ..y. . ....?... _
............ =.1. ..... 8. 0 3
1...
1

.:.............

....
¢
....{ .....:.......
.
:r

'.... ..' ..b ..i....
n
I 8
r

ISM
i y

i....
...-!
....

.....

...
....
........

e....

0

?

ig! A

O

T
?
u i
, i e"

01
-4 CA
OD
1,
CA
8a? 0

i
i

CO
O _
00
°o
0
0
O
+
O
O
N
+
O
O
N
N
O
O
N
W
O
O
A
p+
O
0) 0)
O O O O O
O O O

{ ¢ p.. s e?

e i

!

! I ! ?
!
O
O

.
i

f+++ . .... • . .. ...:
. ..... ....: ..i....?.-.:.
:.
a ...
...:•.......
;..... ..

i
?
:
<...

..:....d

.....

a

...

...s

...•..
.d..
.....

.:

i

{
TTT

'?'...

.u...i... a ....
e....
... i....
.. a
........
.... ::
a .. .. e
f= 8 0: 0 r. _ ..: pi=1fl 5Ofl9

.,

.
.
. :
,..
till ri
d..........i.....d ....

: .... .......... .....:.... .......... ............... ..
...
.
. ........ ........:..
b....!.........y....
..._...

t

?
:
.......:....

p
} 41 a
... .. ? . ........
.. .. _ P
..
ASO

- O
i i
-
.
.
-
,? , mo
. ?.. . .? .
..
} ..? I
..

: wf is ba.f?o ?r_ .. t+o.
.. .,... ... :.. _

N EL?G T
.s
:: ?
:...,
ITT

.......:....

_? _. #.. may.......' ...
10546 1 ha d. T. 1 _0 I 4
.;..... ..._

._ .. ...:....

y ......H

.

,.. ..
'
6

...i ..:.... ....i.....i.....
:....b..
.?
:

?
O
O

.s
'
d

I

..
., a...
d
.... ... .. . ?. .._
.
......
. . -11 .
.....
? Fi

t
!
i t ! ll
1 p... ....
e . 8

i

1
I 4
Wiwi

i

:
40,

: w o"n

1

}
Y e s y:
M;to ens\0 192R_EEP_PFl_15.dgn
w co CD 00 co Cp to CD
C, O O O O O O O O O O O O
. ..e ...... ......... .

T
..

........................

..

.........

e

....e....• ...........:....
....e.....:.....:.....e....
.....
...
.......
i

.•.. .
i

...:.......

..•..., ....

........a........;...

• . •. .,
................:... ........5..._'........

a ,.s

....d.........1.....

....

.........j

.........(.......

.
t
1 12+
00.00
........?....:....:.... ....i.....e....< .........

(_ _;...<... ..... ........

e. ..

..i...
I

??
9:

..
W.
3=

D
O

.

[

....

r

? . -sa
i

81.

p
C-

._
0 .3 .. .. r
. .. , s i ...... :.:.. ....
e
w._..............1 .....:........................... !........................:..............s.................... . ..... Lo
.. ...........:........................... .. e ....... ........e......._!........1
........... .......,. 1
L*sJB3 CJt CTS -
i'
60
O
O
O

O
....1....{.... . . • :.. .le..

O y

s
!

r
Wj
..e...i..., , .. e. ., ,....•.... ...{
..;......
..
...

_ b .2.

T is
,
1 f
s
i i
PIL
0 0
?
{

i

,
?

.. °PI=1

50:00

....

.
f

+

? t

...

..}....,

:
a . .....:.....:...

? ....

_
... . .... .... ..... ... .........

_.?_

i'

?

+° :
:
' '

:......

......

.......

....

1

PIS .7
,,

*?
fl

..;.....:.......:
-.q
'
1

,

q

f
a...

r? -

i
RI*2
-
4:

+

'
1
41 -.00 1

_

`d

o
:
p

e...
...
............

,

?.

0

:. 1s?
.2.
1
?x o

t }:
L
:

i

m
4 CA
W 0
O
O
W
CO 0)
O 0) 01
co 0)
O
9
4-14
o

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
H
u x

r
g
I
I
cz? 'IttY esign\Plans\0192R_EEP_PFL_16.dgn
0 (n O 0)
O co O O
....?........... ............i... ` '....i...........
T, 4,
+
O
O
M\
W
+
O
O

O N

O O O O

O O O O
.1
+
O
O
CD
O
O
N ....} ........................._?....:...:.:...fit 1'L4 O:f Q..........
C) E=fry :D8' p ...
,p i....
I'
O
N
O
O
O
N
O
O
N
N
O
O
A
O
O
CA
+
O
O
N
W
+
O
O

.NP
+
O
O
:
e e
.....:........
i
..... . ._...... O
O
0 ?
O
N
0
0 co O
0 0 0 0 o O o O

Z?
C .? o
i
j
.... .....
..........
?n Zp
Y~
=
0 9 ?

M is
x
Z
> o

O Es $ Z

O o
,s
1 r1 Y ? ? - Y • W ?- .
9 ai6i%(QDeesgn\Plens\0192R_EEP_PFL_17.dgn
1 p I ?
/9ni2nna
i
X ? w Rrr'
rs varmK wesign\rians xioi7zn_eer
Tm
n0
Z n r0
-im9Z
00
CA O
m m
.e v n
M z rn
Z Z
N
m
< m
m
os
z
z°
'?yOy

RAMSEUR JULIAN RD. 9
A
u T
? , ax v+? ee
V
A
w ? m
.o?OO
?

D
/
3
nO
mm y ?.
0
v 0 n
I

"
'fREEUNE
\ m.. J
m

m
to
it
2 m o
P 6B OVN ?' ? yV,
Z T R \ S
j N
r
I ((j

f

O Q4
?T+c
II ? T
m
N m 70
o 0
?5-?
rjO'H'pm0
3
O -n
O
n
0 pO N
3 C
R T
V
a ? m
a ?0 n
n? O
r7On rn m I
vm;?
0 Z
O ZA
= z
N
Z O A
ea
T
11 m
H m A
w
0 0
>, 00 N
"v;o n
W
O -n
-1 m to
W
a cm
2 Z
N
Z M
SANDY CREEK
D
r
G
i
l
s
!s
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Plan
Randolph County, North Carolina
041692
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
C s tens Ecosystem Enhancement Program
3
l
un i :ornni
Prepared by:
BUCK 8000 Regency Parkway
Suite 200
Cary, North Carolina 27511
Phone: [phone]
I: N ( 1 I i 1 1 1 1i C. Fax: [phone]
www.buckenginearing.com
arg, @ 11 odIRp
OCT 0 1 2004
Meredell Farms Stream Restora °E"R- 1w"
Randolph, North Carolina
Prepared for The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Restoration Plan - September 2004
Prepared by Buck Engineering, PC
Doug Smith Will Harman, PG
Project Manager Principal in Charge

Executive Summary
• The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) proposes to conduct stream restoration
activities at Meredell Farm, near the town of Liberty in Randolph County, North Carolina. The
project will restore 3,865 linear feet, enhance 4,704 linear feet, and preserve 5,136 linear feet of
stream in the Cape Fear River Basin. The project involves Sandy Creek and two of its unnamed
• tributary streams and is shown in Exhibit 1.1. The site lies in. the Deep River watershed within
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub-basin 03-06-09 and United States
Geologic Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit 03030003020010.
• For analysis and design purposes, the on-site streams were divided into seven reaches. The reach
• locations are shown on Exhibit 1.2. The reaches were numbered sequentially moving from east to
west with tributaries carrying a UT designation and main reaches an M designation. A ridge
separates the project into two subwatersheds. UTl and UT2 drain into the Ml subwatershed while
. UT3, UT4, and UT5 drain into the M2 subwatershed. UT1 begins off site, flows into the project
. area from the east, and ends at the confluence with UT2. UT2 begins on site at a farm pond outlet
pipe, flows southwest to its confluence with UTl. Ml begins at the confluence of UT1 and UT2 and
ends at its confluence with Sandy Creek. UT3 begins on the adjacent property and flows into the
project area for a short distance from the northeast to the confluence with UT4 and then to the east to
• the confluence with UT5 and M2. UT4 begins on site, flows through the project from the east and
ends at the confluence with UT3. UT5 flows through the project site from the north and ends at the
confluence of UT3 and M2. M2 begins at the confluence with UT5 and UT3 and ends at the
property boundary.
0
The design goals of the project include:
• Restore 3,865 LF of channel dimension, pattern and profile
• Enhance 4,704 LF of channel dimension and/or profile
• Preserve 5,136 LF of stream channel and riparian buffer
• Improve floodplain functionality by matching floodplain elevation with bankfull stage
• Establish native stream bank and floodplain vegetation in the permanent conservation easement
• Improve the water quality in the Upper Cape Fear River watershed by fencing cattle out of the
stream and reducing bank erosion
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
TABLE ES.1
Restoration Overview
Meredell Farms Restoration Plan
Project Feature Existing Condition Design Condition Approach
UTl 1,621 LF 1,880 LF Priority 1 Restoration / Enhancement
UT2 1,006 LF 1,095 LF Priority 1 Restoration / Enhancement
M1 2,013 LF 2,254 LF Priority 1 Restoration
UT3 1,236 LF 1,351 LF Priority 1 Restoration / Enhancement
UT4 913 LF 913 LF Enhancement
UT5 1,075 LF 1,075 LF Enhancement
M2 1,398 LF 1,398 LF Preservation
Sandy Creek 1 1,033 LF 1,033 LF Preservation
Sandy Creek 2 801 LF 801 LF Preservation
Sandy Creek 3 1,902 LF 1,902 LF Preservation
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
•
Table of Contents
I Introduction and Background ..................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Brief Project Description and Location .................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................1-1
1.3 Report Overview ....................................................................................................................1-2
2 Background Science and Methods ...........................................................................................2-1
2.1 Application of Fluvial Processes to Stream Restoration ........................................................2-1
2.1.1 Channel Forming Discharge .......................................................................................2-1
2.1.2 Bedform Diversity and Channel Substrate .................................................................2-2
2.1.3 Stream Classification ............................................................................................. 2-3
2.1.4 Stream Stability ..........................................................................................................2-4
2.1.5 Channel Evolution ......................................................................................................2-4
2.1.6 Priority Levels of Restoring Incised Rivers ...............................................................2-4
2.2 Natural Channel Design Overview ........................................................................................2-5
2.3 Geom orphic Characterization Methodology ..........................................................................2-6
2.3.1 Bankfull Identification ...............................................................................................2-6
2.3.2 Bed Material Characterization ...................................................................................2-7
2.3.3 Stream Classification ................................................................................................ ..2-7
2.4 Channel Stability Assessment Methodology .........................................................................2-7
2.4.1 Stream Channel Condition Observations .............................................. :.................... 2-7
2.4.2 Vertical Stability - Degradation/Aggradation ............................................................2-8
2.4.3 Lateral Stability ........................................................................................................ ..2-8
2.4.4 Channel Pattern ..........................................................................................................2-8
2.4.5 River Profile and Bed Features ................................................................................ ..2-9
2.4.6 Channel Dimension Relations .................................................................................. ..2-9
2.4.7 Channel Evolution .................................................................................................... ..2-9
2.5 Design Parameter Selection Methodology ........................................................................... 2-10
2.5.1 Upstream Reference Reaches ................................................................................... 2-10
2.5.2 Reference Reach Searches ....................................................................................... 2-10
2.5.3 Reference Reach Databases ..................................................................................... 2-10
2.5.4 Regime Equations .................................................................................................... 2-11
2.5.5 Comparison to Past Projects ..................................................................................... 2-11
2.6 Sediment Transport Competency and Capacity Methodology ............................................ 2-11
2.6.1 Competency Analysis ............................................................................................... 2-12
2.6.2 Aggradational Analysis ............................................................................................ 2-12
2.6.3 Competency Analysis using Shield's Curve ............................................................ 2-13
2.6.4 Sediment Transport Capacity ................................................................................... 2-14
2.7 In-Stream Structures ............................................................................................................. 2-15
2.7.1 Grade Control ........................................................................................................... 2-15
2.7.2 Bank Protection ........................................................................................................ 2-15
2.7.3 Habitat Enhancement ............................................................................................... 2-15
BUCK ENGINEERING IV
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
2.7.4 Selection of Structure Types .................................................................................... 2-16
2.8 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................ 2-16
2.8.1 Live Staking ............................................................................................................. 2-17
2.8.2 Riparian Buffer Re-Vegetation ................................................................................ 2-17
2.9 Risk Recognition .................................................................................................................. 2-18
3 Watershed Assessment Results ............................................................................................... ..3-I
3.1 Watershed Delineation ......................................................................................................... ..3-1
3.2 Site Hydrology/Hydraulics ................................................................................................... ..3-1
3.2.1 Surface Water Classification .................................................................................... ..3-1
3.2.2 Site Hydrologic and Hydraulic Characteristics ........................................................ ..3-1
3.3 Geology ................................................................................................................................ ..3-1
3.4 Soils ...................................................................................................................................... ..3-2
3.5 Land Use .............................................................................................................................. ..3-3
3.6 Endangered/Threatened Species .......................................................................................... ..3-3
3.6.1 Federally Protected Species ..................................................................................... ..3-5
3.6.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Status ........................................................... ..3-6
3.7 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................... ..3-6
3.8 Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites ......................................................................... ..3-6
3.9 Potential Constraints ............................................................................................................ ..3-6
3.9.1 Property Ownership and Boundary .......................................................................... ..3-6
3.9.2 Site Access ............................................................................................................... ..3-7
3.9.3 Utilities ..................................................................................................................... ..3-7
3.9.4 Farm Operations ....................................................................................................... ..3-7
4 Stream Corridor Assessment Results ........................................................................................4-I
4.1 Reach Identification ...............................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Geomorphic Characterization and Channel Stability Assessment .........................................4-1
4.2.1 Ml Subwatershed .......................................................................................................4-1
4.2.2 M2 Subwatershed .......................................................................................................4-3
4.3 Bankfull Verification ..............................................................................................................4-5
4.4 Vegetation ..............................................................................................................................4-6
5 Selected Design Criteria ............................................................................................................54
5.1 Potential for Restoration .........................................................................................................5-1
5.1.1 Ml Subwatershed Restoration Potential ....................................................................5-1
5.1.2 M2 Subwatershed Restoration Potential ....................................................................5-1
5.2 Design Criteria Selection .......................................................................................................5-1
5.2.1 Reference Reach Survey ............................................................................................5-2
5.2.2 Reference Reach Database .........................................................................................5-2
5.2.3 Design Criteria Selection Method ..............................................................................5-2
BUCK ENGINEERING V
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
5.3 Design Criteria for the Meredell Farms Site .......................................................................... 5-3
6 Restoration Design .................................................................................................................... 6-4
6.1 Restoration Approach ............................................................................
6.2 Water Quality Improvement Area .......................................................................................... 6-4
6.3 Design Rationale (Channel Dimension, Pattern, and Profile) ................................................ 6-5
6.3.1 Low Slope Alluvial Reaches ...................................................................................... 6-5
6.3.2 High Slope Coluuvial Reaches .................................................................................... 6-6
6.4 Stream Preservation ................................................................................................................ 6-6
6.4.1 Existing DA Stream/Wetland Preservation System ................................................... 6-6
6.4.2 Sandy Creek Preservation .......................................................................................... 6-7
6.5 Sediment Transport ................................................................................................................6-7
6.5.1 Capacity Analysis ..................................................................................................... ..6-7
6.5.2 Competency Analysis ............................................................................................... ..6-8
6.6 In-Stream Structures ...........................................................................................................:. ..6-9
6.6.1 Root Wad .................................................................................................................. ..6-9
6.6.2 Cross Vanes .............................................................................................................. 6-10
6.6.3 Constructed Riffle .................................................................................................... 6-10
6.6.4 Log Vane .................................................................................................................. 6-10
6.6.5 Log Weir .................................................................................................................. 6-10
6.7 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................6-10
6.7.1 Stream Bank and Floodplain Re-Vegetation ............................................................6-10
6.7.2 Invasive Species Removal ........................................................................................6-11
7 Monitoring and Evaluation .......................................................................................................7-1
7.1 Stream Monitoring ................................................................................................................7-1
7.1.1 Cross-Sections ............................................................................................................7-1
7.1.2 Pattern .........................................................................................................................7-1
7.1.3 Longitudinal Profile ...................................................................................................7-1
7.1.4 Photo Reference Sites .................................................................................................7-2
7.2 Vegetation Monitoring ...........................................................................................................7-2
7.3 Maintenance Issues ................................................................................................................7-3
8 References ..................................................................................................................................8-1
BUCK ENGINEERING VI
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
List of Figures
Figure 2.6.1 Modified Shield's Curve ..............................................................................................2-14
Figure 4.3 Rural Piedmont Regional Curve with Surveyed Bankfull Cross-Section Areas for the
Tributary to Fork Creek, Tributary to Sandy Creek, West Branch Tibbs Run and Project Reaches. 4-6
List of Tables
Table 2.4.1 Conversion of Bank Height Ratio (Degree of Incision) to Adjective Rankings of
Stability .................... ......................................................................................................................... 2-8
Table 2.4.2 Conversion of Width/Depth Ratios to Adjective Ranking of Stability from Stability
Conditions ........................................................................................................................................ ..2-9
Table 2.7.1 Functions of In-Stream Structures ............................................................................... 2-16
Table 3.4.1 Project Soil Types and Descriptions ............................................................................ ..3-3
Table 3.6.1 Species Under Federal Protection ................................................................................ ..3-4
Table 3.6.2 Federal Species of Concern in Randolph County ........................................................ ..3-4
Table 4.2.1 Ml Subwatershed Reach Description .......................................................................... ..4-1
Table 4.2.2 M2 Subwatershed Reach Description .......................................................................... ..4-3
Table 5.3.1 Project Design Stream Types ....................................................................................... ..5-3
Table 6.3.1 Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power for Existing and Design Conditions for
UT2 and UT3b ................................................................................................................................. ..6-7
Table 6.5.2 Existing Condition and Design Sediment Competency Values ................................... ..6-8
Table 6.6.1 In-Stream Structure Types and Locations Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Plan ... ..6-9
List of Appendices
A Cultural Resources Correspondence
B EDR Transaction Screen Map Report
C Existing Conditions Data
D Site Photographs
E DWQ Stream Forms
F Design Parameters
BUCK ENGINEERING VII
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN

List of Exhibits (Exhibits provided at the end of the report)
1.1 Project Vicinity Map
1.2 Site Hydrology
2.1 Rosgen Stream Classification
2.2 Factors Influencing Stream Stability
2.3 Simon Channel Evolution Model
2.4 Restoration Priorities for incised Channels
2.5 Channel Dimension Measurements
2.6 Design Criteria Selection
2.7 Examples of Instream Structures
3.1 Watershed Boundaries
3.2 Project Soil Map
3.3 Construction Access and Stream Crossings
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
vul
1 Introduction and Background
i 1.1 Brief Project Description and Location
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) proposes to conduct stream restoration
activities at Meredell Farm, near the town of Liberty in Randolph County, North Carolina. The
. project will restore 3,865 linear feet of stream, enhance 4,704 linear feet, and preserve 5,136 linear
. feet of stream in the Cape Fear River Basin. The project involves Sandy Creek and two of its
unnamed tributary streams and is shown in Exhibit 1.1. The site lies in the Deep River watershed
within North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub-basin 03-06-09 and United States
Geologic Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit (HU) is 03030003020010.
For analysis and design purposes, the on-site streams were divided into seven reaches. The reach
locations are shown on Exhibit 1.2. The reaches were numbered sequentially moving from east to
i west with tributaries carrying a "UT" designation and main reaches n "M" designation. A ridge
. separates the project into two subwatersheds. UT1 and UT2 drain into the Ml subwatershed while
UT3, UT4, and UT5 drain into the M2 subwatershed. UT1 begins off site, flows into the project
area from the east, and ends at the confluence with UT2. UT2 begins on-site at a farm pond outlet
pipe, and flows southwest to its confluence with UT1. M1 begins at the confluence of UT1 and UT2
. and ends at its confluence with Sandy Creek. UT3 begins on the adjacent property and flows into
. the project area for a short distance from the northeast to the confluence with UT4 and then to the
east to the confluence with UT5 and M2. UT4 begins on-site, flows through the project from the
east and ends at the confluence with UT3. UT5 flows through the project site from the north and
. ends at the confluence of UT3 and M2. M2 begins at the confluence with UT5 and UT3 and ends at
. the property boundary.
All of the unnamed tributary stream reaches, with the exception of UT4, are shown as intermittent
. blue-line streams on the USGS topographic quadrangle as shown in Exhibit 1.1. UT4 does not
appear on the USGS quad, but appears to be spring fed. The total existing length of project stream
reaches is approximately 13,000 ft.
. 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The design goal of the project is to restore and improve the stream channel and riparian buffer form
. and function on-site. To achieve this goal the following objectives have been identified:
. • Restore 3,865 LF of channel dimension, pattern and profile
. • Enhance 4,704 LF of channel dimension and/or profile
• Preserve 5,136 LF of stream channel and riparian buffer
• Improve floodplain functionality by matching floodplain elevation with bankfull stage
• Establish native stream bank and floodplain vegetation in the permanent conservation easement
• Improve the water quality in the Upper Cape Fear River watershed by fencing cattle out of the
stream and reducing bank erosion
. Portions of existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams will be filled, and new meandering
. channels will be constructed across the floodplain. Invasive vegetation will be removed and native
vegetation will be re-established.
BUCK ENGINEERING 1 1
i MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
1.3 Report Overview
This report has the following organization. Section 2 provides new readers with a review of the
background science and methodologies applied by Buck Engineering in the practice of natural
channel design. It does not contain information specific to this project. Sections 3 through 6 of the
report discuss site-specific project details. They cover watershed assessment findings, stream
corridor assessment results, design criteria, and the restoration design, respectively. Section 7
presents the monitoring and evaluation plan for the post-implementation period. References are
included in Section 8, and appendices are included that summarize cultural resources,
correspondence, hazardous waste screening, a summary of existing site conditions, site photographs,
and NCDWQ stream forms.
BUCK ENGINEERING 1-2
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
2 Background Science and Methods
S 2.1 Application of Fluvial Processes to Stream Restoration
A stream and its floodplain comprise a dynamic environment where the floodplain, channel, and
• bedform evolve through natural processes. Weather and hydraulic processes erode, transport, sort,
and deposit alluvial materials throughout the riparian system. The size and flow of a stream are
directly related to its watershed area. Other factors that affect channel size and stream flow are
geology, land use, soil types, topography, and climate. The morphology, or size and shape, of the
channel reflect all of these factors (Leopold et al., 1992; Knighton, 1998).
i
a
Streams operating under dynamic equilibrium maintain their dimension, pattern, and profile over
time, and neither degrade nor aggrade. Land use changes in the watershed, including increases in
impervious land cover and removal of riparian vegetation, can upset this balance. A new
equilibrium may eventually be reached, but not before large adjustments in channel form can occur,
such as extreme bank erosion or incision (Lane, 1955; Schumm, 1960). By understanding and
applying natural stream processes to stream restoration projects, a self-sustaining stream can be
designed and constructed that maximizes stream and biological potential (Leopold et al., 1992;
Leopold, 1994; Rosgen, 1996).
In addition to transporting water and sediment, natural streams provide the habitat for many aquatic
organisms including fish, amphibians, insects, mollusks, and plants. Trees and shrubs along the
banks provide a food source and moderate water temperatures. Channel features such as pools,
riffles, steps, and undercut banks provide diversity of habitat, oxygenation, and cover (Dunne and
Leopold, 1978). Stream restoration projects can repair these features in concert with the return of a
stable dimension, pattern, and profile. The following sections provide an overview of the primary
channel forming process and typical stream morphology.
2.1.1 Channel Forming Discharge
The channel forming discharge, also referred to as bankfull discharge, effective discharge, or
dominant discharge, creates a natural and predictable channel size and shape (Leopold et al., 1992;
Leopold, 1994). The channel forming discharge theory states that there is a unique flow that over a
long period of time would yield the same channel morphology that is shaped by the natural sequence
of flows. At this discharge, equilibrium is most closely approached and the tendency to change is
the least (Inglis, 1947). The channel forming discharge can be used in channel stability assessment,
river management using hydraulic geometry relationships, and natural channel design (Soar and
Thorne, 2001).
Proper determination of bankfull stage in the field is vital to stream classification and the natural
channel design process. The bankfull discharge is the point at which flooding occurs on the
floodplain (Leopold, 1994). This flood stage may or may not be the top of the stream bank. On
average, bankfull discharge occurs every 1.5 years (Leopold, 1994; Harman et al., 1999;
McCandless, 2003). If the stream has incised due to changes in the watershed or streamside
vegetation, the bankfull stage may be a small depositional bench or scour line on the stream bank
(Harman et al., 1999). In this case, the top of the bank, which was formerly the floodplain, is called
a terrace. A stream with terraces at the top of its banks is considered to be incised.
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
2-1
r
i
2.1.2 Bedform Diversity and Channel Substrate
The profile of a stream bed and its bed materials are largely dependent on valley slope and geology.
In simple terms, steep, straight streams are found in steep, colluvial valleys, while flat, meandering
streams are found in flat, alluvial valleys. Colluvial valleys, which are formed through hillslope
processes, have slopes from 2 to 4 percent, while alluvial channels have slopes less than 2 percent.
Sediment supply in colluvial valleys is controlled by hillslope erosion and mass wasting (i.e., the
sediments in the stream bed were eroded from the hillslopes). Sediments reaching the channel in a
colluvial valley are typically poorly sorted mixtures of fine and coarse grained materials ranging in
size from sand to boulders. In contrast, an alluvial valley forms through stream and floodplain
processes. Sediments in alluvial valleys include some coarse gravel and cobble transported from
steeper upland areas, but are predominantly fine grained particles such as gravel and sand. In
alluvial valleys, grain size generally correlates with valley slope (Leopold et al., 1992).
2.1.2.1 Step/Pool Streams
A step/pool bed profile is characteristic of steep streams formed within colluvial valleys. Steep
mountain streams demonstrate step/pool morphology as a result of episodic sediment transport
mechanisms. Because of the high energy associated with the steep channel slope, the substrate in
step/pool streams contains significantly larger particles than streams in flatter alluvial valleys. Steps
form from accumulations of boulders and cobbles that span the channel, resulting in a backwater
pool upstream and plunge pool downstream. Smaller particles collect in the interstices of steps
creating stable, interlocking structures (Knighton, 1998).
In contrast to meandering streams that dissipate energy through meander bends, step/pool streams
dissipate energy through drops and turbulence. Step/pool streams have relatively low sinuosity.
Pattern variations are commonly the result of debris jams, topographic features, and bedrock
outcrops.
2.1.2.2 Gravel Bed Streams
Meandering gravel bed streams in alluvial valleys have sequences of riffles and pools that maintain
channel slope and bed stability. The riffle is a bed feature composed of gravel or larger size
particles. During low flow periods, the water depth at a riffle is relatively shallow and the slope is
steeper than the average slope of the channel. At low flows, water generates turbulence as it flows
over riffles, providing oxygen to the stream. Riffles control the stream bed elevation and are usually
found entering and exiting meander bends. The inside of the meander bend is a depositional feature
called a point bar, which also helps maintain channel form (Knighton, 1998). Pools are typically
located on the outside bends of meanders between riffles. Pools have a flat slope and are much
deeper than the average depth of the channel. At low flows, pools are depositional features and
riffles are scour features.
At high flows, the water surface becomes more uniform: the water surface slope at the riffles
decreases and the water surface slope at the pools increases. The increase in pool slope coupled with
the greater water depth at the pools causes an increase in shear stress at the bed elevation. The
opposite is true at riffles. With a relative increase in shear stress, pools scour. The relative decrease
in shear stress at riffles causes bed material deposits at these features during the falling limb of the
hydrograph.
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
2-2

2.1.2.3 Sand Bed Streams
While gravel bed streams have riffle/pool sequences with riffles composed of gravel-size particles,
sand bed channels are characterized by median bed material sizes less than 2 millimeters (Bunte and
Abt, 2001). Bed material features called ripples, dunes, planebeds, and antidunes characterize the
sand bedform. Although sand bed streams technically do not have riffles, the term is often used to
describe the crossover reach between pools. We use "riffle" in this report to represent the crossover
w section.
The size, stage, and variation of sand bedforms are formed by changes in unit stream power as
described below. These bedforms are symptomatic of local variations in the sediment transport rate
that cause minor to major variations in aggradation and degradation (Gomez, 1991). Sand bedforms
can be divided between low-flow regimes and high-flow regimes with a transitional zone between
the two. Ripples occur at low flows where the unit stream power is sufficient to entrain sand size
a? particles. This entrainment creates small wavelets from random accumulations of sediment that are
• triangular in profile with gentle upstream and steep downstream slopes. The ripple dimensions are
• independent of flow depth, and ripple heights are less than 0.02 meters.
As unit stream power increases, dunes eventually replace ripples. Dunes are the most common type
• of sand bedform and have a larger height and wavelength than ripples. Unlike ripples, dune height
and wavelength are proportional to flow depth. The movement of dunes is the major cause of
variability in bed-load transport rates in sand bed streams. Dunes are eventually washed out to leave
an upper-flow plane bed characterized by intense bedload transport. This plane bed prevents the
patterns of erosion and deposition required for dune development. This stage of bedform
i development is called the transitional flow regime between the low flow features and the high flow
regime features (Knighton, 1998).

As flow continues to increase, standing waves develop at the water surface, and the bed develops a
• train of sediment waves (antidunes) that mirror the surface forms. Antidunes migrate upstream by
way of scour on the downstream face and deposition on the upstream face, in contrast to the
processes that form ripples and dunes. Antidunes can also move downstream or remain stationary
for short periods (Knighton, 1998).
s
2.1.3 Stream Classification
The Rosgen stream classification system categorizes essentially all types of channels based on
measured morphological features (Rosgen, 1994, 1996). The system (illustrated in Exhibit 2.1)
presents several stream types based on a hierarchical scale. The first level of classification
distinguishes between single- and multiple-thread channels. Streams are then separated based on
degrees of entrenchment, width/depth ratio, and sinuosity. Slope range and channel materials are
also used in the classification system. Stream types are further described according to average
riparian vegetation, organic debris, blockages, flow regimes, stream size, depositional features, and
meander pattern.
Bankfull stage is the basis for measuring the width/depth and entrenchment ratios, two of the most
important delineative criteria in stream classification. Therefore, it is critical to correctly identify
bankfull stage when classifying streams and designing stream restoration measures. For a detailed
discussion of bankfull stage, please refer to Section 2.1.1.
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
2-3

2.1.4 Stream Stability
A naturally stable stream must be able to transport the sediment load supplied by its watershed while
. maintaining dimension, pattern, and profile over time so that it does not degrade or aggrade (Rosgen,
1994). Stable streams migrate across alluvial landscapes slowly over long periods of time while
maintaining their form and function. Instability occurs when scouring causes the channel to incise
(degrade) or excessive deposition causes the channel bed to rise (aggrade). A generalized
• relationship of stream stability proposed by Lane (1955) is shown as a schematic drawing in Exhibit
2.2. The drawing shows that the product of sediment load and sediment size is proportional to the
! product of stream slope and discharge or stream power. A change in any one of these variables
causes a rapid physical adjustment in the stream channel.
2.1.5 Channel Evolution
A common sequence of physical adjustments has been observed in many streams following
disturbance. This adjustment process is often referred to as channel evolution. Disturbance can
result from channelization, increase in runoff due to build-out in the watershed, removal of
streamside vegetation, and other changes that negatively affect stream stability. All of these
i disturbances occur in both urban and rural environments. Several models have been used to describe
w this process of physical adjustment for a stream. The Simon (1989) channel evolution model
characterizes channel evolution in six classes, including:
I Sinuous, pre-modified
• II Channelized
III Degradation
IV Degradation and widening
V Aggradation and widening
VI Quasi-equilibrium
Exhibit 2.3 illustrates the six classes of the Simon channel evolution model.

The channel evolution process is initiated when disturbance occurs in a stable, well-vegetated stream
• that interacts frequently with its floodplain. Disturbance commonly results in an increase in stream
velocity or sediment load that causes degradation, often referred to as channel incision (Lane, 1955).
Incision eventually leads to over-steepening of the banks and, when critical bank heights are
. exceeded, the banks begin to fail and mass wasting of soil and rock leads to channel widening.
• Incision and widening continue moving upstream in the form of a head-cut. Eventually the mass
wasting slows and the stream begins to aggrade. A new low-flow channel begins to form in the
sediment deposits. By the end of the evolutionary process, a stable stream with dimension, pattern,
s and profile similar to those of undisturbed channels forms in the deposited alluvium. The new
channel is at a lower elevation than its original form with a new floodplain constructed of alluvial
material (FISRWG, 1998).
t
2.1.6 Priority Levels of Restoring Incised Rivers
Though incised streams can occur naturally in certain landforms, they are often the product of
disturbance. High, steep stream banks, poor or absent in-stream or riparian habitat, increased
erosion and sedimentation, and low sinuosity are all characteristics of incised streams. Complete
restoration of the stream that raises the channel's grade and reclaims the abandoned floodplain
• terrace, is ideally the overriding project objective. There may be scenarios, however, where this
i
• BUCK ENGINEERING 2-4
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN

• objective is impractical due to encroachment into the abandoned floodplain terrace by homes,
roadways, utilities, etc. A priority system for the restoration of incised streams, developed and used
by Rosgen (1997), considers a range of options to provide the best level of stream restoration
possible for the given setting. Exhibit 2.4 illustrates various restoration/stabilization options for
incised channels within the framework of the Rosgen's priority system. Generally:
Priority 1- Re-establishes the channel on a previous floodplain (i.e., raises channel elevation);
meanders a new channel to achieve the dimension, pattern, and profile characteristic of a stable
stream for the particular valley type; and fills or isolates existing incised channel. This option
requires that the upstream start point of the project not be incised.
• Priority 2 - Establishes a new floodplain at the existing bankfull elevation (i.e., excavates a new
• floodplain); meanders channel to achieve the dimension, pattern, and profile characteristic of a
stable stream for the particular valley type; and fills or isolates existing incised areas.
• Priority 3 - Converts a straight channel to a different stream type while leaving the existing
channel in place by excavating bankfull benches at the existing bankfull elevation. Effectively,
the valley for the stream is made more bowl-shaped. This approach uses in-stream structures to
. dissipate energy through a step/pool channel type.
• Priority 4 - Stabilizes the channel in place using in-stream structures and bioengineering to
decrease stream bed and stream bank erosion. This approach is typically used in highly
i constrained environments.
2.2 Natural Channel Design Overview
Restoration design of degraded stream reaches first involves accurately diagnosing their current
condition. Understanding valley type, stream type, channel stability, bedform diversity, and
potential for restoration is essential to developing adequate restoration measures (Rosgen, 1996).
. This combination of assessment and design is often referred to as natural channel design.
The first step in a stream restoration design is to assess the reach, its valley, and its watershed to
understand the relationship between the stream and its drainage basin and to evaluate the causes of
stream impairment. Bankfull discharge is estimated for the watershed. After sources of stream
• impairment are identified and channel geometry is assessed, a plan for restoration can be formulated.
M Design begins when the assessment stage is completed. A series of iterative calculations are
performed using data from reference reaches, pertinent literature, and evaluation of past projects to
• develop an appropriate stable cross-section, profile, and plan form dimensions for the design reach.
A discussion of design parameter selection is provided in Section 2.5. The alignment should avoid
an entirely symmetrical layout to mimic natural variability, create a diversity of aquatic habitats, and
improve aesthetics.
S
i
Once a dimension, pattern, and profile have been developed for the project reach, the design is tested
to ensure that the new channel will not aggrade or degrade. A discussion of sediment transport
methodology is provided in Section 2.6. After the sediment transport assessment, additional
structural elements are then added to the design to provide grade control, protect stream banks, and
enhance habitat. Section 2.7 describes these in-stream structures.
Once the design is finalized, detailed drawings are prepared showing dimension, pattern, profile, and
location of additional structures. These drawings are used in the construction of the project.
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
2-5
!
i
Following the implementation of the design, a monitoring plan is established to:
! • Ensure that stabilization structures are functioning properly;
• • Monitor channel response in dimension, pattern and profile, channel stability;
(aggradation/degradation), particle size distribution of channel materials, and sediment transport
and stream bank erosion rates;
• Determine biological response (food chains, standing crop, species diversity, etc.); and
• • Determine the extent to which the restoration objectives have been met.
2.3 Geomorphic Characterization Methodology
! Geomorphic characterization of stream features includes the bankfull identification, bed material
! characterization and analysis, and stream classification.
2.3.1 Bankfull Identification
! Correct identification of bankfull is important to the determination of geomorphic criteria such as
stream type, bank height ratios, width to depth ratios, and entrenchment ratios. Buck Engineering's
• field techniques for bankfull identification are as follows:
• • Identify the most consistent bankfull indicators along the reach that were obviously formed by
! the stream, such as a point bar or lateral bar. Bankfull is usually the back of this feature, unless
sediment supply is high. In that case, the bar may flatten and bankfull will be the front of the
feature at the break in slope. The indicator is rarely the top of the bank or lowest scour mark.
• Measure the difference in height between the water surface and the bankfull indicator. For
. example, the indicator may be 2.2 feet above the water surface. Bankfull stage corresponds to a
flow depth. It should not vary by more than a few tenths of a foot throughout the reach, unless a
! tributary enters the reach and increases the size of the drainage area.
i • Go to a stable riffle. If a bankfull indicator is not present at this riffle, use the height measured in
! the previous step to establish the indicator. For example, measure 2.2 feet above water surface
and place a flag in both the right and left bank.
• Measure the distance from the left bank to the right bank between the indicators. Calculate the
!
!
!
!
!
cross-sectional area.
• Obtain the appropriate regional curve (e.g., rural Piedmont, urban Piedmont, Mountain, or
Coastal Plain) and determine the cross-sectional area associated with the drainage area of the
reach.
• Compare the measured cross-sectional area to the regional curve cross-sectional. If the measured
cross-sectional area is not a close fit, look for other bankfull indicators and test them. If there are
no other indicators, look for reasons to explain the difference between the two cross-sectional
areas. For example, if the cross-sectional area of the stable riffle is lower than the regional curve
area, look for upstream impoundments, wetlands, or a mature forested watershed. If the cross-
sectional area is higher than the regional curve area, look for stormwater drains, parking lots, or
signs of channelization.
It is important to perform the bankfull verification at a stable riffle using indicators from
depositional features. The cross-sectional area will change with decreasing stability. In some
streams, bankfull indicators will not be present due to incision or channelization. In such cases, it is
important to verify bankfull through other means such as a gauge station survey or reference
bankfull information that is specific to the geographic location. The gauge information can be used,
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL.FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
2-6

along with regional curve information, to estimate bankfull elevation in parts of the project reach
that lacks bankfull indicators.
2.3.2 Bed Material Characterization
Buck Engineering performs bed material characterization using a modified Wolman procedure
(Wolman, 1954; Rosgen, 1996). A 100-count pebble count is performed in transects across the
streambed, with the number of riffle and pool transects being proportional to the percentage of riffles
and pools within the longitudinal distance of a given stream type. As stream type changes, a
• separate pebble count is performed. The median particle size of the modified Wolman procedure is
• known as the d50. The d50 describes the bed material classification for that reach. The bed material
classification is shown on Exhibit 2.1 and ranges from a classification of 1 for a channel d5o of
bedrock to a classification of 6 for a channel d5o with particle sizes in the silt/clay range.
2.3.3 Stream Classification
Cross-sections are surveyed along stable riffles for the purpose of stream classification. Relevant
data includes entrenchment ratio (ER), width/depth ratio (w/d ratio), and sinuosity. The ER is
• calculated by dividing the flood-prone width (width measured at twice the maximum bankfull depth)
by the bankfull width. The w/d ratio is calculated by dividing bankfull width by mean bankfull
depth. Exhibit 2.5 shows examples of the channel dimension measurements used in the Rosgen
stream classification system. Finally, the numbers that coincide with each bed material classification
• are to further classify the stream type. For example, a Rosgen E3 stream type is a narrow and deep
• cobble-dominated channel with access to a floodplain that is greater than two times its bankfull
width.
• 2.4 Channel Stability Assessment Methodology
Buck Engineering uses a modified version of stream channel stability assessment methodology
• developed by Rosgen (2001a). The Rosgen method is a field assessment of the following stream
channel characteristics:
•
• Stream Channel Condition;
• Vertical Stability;
• Lateral Stability;
• Channel Pattern;
• River Profile and Bed Features;
• Channel Dimension Relations and
• Channel Evolution.
This field evaluation is followed by the evaluation of various channel dimension relationships. The
evaluation of these categories and ratios leads to a determination of a channel's current state,
potential for restoration, and appropriate methods that could be used during restoration activities. A
description of each category is provided in the following sections.
2.4.1 Stream Channel Condition Observations
Stream channel conditions are observed during the initial field inspection (stream walk). Buck
Engineering notes the follow characteristics:
• Riparian vegetation - concentration, composition, and rooting depth and density;
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
2-7
s
•
•
•
• Sediment depositional patterns - such as mid-channel bars and other depositional features that
indicate aggradation and can lead to negative geomorphic channel adjustments;
Debris occurrence - presence or absence of woody debris;
• Meander patterns - general observations with regard to the type of adjustments a stream will
• make to reach equilibrium; and
• • Altered states due to direct disturbance - such as channelization, berm construction, and
floodplain alterations.
•
These qualitative observations are useful in the assessment of channel stability. They provide a
• consistent method of documenting stream conditions that allows for comparisons across different
sets of site conditions. They also help explain the quantitative measurements described below.
• Exhibit 2.5 illustrates some of these quantitative measurements.
• 2.4.2 Vertical Stability - Degradation/Aggradation
• The bank height and entrenchment ratios are measured in the field to assess vertical stability. The
• bank height ratio is measured as the ratio of the lowest bank height divided by a maximum bankfull
depth. Table 2.4.1 shows the relationship between bank height ratio (BHR) and vertical stability
• developed by Rosgen (2001 a).
Table 2.4.1
Conversion of Sank Height Ratio (Degree of Incision) to Adjective Rankings of Stability
• Adjective Stability Rating Bank Height Ratio
Stable (low risk of degradation) 1.0-1.05
• Moderately unstable 1.06-1.3
Unstable (high risk of degradation) 1.3-1.5
Highly unstable > 1.5
• Source: Rosgen, 2001a
The entrenchment ratio is measured as the width of the floodplain at twice the maximum bankfull
• depth. If the entrenchment ratio is less than 1.4 (+/- 0.2), the stream is considered entrenched
(Rosgen, 1996).
• 2.4.3 Lateral Stability
• The degree of lateral containment (confinement) and potential lateral erosion are assessed in the field
• by measuring the meander width ratio (MWR) and the Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) (Rosgen,
2001a). The MWR is the meander belt width divided by the bankfull channel width, and provides
insight into lateral channel adjustment processes depending on stream type and degree of
confinement. For example, a MWR of 3.0 often corresponds with a sinuosity of 1.2, which is the
• minimum value for a stream to be classified as meandering. If the MWR is less than 3.0, lateral
adjustment is probable. BEHI ratings along with near bank shear stress estimates can be compared
• to data from monitored sites and used to estimate the annual lateral stream bank erosion rate.
• 2.4.4 Channel Pattern
• The channel pattern is assessed in the field by measuring the stream's plan features including radius
• of curvature, meander wavelength, meander belt width, stream length, and valley length. Results are
used to compute the meander width ratio (described above), ratio of radius of curvature to bankfull
width, sinuosity, and meander wavelength ratio (meander wavelength divided by bankfull width).
•
BUCK ENGINEERING 2-8
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
•

These ratios are compared to reference reach data for the same valley and stream type to determine if
the whether channel pattern has been impacted.
2.4.5 River Profile and Bed Features
A longitudinal profile is created by measuring and plotting elevations of the channel bed, water
surface, bankfull, and low bank height. Facet (e.g., riffle, run, pool) slopes of each individual feature
are important for stability assessment and design. Profile points are surveyed periodically and at
significant breaks in slope such as the head of a riffle or pool. This can be used to assess changes in
river slope compared to valley slope, which affects sediment transport, stream competence, and the
balance of energy. For example, the removal of large woody debris may increase the step/pool
spacing and result in excess energy inputs and subsequent channel degradation.
2.4.6 Channel Dimension Relations
The bankfull width/depth ratio provides an indication of departure from reference reach conditions
and describes channel instability. A greater width/depth ratio compared to reference conditions may
indicate accelerated stream bank erosion, excessive sediment deposition, stream flow changes, and
alteration of channel shape (e.g., from channelization). A smaller width/depth ratio compared to
reference conditions may indicate channel incision and downcutting. Both increases and decreases
in width/depth ratio can indicate evolutionary shifts in stream type (i.e., transition of one stream type
to another). Table 2.4.2 shows the relationship between the degree of width/depth ratio increase and
channel stability developed by Rosgen (2001 a).
Table 2.4.2
Conversion of Width/Depth Ratios to Adjective Ranking of Stability from
Stability Conditions
Stability Rating Ratio of Project to Reference Width/Depth
Very stable 1.0
Stable 1.0-1.2
Moderately unstable 1.21-1.4
Unstable > 1.4
Source: Rosgen, 2001a
While an increase in width/depth ratio is associated with channel widening, a decrease in
width/depth ratio is associated with channel incision. For incised channels, the ratio of channel
width/depth ratio to reference reach width/depth ratio will be less than 1.0. The reduction in
width/depth ratio indicates excess shear stress and movement of the channel toward an unstable
condition.
2.4.7 Channel Evolution
Simon's channel evolution model (see Section 2.1.5) relies on a qualitative, visual assessment of the
existing stream channel characteristics (bank height, evidence of degradation/aggradation, presence
of bank slumping, direction of bed and bank movement, etc.). Establishing the evolutionary stage of
the channel helps determine if the system is moving toward stability or instability. The model also
provides a better understanding of the cause and effect of channel change. This information,
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
2-9

• combined with Rosgen's (1994) priority levels of restoration aids in determining the restoration
. potential of unstable reaches.
2.5 Design Parameter Selection Methodology
Buck Engineering uses a combination of approaches to develop design criteria for channel
dimension, pattern, and profile. These approaches are described in the following sections. A flow
chart for selecting design criteria is shown in Exhibit 2.6.
• 2.5.1 Upstream Reference Reaches
• The preferred method for developing design criteria uses a reference reach located upstream of the
• project site. A reference reach is a channel segment that is stable (neither aggrading nor degrading)
and is of the same morphological type as the channel in the project area. The reference reach should
also have a similar valley slope as the project reach. The reference reach is then used as the
blueprint for the channel design (Rosgen, 1998). To account for differences in drainage area and
• discharge between a reference site and a project site, data on channel characteristics (dimension,
pattern, and profile), in the form of dimensionless ratios, are developed for the reference reach. If
the reach upstream of the project does not have sufficient pattern, but does have a stable riffle cross-
section, only dimension ratios are calculated. It is ideal to measure a reference bankfull dimension
• that was formed under the same environmental influences as the project reach.
• 2.5.2 Reference Reach Searches
If a reference reach cannot be located upstream of the project reach, a review of a reference reach
• database is required. The search attempts to identify reference reaches near the project site. The
search screens for streams with the same valley and stream type as those in the project area. If
streams are found that meet these criteria, the reference reaches are field-surveyed for validation and
comparison. This is done because the database values that may have been originally collected and
• provided by a third party. If a search of the database reveals no reference reaches that meet the
• appropriate criteria, a field search is performed locally to identify a stream that could be used as a
reference reach.
. Potential reference reaches are identified by first evaluating USGS topographic quadrangles and
aerial photography for the area. In general, the search is limited to subwatersheds within or adjacent
to the project watershed. In certain cases, a reference reach may be identified farther away that
matches the same valley and stream type as the proposed design of the project site. In such a case,
care is taken to ensure that the potential reference reach lies within the same physiographic region as
. the project reach. Potential reference sites identified on maps are then field-evaluated to determine if
they are stable systems of the appropriate stream and valley type. If needed, reference reach surveys
are conducted. When potential sites are located on private property, landowner permission is
acquired prior to the initiation of survey work.

2.5.3 Reference Reach Databases
If a reference reach is not found in close proximity to the project site, a reference reach database is
consulted and summary ratios are acquired for all streams with the same valley and stream type
within the project's physiographic region. These ratios are then compared to literature values and
regime equations along with ratios developed through the evaluation of successful projects.
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
2-10
S
2.5.4 Regime Equations
• Buck Engineering uses a variety of published journals, books, and design manuals to cross-reference
• North Carolina database values with peer-reviewed regime equations. Examples include Fluvial
Forms and Processes by David Knighton (1998), Mountain Rivers by Ellen Wohl (2000), and the
Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
(Copeland et al., 2001). The most common regime equations used in our designs are for pattern.
• For example, most reference reach surveys in the eastern U.S. show radius of curvature divided by
bankfull width ratios much less than 1.5. However, the USACE recommends a ratio greater than 2.0
to maintain stability in free-forming systems. Since most stream restoration projects are constructed
on floodplains denuded of woody vegetation, we often use the higher value rather than reference
• reach data. Meander wavelength and pool-to-pool spacing ratios are other examples of parameters
• that are sometimes designed with higher ratios than those observed on reference reaches, for similar
reasons as those described for radius of curvature.
2.5.5 Comparison to Past Projects
It is very useful to compare these reference reaches with the results of past projects built under
similar conditions. Ultimately, these sites provide the best pattern and profile ratios because they
reflect site conditions after construction. While most reference reaches are in mature forests,
• restoration sites are generally in floodplains with little or no mature woody vegetation. The lack of
• this vegetation severely alters floodplain processes and stream bank conditions. If past ratios did not
provide adequate stability or bedform diversity, they are not used. Conversely, if past project ratios
created stable channels with optimal bedform diversity; they will be incorporated into the design.
• Ultimately, the design criteria are selections of ratios and equations made after a thorough evaluation
of the above parameters. Several approaches may be used to optimize the design. Section 5
discusses the process of selecting for this project.
• 2.6 Sediment Transport Competency and Capacity Methodology
i
• Stream restoration designs must be tested to ensure that the new channel dimensions (in particular,
the design bankfull mean depth) create a stream that has the ability to move its sediment load
without aggrading or degrading over time. The ability of the stream to transport its total sediment
load is quantified through two measures: sediment transport competency and sediment transport
• capacity. Competency is a stream's ability to move particles of a given size and is a measurement of
• force, often expressed as units of pounds per square foot (lbs/ft2). Sediment transport capacity is a
stream's ability to move a quantity of sediment and is a measurement of stream power, often
expressed as units of watts/square meter. Sediment transport capacity is also calculated as a
sediment transport rating curve, which provides an estimate of the quantity of total sediment load
transported through a cross-section per unit time. The curve is provided as a sediment transport rate
in pounds per second (lbs/sec) versus discharge or stream power.
0
The total volume of sediment transported through a cross-section consists of bedload plus suspended
load fractions. Suspended load is normally composed of fine sand, silt, and clay particles
transported in the water column. Bedload is generally composed of larger particles, such as course
sand, gravels, and cobbles, which are transported by rolling, sliding, or hopping (saltating) along the
bed.
r- r -I
LJ
F_ 1
• BUCK ENGINEERING 2-11
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
• 2.6.1 Competency Analysis
• Median substrate size has an important influence on the mobility of particles in stream beds. Critical
• dimensionless shear stress (T*ci) is the measure of force required to initiate general movement of
particles in a bed of a given composition. At shear stresses exceeding this critical value, essentially
all grain sizes are transported at rates in proportion to their presence in the bed (Wohl, 2000).*ci
can be calculated for gravel-bed stream reaches using surface and subsurface particle samples from a
• stable, representative riffle in the reach (Andrews, 1983). Critical dimensionless shear stress is
calculated based on parameters established in Rosgen, 2001 a.
• 1. Using the following equations, determine the critical dimensionless shear stress required to
mobilize and transport the largest particle from the bar sample (or subpavement sample).
a) Calculate the ratio d50/d^50
Where: d50 = median diameter of the riffle bed (from 100 count in the riffle or pavement
sample)
• d^50 = median diameter of the bar sample (or subpavement)
If the ratio d50/d^50 is between the values of 3.0 and 7.0, then calculate the critical
dimensionless shear stress using Equation 1.
r *ci = 0.0834 (d50/d^50)-0.872 (Equation 1)
b) If the ratio d50/D^50 is not between the values of 3.0 and 7.0, then calculate the ratio of
• di/d50
• Where: di = Largest particle from the bar sample (or subpavement)
d50 = median diameter of the riffle bed (from 100 count in the riffle or the
pavement sample)
• If the ratio di/d50 is between the values of 1.3 and 3.0, then calculate the critical
dimensionless shear stress using Equation 2.
T *ci = 0.0384 (di/d50)-0.887 (Equation 2)
2.6.2 Aggradational Analysis
The aggradation analysis is based on calculations of the required depth and slope needed to transport
large sediment particles, in this case defined as the largest particle of the riffle subpavement sample.
• Required depth can be compared with the existing/design mean riffle depth and required slope can
• be compared to the existing/design slope to verify that the stream has sufficient competency to move
large particles and thus prevent thalweg aggradation. The required depth and slope are calculated
by:

2-12
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
S
•
•
dr = 1.652*,?d•
Se - -
Sr = 1.651;d;
d
Where: dr (ft) = Required bankfull mean depth
de (ft)= Design bankfull mean depth
1.65 = Sediment density (submerged specific weight)
= density of sediment (2.65) - density of water (1.0)
t*ci = Critical dimensionless shear stress
di (ft) = Largest particle from bar sample (or.subpavement)
sr (ft/ft) = Required bankfull water surface slope
se (ft/ft) = Design bankfull water surface slope
(Equation 3)
(Equation 4)
The aggradation analysis is used to assess both existing and design conditions. For example, if the
calculated value for the existing critical depth is significantly larger than the measured maximum
bankfull depth, this indicates that the stream is aggrading. Alternately, if the proposed design depth
significantly differs from the calculated critical depth and the analysis is deemed appropriate for the
site conditions, the design dimensions should be revised accordingly.
2.6.3 Competency Analysis using Shield's Curve
As a complement to the required depth and slope calculations, boundary shear stresses for a design
riffle cross-section can be compared with a modified Shield's curve to predict sediment transport
competency. The shear stress placed on the sediment particles is the force that entrains and moves
the particles, given by:
z7= yRs (Equation 5)
Where, r = shear stress (lb/ft2)
y = specific gravity of water (62.4 lb/ft)
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
s = average channel slope (ft/ft)
The boundary shear stress can be estimated for the design cross-section and plotted on a modified
Shield's curve, as shown in Figure 2.6.1. The particle size that Shield's curve predicts will be
moved is compared to the Di of the site subpavement. Shield's curve predicts whether the design
conditions will have enough shear stress to move a particle larger than the largest subpavement
particle found in the creek and prevent aggradation.
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
2-13
100
Soo

200

100

29
0
y 10
QI
W 5
W
.ri
2

1

0.5 -

0.2

0.1
0.001 0.002 0.0055 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 02 0.5 1.0 2 5 10
T,, critical shear stress, lbs/sq ft
(Data from. Leopold& Wo#nan, and fffler 7964; Rosgen, personal conmie.; and
Harman, persona/ conmwn)
/

I

I
I
.

`
I

• 4
I
•
' -Leopold
et al.
al.
/ ,
l=
I , 2 - - Rosen ? H

Figure 2.6.1 Modified Shield's Curve
2.6.4 Sediment Transport Capacity
For sand bed streams, sediment transport capacity is much more important than competency.
Sediment transport capacity refers to the stream's ability to move a mass of sediment past across-
section per unit time in pounds/second or tons/year. Sediment transport capacity can be assessed
directly using actual monitored data from bankfull events if a sediment transport rating curve has
been developed for the project site. Since this curve development is extremely time-consuming,
other empirical relationships are used to assess sediment transport capacity. The most common
capacity equation is stream power. Stream power can be calculated a number of ways, but the most
common is:
w = Y QS/Wbkf, where
w =mean stream power in W/m2
(Equation 6)
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
2-14
i
i
a
S
i
y = specific weight of water (9810 N/m3). y = p g where p is the density of the water-sediment mixture (1,000
kg/m) and g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2)
Q = bankfull discharge in d1s
S = Design channel slope (meters per meter)
Wbk Banldull channel width in meters
Note: 1 ft-lb/sec/ft2 = 14.56 W/m2
Equation 6 does not provide a sediment transport rating curve; however, it does describe the stream's
ability to accomplish work, i.e., move sediment. Calculated stream power values are compared to
reference and published values. If deviations from known stable values for similar stream types and
slopes are observed, the design should be reassessed to confirm that sediment will be adequately
transported through the system without imparting excess energy to the channel.
2.7 In-Stream Structures
There are a variety of in-stream structural elements used in restoration. Exhibit 2.7 illustrates a few
typical structures. These elements are comprised of natural materials such as stone, wood, and live
vegetation. Their shape and location works with the flow dynamics to reinforce, stabilize, and
enhance the function of the stream channel. In-stream structures provide three primary functions:
grade control, stream bank protection, and habitat enhancement.
2.7.1 Grade Control
Grade control pertains mainly to the design bed profile. A newly excavated gravel stream bed with a
slope greater than 0.5% is seldom able to maintain the desired slopes and bed features (riffles, runs,
pools and glides) until a pavement/subpavement layer has been established. Stone and/or log
structures installed at the bed elevation and at critical locations in the plan view help to set up the
new stream bed for long-term vertical stability. As the new channel adjusts to its sediment transport
regime and vegetative root mass establishes on the banks, the need for grade control diminishes.
2.7.2 Bank Protection
Bank protection is critical during and after construction as bank and floodplain vegetation
establishes a reinforcing root mass. It may take several years to completely establish floodplain
vegetation, but significant bank protection is often observed after two to four growing seasons.
Bank protection structures generally provide both reinforcement to the stream banks and re-direction
of flow away from the banks and toward the center of the channel.
2.7.3 Habitat Enhancement
Habitat enhancement can take several forms and is often a secondary function of grade control and
bank protection structures. Flow over vanes and wing deflectors create scour pools, which provide
diverse in-stream habitat. Boulder clusters form eddies that provide resting places for aquatic
species. Constructed riffles and vane structures encourage oxygenation of the water. Root wads
provide cover and shade, and encourage the formation of deep pools at the outside of meander
bends.
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
2-15
2.7.4 Selection of Structure Types
Table 2.7.1 Functions of In-Stream Structures

Structure

Grade Control Function (Primary =1, Secondary = 2)

Bank Protection

Habitat Enhancement
Cross Vane 1 1 2
Single Arm Vane N/A 1 2
J-Hook Vane 2 1 2
Constructed Riffle 1 1 2
Log Weir 1 N/A 2
Wing Deflector 2 1 1
Boulder Cluster N/A N/A 1
Root Wad N/A 1 1
Brush Mattress N/A 1 2
Cover Log N/A N/A 1
The selection of structure types and locations typically follows dimension, pattern, and profile
design. In some situations, structures comprise the main, or possibly only stream improvement
activity. More often, structures are used in conjunction with grading, realignment, and planting in an
effort to improve channel stability and aquatic habitat. Table 2.7.1 summarizes the functions of
several in-stream structures.
2.8 Vegetation
The planting of additional and/or more desirable vegetation is an important aspect of the restoration
plan. Vegetation helps stabilize stream banks, creates habitat and a food source for wildlife, lowers
water temperature by stream shading, improves water quality by filtering overland flows, and
improves the aesthetics of the site.
The reforestation component of a restoration project typically includes live dormant staking of the
stream banks, riparian buffer plantings, invasive species removal, and seeding for erosion control.
The stream banks and the riparian area are typically planted with both woody and herbaceous
vegetation to establish a diverse streamside buffer. Vegetating the stream banks is a very desirable
means of erosion control because of the dynamic, adaptive, and self-repairing qualities of vegetation.
Vegetative root systems stabilize channel banks by holding soil together, increasing porosity and
infiltration, and reducing soil saturation through transpiration. During high flows, plants lie flat and
stems and leaves shield the soil surface from erosion. In most settings, vegetation is more
aesthetically appropriate than engineered stabilization structures.
Stream banks are delineated into four zones when considering a planting scheme:
1. Channel bottom - extending up to the low flow stage. Emergent, aquatic plants dominate bank
range, extending from the low flow stage to the bankfull stage;
BUCK ENGINEERING 2-16
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN

2. Lower bank - frequently flooded, extending from the low flow stage to the bankfull stage. A mix
of herbaceous and woody plants including sedges, grasses, shrubs and trees;
3. Upper bank - occasionally flooded, but most often above water. Dominated by shrubs and small
trees; and
4. Riparian area - infrequently flooded terrestrial and naturally forested with canopy-forming trees.
The most appropriate source of plant material for any project is the site itself. Desirable plants that
need to be removed during construction should be salvaged and transplanted as part of the
restoration plan. The next best alternative is to obtain permission to collect and transplant native
plants from areas nearby. This transplant process ensures that the plants are native and adapted to
the locale. Finally, plants can be purchased. They should be obtained from a nearby nursery that
guarantees that the plants are native and appropriate for the locale and climate of the project site.
2.8.1 Live Staking
Live staking is a method of revegetation that utilizes live, dormant cuttings from appropriate species
to cheaply and effectively reestablished vegetation. The installation of live stakes on stream banks
serves to protect the banks from erosion and at the same time provide habitat, shade and improved
aesthetics. Live staking must take place during the dormant season (November - March in the
Southeast US). Live stakes can be gathered locally or purchased from a reputable supplier. Stakes
should be at least 1/2 inches in diameter and no more than 2 inches in diameter, between 2 and 3 feet
in length, and living based on the presence of young buds and green bark. Stakes are cut at an angle
on the bottom end and driven into the ground with a rubber mallet.
2.8.2 Riparian Buffer Re-Vegetation
Riparian buffers are naturally occurring ecosystems adjacent to rivers and streams and are associated
with a number of benefits. Buffers are important in nutrient and pollutant removal in overland flow
and may provide for additional subsurface water quality improvement areas with shallow
groundwater. Buffers also provide habitat and travel corridors for wildlife populations and are an
important recreational resource. It is also important to note that riparian buffer areas help to
moderate the quantity and timing of runoff from the upland landscape and contribute to the
groundwater recharge process.
Buffers are most valuable and effective when comprised of a combination of trees, shrubs, and
herbaceous plants. Although width generally increases the capacity of riparian buffers to improve
water quality and provide greater habitat value, even buffers less than 85 feet wide have been shown
to improve water quality and habitat (Budd et al., 1987). An estimated minimum width of 30 feet is
required for creating beneficial forest structure and riparian habitat.
For stream and wetland restoration, where buffer width is often limited, the following design
principles apply:
Design for sheet flow into and across the riparian buffer area;
If possible, the width of the riparian buffer area should be proportional to the watershed area, the
slope of the terrain, and the velocity of the flow through the buffer;
Forest structure should include understory and canopy species. Canopy species are particularly
important adjacent to waterways to moderate stream temperatures and to create habitat; and
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
2-17

Use native plants that are adapted to the site conditions (e.g., climate, soils, and hydrology). In
suburban and urban settings riparian forested buffers may not need to resemble natural
ecosystems to improve water quality and habitat.
• 2.9 Risk Recognition
It is important to recognize the risks inherent in the assessment, design, and construction of
• environmental restoration projects. Such endeavors involve the interpretation of existing conditions
to deduce appropriate design criteria, the application of those criteria to design, and, most
importantly, the execution of the construction phase. There are many factors that ultimately
determine the success of these projects and many of the factors are beyond the influence of a
• designer. Restorations must use an approach based on sound field observations, accepted
methodologies, and best professional judgment to address as many site-specific factors as possible.
However, it is important to acknowledge that factors such as daily temperatures, the amount and
frequency of rainfall during and following construction, subsurface conditions, and changes in
• watershed characteristics that are beyond the control of the designer.
i
e
Many restoration sites will require some post-construction maintenance, primarily because newly
planted vegetation plays a large role in channel and floodplain stability. Stream restoration projects
are most vulnerable to adjustment and erosion immediately after construction, before vegetation is
fully established. Risk of instability diminishes with each growing season. Streams and floodplains
usually become self-maintaining after the second year of growth. However, unusually heavy floods
can cause erosion, deposition and/or loss of vegetation in even the most stable channels and forested
floodplains.
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
2-18
f
i
•
i
s
•
i
•
•
3 Watershed Assessment Results
3.1 Watershed Delineation
The Meredell Farm site is located approximately three miles west of Liberty, in Randolph County
NC (Exhibit 1.1) in the Upper Cape Fear River Basin. The site lies in the Deep River watershed
within North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub-basin 03-06-09 and United States
Geologic Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit 03030003020010. Exhibit 3.1 shows the watershed
boundaries and drainage areas for the various project reaches.
3.2 Site Hydrology/Hydraulics
3.2.1 Surface Water Classification
The NCDWQ designates surface water classifications for water bodies such as streams, rivers, and
lakes, which define the best uses to be protected within these waters (e.g., swimming, fishing, and
drinking water supply). These classifications carry with them an associated set of water quality
criteria to protect those uses. All surface waters in North Carolina must at least meet the standards
for Class C (fishable/swimmable) waters. The other primary classifications provide additional levels
of protection for primary water contact recreation (Class B) and drinking water supplies (WS). Class
C waters are protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation
and survival, agriculture and other uses suitable for Class C. Classifications and their associated
protection rules may also be designed to protect the free-flowing nature of a stream or other special
characteristics. Supplemental classifications are sometimes added by NCDWQ to the primary
classifications to provide additional protection to waters with special uses or values.
The project reaches are unnamed tributaries to Sandy Creek, which is identified by NCDWQ index
number 17-16-(1). Sandy Creek has been assigned a surface water classification of WS-III. The
project reaches also have the WS-III classification. WS-III waters are used as sources of water
supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes where a more protective WS-I or WS-II
classification is not feasible. WS-III waters are generally located within low to moderately
developed watersheds. All WS-III waters are also protected for Class C uses. The project reaches
are outside the critical area for the water supply and their drainages are therefore subject to the less
restrictive development rules associated with the non-critical (balance) area of a WS-III watershed.
3.2.2 Site Hydrologic and Hydraulic Characteristics
The Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Randolph
County, NC (Community Number 370195) indicates that the there is no regulatory floodplain
associated with the Meredell Farms project site. Prior to developing final design plans, existing and
proposed HEC-RAS models will be developed from survey data in order to determine flooding
impacts. Discharges will be estimated for the 5, 10, 25, 50, and 100 year flood.
3.3 Geology
The project area is in the northeast region of Randolph County, which is in the Piedmont Region of
central North Carolina. The site is located within the Carolina Slate Belt and has a subsurface
geology consisting of mafic metavolcanic rock. This rock is interbedded with mafic and
intermediate metavolcanic rock, meta-argillite, and metamudstone. The site is located on rolling
hills with well-defined stream valley's falling toward Sandy Creek. Sandy Creek is located within a
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
3-1
• wider, flatter valley bottom. The site has a moderately deep soil layer over rocky subsoil. Bedrock
is exposed in many areas and the site is littered with large rocks and boulders, either encountered
during tilling of the site, or exposed by erosion.
. 3.4 Soils
Soils at the site were determined using NRCS Soil Survey data for Randolph County (USDA-NRCS,
• 2002). A map depicting the boundaries of each soil type is presented in Exhibit 3.2. There are three
general soil types found within the project boundaries. These soils will support stream restoration
activities. A discussion of each soil type and its locations is presented in Table 3.4.1.
• All of the stream reaches that were surveyed as part of this study are mapped as Mecklenburg Loam
(Ma). Mecklenburg loam and Mecklenburg clay loam (Me) comprise the majority of the Meredell
farm property. The Mecklenburg series is a very deep, well drained soil found on uplands in the
• Piedmont. They have formed in the residuum from mafic high-grade metamorphic or igneous rock.
They have a loamy or loamy clayey surface layer and loamy and clayey subsoil. Permeability is
slow. Depth to bedrock is more than 60 inches.
Sandy Creek is located in an area composed of a combination of Chewacla and Wehadkee soil
• series. The Chewacla series is commonly found in the Piedmont near streams and drainage ways on
floodplains with relatively low slopes and frequent flooding. Chewacla typically has a very deep soil
profile, somewhat poor drainage, moderate permeability, and a very shallow depth to the seasonal
high water table. The surface layer and subsurface layers are loamy in texture with an increase in
. clay content starting at about three feet below the surface.
The Wehadkee series is commonly found in Piedmont river and stream valleys on floodplains with
low slopes and frequent flooding. Wehadkee has a very deep soil profile, poor drainage, moderate
• permeability, and a very shallow depth to the seasonal high water table. The surface layer is silty,
i loamy in texture. The subsoil includes very fine sand, beginning at a depth of 25 inches.
Due to wetness and flooding, Chewacla and Wehadkee soils are often poorly suited for growing
crops, pasture, or any kind of urban development. The Natural Resources Conservation Service
• considers the Chewacla series to be a hydric soil (NRCS, 1995) when frequently flooded, which is
the case on Meredell Farm.
S A small area of Wynott-Enon soils is present in the upper section of UT5 and along Sandy Creek on
• the east side of the property. The Wynott series is moderately deep, well drained and has moderately
slow to slow permeability. The Enon series has a very deep soil profile. It is a well-drained soil
with slow permeability.
• BUCK ENGINEERING 3-2
. MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN

Table 3.4.1 Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Soil Name Location Description
Mecklenburg Throughout project area very deep, well drained soils
Loam
Chewacla and. Within Sandy Creek floodplain somewhat poorly drained soil on flood plains
Wehadkee
Wynott-Enon Upper section of UT5 and near Sandy creek on the well drained soil
East side of property
Source: Randolph County Soil Survey, USDA-NRCS, 2002.
3.5 Land Use
All streams within the Meredell Farm Stream Restoration project drain surrounding agricultural,
• forested, and individual residences. Overall, the Upper Cape Fear River watershed is mostly rural
with land uses that include agriculture, timber logging, forested area and some residential property
(impervious surface less than 5 percent). The project is located on Meredell Farm, a small farm
operation that includes a dairy operation and row crop production. The project includes headwater
stream systems that discharge into Sandy Creek.
•
3.6 Endangered/Threatened Species
Some populations of plants and animals are declining either as a result of natural forces or their
difficulty competing with humans for resources. Plants and animals with a federal classification of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under the provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(ESA). Federally classified species listed for Randolph County, and any likely impacts to these
species as a result of the proposed project construction, are discussed in the following sections.
Species that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) list under federal protection for Randolph County as of April 30, 2004 are
listed in Table 3.6.1. A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of these
species follow the table, along with a conclusion regarding potential project impact. In addition,
Federal Species of Concern are listed in Table 3.6.2.
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
3-3
Table 3.6.1 Species Under Federal Protection
Scientific Name Common Name Federal State Habitat Present /
Status Status Biological Conclusion
Vertebrates
Notropis Cape Fear Shiner E E No /No Affect
mekistocholas
Vascular Plants
Helianthus Schweinitz's sunflower E E May Affect/ Not likely
schweinitzii to adversely Affect
E An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the state's
flora or fauna is determined to be in jeopardy.
T Threatened
PE Proposed Endangered
PT Proposed Threatened
PD These species have been proposed for delisting from the current status.
FSC Federal Species of Concern
SC A Special Concern species is one that requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and
sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General
Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants).
SR A Significantly Rare species is not listed as "E," `°T," or "SC," but which exists in the state in
small numbers and has been determined to need monitoring.
Table 3.6.2 Federal Species of Concern in Randoluh Coun
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Status State
Status Habitat Present?
Invertebrates
Alasmidonta Brook Floater FSC E * No Habitat Present
varicose
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic Pigtoe FSC E * No Habitat Present
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow Lampmussel FSC E * No Habitat Present
Toxolasma pullus Savannah Lilliput FSC E * No Habitat Present
Villosa Carolina Creekshell FSC E * No Habitat Present
Vaughaniana
Notes:
FSC - do not require biological conclusion.
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
3-4

3.6.1 Federally Protected Species
• 3.6.1.1 Vertebrates
i Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear Shiner)
i Federal Status: Endangered
i Family: Cyprinidae
Federally Listed: September 26, 1987
The Cape Fear shiner is a small minnow, rarely exceeding 2.4 inches in length. It is a pale silvery
• yellow with a black stripe along each side. The fins are yellow and pointed, the upper lip is black,
• and the lower lip has a thin black bar along its edge.
Water willow (Justicia americana) beds in flowing areas of creeks and rivers appear to be an
essential element of the species' habitat. Cape Fear Shiner are found in clean, rocky streams over
• gravel, cobble, and boulder substrate, and is known to inhabit pools, riffles, and slow runs. Juveniles
are often found in slack water, among mid-stream rock outcrops, and in side channels and pools.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No suitable habitat exists for the Cape Fear shiner within the proposed restoration area. The streams
proposed for restoration do not have water willow beds and have been too severely impacted to
• maintain populations of the Cape Fear shiner. Based upon the NHP's database, checked on April 30,
2004, no populations of this species have been reported in the project area. Therefore, the proposed
project is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact to this species.
3.61.2 Vascular Plants
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower)
• Federal Status: Endangered
Plant Family: Asteraceae
0 Federally Listed: May 7, 1991
Schweinitz's sunflower, usually 3 to 6 feet tall, is a perennial herb with one to several fuzzy purple
stems growing from a cluster of carrot-like tuberous roots. Leaves are 2 to 7 inches long, 0.4 to 0.8
inches wide, lance-shaped, and usually opposite, with upper leaves alternate. Leaves feel like felt on
the underside and rough, like sandpaper, on the upper surface. The edges of the leaves tend to curl
under. Flowers are yellow composites, and generally smaller than other sunflowers in North
• America. Flowering and fruiting occur mid-September to frost. This plant grows in clearings and
along the edges of upland woods, thickets, and pastures. It is also found along roadsides, powerline
clearings, old pastures, and woodland openings. It prefers full sunlight or partial shade, but is
intolerant of full shade.
0 Biological Conclusion: May affect - not likely to adversely affect
0 Small pockets of potential habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower occur along field edges throughout the
r project area. Field surveys within the potential habitat areas for plant individuals were performed on
• October 23, 2003. No populations were found within the area of potential impact. Based upon the
. NBP's database, checked on April 30, 2004, no populations of this species have been reported in the
BUCK ENGINEERING 3-5
• MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
.,
. project area. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact to this
species.
• 3.6.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Status
• Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the ESA and are not subject to any
of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. Table 3.6.2 includes FSC species listed for Randolph County and their state
classifications. Organisms that are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(SC) on the NHP list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded State protection under the State
. Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
3.7 Cultural Resources
Buck Engineering sent a letter on November 19, 2003, during the feasibility reporting phase,
. requesting that the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NC SHPO) review the
. potential for cultural resources in the vicinity of the Meredell Farm property. A response was
received December 16, 2003 (Appendix A). Only one archaeological resource, site 31RD965, was
located within one mile of the proposed project area. This site will not be affected by the proposed
mitigation activities. However, SHPO has requested that specific project plans be forwarded when
they become available so that they may evaluate potential effects upon as yet unrecorded
archaeological resources.
3.8 Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites
Buck Engineering obtained an EDR Transaction Screen Map Report (Appendix B), during the
. feasibility reporting phase that identifies and maps real or potential hazardous environmental sites
within the distance required by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Transaction
Screen Process (E 1528). The overall environmental risk for this site was determined to be low as
there are no listed sites within '/a mile of a Superfund (National Priorities List, NPL);1/z mile of
. hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities; 1/a mile of a Comprehensive Environmental
. Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Information System (CERCLIS) hazardous waste site; 1/
mile of suspect state hazardous waste site; 1/2 mile of solid waste or landfill facilities; or 1/8 mile of a
leaking underground storage tank. Evidence of hazardous materials was not found during site
. investigations. Landowners interviewed by Buck Engineering were not aware of any hazardous
. materials issues.
3.9 Potential Constraints
Site constraints and potential fatal flaws have been examined. No fatal flaws were identified,
although there are minor constraints that have been addressed during the design phase of the
restoration planning. Constraints that were addressed during the design phase included the presence
. of bedrock, the potential for restoration versus enhancement on certain stream reaches, and farm
operational needs. Constraints identified during the feasibility study phase, but not previously
addressed, are discussed in this section.
a
3.9.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
The conservation easement has been signed based on a preliminary map outlining the easement
boundaries. Once construction is complete, a recordable map will be produced to replace the
preliminary map currently on file. Property owners are supportive of the project and have agreed to
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
3-6
•
•
•
! the establishment of permanent conservation easements. The signed conservation easement includes
emergency watering areas for cattle; these areas will be located at stream crossings. The Piedmont
• Land Conservancy has coordinated easement negotiations with the property owners. The Piedmont
• Land Conservancy is also willing to assume long-term responsibility for the site.
!
•
!
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3.9.2 Site Access
The best opportunity for construction access to the site is through the main entrance to Meredell
Farm. Temporary easements are being negotiated to ensure access to the site for construction, as
well as access to the site throughout the monitoring period. Access is currently being coordinated
with the landowners and easement holders and will be finalized prior to construction. Unimproved
farm roads along the edges of the row crop fields are currently providing access to the various
reaches. These roads may need to be improved for construction and will likely need repair following
construction.
3.9.3 Utilities
The farm has a buried irrigation line that crosses UT5. Additionally, UT2 begins as an outlet pipe
from a farm pond. No other utilities are known to be located on the site where they would interfere
with restoration efforts. The irrigation line and the outlet pipe can be avoided or protected during
construction. If damage does occur, repair may be required.
3.9.4 Farm Operations
Meredell Farm is an operating dairy cattle and crop production facility. Therefore, the project must
be supportive of the operational needs of the farm. The restoration design incorporates cattle
crossings, fencing, and pasture access as identified by the site owner(s) (Exhibit 3.3). No constraints
or fatal flaws have been associated with this aspect of the project.
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
3-7
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4 Stream Corridor Assessment Results
4.1 Reach Identification
For analysis and design purposes, we divided on-site streams into seven reaches. The reach
locations are shown on Exhibit 1.2. The reaches were numbered sequentially moving from east to
west with tributaries carrying a "UT" designation and main reaches a "M" designation. A ridge
separates the project into two subwatersheds. UT1 and UT2 drain into the Ml subwatershed while
UT3, UT4 and UT5 drain into the M2 subwatershed. UT1 begins off site, flows into the project
from the east, and ends at the confluence with UT2. UT2 begins on site at a farm pond outlet pipe,
flows from the northeast, and ends at the confluence with UT1. Ml begins at the confluence of UT1
and UT2 and ends at the confluence of Sandy Creek. UT3 begins on the adjacent property and flows
into the project area for a short distance from the northeast to the confluence with UT4 and then to
the east to the confluence with UT5 and M2. UT5 flows through the project site from the north and
ends at the confluence with UT3 and M2. M2 begins at the confluence of UT3 and UTS, and ends at
the property boundary.
All of the unnamed tributary stream reaches, with the exception of UT4, are shown as intermittent
blue-line streams on the USGS topographic quadrangle as shown in Exhibit 1.1. UT4 does not
appear on the USGS quad, but appears to be spring fed. We completed Stream Classification Forms
prepared by NCDWQ and aquatic life (fish, amphibians, crayfish, and/or macrobenthos) was noted
in all of the reaches. All stream reaches have significant flow and are considered perennial based on
field assessments (Appendix E).
4.2 Geomorphic Characterization and Channel Stability Assessment
NCDOT provided Buck Engineering with general topographic and planimetric surveying of the
project site. Buck Engineering developed a contour map based on NCDOT survey data for the plan
set basemapping. Buck Engineering performed cross-section surveys of stream reaches to assess the
current condition and overall stability of the channels and added other significant planimetric
features to the basemapping. The locations of cross-section surveys on the project reaches are
shown on the design plan sheets. The following report sections summarize the survey results for all
project reaches.
4.2.1 M1 Subwatershed
UTl, and UT2 drain into the M1 subwatershed as shown in Exhibit 3.1. Watershed sizes were
calculated at the terminus of each reach as described in section 4.1 (Table 4.2.1). Appendix C
contains summaries of existing condition parameters, cross section survey results, and a bed material
distribution graph for all reaches.
Table 4.2.1 M1 Subwatershed Reach Description
Reach Reach Length Watershed Size
(linear feet) (acres)
UTl 1,621 64
UT2 1,006 67
Ml 2,013 168
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
4-1
s
• 4.2. 1.1 UTI
• UT1 is broken into two subreaches, UTla is in the upstream section of the reach in a more confined
• valley. UTlb starts where the valley becomes more open in the downstream section. Currently
cattle have access to the stream and the stream classification is highly variable throughout the reach.
The reach lacks bedform diversity and mostly consists of embedded riffle/ runs. Silt is prevalent in
the few pools that exist within the reach. While the reach is generally unstable both vertically and
laterally, areas of bedrock create some local stability.
UT1 is unstable with a stream type classification that changes several times throughout. The most
upstream section classifies as a G4 (Rosgen, 1994). The stream is incised with a bank height ratio
• (BHR) of 4.1 indicating that the stream is highly unstable and vertical eroding banks are prevalent in
this upper section. Moving downstream the reach becomes overly wide for a short section in which
the stream changes to a F4 classification. The banks have been impacted by cattle traffic in this area
and riffles present are embedded. The stream type changes to an E4 classification at a bedrock
• knickpoint. At this point, the stream becomes moderately stable for a short section of the reach due
to low BHR and the presence of bedrock; however the banks have been impacted from cattle
crossing the stream. In the lower section of the reach (near the confluence with Ml) the stream
classification remains an E4, however the stream becomes highly unstable and incised with a BHR
• of 3.8. The stream in this area appears to be in the process of creating a new floodplain at a lower
• elevation. Banks are severely eroded and trampled by cattle in this lower section.
Pebble counts using the modified Wolman procedure (Wolman, 1954) indicate the median particle
size in the riffles is 11.2 mm. This particle size is representative. of a gravel bed stream.
4.2.1.2 UT2
UT2 is broken into two subreaches at a change in valley type. The valley type for UT2a most
• closely resembles a V-type valley that is fairly confined and steep. In UT2b the valley opens up
• slightly and is more U-shaped. This is evidenced in the change in stream type that occurs in this
area.
0
0 UT2a is classified as a Rosgen B5-1 stream type (Rosgen, 1994) in the upper section of the reach
• where the valley is confined and the slope is high. The valley opens up in UT2b and the stream type
transitions to an E5-1 classification. The bed material is composed of bedrock and silt/sand. Bulk
sampling procedure was used to characterize the mobile silt/sand particles in the bankfull channel
bottom. The D50 particle size of the bulk sample is representative of a sand bed stream.
UT2a is incised with bank height ratios ranging from 2.2 to 3.7 in the surveyed cross sections.
These values fall into the highly unstable range in Rosgen's comparison of bank height ratio to
vertical stability ranking. While the bank height ratios are high, the upper section is fairly stable due
• to the amount of bedrock in the channel. UT2b is more unstable and has down cut in some areas.
• Cattle crossings have impacted the banks, adding to the amount of lateral instability (especially in
the lower section of the reach where the banks are higher and bank slumping has occurred). UT2b is
at an early Stage IV in the Simon Evolution Model, which indicates that the channel is in the process
of degrading and widening.
• BUCK ENGINEERING 4-2
• MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
4.2.1.3 MI
Ml appears to have been channelized at some point in the past. The valley for M1 is U shaped with
a somewhat confined floodplain in the upper half of the reach. The valley becomes wide and flat in
the lower half of the reach near the confluence with Sandy Creek. M1 is classified as a straightened
and incised G4c stream type (Rosgen, 1994). Pebble counts using the modified Wolman procedure
• (Wolman, 1954) indicate the median particle size in the riffles is 16.4 mm. This particle size is
• representative of a gravel bed stream. Aquatic habitat within most of the Ml watershed is poor. The
stream lacks cover and bedform diversity, with embedded riffle/ runs and a few shallow silt
dominated pools.
• Ml has incised and has experienced some widening through bank erosion. Bank height ratios
ranged from 2.1 to 3.4 in the surveyed cross sections. These values fall into the highly unstable
range. The stream has downcut to bedrock in some areas adding some level of vertical stability.
Meander width ratios are extremely low compared to stable stream types in North Carolina (NCDOT
• Reference Reach Database). This departure is indicative of a condition of lateral instability. Width
• to depth ratios ranged from 5.8 to 7.9 in the surveyed cross sections. This range of ratios compares
well to the range of width to depth ratios in stable E stream types in North Carolina (NCDOT
Reference Reach Database). Although width to depth ratios do not show a significant departure
• from reference conditions, evidence of moderate to high bank erosion and low meander width ratios
• indicate that this system is laterally unstable.
• 4.2.2 M2 Subwatershed
. UT3, UT4 and UT5 drain into the M2 subwatershed as shown in Exhibit 3.1. Watershed sizes were
• calculated at the terminus of each reach as described in section 4.1 (Table 4.2.2). Appendix C
contains summaries of existing condition parameters, cross section survey results, and a bed material
distribution graph for all reaches.

Table 4.2.2 M2 Subwatershed Reach Description
Reach Reach Length Watershed Size
(linear feet) (acres)
UT3 1,236 148
UT4 913 56
UT5 1,075 59
M2 1,398 265
4.2.2.1 UT3
. UT3 is split into two subreaches at a change in stream type. UT3a is in the upper section and is
• incised with a high BHR (around 3.8) and occurs in a moderately steep valley. Though the BHR
indicates that this section of stream is highly unstable, it has down cut to bedrock in many areas
creating vertical stability with step pool features. UT3a classifies as a B4c stream type. Pebble
counts using the modified Wolman procedure (Wolman, 1954) indicate the median particle size
. reach wide is 32.0 mm. This particle size is representative of a course gravel bed stream. Small
areas of local erosion do exist along the upper section of this reach, however this section exhibits

BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
4-3
n
H
•
• good in-stream cover, leaf packs and woody debris within the channel. Lateral stability is further
enhanced by a woody buffer approximately 60 feet wide on the left bank.
In UT3b the valley widens out on the left bank and the stream is pushed against the toe of slope on
• the right side. The stream gradient is significantly reduced in this area and the bed material is
• predominantly sand. Bulk sampling procedure was used to characterize the mobile silt/sand particles
in the bankfull channel bottom. The D50 particle size of the bulk sample is representative of a course
sand bed stream. This area of UT3 has experienced some aggradation, possibly from sediments
• derived upstream (outside of the project area where erosion may be more extensive). The cross
• section performed in this lower section of UT3b classifies the stream as a C5 with an entrenchment
ratio of 2.5 and width to depth ratio of 37.3. The BHR is 1, indicating that the channel is relatively
stable. However, due to the streams location within the valley, it is possible that the stream will
move towards a more unstable state.
40 Reach UT3, as well as UT5, flows into an area that would meet the ACOE criteria for jurisdictional
wetlands. As these reaches enter the stream/wetland complex the channels are not incised and
become less defined with multiple, interconnected side channels. This system would be a DA
• stream type according to the Rosgen classification system. The system is stable due to cohesive
bank materials with dense root mass and extensively developed wetland vegetation. It is proposed
that UT3b transition into the main channel of the DA stream following restoration. This system has
been designated M2 and continues down valley to Sandy Creek. Reach M2 will be preserved within
• a conservation easement as a component of the mitigation plan (see plan sheet 18).
4.2.2.2 UT4
UT4 is a small headwaters stream that originates on the property and is situated in a moderately
. steep, confined valley and has a small undeveloped buffer. The upper section of the stream classifies
. as an E5/C5 stream type with an entrenchment ratio of 7.7 and a width to depth ratio of 11.6. This
section of the stream is currently stable. However the BHR (1.3), indicates that the stream bed is at
risk for degradation as the existing head cuts move up the valley. Algae is also prevalent in this
section of the stream, probably due to nutrient run off from adjacent agricultural fields and the dairy
• farm combined with an inadequate vegetative buffer around the stream.
Moving downstream through a series of head cuts the stream becomes incised and transitions into a
G5 stream type with an entrenchment ratio of 1.6 and width to depth ratio of 7.8. The bank height
. ratio in the lower section is 2, which is considered highly unstable. This reach is considered to be in
stage IV in the Simon Evolution Model, indicating that the channel is in the process degrading and
widening. In-stream habitat is poor, as the reach lacks well-developed riffles and pools and exhibits
areas of bank erosion throughout.
4.2.2.3 UT5
UT5 is a small stream; the channel itself begins off site but appears to be an intermittent/ephemeral
channel in the upper section of the property becoming perennial through a series of head cuts. The
• stream is in a small, confined U-shaped valley. Riffles are not well developed and shallow pools
. occur mainly below head cuts.
UT5 is classified as a Rosgen E5 stream type (Rosgen, 1994). The upper section of the reach is
. relatively stable with a BHR of 1, an entrenchment ratio of 14.2 and width to depth ratio of 7.1. This
• BUCK ENGINEERING 4.4
. MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
i
• is likely to change as head cuts move up the valley. The lower section of this reach becomes
. somewhat incised and BHR increases to 2 (highly unstable). The entrenchment ratio in this lower
section of the reach ranges between 2.3-2.9 with a width to depth ratio of 5.2-7.4. The channel is
i actively degrading and falls into class IlI in the Simon Channel Evolution Model. The stream is
. experiencing localized areas of bank erosion but appears to be laterally stable at this time. The
• channel bed did have a few areas where cobble and boulders were present. However the majority of
the channel consisted of sand and gravel, therefore bulk sampling procedures were used to
characterize the mobile particles in the bankfull channel bottom. The D50 particle size of the bulk
. sample is representative of a coarse sand bed stream.
S As mentioned above in section 4.2.2.1, reach UT5 flows into a DA stream/wetland system. This
system has been designated M2 and continues down valley to Sandy Creek. Reach M2 will be
preserved within a conservation easement as a component of the mitigation plan (see plan sheet 18).
4.2.2.4 M2
i M2 is currently in good condition. The riparian area is extensive and intact with large trees and
dense shrubs present on both banks. The riparian buffer is in good condition and the floodplain is
. broad and flat. The stream was classified as a Rosgen E stream type (Rosgen; 1994). It has good
pattern and is not incised with access to the floodplain during flows above bankfull. This reach is
not in need of restoration and will be considered a preservation area, therefore topographic surveys
r were not conducted on this reach.
4.3 Bankfull Verification
The bankfull stage in all reaches on the Meredell Farm site was identified in the field using standard
field indicators including: the top of bank, top of point bars, and/or an upper scour line. These
indicators are consistent with other Piedmont streams. Cross-sectional area is plotted versus
. drainage area for all project reaches as shown on Figure 4.3. The cross-sectional areas for most of
. the project reaches fall well within the 95% confidence intervals of the rural Piedmont curve
comparing cross sectional area to drainage area with the exception of UT4 and UT5. These reaches
are very small and tend to have variable bankfull cross sectional areas. Furthermore, the two reaches
. fall in an area of the curve where data points for streams of similar sizes are not available.
BUCK ENGINEERING 4-5
. MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
North Carolina Rural Piedrmnt Regional Curve
10000
1000
W
C7
{y
C
100
u
u
0
c.
U
10
as
y = 21.43x o"'
R2 = 0.95
1 +-
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Drainage Area (mi 2)
A Rural Data ¦ Tributary to Sandy Creek X Project Reaches
Loeser 95 % Upper 95% ? West Branch Tibbs Run
4, Tributary to Fork Creek Power (Rural Data)
Figure 4.3 Rural Piedmont Regional Curve with Surveyed Bankfull Cross-Section Areas for the
Tributary to Fork Creek, Tributary to Sandy Creek, West Branch Tibbs Run and Project Reaches.
(Project data points were not used in determining the regression line.) (Harman et al., 1999)
In order to verify that the Piedmont regional curve is appropriate to use in this region, we compared
data from three reference reaches in the NCDOT reference reach database. These three streams,
Tributary to Fork Creek, Tributary to Sandy Creek, and West Tibbs Run, are all located in the Cape
Fear River Basin within Randolph County. The reference reaches show additional points in the
vicinity of the project area that were not used to determine the regression line. As indicated in
Figure 4.3, each of the reference reaches falls within the 95 percent confidence interval. The Tick
Creek gage station, surveyed for the rural piedmont regional curve regression line, is also located
approximately 20 miles from the restoration site and agrees with the regional curves.
4.4 Vegetation
The riparian areas of Reaches UT1, UT2, and M1 have been cleared to expand grazing areas for
cattle. Only a handful of trees are found along the stream banks, primarily black willow (Salix
BUCK ENGINEERING 4-6
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
•
•
•
nigra), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraci, flua), and red maple (Acer rubrum). A stand of mature, large
American beech (Fagus grandifolia) is located along UTL All three of these reaches offer the
opportunity for riparian buffer re-establishment.
•
. Riparian vegetation along reaches UT3, UT4, and UT5 is limited and in poor condition. The buffer
. is often comprised of only a single row of trees or shrubs (five to ten feet in width on one or both of
the banks). The vegetative assemblages within Reaches UT3, UT4, and UT5 most closely resemble
• the Basic Mesic Forest as classified by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Dominant species within
these ecological communities include the following: tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
• American beech, southern sugar maple (Acer, floridanum), red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak
(Quercus alba), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), ironwood
• (Carpinus caroliniana), hop hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), black haw (Viburnum prunifolium),
spicebush (Lindera benzoin), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), and black cohosh
• (Cimicifuga racemosa). These ecological communities are uneven-aged, with only a few mature
trees present. Scattered disturbed areas are present, allowing for pines, weedy hardwoods, and
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) to invade in areas once dominated by shade-tolerant
species.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Much of the vegetation found along Reaches UT3, UT4, and UT5 appears to be successional and/or
exotic and, therefore, can be improved. These reaches offer opportunities for buffer enhancement
through additional planting and invasive/exotic weed control. The riparian area for M2 and along
Sandy Creek is in a more natural condition, with existing riparian vegetation along both banks. The
vegetative assemblages within this section of M2 and Sandy Creek most closely resemble the
Piedmont Alluvial Forest as classified by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Dominant species within
these ecological communities include the following: tulip poplar, red maple, river birch (Betula
nigra), cherry bark oak (Quercus pagoda), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), American elm
(Ulmus americana), flowering dogwood, ironwood, giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), false nettle
(Boehmeria cylindrica), sedge species (Carex spp.), and Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia
aureolata). These ecological communities are uneven-aged, and are subject to long duration flood
events.
Other than the riparian floodplain wetland beginning at the confluence at UT3 and UT5 and
continuing along M2 and along Sandy Creek (see Section 4.2.2.1), no significant wetland areas
occur within the project limits on Meredell Farm. Wetland vegetation exists along the fringe of the
farm pond at the headwaters of Reach UT2. This pond will not be manipulated for the project and
therefore the wetland community will remain. Much of the riparian floodplain area associated with
Reach M2 and along Sandy Creek, which appears to be USACE jurisdictional wetlands, will be
protected within a permanent conservation easement.
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
4-7

0 5 Selected Design Criteria
5.1 Potential for Restoration
The project is located in a rural watershed, with no plans indicating significant land use changes in
. the foreseeable future. The main constraint to restoration is the confined valley type in which many
• of the streams occur. In areas where stream reaches are confined, a meandering channel is not
appropriate or attainable. In these areas in-stream structures and buffer establishment will be used to
enhance stream stability and in-stream habitat. Other constraints are addressed in Section 3.9.
5.1.1 M1 Subwatershed Restoration Potential
The Ml mainstem channel and its two tributaries (UT1 and UT2) have been impacted by direct
cattle access. The steeper, confined stream reaches in the upper sections of UTl and UT2 exhibit
• some areas of stability where bedrock is present. Rosgen Priority III and IV enhancement
• approaches will be used to improve habitat features and bedform diversity in the upper portions of
the reaches. Full restoration is not proposed due to the confined valley condition and the presence of
only localized areas of instability. The remaining reaches of UTl, UT2 and Ml are incised and show
• a trend toward lateral migration. Without restoration, it is possible that incision would stabilize, but
• the redevelopment of meanders would continue through bank erosion. As a result, the majority of
the restoration in the Ml subwatershed should attempt to speed up the evolutionary process already
r occurring. In these downstream sections, Rosgen B and C stream types will be constructed to
provide access to the available floodplain areas.

5.1.2 M2 Subwatershed Restoration Potential
M2 and its tributaries are within an area utilized for crop production and therefore have not been
impacted by recent cattle disturbance. The main restoration approaches used for the M2 watershed
are Rosgen Priority III and IV enhancement techniques. In most areas, isolated sections of erosion
will be stabilized through grading and stabilization of the streambanks. Structures will be placed in
selected areas to improve bank stability and bed diversity. Between stations 16+50 and 21+20 on
UT3, the stream pattern will be modified by using Rosgen Priority I and II approaches to restore a
Rosgen C type channel. In this area, pattern adjustment was incorporated into the design to move
the stream away from the toe of a steep hill. A Priority U 11 restoration approach will be used and a
Rosgen C stream type will be constructed in this lower section of UT3. Invasive vegetative species
removal efforts and native reforestation of the riparian buffer will further enhance restoration efforts
within the watershed.
5.2 Design Criteria Selection
Selection of natural channel design criteria is based on a combination of approaches including
review of reference reach databases, regime equations, and evaluation of results from past projects,
as discussed in Section 2.5.
Selection of a general restoration approach was the first step in selecting design criteria for the
streams on the Meredell Farms site. The approach was based on each reach's potential for
restoration as determined during the site assessment. After selection of the general restoration
approach, specific design criteria were developed so each reach's plan view layout, cross-section
dimensions, and profile could be described for the purpose of developing construction documents.
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
5-1
i
Two separate stream and valley conditions are present on the project site. UT1a, UT2a and UT3a
are considered to be high-slope colluvial systems. UTIb, UT2b, and UT3b as well as UT4, UT5 and
M1 are all considered low-slope alluvial systems. These groups will be discussed below as opposed
to individual reaches due to the fact that similar design criteria were selected for all reaches within
each group.
5.2.1 Reference Reach Survey
A reference reach search was conducted in the area surrounding the site. The search of this area
revealed no reference reaches of suitable quality for design use. General land use in the area
surrounding the project site consists of low concentration residential and agricultural. Streams in the
area have generally been straightened and channelized during the conversion of land to agriculture or
the development of residential areas. This is believed to be the primary reason why no reference
reach could be found near the site.
5.2.2 Reference Reach Database
A reference reach database, developed by the NCDOT, was consulted for design parameter
selection. Three reference reach datasets were selected from the database. These datasets were
selected for their proximity to the project as well as the stream types they represent. All three
reference reaches are located in Randolph County and are classified as Rosgen E stream types.
Though streams within the project were designed to be Rosgen C stream types with w/d ratios of 12,
it is expected that some reaches will narrow to E channels over time. Designing for C streams helps
reduce stress on newly constructed meander bends.
The West Branch to Tibbs Run has a drainage area of 1.08 mil and is representative of an E5 stream
type. A tributary to Sandy Creek and a tributary to Fork Creek were found that are representative of
E4 stream types. These tributaries have drainage areas of 0.97 and 0.19 square miles respectively.
Though these streams have larger drainage areas than the streams on Meredell Farm, they are still
representative of smaller stream systems. Pattern data was available for West Branch of Tibbs Run
and Tributary to Sandy Creek. The meander length ratio and radius of curvature ratio were within
the ranges used in the design. The meander width ratio on both reference reaches were slightly
higher then that used in the design. Using the meander width ratio from these reference reaches
would place greater stress on the outside of newly constructed meander bends. This could lead to
erosion and instability. In addition, the valley is too confined to use these ratios. Professional
judgment and past experience was used to develop an appropriate ratio for this part of the design.
Data from these three reference reaches, considered in the design criteria selection, are shown in
Appendix C.
5.2.3 Design Criteria Selection Method
As described above, specific design parameters were developed using a combination of reference
reach data, past project experiences, and best professional judgment. Dimensionless ratios from an
internal reference reach database were also used to develop the design values. The design
philosophy at the Meredell Farms site was to use average values for the selected stream types and to
allow the extremes to form over time under the processes of flooding, re-colonization of vegetation,
and geologic influences.
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
5-2
i
r
•
•
5.3 Design Criteria for the Meredell Farms Site
After examining the assessment data collected at the site and exploring the site's potential for
restoration, an approach to the stream restoration was developed. First, an appropriate stream type
for the valley type present at the site was selected. The design stream types were further refined
based on the channel evolution sequence exhibited by the stream after examination of existing
conditions survey data and other field observations, as well as conditions observed on reference
streams under similar conditions. Available belt width and channel incision were considered, as
well. The proposed stream types for the project are summarized in Table 5.3.1.
Table 5.3.1 Project Design Stream Types
Reach Proposed
Stream
Type Rationale
The stream bed lacks stability and bedform diversity. Enhancement of the reach will be accomplished
UTla n/a by installing in-stream structures to improve habitat and protect against incision, and by establishing
adequate vegetation in the stream side buffer zone.
The reach is exhibiting an E-G-F-C-E evolution sequence. Priority I / Priority II restoration will return
UTlb C the reach to its original stream type with a functioning floodplain on the abandoned floodplain terrace.
The Priority II section will be used to tie UTla into the Priority I restoration downstream.
The stream bed is moderately stable and bedform diversity is fair for a step pool type of stream.
UT2a n/a Enhancement of the reach will be accomplished by installing in-stream structures to improve habitat
and protect against incision, and by establishing adequate vegetation in the stream side buffer zone.
The reach is exhibiting an E-G-F-C-E evolution sequence. Priority I / Priority 11 restoration will return
UT2b C the reach to its original stream type with a functioning floodplain on the abandoned floodplain terrace.
The Priority II section will be used to tie U72a into the Priority I restoration downstream.
The reach is exhibiting an E-G-F-C-E evolution sequence. Priority I / Priority II restoration will return
Mi C the reach to its original stream type with a functioning floodplain on the abandoned floodplain terrace.
The Priority II section will be used to transition from the Priority I section upstream into Sandy Creek at
the downstream end of the reach.
The stream bed is moderately stable and bedform diversity is fair. Enhancement of the reach will be
accomplished by establishing adequate vegetation in the stream side buffer zone. In the downstream
UT3a n/a portion of the reach, the stream bed is moderately stable and bedform diversity is fair. Enhancement of
the reach will be accomplished by installing structures to stabilize eroding bank areas, and by
establishing adequate vegetation in the stream side buffer zone.
The reach is exhibiting an E-G-F-C-E evolution sequence. Priority I / Priority II restoration will return
UT3b C the reach to its original stream type with a functioning floodplain on the abandoned floodplain terrace.
UT3b will transition into the main channel of the DA stream/wetland complex located at its confluence
with UT5.
In the upper portion of the reach, the stream bed is moderately stable and bedform diversity is fair.
Enhancement of the reach will be accomplished by establishing adequate vegetation in the stream side
UT4 n/a buffer zone. In the lower portion of the reach, the stream is exhibiting a tendency to incise, moving
toward a condition of decreasing stability. Grade control structures will be installed along the lower
portion of the reach to protect against downcutting and adequate vegetation will be established in the
stream side buffer zone.
while the upper portions of the reach are moderately stable, the lower portions are exhibiting signs of
UT5 n/a incision. Grade control structures will be installed along the lower portions of the reach to protect
against downcutting, and areas of active bank erosion stabilized. A stream site buffer zone will be
established by establishing adequate vegetation.
M2 n/a Stream is in a stable condition with an adequate riparian buffer. Stream will be protected through a
conservation easement.
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
5-3
S
r
i
i
6 Restoration Design
6.1 Restoration Approach
The primary objective of the restoration design is to construct streams with a stable dimension,
pattern, and profile that have access to their floodplain at bankfull flows. As discussed in the
previous section, two separate stream and valley conditions are present on the project site. Reaches
UTlb, the lower half of UT2a, UT2b, UT3, M1, and M2 are all considered relatively low slope
alluvial systems. The upper half of UT2a and reaches UT3 and UT4 are considered to be higher
slope colluvial systems. The reaches will be grouped for design criteria discussion based on these
two conditions. The proposed design includes the following elements:
Lower Slope Alluvial Reaches
- UTlb - a Priority I/II restoration approach will be used to restore a C stream type below the
valley constriction.
- UT2b - the reach will be restored to a C stream type.
- UT3b - the reach will be restored to a C stream type.
- UT4 - a Priority IV enhancement approach will be used to enhance the stream.
- UT5 - a Priority IV enhancement approach will be used to enhance the stream.
- M1- the reach will be restored to a C stream type.
- M2 - the reach will be preserved.
Higher Slope Colluvial Reaches
- UTla - a Priority IV enhancement approach will be used to enhance the stream.
- UT2a - a Priority IV enhancement approach will be used to enhance the stream.
- UT3a - a Priority IV enhancement approach will be used to enhance the stream.
- Project-wide planting and preservation of the riparian zone. A conservation easement has
been obtained to permanently protect the restoration area.
Preliminary plans for the Meredell Farm Stream Restoration project are attached. Details of the
design are discussed in the following sections.
6.2 Water Quality Improvement Area
Reach UT2 captures runoff from the area of the farm where dairy cattle production is most intense.
Runoff from this area, as well as some effluent from the cattle houses, is captured in a constructed
farm pond. Reach UT2 begins as discharge from the outlet pipe of the farm pond. The nutrient and
pollutant content of this water is of concern. Additionally, the pipe discharges the water at more
than 10 feet in the air causing erosion of the area. Water quality can be improved if this discharge
were to be retained, at least for a short period of time, and passed through a stand of wetland
vegetation. It is proposed that a series of step-pools be constructed at the discharge location of the
farm pond. These step-pools will create shallow pools of water that would support emergent
wetland vegetation. The vegetation would slow the flow of water, trap sediment, and take up excess
nutrients. The purpose of the step-pool system is to provide for an improvement in the water quality.
The design calls for minor excavation of the area, working with the existing topography, to create
low berms with rock spillways. The rock spillways prevent headcut, as well as a means of aerating
BUCK ENGINEERING 6-4
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
•
•
•
•
the water as it flows over the rock. The final berm discharges the water onto a large, naturally
occurring, bedrock outcropping.
•
6.3 Design Rationale (Channel Dimension, Pattern, and Profile)
6.3.1 Low Slope Alluvial Reaches
All the low slope alluvial reaches have very similar geomorphic conditions. Because the reaches are
• similar in terms of slope and valley type, similar design ratios will be used for all reaches.
• The stream banks are unstable along sections of all project reaches because the channels are incising,
• riparian vegetation has been removed, and/or cattle have frequently trampled and eroded the banks.
Stable cross-sections will be achieved by constructing channels with appropriate area and
width/depth ratios based on reference reach information, regime equations, and past project
experience. Sinuosity will be increased by adding meanders to lengthen the channel where
• appropriate. Grade control in the stream bed will be provided by in-stream structures such as
• constructed riffles and cross vanes. These in-stream structures will also help to improve bedform
• diversity.
• 63.1.1 Dimension
The existing channel dimensions are generally unstable throughout the project area due to excessive
velocities and shear stresses in the channels. A lack of dense and deep root structure from an intact
woody riparian buffer has also led to instability throughout the project. To address the erosion in
• project reaches, the stream cross-section (dimension) will be adjusted in order to reduce velocities
and near-bank shear stress. Rosgen C stream types with w/d ratios of 12 will be created in the lower
sections of UT1, UT2, UT3 and throughout M1. It is expected that some reaches will narrow to E
channels over time. The ratio of low bank height to bank height (BHR) will be maintained at 1. In
areas along the main channel where bank height might exceed bankfull stage because of localized
• topography or a low stream bed elevation, benches will be constructed at the bankfull stage. Once
• flood water rises above the bankfull stage, erosion-causing stress in the near bank region can be
• greatly reduced if the storm flow is able to spread out and slow down on a floodplain or a bench.
Root wads, transplants, and log vanes will be used to provide bank protection at the outside of
• stream bends where necessary. Typical cross-sections are shown on the plan sheets and geomorphic
• design tables are provided in Appendix C.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
63.1.2 Pattern
All existing channels through the Meredell Farm Stream Restoration are extremely straight (k<l.l).
The proposed project will increase the sinuosity in all Priority I designed channels (k-1.3), adding
hundreds of linear feet of stream in the process. Meander length ratios will range between 7 and 11
for all low slope alluvial streams. These more lengthy meanders will allow the channel to dissipate
energy, thereby reducing erosion and increasing bedform diversity. Radius of curvature ratios will
range from 2 to 3. Finally, the meander width ratio (MWR) of the stream will be increased as part of
the restoration. Meander widths will be 3.5 to 8 times wider than bankfull width. Plan views of the
main channel are shown on the plan sheets and geomorphic design parameters are provided in
Appendix C.
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
6-5
• 6.3.1.3 ProfileBed, form
• The existing channel profiles are generally unstable throughout. Several reaches are moderately to
i highly incised (LTTlb, UT2b, UT4, UT5 and M1). There is very little diversity in the bedform of the
existing channels - pools, riffles, glides, runs, etc. are nearly indistinguishable from each other in
some sections. The stream restoration will include the construction of a riffle-pool stream bed, with
additional habitat and diversity provided by constructed riffles, log-vanes and cross-vanes at certain
• locations. The in-stream structure locations are shown on the plan sheets.
• 6.3.2 High Slope Colluvial Reaches
All of the high slope, colluvial reaches are similar in terms of slope, valley type, geomorphic
i conditions. The stream banks on these reaches are unstable along sections and the channels are
incising. Most of the vegetation has been removed from the riparian areas. Because of the confined
valley types, restoration is not feasible and, therefore, enhancement approaches will be used for all
of these reaches.
The existing channel dimensions are unstable in the high slope colluvial systems even though there
is some dense and deep root structure from an intact woody riparian buffer on most stream sections.
Bank height ratios are large enough (BHR>2.0) that stream banks are collapsing because of the
• excessive velocities generated during storm flows. To address the erosion and entrenchment in these
reaches, steps and pools will be created by installing cross-vanes and log weirs. Constructed riffles
will prevent headcut and root-wads will reduce bank erosion. All of these structures will also
provide in-stream habitat. All high-slope colluvial streams are extremely straight (k--1.0). Stream
• pattern is used only to keep the channel in the low point of the valley. This configuration mimics the
pattern of natural B stream types. The valley type for ITT4 transitions several times along the reach
between a Type H colluvial valley and Type VII alluvial. valley. This variability in valley type is
reflected in the proposed stream design. The proposed channel realignment varies between a low
• sinuosity, step pool system and a highly sinuous, alluvial stream using the same design ratios
A discussed for alluvial streams. The transitions between the two channel types follow the changes in
valley type. Proposed plan views of all reaches are shown on the plan sheets.
The profiles of all high slope colluvial streams at the Meredell Farm Stream Restoration site are
• highly unstable due to the loss of riparian vegetation and cattle traffic. There is very little diversity
in the existing channel bedforms - pools, riffles, glides, runs, etc. are nearly indistinguishable in
most cases. An enhancement approach is provided with the incorporation of cross-vanes and
constructed riffles to provide additional grade control and to improve bedform diversity. Structure
• locations are shown on the plan sheets.

6.4 Stream Preservation
6.4.1 Existing DA Stream/Wetland Preservation System
Reaches UT3 and UT5 flow into an area that would meet the ACOE criteria for jurisdictional
wetlands. As these reaches enter the stream/wetland complex the channels are not incised and
become less defined with multiple, interconnected side channels. This system would be a DA
stream type according to the Rosgen classification system. The system is stable due to cohesive
bank materials with dense root mass and extensively developed wetland vegetation. It is proposed
that UT3b transition into the main channel of the DA stream following restoration. This system has
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
6-6
been designated M2 and continues down valley to Sandy Creek. Reach M2 will be preserved within
a conservation easement as a component of the mitigation plan, as shown on plan sheet 18.
6.4.2 Sandy Creek Preservation
There are three locations where Sandy Creek flows on the Meredell Farm project site. Each of these
locations (SC 1, SC2 and SC3 shown on Exhibit 3.1) will be preserved within a conservation
easement as a component of the mitigation plan. Reach SC3 encompasses only one bank of Sandy
Creek. Preservation reaches are shown on plan sheet 18
6.5 Sediment Transport
6.5.1 Capacity Anal
The lower halves of UT2 (D50 =0.66 mm) and UT3b (D50 =1.0 mm) have median particle sizes that
result in their classification as sand bed streams. Due to the need to transport this volume of
material, sediment transport capacity is considered more important than competency for these
reaches. Shear stress and stream power are calculated for these reaches and compared with average
values for similar stream types (Nanson and Croke, 1992).
Sediment transport capacity, measured as unit stream power (W/m2), was compared for the existing
stream channel and the design conditions for the lower halves of UT2 and UT3b. Table 6.5.1 shows
bankfull boundary shear stress and stream power values for existing and design conditions. Stream
power values for the existing and design conditions all compare well to values for similar streams
and valley types described in Nanson and Croke (1992). According to their classification system, all
channels are classified as B3c valley types (sand, organic, and silt bed streams in wide alluvial
valleys). The range of stream powers for the B3c valley type in the Nanson and Croke study is 10 to
60 W/m2. Calculated stream power values for all project sandbed streams fall within this range.
Table 6.5.1 Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power for Existing and Design
Conditions for UT2 and UT3b
Value (Existing(Design)
Parameter
UT2 UT3b
Bankfull Q (cfs) 13.0/13.0 20.4/20.4
Bankf ill Area (sq ft) 4.2/4.5 7.3/8.0
Bankfull Width, W (ft) 6.7/7.3 10.5/9.8
Bankfull Mean Depth, D (ft) 0.6/0.6 0.7/0.8
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 10.6/12.0 15 / 12.0
Wetted Perimeter 8.0/8.5 11.9/11.4
Hydraulic Radius, R (ft) 0.5/0.5 0.6/0.7
Slope (ft/ft) 0.0171 / 0.0134 0.0101 / 0.0081
Boundary Shear Stress, r (lbs/ft2) 0.565 / 0.439 0.403 / 0.336
Stream Power (W/m2) 31.1/20.9 18.4/14.7
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
6-7

6.5.2 Competency Analysis
An evaluation of channel competency was performed for the lower half of UT1 and reach M1 using
procedures outlined in Section 2.6.1. For each reach one pavement/subpavement sample and one
100-count sample were collected. Data presented in Appendix C were used to determine particle
sizes for the various calculations. Values for both reaches are presented together in this section in
the order of M1 and UT1. Critical dimensionless shear stress was calculated for the existing and
design reaches as t*ci = 0.0326 and 0.0170 respectively for the order of reaches listed above. These
values of dimensionless shear stress are used in the aggradation analysis presented below.
Using existing slopes and the subpavement D100 particle sizes, Equation 3 indicates a required depth
of 0.7 and 0.2 feet, respectively. These required depth values are consistently lower than the actual
depths of 1.0 and 0.6 feet, meaning that the existing depths are more than sufficient to transport the
larger materials and prevent aggradation. Using design slopes and the subpavement D100 particle
sizes, Equation 3 indicates a required depth of 0.8 and 0.6 feet, respectively. These required depth
values are equal to the design depths of 0.8 and 0.6 feet meaning that the design depths are sufficient
to transport the larger materials and prevent aggradation.
The boundary shear stress and measured D100 subpavement particle sizes were plotted on the
Modified Shield's Curve (Figure 2.6.1) for existing and design conditions for both reaches. The
shear stress value and the measured Dloo particle size for UT1 is within the range of values used to
calculate the regression equation. The Shield's Curve analysis supports the critical depth based
conclusion that the design cross-sections can move sediment competently and prevent aggradation.
The shear stress values and the measured 13100 particle size for Ml plotted slightly below the range
of values used to calculate the regression equation for the Modified Shields Curve, but fall between
the modified and original curve.
The required slope was calculated using Equation 4 and compared to the design slope for both
reaches. The required and design slopes were approximately equal for both reaches meaning that the
design slopes are sufficient to transport the larger materials and prevent aggradation.
The calculated shear stress can be used to describe the upper competency limits for the design
channel as discussed in Section 2.7.4. The estimated boundary shear stress was 0.54 lbs/ft2, and 0.26
lbs/ft2 respectively. Based on the Modified Shield's Curve (Figure 2.6.1), the shear stress value
calculated for UT1 will move particles up to about 50 mm in size, which corresponds roughly to a
particle size between the D84 and the D95 from the reach-wide pebble count sample. The shear
stress value calculated for M1 will move particles up to about 130 mm in size. This value is slightly
larger than the D84 calculated from the reach wide pebble count; however, in-stream structures and
will control grade throughout the reach. A summary of the existing condition and design
competency values is shown in Table 6.5.2.
Table 6.5.2 Existing Condition and Design Sediment Competency Values
M1 UTl
Shear Stress Analysis Existing/Design Existing/Design
Bankfull Xsec Area, Abkf (sq ft) 6.3/8.6 5.9/4.5
Bankfull Width, Wbkf (ft) 6.4/10.2 10.6/7.3
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
6-8
i
•
i
i
i
i
i
•
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Table 6.5.2 Existing Condition and Design Sediment Competency Values

Shear Stress Analysis M1
Existing/Design UT1
Existing/Design
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 1.0/0.8 0.6/0.6
Wetted Perimeter, WP=W+2D (ft) 8.4/11.8 11.8/8.5
Hydraulic Radius, R (ft) 0.8/0.7 0.5/0-5
Schan (ft/ft) 0.0130 / 0.0119 .0258 /.0079
Boundary/Bankfull Shear Stress, T (lb/sq ft) 0.61/0.54 0.81/0.26
D_50 100 ct/pavement (mm), D5opve 20.59 19.98
D50 (mm) - bar sample/subpavement, D50subpve 7.01 12.0
ratio - D50pve / D50subpve 2.94 1.67
ratio - di/ D5opve 2.53 2.50
T *ci 0.0326 0.0170
D100 subpavement (mm) 52 50
d bar large (ft) 0.17 0.16
Dcrit (ft) 0.7/0.8 0.2/0.6
Scrit 0.0092 / 0.0115 0.0082 / 0.0077
6.6 In-Stream Structures
A variety of in-stream structures are proposed for the Meredell Farm Stream Restoration site.
Structures such as root wads, constructed riffles, and log vanes will be used to stabilize the newly-
restored stream. Table 6.6.1 summarizes the use of in-stream structures at the site.
Table 6.6.1 In-Stream Structure Types and Locations
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Plan
Structure Type Location
Root Wad UTl, UT2, UT3b, UTS, and Ml
Cross Vane UTl, UT2, UT4, and Ml
Constructed Riffle UTI, UT2, UT3b, and Ml
Log Vane UTl, U72, UT3b and M1
Log Weir UT3b, UT4 and UT5
6.6.1 Root Wad
Root wads are placed at the toe of the stream bank in the outside of meander bends for the creation
of habitat and for stream bank protection. Root wads include the root mass or root ball of a tree plus
a portion of the trunk. They are used to armor a stream bank by deflecting stream flows away from
the bank. In addition to stream bank protection, they provide structural support to the stream bank
and habitat for fish and other aquatic animals. They also serve as a food source for aquatic insects.
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
6-9
• 6.6.2 Cross Vanes
• Cross vanes are used to provide grade control, keep the thalweg in the center of the channel, and
• protect the stream bank. A cross vane consists of two rock vanes joined by a center structure
installed perpendicular to the direction of flow. This center structure sets the invert elevation of the
stream bed. Vanes are located just downstream of the point where the stream flow intercepts the
• bank at acute angles. These structures will be placed in the main channel at both the upstream and
• downstream project limits. They are also a critical component of the restoration of high-slope step
pool channels.
6.6.3 Constructed Riffle
• A constructed riffle consists of the placement of coarse bed material in the stream at the specific
riffle locations along the profile. A buried log or rock weir at the upstream and downstream end of
each riffle will control the slope through the riffle. The purpose of this structure is to provide grade
. control and improve riffle habitat. In the higher slope reaches, the constructed riffles and cross
• vanes are often intermixed to provide diversity of structure and in stream habitat.
• 6.6.4 Log Vane
• A log vane is used to protect the stream bank and enhance aquatic habitat. The length of a single
• vane structure can span 50 to 70 percent the bankfull channel width. Vanes are located just
downstream of the point where the stream flow intersects the bank at an acute angle in a meander
bend. Log vanes will be placed in the larger, low slope channels on the project site.
6.6.5 Log Weir
A log weir consists of placing header and footer logs in the bed of the stream channel, perpendicular
to the stream flow. The logs extend into the streambanks to prevent erosion and bypassing of the
structure. The logs are flush with the channel bottom upstream of the log and designed to prevent
• pooling upstream. Footer logs are placed to the depth of scour to prevent undermining of the
structure. Although a pool is often excavated during installation, they will typically form naturally
downstream of the structure. Log weirs provide bed form diversity, maintain channel profile, and
provide pool and cover habitat.
6.7 Vegetation
The vegetative components of this project include stream bank, floodplain, wetland (water quality
improvement area), hillslope planting, and invasive species removal. In addition, any areas of the
site that are disturbed, lack diversity, or might be adversely impacted by the construction process,
• will be replanted.
6.7.1 Stream Bank and Floodplain Re-Vegetation
The stream banks and the adjacent riparian area will be planted with both woody and herbaceous
vegetation as shown on the attached plan sheets. Any stream banks with a slope of 2:1 or greater
will be vegetated using live-stake or bare-root planting techniques. A buffer of woody and
• herbaceous species will be planted within the conservation easement limits. A schedule of plants for
• use on this project is shown in Table 6.7.1.
BUCK ENGINEERING 6-10
• MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
Table 6.7.1 Plant Schedule
Meredell Farm Stream Restoration Plan
COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME
Riparian Buffer Plantings
Trees
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis
Willow oak Quercus phellos
River birch Betula nigra
Shagbark hickory Carya ovata
Persimmon Diospyros virginiana
Shrubstsmall trees
Pawpaw Asimina triloba
Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana
Witch-hazel Hamamelis virginiana
Spicebush Lindera benzoin
Native Seed Mix for Stream Banks and Buffers
Fringed sedge Carex crinata
River oats Chasmanthium latifolium
Virginia wild rye Elymus virginicus
Deertongue Panicum clandestinum
Woody Vegetation for Live Stakes
Silky willow Salix sericea
Silky dogwood Comus amomum
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis
6.7.2 Invasive Species Removal
The stream reaches in subwatershed M1 have little or no riparian vegetation and invasive species do
not present a problem along these reaches (UT1, UT2 and M1). The stream reaches in subwatershed
M2 have moderately poor riparian buffers with little desirable riparian vegetation with invasive
species presenting a significant problem (UT3, UT4, and UT5). Invasive species such as
honeysuckle and privet are present in abundance. Mechanical, chemical, or hand removal of these
invasive species will be a necessary part of the restoration effort. If these or other invasive species
re-establish and persist more than three years after the stream restoration has been constructed, hand
cutting and herbicide treatment will again be required.
BUCK ENGINEERING 6-11
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
i
i 7 Monitoring and Evaluation
Channel stability and vegetation survival will all be monitored on the project site. Post-restoration
monitoring will be conducted for five years following the completion of construction to document
• project success.
An as-built report will be produced for the site within 90 days of the completion of construction.
The report will include a detailed as-built survey, photographs, sampling plot locations, and a list of
. the species planted and the associated densities. Following the as-built report, monitoring reports
• will be produced annually for five years. These reports will be prepared and submitted to EEP
during each monitoring year. Annual monitoring reports will document the specific parameters
described below.
. 7.1 Stream Monitoring
• Geomorphic monitoring of restored stream reaches will be conducted for five years to evaluate the
• effectiveness of the restoration practices. Monitored stream parameters include stream dimension
(cross-sections), pattern (longitudinal survey), profile (profile survey), and photographic
documentation. The methods used and any related success criteria are described below for each
. parameter.

7.1.1 Cross-Sections
Permanent cross-sections (either surveyed or located using a GPS) will be established at a spacing of
one per 20 bankfull-width lengths, with an effort made to include both riffles and pools. Each cross-
section will be marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish exact transects. A common
benchmark will be used for cross-sections to facilitate the year-to-year data comparisons. 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, and at two-foot intervals between.
Calculations will be made of width/depth ratio, entrenchment ratio, and low bank height ratio. Riffle
cross-sections will be classified using the Rosgen stream classification system.
There should be little or no change in as-built cross-sections from year to year. If changes do take
place, they should be evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable
condition (e.g., down-cutting, erosion) or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability
(e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, decrease in width/depth ratio and/or
cross-sectional area).
7.1.2 Pattern
Annual measurements taken for the plan view of the restoration site will include sinuosity, meander
width ratio, and radius of curvature. The radius of curvature measurements will be taken on newly
constructed meanders for the first year of monitoring only.
7.1.3 Longitudinal Profile
A complete longitudinal profile will be completed during the first year and then every two years over
the course of a five-year period (for a total of three times). Measurements will include average
channel slope, pool slope, riffle slope, and pool-to-pool spacing. Survey points will include thalweg,
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
7-1
• water surface, inner berm, bankfull, and top of bank. Each of these survey points will be taken at
prescribed intervals and at the head of each feature: riffle, run, pool, glide, and the maximum pool
depth location. The survey will be tied to a permanent benchmark.
• The longitudinal profile data should show that the bedform features are remaining stable, and are not
aggrading or degrading. The pools should remain deep with flat water surface slopes and the riffles
should remain steep and shallow.
• 7.1.4 Photo Reference Sites
Digital photographs will be used to evaluate restored sites. There will be one photo reference site
• per cross-section showing both banks and the stream channel. Several of the in-stream structures
• (e.g., rock vanes, cross vanes, and root wads) will also be photographed. After construction is
complete, photo reference sites will be marked with wooden stakes.
The stream will be photographed longitudinally beginning at the downstream end of the restoration
site and moving upstream to the end of the site. Photographs will be taken looking upstream at
delineated locations. Reference photo locations will be marked and described for future reference.
Points will be close enough together to provide an overall view of the reach. Shot angles will be
• selected to provide the best view. Angles will be noted and will be maintained over time to the
i extent possible. When modifications to photo position must be made due to obstructions or other
reasons, the new position will be noted along with any landmarks needed to identify the location.
Reference photo transects will also be taken at each permanent cross-section. Photographs will be
• taken of both banks at each cross-section. A 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. Photos will show distinct treatment areas; for example, unique
• images if two different types of erosion control material are used. The detailed photo log will allow
for future comparisons.
Photographs will be used to qualitatively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
• success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of in-stream structures and erosion control
• measures. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or
an excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral photos should indicate stable banks over time. A
series of photos over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation. Vegetative
• succession should include initial herbaceous growth, followed by increasing densities of woody
• vegetation, and then ultimately a mature overstory with herbaceous understory.
7.2 Vegetation Monitoring
All woody vegetation will be flagged and evaluated for at least five years to determine survival rates.
At least two staked survival plots shall be evaluated. Plots should include both live staked and other
. planted areas. Plots will be 25 feet by 100 feet and all flagged stems will be counted in those plots.
• Success of woody vegetation plantings will be defined as 320 stems per acre after five years. When
woody vegetation does not survive, a determination will be made as to the need for replacement; in
general, if greater than 25 percent die, replacement will be required.

7-2
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
s
s
Herbaceous vegetation, primarily native grasses, planted at the site shall have at least 95 percent
coverage of the seeded/planted area. No bare patches shall exceed 10 square feet. Any herbaceous
vegetation not meeting these criteria shall be replaced. At a minimum, at all times ground cover at
the project site shall be in compliance with the North Carolina Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Ordinance.
7.3 Maintenance Issues
Maintenance requirements vary from site to site and are generally driven by the following
conditions:
• Projects without established woody floodplain vegetation are more susceptible to erosion from
floods than those with a mature hardwood forest.
• Projects with sandy non-cohesive soils are more prone to short-term bank erosion than cohesive
soils or soils with high gravel and cobble content.
• Alluvial valley channels with wide floodplains are less vulnerable than confined channels.
• Wet weather during construction can make accurate channel and floodplain excavations difficult.
• Extreme and/or frequent flooding can cause floodplain and channel erosion.
• Extreme hot, cold, wet, or dry weather during and after construction can limit vegetation growth,
particularly temporary and permanent seed.
• The presence and aggressiveness of invasive species can affect the extent to which a native
buffer can be established.
Maintenance issues and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and documented in the
as-built and monitoring reports. Factors which may have caused any maintenance needs, including
any of the conditions listed above, shall be discussed.
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
7-3
8 References
Andrews, E. D., 1983. Entrainment of gravel from naturally sorted river bed material, Geological Society of
America Bulletin, 94, 1225-1231.
Bledsoe, Brian P., C. C. Watson, and D. S. Biedenharn. 2002. Quantification of incised channel evolution and
equilibrium JAWRA, vol. 38, No 3, 861-870.
Budd, W.W, P.L. Cohen, P.R. Saunders and F.R. Steiner. 1987. Stream Corridor Management in the Pacific
Northwest: I. Determination of Stream Corridor Widths. Environmental Management.
Bunte, K. and S. Abt. 2001. Sampling surface and subsurface particle-size distributions in wadable gravel-
and cobble-bed streams for analyses in sediment transport, hydraulics, and streambed monitoring.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-74. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station. 428 p.
Clinton, D. R. 2001. Stream morphology relationships from reference streams in North Carolina. Thesis
(M.S.) - North Carolina State University.
Copeland, R.R, D.N. McComas, C.R. Thorne, P.J. Soar, M.M. Jones, and J.B. Fripp. 2001. United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects.
Washington, DC.
Dunne, T. and L. B. Leopold, 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. New York: W. H. Freeman and
Company.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration:
Principles, Processes and Practices. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Gomez, B. 1991. Bedload transport. Earth-Science Reviews 31, 89-132.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E.
Smith, 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams. Wildland
Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. Edited by: D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy. American
Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, K.R. Tweedy, J.A. Buck, and D.L. Taylor, 2001. Lessons Learned from
Designing and Constructing In-Stream Structures. ASCE. Wetlands Engineering and River
Restoration. Proceedings of the 2001 Wetlands Engineering & River Restoration Conference. Edited
by Donald F. Hayes. American Society of Civil Engineering. August 27-31, 2001. Reno, NV
Inglis, C.C. 1947. Meanders and their Bearing on River Training. Institution of Civil Engineers, Maritime
and Waterways Engineering Division, Paper No. 7, 54 pp.
Jessup, A.G. 2002. Personal communication with W.A. Harman.
Knighton, D. 1984. Fluvial Forms and Processes. Rutledge, Chapman, and Hall, Inc. New York, NY.
Knighton, D. 1998. Fluvial Forms and Processes. Rutledge, Chapman, and Hall, Inc. New York, NY.
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
s-1
•
•
s
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lane, E. W. 1955. Design of stable channels. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Paper
No. 2776. pp. 1234-1279.
Leopold, L. B., M. G. Wolman and J. P. Miller. 1992. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. Dover
Publications, Inc. New York, NY.
Leopold, L.B., 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
McCandless, T. L. 2003. Maryland Stream Survey: Bank full Discharge and Channel Characteristics of
Streams in the Allegheny Plateau and the Valley and Ridge Hydrologic Regions. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Annapolis, MD.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2003. Reference Reach Database. Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Branch, Office of Natural Environment. Raleigh, NC.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, Colo.
Rosgen, D.L., 1997. A geomorphological approach to restoration of incised rivers. In: Wang, S.S.Y, E.J.
Langendoen, and F.D. Shields, Jr. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Conference on Management of
Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. pp. 12-22.
Rosgen, D.L., 1998. The Reference Reach - a Blueprint for Natural Channel Design. Draft Presented at ASCE
Conference on River Restoration in Denver Colorado - March, 1998. ASCE. Reston, VA.
Rosgen, D.L. 2001a. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the Federal
Interagency Sediment Conference, Reno, NV, March, 2001.
Rosgen, D. L. 2001b. The Cross-Vane, W-Weir and J-Hook Vane Structures... Their Description, Design and
Application for Stream Stabilization and River Restoration. Published By: ASCE conference, Reno,
NV, August, 2001.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley, 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. NCDEHNR Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
Schiechtl, H.M. and R. Stern. 1994. Watercourse Bioengineering Techniques. Blackwell Sciences.
Cambridge, MA.
Schumm, S.A., 1960. The Shape of Alluvial Channels in Relation to Sediment Type. U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 352-B. U.S. Geological Survey, Washigton, DC.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(1):11-26.
Soar and Thorne. 2001. Channel Restoration Design for Meandering Rivers. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Engineering Research and Development Center. Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, ERDC\CHL
CR-01-1. September, 2001.
BUCK ENGINEERING 8-2
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA-NRCS), Natural Resource Conservation Service. 1995.
North Carolina Hydric Soil List.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA-NRCS), Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2002. Soil
Survey of Randolph County, North Carolina.
Wohl, E.E. 2000. Mountain Rivers. Am. Geophys. Union Press, 320 pp.
Wolman, M.G., 1954. A Method of Sampling Course River-Bed Material. Transactions of American
Geophysical Union 35: 951-956.
BUCK ENGINEERING
MEREDELL FARM STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
8-3
Exhibits

1
•r?
'J

r: ? • ? ? f l,l t .. i ? r , ? lip ?,, ' '.•??. `^? ti t
77

r f r iI L_ r- f:' Y a
[r??ll i ??? - ?ti
•? ._?
ti
^ f
. ?
J ili
p. ?
rj-
4,, 1 1 Meredell Farm
•
1 ? I
`? I
'

,
1
f? +, ;,
Property Boundary
,
%
? ,5 ! 1 wr ,
f r ?1t5
, t/l
`
7
]
111 y..
?
?
l
f...
r ,1 \~
?
G,r
Project Boundary
'+
;

, -_ ; ;,
?' ! 4 ? • - t i ? r
'?}
,, r3 ? ,\^ `l?tr? ny
? I? ! I. ' l J
r
`
^
J
r
,
r \ ^_? ;ti ? •• i ??^?,J ? \ \l? ? ? -~
`tea ? "?. I =.?
I? _ ', sY t`
V l
r
l?
+
r
l
i
r _
:
t
`\?r ¦ .?`\ - ,
f
-
?`
ma
'
T
I
/
r-,
r
- -

?._
?
.?.??'"`-"v. . •. ? +. Lam` -??,.._
t .+? ? /
•
'
'
\
?
mar
?^.,``
.
1
?? _ ' .t.1 F
?? • ? J"`
\`1? .
J //?
i //
81 ?' /
+
? /. ?
r- ter- •'-- < r ? •? t e??. e
Exhibit 1.1. Project Vicinity Map

C'?J Ecosystem Enhancement Program

491W rty

LPH
I;n,, Yment
0 250500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Randolph County
Feet

0
Exhibit 1.2. Site Hydrology
r, Ecosystem Enhancement Program
hjoos?stem
Ini.n :
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
r

5
V- c c
N y00 10
co ?
?
1?c
?a
a?
0?
o?
rn
N
I
i ?
a

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Q
Z'
O?
h°
oc
o
N -,,+ G
?aa
L m O
E
O
b ?
o?
c
U ?
c
7
C
W
LL
LO
LO
N
J
Q

i
Class II. Channelized Class III. Degradation
h<hc h<hc
floodplain
h t
? h
Class IV. Degradation and Widening
h>hc
terrace
t.
h
slumped material
Class V. Aggradetion and Widening Class VI. Quasi Equl
h>hc h<hc
terrace terrace
h ?h -''-
l slumped
material
aggraded material
Class I Class III
Class IV
precursor
nickpoint
oversteepened reach
V
secondary ?o
nickpoint
aggradation zone
Source: Simon, 1989; US Army Corps of Engineers, 1990.
Fig. 7.14 - Channel evolution model..
In Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices, 10/98.
Interagency Stream Restoration Working (croup (FISRWGX15 Federal agencies of the US).
Source: Simon, 1989
aggraded material
Class VI
"In
aggraded materii
Simon Channel
Meredell Farm
2.3
Plan
r

c .
CL
.y
6 ?
/ 1? 1
0

p C 'i
V
m m N

LL :3

o
O? 2
U
(.L UJ

o r °p
cn
U)
O

? ro
o

U? 50.
d.d.

1
3
3
fi

???/
it

• ` ' `
Qi p O L U ? ?' U
\I

v V ig.
V V V >

40 O

- 1.
40
c -> o
-
{L iu
Q g LL
c1J
p
ii OQ
o

Q 3
N
?

' U_

z I• U

le U) z
N =a
c C c
= o
w? Cr3
0
CD m
c ct
L
O
O LL
O ?
? N
O
0
N?
1.6
O
m
o0
2
o rn
U G
(0
O Sc
CL z
Q oil-
?
O
.2
o O o
a
o w
0 o
? U
J 0.0
Co
C:
rn>?
N? h
? m R
:3 c
cn O J
941'00 L _0MlIV900Z00Z90M

0
e bankfull
Width to Depth Ratio: Bankfull width +
Bankfull mean depth
Bank Height Ratio: Bank height (measured
from top of bank to the bottom of the
stream channel) + the max depth of the
bankfull elevation (dmax)
CICVOLIWI
death at
Entrenchment Ratio: Floodprone width +
bankfull width
t 2.5
cents
Plan
c?cc
0 CU
04
M°c
v C41 0 ? l O Cl)
° ° x m
°^' cn o w cu
° i 3 O cr 2o
>o
o a3 T
aw 64
OR
., o 0
co w
°
(U a:
t'> on
U N U O
o
b4 ?
U ?
Aw
? N
cd N
N
ai ,?" C1; O ? N
N sU N Ll. ? t/1
U a..S U 40 y+
>
N N w.
z
U (U
N U >
+? 0.! O
Lip N
sU ti U U l
v as
40,) , A
U v ?
y ? > W
N U> U O U
U N cc p?jp W
4; 4; y w
N N v0 z
tx G4 ..
z
w
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
s
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
hA ti C
a L J cII
g i C
?< ?3 L
? f
C
(TJ
zzz
fi i? n. l ,gyp Q a
w
?,.. a? \4=?. ?s+Y15x ,I[t ? rlyyy?°}t ti ??'t j?•?
y W ` f ? 'iG
?b`J.1 yl L ? C .V% •P ? L n
S ? O
L
47 oat
e? V
101
ti
3 s'
?#T A' F14V - 3
1.
Wme
'. t
?,µM ?4..,? 1Yk ?
C
'•' F ?
F'i
y,. tY
INN
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Exhibit 3.1. Watershed Boundaries
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Ix?syst?ii?
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
Legend
Stream Reaches
Watersheds
Property Boundary
All, WPC
ccc
CeB2
Wtc
"
McB2
WpE MaC
PaC
Wtc
eB
?-7
Sandy Creek 3
McC2
CeB2
ApB
Sandy Creek 1
CeB2
Wtc
McB2
CeB2
VaC
VaB
VaC
Exhibit 3.2. Project Soil Map
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
t?cosystem
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
CeB2
Soil Name Pacolet Fine Sandy Loam-PaC
Cecil Sandy Clay Loam (Me)-CeB2 Wilkes-Poindexter-Wynott-WpC
Cecil Sandy Loam-CcC Wynott-Enon-WtB,WtC
Chewacla And Wehadkee (Ff)-CmA Wynott-Wilkes-Poindexter-WzB
Helena Sandy Loam-HeC Appling Sandy Loam-ApB,ApC
Mecklenburg Clay Loam-MeB2 Riverview Sandy Loam-RvA
Mecklenburg Loam-MaC '... 1 Vance Sandy Loam-VaB,VaC
e Water Easment Boundary
- Stream Reaches
[__] Property Boundary
Ccc
CeB2

Exhibit 3.3. Construction Access
and Stream Crossings
tr7 Ecosystem Enhancement Program
0 250500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet

Property Boundary
. Easement Boundary
® Proposed Ford Crossinq
Appendix A
Cultural Resources Correspondence
r
i
•
•
•
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
December 16, 2003
Douglas Smith
Buck Engineering
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
Re: Stream Restoration on Meredell Farm, Randolph County, ER03-3451
Dear Mr. Smith:
Division of Historical Resources
Thank you for your letter of November 19, 2003, concerning the above project.
With regard to archaeological resources, site 31RD965 is the only site located within 1 mile of
the proposed project area. The National Register eligibility of this prehistoric site is unknown
at present, but it is unlikely that this site will be affected by your undertaking.
Please forward specific project plans and a map indicating the area of potential effect (APE)
for the stream restoration project when they are available so we may evaluate potential effects
upon as yet unrecorded archaeological resources.
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.
S' erely,
avid Brook
www
ADMINISTRATION
RESTORATION
SURVEY & PLANNING
Location
507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC

;;?a It??t4 Iit` c)
hr
o.dcr.state.nc.us
Mailing Address . Telephone/Fax
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 (919) 7334763 •733-8653
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 [phone] •715-4801
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 [phone] •715-4801
Appendix B
EDR Transaction Screen Map Report
Environmental
Data
Ej[p:
Resources, Inc.
The EDR-Transaction Screen TM
Map Report
With Toxicheck/O Analysis
Merdell Farms
Ramseur Julian Rd
Liberty, NC 27298
Inquiry Number: 01086101.1r
November 20, 2003
The Source
For Environmental
Risk Management
Data
3530 Post Road
Southport, Connecticut 06890
Nationwide Customer Service
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Internet: www.edrnet.com
FORM-HOW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Toxicheck(Optional)------------------------------------------------------ TK-1
Executive Summary------------------------------------------------------- ES1
Overview Map ----------------------------------------------------------- 3
Map Summary - All Sites--------------------------------------------------- 4
Map Findings------------------------------------------------------------ 6
Orphan Summary--------------------------------------------------------- 7
APPENDICES
Government Records Searched / Data Currency Tracking Addendum- - - - - - - - - - - - - - GR-1
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer
Copyright and Trademark Notice
This report contains information obtained from a variety of public and other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED,
IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES INC. SPECIFICALLY
DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL EDR BE LIABLE TO
ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY
LOSS OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.
Entire contents copyright 2003 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and the edr logos are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the
property of their respective owners.
TC01086101.1 r Pagel

TOXICHECK
Subject Property: MERDELL FARMS
RAMSEUR JULIAN RD
LIBERTY, NC 27298
Environmental Risk Code: LOW
This code results from the subject property not being listed in those databases as indicated in the Report
and not located within : 1/2 mile of a reported Superfund Site (NPL) ; 1/2 mile of a reported Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage or Disposal Facility (RCRIS-TSDF); 1/4 mile of a reported known or suspect
CERCLIS hazardous waste site ; 1/4 mile of a reported known or suspect State Hazardous Waste site
(SHWS); 1/2 mile of a reported Solid Waste Facility or Landfill (SWF/LF); or 1/8 mile of a site with a
reported Leaking Underground Storage Tank incident (LUST).
This code is based solely on the results of searches of databases comprised of certain governmental records
as made available to EDR and reflected in the attached report. Without further confirmation by completing
the ASTM Standard E-1528 Transaction Screen and/or a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, the
conditions affecting the property are unknown. Further investigation by an environmental professional may
be appropriate. This Report is not a substitute for a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment conducted
by an environmental professional. Nothing in this Report should be construed to mean that any
environmental remediation is or is not necessary with respect to the subject property.
If this information is being used for a commercialproperty transaction, the government records searched
complies with the requirements of the ASTM Standard E-1528. Transaction Screen. However, the ASTM
Standard's requirements are not fulfilled until the Applicant Questionnaire and Site Visit (including an
investigation of the property's historical use) are completed and reviewed. If this information is being used
for an industrial property transaction, the ASTM Standard requires that a Phase IEnvironmental Site
Assessment be performed by an environmental professional.
Disclaimer
Copyright and Trademark Notice
This report contains information obtained from a variety of public and other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED,
IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES INC. SPECIFICALLY
DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OFANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL EDR BE LIABLE TO
ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY
LOSS OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.
Entire contents copyright 2001 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and the edr logos are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the
property of their respective owners.
TC01086101.1r Page TIC-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The EDR-Transaction Screen Map Report is a screening tool which maps sites with potential liability
or existing environmental liabilities. Specified government databases are searched in accordance with
ASTM Standard E 1528-00.
The ASTM E 1528-00 Transaction Screen property due diligence standard consists of four major
components: a government records check, an historical inquiry, an owner/occupant questionnaire, and a
site survey. This report contains the results of the government records search on the target property
and surrounding area in accordance with the government records search requirements of the ASTM E
1528-00 standard.
The results of the government records search in accordance with QUESTIONS 21 and 22 (page 15, E 1528-00)
of the standard indicated the following:
QUESTION 21
Do any of the following Federal government record systems list the property or any property within the
circumference of the area noted below.
National Priorities List (NPL) ? on the property ? Within 1 Mile
CERCLIS List ? on the property ? Within 1/2 Mile
CERCLIS NFRAP List ? on the property ? Within 1/4 Mile
RCRA-CORRACTS Facilities ? on the property ? Within 1 Mile
RCRA-TSD Non-CORRACTS Facilities ? on the property ? Within 1/2 Mile
RCRA LQG Facilities ? on the property ? Within 1/4 Mile
RCRA SQG Facilities ? on the property ? Within 1/4 Mile
ERNS ? on the property
QUESTION 22
Do any of the following state government record systems list the property or any property within the
circumference of the area noted below.
State equivalent to NPL ? on the property ? Within 1 Mile
State equivalent to CERCLIS ? on the property ? Within 1/2 Mile
Solid Waste/Landfill Facilities (SWF/LS) ? on the property ? Within 1/2 Mile
Leaking Underground Storage Tank List (LUST) ? on the property ? Within 1/2 Mile
Underground Storage Tank List (UST) ? on the property ? Within 1/4 Mile
In accordance with Section 5.6 (page 10, E 1528) if the answer is (yes) or unknown, then the user
will have to decide what further action, if any, is appropriate. Answers should be evaluated in light of
the other information obtained in the transaction screen process. If the user decides no further inquiry is
warranted, the rationale must be documented. If the user decides that further inquiry is warranted, it may
be necessary to contact an environmental professional.
Additional Research - ASTM Supplemental Government Databases
To provide additional information which may assist in the assessment of other components of the ASTM
E 1528-00 Transaction Screen, EDR also searches government databases not included in Questions 21
and 22 of ASTM E 1528-00. This information may be useful in completing the owner/occupant
questionnaire.
The results of the search of these additional government records indicated affirmative (yes) responses on
the target property for the following government databases:
No affirmative responses found in the non-ASTM E 1528-00 government databases.
TC01 086101.1 r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
uvt:mvItW MAN - ulutsblum r - t3UCK enyineenny
/
j V,

Q?
i
X

,
j
/,

/1
* Target Property
• A, Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
• • Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
. 1 Coal Gasification Sites
• El National Priority List Sites
ED Landfill Sites
• ?, i Dept. Defense Sites
•
•

TARGET PROPERTY: Merdell Farms CUSTOMER: Buck Engineering
• ADDRESS: Ramseur Julian Rd CONTACT: Jessica Rohrbach
CITY/STATE/ZIP: Liberty NC 27298 INQUIRY #: 01086101.1r
• LAT/LONG: 35.8562/79.6353 DATE: November 20, 2003 1:32 pm
• Copyright 0 2003 EDR, Inc.* 2003 GDT, Inc. Rel. 07/2002. All Rights Reserved.
g 1/a 1rZ
s' yP Power transmission lines Hazardous Substance
Oil & Gas pipelines Disposal Sites
U] 100-year flood zone
500-year flood zone
_d Federal Wetiands
s
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
i
•
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Database
Search
Target Distance
Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 '.1/2 - 1 > 1
Total
Plotted
FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD
NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
Proposed NPL 1.000 0 0 0• 0 NR 0
CERCLIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
CERC-NFRAP 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
CORRACTS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
RCRIS-TSD 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
RCRIS Lg. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
RCRIS Sm. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
ERNS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
STATE ASTM STANDARD
State Haz. Waste 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
State Landfill 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
LUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
OLI 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
INDIAN UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
VCP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL
Delisted NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
FINDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
HMIRS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
MLTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
MINES TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
NPL Liens TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
PADS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
US BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
DOD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
RAATS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TRIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TSCA TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
SSTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
FTTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
STATE OR LOCAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL
NC HSDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
AST TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
LUST TRUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
IMD TP NR NR NR NR NR. 0
EDR PROPRIETARY HISTORICAL DATABASES
Coal Gas 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
TC01086101.1 r Page 4
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Target Distance
Database Property (Miles)
BROWNFIELDS DATABASES
US BROWNFIELDS 0.500
Brownfields 0.500
INST CONTROL 0.250
VCP 0.500
NOTES:
TP = Target Property
NR = Not Requested at this Search D istance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
Total
< 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 •1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
0 0 0 NR NR 0
0 0 0 NR NR 0
0 0 NR NR NR 0
0 0 0 NR NR 0
TC01086101.1 r Page 5
Map ID
Direction
Distance
Distance (ft.)
Elevation -Site
MAP FINDINGS
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
Coal Gas Site Search: No site was found in a search of Real Property Scan's ENVIROHAZ database.
NO SITES FOUND

TC01086101.1 r Page 6
fl,
N
m
co
IL
L
0
m
OD
0
0
U
F-
N
N
4
U) N
J J 7
F- F- to F- p (A F-
W m J (A W J Cn
D=) J Q O J 7 D D J D S 5Z)
CD O OD CO 00 OD co OD O O OD 'CD O N N N W 07
O O) O) D) O) 0I W D) O Q) D) Q1 01 d) O O 4) O
nnnn C'i not nnnnn?'nnnn
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
}
d
N
m N
d Q
CL
a[ N
O
N
E
z
m
N
Q
Q
W
U
N
a
Z
Z
<t otS O
0 N Cn
rnO
CA Z
X (D_ 0 0
F- m F- OD Q F
(n co m d' V O N= W X 0 O v W
O W C', in C-6 0) c0 X m a 0 Z M 0 W c0
O F N N V
=) N N V c0 m N W fn
w¢waiw tc°'omxan?¢OO°?x
}
Q
O
Q
z
m
U
U)
m 0
w a
(Fq } _0 ~
¢ m
U 0 z ¢ }}
w o D Cc cc
Z Z w ? CO
00 z0Q00 aCcc>
x a a w w 11
m =) a 0 m w Z co
> p 0 o a w z z co (0 (0
¢ O F LL Q U w
Z¢ 0 Q O W 0 7 F- -j X Z
2 W W? J
:5 2 3: cc cc
3> w F w H O m w CO z cc z
0 o m m W J x m= d? J 0? a
3 m J J J LL a W LL a w 2 0 ¢=5 m t a
g O V co O O 0) W In O N M, P)' CO 1n O N
N N O N N w n O n ? CO N O O
0 O O N W in W O O N m 0 0 0 O W O
w O O O w O n Q) W OD n W 07 co N M to r
OCO O O7 N O OCO D7 O ('7 41 O D) . O) r- O ao
r' 3 DD r- O N
O O O O O O O O O O O_ O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O
> > ? ? ? W m ? ? J lA ? > > > O J O
}
F-
m m m m m? m Q m m Q?¢ Q Q W m m
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m J
J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J CA
w
•
i
r
i
AREA RADON INFORMATION
No records reported for ZIP:27298 NC
Federal EPA Radon Zone for RANDOLPH County, NC: 3
Note : Zone 1 indoor average level > 4 Ci/L.
Ci/L
.
Zone 2 indoor average level >= 2 Ci/L and <= 4 p
Zone 3 indoor average level < 2 p9i/L.
Federal Area Radon Information for Zip Code: 27298
Number of sites tested: 1
Area Average Activity % <4 pCi/L
Living Area - 1st Floor 0.200 pCi/L 100%
Living Area - 2nd Floor Not Reported Not Reported
Basement Not Reported Not Reported
Federal Area Radon Information for RANDOLPH County, NC
Number of sites tested: 7
Area Average Activity % <4 pCi/L
Living Area - 1 st Floor 0.443 pCi/L 100%
Living Area - 2nd Floor Not Reported Not Reported
Basement 0.400 pCi/L 100%
% 4-20 pCi/L % >20 pCi/L
0% 0%
Not Reported Not Reported
Not Reported Not Reported
% 4-20 pCi/L % >20 pCi/L
° 0%
Not Reported Not Reported
0% 0%
TC.COM - Page 1 of 1
•
i
•
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
To maintain currency of the following federal and state databases, EDR contacts the appropriate governmental agency
on a monthly or quarterly basis, as required.
Elapsed ASTM days: Provides confirmation that this. EDR report meets or exceeds the 90-day updating requirement
of the ASTM standard.
FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD RECORDS
NPL: National Priority List
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
National Priorities List (Superfund). The NPL is a subset of CERCLIS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority
cleanup under the Superfund Program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. As such, EDR provides polygon
coverage for over 1,000 NPL site boundaries produced by EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
(EPIC) and regional EPA offices.
Date of Government Version: 07/22/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 08/26/03
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 08/04/03
Elapsed ASTM days: 22
Date of Last EDR Contact: 08/04/03
NPL Site Boundaries
Sources:
EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC)
Telephone: [phone]
EPA Region 1
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 3
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 4
Telephone [phone]
Proposed NPL: Proposed National Priority List Sites
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Date of Government Version: 06/10/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 08126/03
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
EPA Region 6
Telephone: [phone]
EPA Region 8
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 08/04/03
Elapsed ASTM days: 22
Date of Last EDR Contact: 08104/03
CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
CERCLIS contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities,
private companies and private persons, pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLIS contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities
List (NPL) and sites which are in. the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL.
Date of Government Version: 09/11/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 10/29/03
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/24/03
Elapsed ASTM days: 35
Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/24/03
CERCLIS-NFRAP: CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
As of February 1995, CERCLIS sites designated "No Further Remedial Action Planned" (NFRAP) have been removed
from CERCLIS. NFRAP sites may be sites where, following an initial investigation, no contamination was found,
contamination was removed quickly without the need for the site to be placed on the NPL, or the contamination
was not serious enough to require Federal Superfund action or NPL consideration. EPA has removed approximately
25,000 NFRAP sites to lift the unintended barriers to the redevelopment of these properties and has archived them
as historical records so EPA does not needlessly repeat the investigations in the future. This policy change is
part of the EPA's Brownfields Redevelopment Program to help cities, states, private investors and affected citizens
to promote economic redevelopment of unproductive urban sites.
TC01086101.1r PageGR-1

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 09/11/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 10/29/03
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/24/03
Elapsed ASTM days: 35
Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/24/03
CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
CORRACTS identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity.
Date of Government Version: 09/17/03 -
Date Made Active at EDR: 11/11/03
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 10/01/03
Elapsed ASTM days: 41
Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/08/03
RCRIS: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System. RCRIS includes selective information on sites which generate,
transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs): generate less than 100 kg of hazardous
waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. Small quantity generators (SQGs): generate between
100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month. Large quantity generators (LQGs): generate over 1,000 kilograms
(kg) of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. Transporters are individuals or
entities that move hazardous waste from the generator off-site to a facility that can recycle, treat, store, or
dispose of the waste. TSDFs treat, store, or dispose of the waste.
Date of Government Version: 09/10/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 10/01/03
Database Release Frequency: Varies
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/11/03
Elapsed ASTM days: 20
Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/11/03
ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System
Source: National Response Center, United States Coast Guard
Telephone: [phone]
Emergency Response Notification System. ERNS records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous
substances.
Date of Government Version: 12131/02 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 01/27/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 02/03/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 7
Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/27/03
FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL RECORDS
BRS: Biennial Reporting System
Source: EPA/NTIS
Telephone: [phone]
The Biennial Reporting System is a national system administered by the EPA that collects data on the generation
and management of hazardous waste. BRS_captures detailed data from two groups: Large Quantity Generators (LQG)
and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities.
Date of Government Version: 12101/01
Database Release Frequency: Biennially
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10101/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/15/03
DELISTED NPL: National Priority List Deletions
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the
EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the
NPL where no further response is appropriate.
TC01086101.1 r Page GR-2

Date of Government Version: 07116/03
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
N
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 07/22/03
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
FINDS: Facility Index System/Facility Identification Initiative Program Summary Report
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Facility Index System. FINDS contains both facility information and'pointers' to other sources that contain more
detail. EDR includes the following FINDS databases in this report: PCS (Permit Compliance System), AIRS (Aerometric
Information Retrieval System), DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial
enforcement cases for all environmental statutes), FURS (Federal Underground Injection Control), C-DOCKET (Criminal
Docket System used to track criminal enforcement actions for all environmental statutes), FFIS (Federal Facilities
Information System), STATE (State Environmental Laws and Statutes), and PADS (PCB Activity Data System).
Date of Government Version: 07/25/03
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation
Telephone: [phone]
Hazardous Materials Incident Report System. HMIRS contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to DOT.
Date of Government Version: 03/31/03
Database Release Frequency: Annually
MILTS: Material Licensing Tracking System
Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Telephone: [phone]
MLTS is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and contains a list of approximately 8,100 sites which
possess or use radioactive materials and which are subject to NRC licensing requirements. To maintain currency,
EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis.
MINES: Mines Master Index File
Source: Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: 08127/03
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
NPL LIENS: Federal Superfund Liens
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Federal Superfund Liens. Under the authority granted the USEPA by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, the USEPA has the authority to file liens against real property in order
to recover remedial action expenditures or when the property owner receives notification of potential liability.
USEPA compiles a listing of filed notices of Superfund Liens.
Date of Government Version: 10/15/91
Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned
Date of Last EDR Contact: 08/04/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/03/03
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/07/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05/04
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/23103
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/19/04
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/07/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/05104
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/01/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/29/03
Date of Last EDR Contact: 08/25/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/24/03
PADS: PCB Activity Database System
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
. PCB Activity Database. PADS Identifies generators, transporters, commercial storers and/or brokers and disposers
of PCB's who are required to notify the EPA of such activities.

Date of Government Version: 06/30/03
Database Release Frequency: Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 08/13103
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/10/03
TC01086101.1 r Page GR-3
r
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
DOD: Department of Defense Sites
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
This data set consists of federally owned or administered lands, administered by the Department of Defense, that
have any area equal to or greater than 640 acres of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Date of Government Version: 04/01/03
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 08/15/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/10/03
US BROWNFIELDS: A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Included in the listing are brownfields properties addresses by Cooperative Agreement Recipients and brownfields
properties addressed by Targeted Brownfields Assessments. Targeted Brownfields Assessments-EPA's Targeted Brownfields
Assessments (TBA) program is designed to'help states, tribes, and municipalities--especially those without EPA
Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots--minimize the uncertainties of contamination often associated with
brownfields. Under the TBA program, EPA provides funding and/or technical assistance for environmental assessments
at brownfields sites throughout the country. Targeted Brownfields Assessments supplement and work with other efforts
under EPA's Brownfields Initiative to promote cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields. Cooperative Agreement
Recipients-States, political subdivisions, territories, and Indian tribes become BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients
when they enter into BCRLF cooperative agreements with the U.S. EPA. EPA selects BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients
based on a proposal and application process. BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients must use EPA funds provided
through BCRLF cooperative agreement for specified brownfields-related cleanup activities.
Date of Government Version: 07/15/03
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/15/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/15/03
RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
RCRA Administration Action Tracking System. RAATS contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA
pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA. For administration
actions after September 30, 1995, data entry in the RAATS database was discontinued. EPA will retain a copy of
the database for historical records. It was necessary to terminate RAATS because a decrease in agency resources
made it impossible to continue to update the information contained in the database.

Date of Government Version: 04/17/95
Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned
Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/08/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12108/03
TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Toxic Release Inventory System. TRIS identifies facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air, water and
land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III Section 313.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/01
Database Release Frequency: Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/23/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/22/03
TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Toxic Substances Control Act. TSCA identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the
TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. It includes data on the production volume of these substances by plant
site.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/98
Database Release Frequency: Every 4 Years
Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/02103
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12108/03
FTTS INSP: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
TC01086101.1 r Page GR-4
•
•
•
•
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 08/21/03
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/23/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12122/03
SSTS: Section 7 Tracking Systems
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Section 7 of the Federal insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended (92 Stat. 829) requires all
registered pesticide-producing establishments to submit a report to the Environmental Protection Agency by March
1 st each year. Each establishment must report the types and amounts of pesticides, active ingredients and devices
being produced, and those having been produced and sold or distributed in the past year.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/01
Database Release Frequency: Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/20/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/19/04
FTTS: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
Source: EPA/Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Telephone: [phone]
FTTS tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA,
TSCA and EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act). To maintain currency, EDR contacts the
Agency on a quarterly basis.
Date of Government Version: 08/21/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/23/03
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/22/03
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ASTM STANDARD RECORDS
SHWS: Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
State Hazardous Waste Sites. State hazardous waste site records are the states' equivalent to CERCLIS. These sites
may or may not already be listed on the federal CERCLIS list. Priority sites planned for cleanup using state funds
(state equivalent of Superfund) are identified along with sites where cleanup will be paid for by potentially
responsible parties. Available information varies by state.
Date of Government Version: 07/14/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 08/18/03
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 07/22/03
Elapsed ASTM days: 27
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/14/03
SWF/LF: List of Solid Waste Facilities
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites. SWF/LF type records typically contain an inventory of solid waste disposal
. facilities or landfills in a particular state. Depending on the state, these may be active or inactive facilities
or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Subtitle D Section 4004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposal
sites.

• Date of Government Version: 10/27/03 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 10/27/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 11/14/03 Elapsed ASTM days: 18
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/27/03
. LUST: Incidents Management Database
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
i Telephone: [phone]
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports. LUST records contain an inventory of reported leaking underground
. storage tank incidents: Not all states maintain these records, and the information stored varies by state.
Date of Government Version: 08/15/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 09/24/03
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/08/03
Elapsed ASTM days: 16
Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/08/03
TC61086101.1 r . Page GR-5
•
•
i
i
i
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
UST: Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Registered Underground Storage Tanks. UST's are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) and must be registered with the state department responsible for administering the UST program. Available
information varies by state program.
Date of Government Version: 07/18/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 09/19/03
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
OLI: Old Landfill Inventory
Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: 07/02/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 08127/03
Database Release Frequency: Varies
VCP: Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: 10/17/03
Date Made Active at EDR: 11/10/03
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
INDIAN UST: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
Source: EPA Region 4
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: N/A
Date Made Active at EDR: N/A
Database Release Frequency: Varies
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL RECORDS
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/08103
Elapsed ASTM days: 11
Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/08/03
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 07/28/03
Elapsed ASTM days: 30
Date of Last EDR Contact: 07/28/03
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 10/17/03
Elapsed ASTM days: 24.
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/14/03
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: N/A
Elapsed ASTM days: 0
Date of Last EDR Contact: N/A
HSDS: Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
Source: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
Locations of uncontrolled and unregulated hazardous waste sites. The file includes sites on the National Priority
List as well as those on the state priority list.
Date of Government Version: 06/21/95
Database Release Frequency: Biennially
Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/02/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12101/03
AST: AST Database
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Facilities with aboveground storage tanks that have a capacity greater than 21,000 gallons.
Date of Government Version: 06/05103
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
a LUST TRUST: State Trust Fund Database
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/20/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/19/04
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
This database contains information about claims against the State Trust Funds for reimbursements for expenses
incurred while remediating Leaking USTs.

TC01086101.1 r Page GR-6
r
i
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED/ DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 08/08/03
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
IMD: Incident Management Database
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Groundwater and/or soil contamination incidents
Date of Government Version: 10/15/03
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
EDR PROPRIETARY HISTORICAL DATABASES
Date of Last EDR Contact: 08/11/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/10/03
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10127/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/26/04
Former Manufactured Gas (Coal Gas) Sites: The existence and location of Coal Gas sites is provided exclusively to
EDR by Real Property Scan, Inc. ©Copyright 1993 Real Property Scan, Inc. For a technical description of the types
of hazards which may be found at such sites, contact your EDR customer service representative.
Disclaimer Provided by Real Property Scan, Inc.
The information contained in this report has predominantly been obtained from publicly available sources produced by entities
other than Real Property Scan. While reasonable steps have been taken to insure the accuracy of this report, Real Property
Scan does not guarantee the accuracy of this report. Any liability on the part of Real Property Scan is strictly limited to a refund
of the amount paid. No claim is made for the actual existence of toxins at any site. This report does not constitute a legal
opinion.
BROWNFIELDS DATABASES
Brownfields: Brownfields Projects Inventory
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
A brownfield site is an abandoned, idled, or underused property where the threat of environmental contamination
has. hindered its redevelopment. All of the sites in the inventory are working toward a brownfield agreement for
cleanup and liabitliy control.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/02
Database Release Frequency: Varies
VCP: Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: 10/17/03
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
INST CONTROL: No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: 10/17/03
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
81 US BROWNFIELDS: A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Date of Last EDR Contact: 08/18103
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/03/03
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/14/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/24/04
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/14/03
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/12/04
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Included in the listing are brownfields properties addresses by Cooperative Agreement Recipients and brownfields
'
s Targeted Brownfields
properties addressed by Targeted Brownfields Assessments. Targeted Brownfields Assessments-EPA
. Assessments (TBA) program is designed to help states, tribes, and municipalities--especially those without EPA
Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots--minimize the uncertainties of contamination often associated with
i brownfields. Under the TBA program, EPA provides funding and/or technical assistance for environmental assessments
at brownfields sites throughout the country. Targeted Brownfields Assessments supplement and work with other efforts
. under EPA's Brownfields Initiative to promote cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields. Cooperative Agreement
Recipients-States, political subdivisions, territories, and Indian tribes become BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients
. when they enter into BCRLF cooperative agreements with the U.S. EPA. EPA selects BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients
based on a proposal and application process. BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients must use EPA funds provided
through BCRLF cooperative agreement for specified brownfields-related cleanup activities.
. TC01086101.1 r Page GR-7
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: WA Date of-Last EDR Contact: N/A
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
OTHER DATABASES
Depending on the geographic area covered by this report, the data provided in these specialty databases may or may not be
complete. For example, the existence of wetlands information data in a specific report does not mean that all wetlands in the
area covered by the report are included. Moreover, the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily
mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report.
Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 1999 from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100-year and 500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA.
NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR
in 2002 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION
© 2003 Geographic Data Technology, Inc., Rel. 07/2002. This product contains proprietary and confidential property of Geographic
Data Technology, Inc. Unauthorized use, including copying for other than testing and standard backup procedures, of this product is
expressly prohibited.
TC01086101.1 r Page GR-8
Appendix C
Existing Condition Data
•
•
s
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
? °? ? ? o cq °? ? o ? ? c0

F- M ? ? C4 Qrq ,Lq ? O q r?
? X ? W Cn 0 0 M O d• O ?
6
° o In ? 0 tn r
: 4 o fl 4 ? M
D ( C ( r N C
F- In ) CO t1) ? O OO ? CA M
ZD X ? LLI tA O ? N O ? N M
F- ?T p ~ 00 N C, ? ?
? X n p c
- ~
M O fl r-? C4 N M 00 p M 0

D X
L L
0
4 O r• r- Ch
~
X O
0 N
(6 w
? n
c
5
, ?t
cli Lq ti

04
0 1
Imo- r f? N CA C? Cfl d: ?-
Z) X 0 4 6 6 N 6 - d•
F 4: co Im ID
(o CD cO - M
0) CR
N
r-
? M
X O
a O
o CO OR d 7 co
? N ?-
c 0 0 N N N
>Z (y
X ? It O tn
0 M
O M p
r' Cn N
N
? C7 00 ? C C ? r
r- (O OO g f? N 0 N d:
2 X () ?t CJ LO M •- M

L
O C6
L
O N
O
$ $
+' O

Q O

+

O
a)
0 ~ $ O
L-J co CF
U cL Q' cc
O N a
(a
L

co

X

p

N
03
2
LL
E
-
c 7 Li O 7 O )
L CO C gy
Ct7
U N
I i y C
m
m '
p-
§ C
m C
co 'p +L..
W C
m
M -O 0
W 7
M g N
tO 00 0 0 0
N q
O ?
(y In O O O M O
W M O f- N O N N

?
X Cn
w CA
N d
o
N N
C I?
D N O
?
{- LO N CO O M 0 ? Cfl CD
M ? ? d O f-? N O ? N
r
X Lo
W f,
4 d:
CS m
r N
O ti
M ti
N M
? ? I
{- LO
U -
r -*
O M
p O
O p
M tn
N O
?
? ? CO
CY)

X

-

ti
tn
O
M
N
d
0
0
N
r
00
M
?
? m
04
to
r'
00
O
N
N
•-
Cl)
W Oo a ! (0 A N N
? X ? g tc)
O 00 "4: q
r" M tn
M
?. W d M N CN
N M N -
L6 OO
OR
<0

CD d:
coo Cn
N 00
O
? IA
r- N
N
m I

P ry O ? Cfl Cn 0 0 ? N f?
d 00 0 0 0 N •-
N
? ?
X
m
Cp tC?
O Iq
04 00
M 0
-
? CO
- M
N
. c

L
O CC1
N

1L

O $ N

00

.
O

O
a) CL cl ? cc

O- ca
O
? C?
?
cd
O
?
? () ( Q 2 LL E -

?
3 y- C O
2
U
O N
U 3
?••, N
U v
Y
m w
Y
O a..
- Y
cc Y
? L
,?.. N
` Y
O
W O
U i i X m m m m W m
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle G4c 3.7 4.6 0.8 1.2 5.8 3.4 1.2 586.92 589.95
MI Cross-Section #1
594
592

0 590-
.
> 588 - -
m
w 586
584

100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Station (ft)
o...Bankfull ---o-- Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle G4c 6.3 6.4 1.0 1.3 6.5 2.8 1.5 585.14 587.48
MI Cross-Section #2
594
592
9 590
588
°-' 586
Li -.
584
582

100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190
Station (ft) o-- Bankfull ---o-- Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool --- 9.4 6.0 1.6 2.1 3.8 2.1 2.2 582.04 584.28
M1 Cross-Section #3
592

590
588
o 586
w
584 • .
m
w 582
580
578

100 1 20 140 160 180 200 220 240 26 280
Station (ft) o-- Bankfull --- o -- Floodprone
•
•
i
i
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
?r
•
•
•
•
•
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle. G4c 8.4 7.6 1.1 1.4 6.9 2.8 1.4 568.39 570.84
M1 Cross-Section #4

580
576
0
a 572

w 568
564

100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Station (ft) o- .. Bankfull - - -o- - Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev FOB Elev
Riffle G4c 6.0 6.9 0.9 1.4 7.9 3.0 1.9 565.7 568.45
M1 Cross-Section #5
572
-
5 70
c
o
.. 568
R
_m
w 566

564
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190
Station (ft) - . -o- - Bankfull - - -o- - • Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle G4 2.9 4.1 0.7 0.9 5.7 4.1 1.4 626.48 629.19
UT1 Cross-Section #1
644-
640-

636-
0
d 632
w
628
624

100 130 160 190 . 220 250 280 310
Station (ft) o• • • Bankfull - - -o- - Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF _
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 11.1 6.2 1.8 2.4 3.5 2.7 1.5 623.34 627.36
UT1 Cross-Section #2
640

636

c 632-

.
.2
4
d 628-
w
624
620

100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Station (ft) o• - • Bankfull ...o.. • Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle F4b 8.3 14.7 0.6 0.8 26.2 3.0 1.3 618.04 619.61
UT1 Cross-Section #3
628

626
9 624
622
m
w 620

618 --------
616

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Station (ft) o- • Bankfull - - -o- - Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 17.5 10.0 1.7 2.4 5.8 1.6 5.0 614.68 616.11
UT1 Cross-Section #4
628
-
624-

620-
.2
616
W
612
608

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Station (ft) ' ' -o- - • Bankfull - - -o- - Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E4b 2.6 5.6 0.5 0.8 11.7 3.8 2.8 606-12 608.42
UT1 Cross-Section #5
615
-
6121
e
609
m

606
603

100 120 140 160 180 200
Station (ft) o- - Bankfull - - -o- - Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool -- 6.6 6.4 1.0 1.5 6.1 3.0 2.0 605.22 60823
UT1 Cross-Section #6
615

612
x
c

609
E
t
m ----------
606
603

100 120 140 160 180 200
Station (ft) G-- Bankfull o• - Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C4b 5.9 10.6 0.6 '1.1 19.0 1.1 5.5 601.39 601.47
UT1 Cross-Section #7
610

608
9 606
c
m 604

w 602 ---------------------------
600
598

100 120 140 160 180 200 2200 240 260 280
Station (ft) I - - -o- - Bankfull - - -o- - • Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E4b 3.5 5.8 0.6 0.9 9.5 1.3 6.9 599.32 599.58
UT1 Cross-Section #8
605

604
603
c 602
co
601
m
w 600 --------------------------
599
598

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Station (ft) - - -o- - Bankfull - - -o - - • Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E4b 4.1 7.0 0.6 1.0 11.9 4.6 2.1 593.00 596.48
UT1 Cross-Section #9
604

602
600
c 598
> 596

m 594
592
590

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Station (ft) F- - -0- - • Bankfull - - -o - - • Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle 65-1 3.6 6.7 0.5 1.0 12.5 2.3 1.6 615.53 616.9
UT2 Cross-Section #1
632
-
628-
"
c
624-
2
1 620
W
616
612

100 1 20 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
Station (ft) o- - Bankfull - - -o- - Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 3.9 6.1 0.6 1.0 9.5 1.7 2.2 613.19 613.91
UT2 Cross-Section #2
632
-
628-
624-
.2
620
p
d
M 616-
612-
608
-
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Station (ft) -o- - Bankfull - - -o- - • Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle 135-1 2.5 6.8 0.4 0.8 18.4 2.2 1.7 607.97 608.93
UT2 Cross-Section #3

630
625

c 620-
.2
m 615
W
610
605

100 150 200 250 300 350
Station (ft) G-- Bankfull - - -o- - • Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature T e BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E5-1 2.4 4.9 0.5 1.0 9.8 3.7 2.3 597.79 600.35
UT2 Cross-Section #4
6
06-
604-

602-
0
•4
m 600
W
598
596

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
Station (ft)
- -o- - • Bankfull
F--o--
- - -o- - Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E5-1 6.2 8.1 0.8 1.2 10.6 2.3 2.1 593.27 594.87
UT2 Cross-Section #5
600

598

c 596
o
A
d 594 ----------
W ....
592-
590
590
-
100
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 24 0
Station (ft) X
- - -o- - Bankfull - - -o- - Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle B4c 4.2 7.7 0.5 1.0 14.3 3.8 1.2 593.75 596.40
UT3 Cross Section #1
602

600

598
c
4
m 596
w
594 _
592

100 1 10 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190
Station (ft) o- • • Bankfull - - -0- - Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C5 6.3 15.4 0.4 0.9 37.3 1.0 2.5 583.93 583.92
UT3 Cross-Section #2
600

596

c 592
588
w
584 ........... ..........
580

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Station (ft) F--,-- • Bankfull - - -o- - Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature T e BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E5 1.9 4.7 0.4 0.7 11.6 1.3 7.7 626.96 627.2
UT4 Cross-Section #1
6
32
631
K 630
c
°2 629
?
io
u-
w 628
627
6
6
2
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Station (ft) - - -o- - Bankfull .. •o - - Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle G5 2.8 4.7 0.6 0.9 7.8 2.0 1.6 610.09 611
UT4 Cross-Section #2
616
-
614-
c
0
«612

W
610
608

100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Station (ft) -o- - Bankfull .. •o- - • Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E5 1.2 2.9 0.4 0.7 7.1 1.0 14.2 610.95 610.95
UT5 Cross-section #1
1
6
8-
616-

614-
.
> 612

w
610
608 i
-l
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Station (ft) o- - Bankfull - - -o• - Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E5 2.0 3.9 0.5 0.9 7.4 2.0 2.3 597.00 597.87
UT5 Cross-section #2
604

602

c 600
.2
> 598
w
596
594
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Station (ft) - -o- - Bankfull - - -o- - Floodprone
Stream BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E5 1.8 3.1 0.6 1.0 5.2 1.9 2.9 588.17 589.03
UT5 Cross-section #3
597
-
594-

0
591

m
w 588
8
5
5
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Station (ft) ---o -- Bankfull --- o-- Floodprone ,
Meredell Farm Reach M1 Existing Stream
Values
Parameter MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 0.26
Stream Type (Rosgen) G4c G4c
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 3.7 8.4
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 4.6 7.6
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.8 1.1
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 5.8 7.9
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 6 13
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 1.2 1.9
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 1.2 1.4
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.3 1.5
Meander Length, Lm (ft) 70 170
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf * 11.0 26.6
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft) 16 25
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf * 2.5 3.9
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) 20 30
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf * 3.1 4.7
Sinuosity, K 1.08
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.014
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0130
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft) 2.1
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 2.2
Pool Width, Wpool (ft) 6.0
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 0.9
d16 (mm) n/a
d35 (mm) 0.3
d50 (mm) 16.5
P84 (mm) 60.4
d95 (mm) 128.0
Note 1: This reach has a very low sinuosity and poor bedform diversity. Due
to lack of pools in the reach, no pool cross sections were performed.
Meredell Farm Reach UTl Existing Stream
Values
Parameter MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 0.1
Stream Type (Rosgen) G4, F4b, E4b, Cob
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 2.6 8.3
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 4.1 14.7
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.5 0.7
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 5.7 26.2
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 6 59
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 1.3 6.9
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 0.8 1.1
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.3 1.8
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.1 4.6
Meander Length, Lm (ft) 80 400
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf * 10.0 50.2
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft) 13 45
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf * 1.6 5.6
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) 10 140
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf * 1.2 17.5
Sinuosity, K 1.2
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.031
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0258
Riffle Slope, Sriff (ft/ft) 0.0933 0.0220
Riffle Slope Ratio, Sriff/Schan 3.62 0.85
Pool Slope, Spool (ft/ft) 0.0000 0.0091
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.0000 0.35
Pool Max Depth, Dmax ool (ft) 2.4
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 4.0
Pool Width, Wpool (ft) 6.4 10.0
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 0.8 1.3
Pool-Pool Spacing, Lps (ft) 18.0 171.0
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 2.3 21.4
d16 (mm) n/a
d35 (mm) 0.8
d50 (mm) 11.2
d84 (mm) 38.4
d95 (mm) 63.2
Meredell Farm Reach UT2 Existing Stream
Values
Parameter MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 0.1
Stream Type (Rosgen) B5 E5
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 2.4 6.2
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 4.9 8.1
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.4 0.8
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 9.8 18.4
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 11 17
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 1.6 2.3
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 0.8 1.2
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.5 2.0
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 2.2 3.7
Meander Length, Lm (ft) 60 95
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf * 8.8 13.9
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft) 3 13
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf * 0.4 1.9
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) 15 15
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf * 2.2 2.2
Sinuosity, K 1. 12
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.036
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0321
Riffle Slope, Sriff (ft/ft) 0.0088 0.2250
Riffle Slope Ratio, Sriff/Schan 0.27 7.01
Pool Slope, Spool (ft/ft) 0.0005 0.4000
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.02 12.46
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft) 1.0
Pool Max Depth.Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 1.7
Pool Width, Wpool (ft) 6.1
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 0.9
Pool-Pool Spacing, Lps (ft) 30.0 67.0
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 4.4 9.8
d16 (mm) 0.2
d35 (mm) 0.4
d50 (mm) 0.7
d84 (mm) 9.8
d95 (mm) 20.7
Note 1: This reach has a very low sinuosity and poor bedform diversity. Due
to lack of pools in the reach, no pool cross sections were performed.
Meredell Farm Reach UT3 Existing Stream
Values
Parameter MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 0.23
Stream Type (Rosgen) F4/1 C4/1
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 4.2 6.3
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 7.7 15.4
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.4 0.5
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 14.3 37.3
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 9 39
Entrenchment Ratio, W a/Wbkf (ft/ft) 1.2 2.5
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 0.9 1.0
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.8 2.2
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 3.8
Meander Length, Lm (ft) 25 105
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf * 2.2 9.1
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft) 18 55
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf * 11.6 4.8
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) 15 60
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf * 1.3. 5.2
Sinuosity, K 1.2
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0126
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0 105
d16 (mm) 0.1 0.4
d35 (mm) 0.8 0.7
d50 (mm) 32.0 1.0
d84. (mm) 2628.5 6.8
d95 (mm) 3565.8 15.4
UT3a UT3b
pebble count bulk
Note 1: This reach has a very low sinuosity and poor bedform diversity. Due
to lack of pools in the reach, no pool cross sections were performed.
Meredell Farm Reach UT4 Existing Stream
Values
Parameter MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 0.09
Stream Type (Rosgen) E5 G5
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 1.9 2.8
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 4.7 4.7
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.4 0.6
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 7.8 11.6
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 8 37
Entrenchment Ratio, W a/Wbkf (ft/ft) 1.6 7.7
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 0.7 0.9
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.4 1.7
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.3 2.0
Meander Length, Lm (ft) 80 220
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf * 17.0 46.8
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft) 13 70
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf * 2.7 14.9
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) 10 35
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf * 2.1 7.4
Sinuosity, K 1. 13
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0461
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0408
d16 (mm) 0.3
d35 (mm) 0.6
d50 (nun) 0.9
d84 (nun) 4.2
d95 (nun) 12.0
Note 1: This reach has a very low sinuosity and poor bedform diversity. Due
to lack of pools in the reach, no pool cross sections were performed.
Meredell Farm Reach UT5 Existing Stream
Values
Parameter MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 0.09
Stream Type (Rosgen)
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 1.2 1.8
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 2.9. 3.1
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.4 0.6
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 5.2 7.1
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 6 41
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 2.1 14.2
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 0.7 1.0
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.7 1.8
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.1 2.6
Meander Length, Lm (ft) 50 120
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf * 16.7 40.0
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft) 20 62
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf * 6.8 20.5
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) 15 35
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf * 5.0 11.7
Sinuosity, K 1. 11
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0429
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0387
d16 (mm) 0.3
d35 (mm) 0.6
d50 (mm) 1.0
d84 (mm) 8.5
d95 (mm) 23.7
Note 1: This reach has a very low sinuosity and poor bedform diversity. Due
to lack of pools in the reach, no pool cross sections were performed.
Channel materials - M1
Pavement Pavement Subpavement
D16 = 7.02 33.30 0.82
D35 = 14.14 41.45 3.58
Dye = 20.59 52.72 7.01
D, = 49.08 78.62 32.80
D95 = 69.69 86.28 42.57
User defined %:
99
D99 = 85.51 89.24 56.04
M1 Pavement Sediment Distribution
100
90
80
70
60
50
d
IL
40
30
20
10
0
-a-Cumulative Percent
¦ Class Percent
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
M1 Subpavement Sediment Distribution
100
90
80
70
60
50
a
40
30
20
10
0
--*-Cumulative Percent
¦ Class Percent
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
M1 Sediment Distribution by Layer
100
90
80
70
60
C
i 50
IL
IL
40
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
M4 PFRRI F r n[ IIJT RATA
Cummulative Riffle Pool
Channel materials Channel materials Channel materials
D1fi =
D35 =
D50 =
D84 =
D95 = #N/A
0.25
16.47
60.35
128.00 D16 =
D35 =
D5o =
D84 =
D95 = 4.89
19.32
28.50
75.38
128.00 D16 =
D35 =
D50 =
D84 =
D95 = #N/A
#N/A
0.14
15.22
128.00

Percent: 99 Percent: 99 Percent: 99
D99 = 168.14 D99 = 168.14 D99 = 168.14
M1 Pebble Count Sediment Distribution
100
90
80
70
60
50
a
40
30
20
10
0
-m- Cumulative Percent
¦ Class Percent
0.01
100
90
60
70
60
m
? 50
m
a
40
30
20
10
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size Class (mm)
M1 Pebble Count Distribution by Feature
10000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Channel materials - UT1 XSEC#3
Pavement Pavement Subpavement
D10 = 8.53 39.31 1.06
D, = 18.54 51.45 5.93
D50 = 31.31 59.84 13.36
Dsa = 70.59 79.35 30.44
Des = 98.28 86.53 54.38
User defined %:
99
D99 = 171.03 89.29 61.95
100
90
80
70
60
e
50
m
IL
40
30
20
10
0
UT1 XSEC #3 Pavement Sediment Distribution
--a-- Cumulative Percent
¦ Class Percent
0.01
100
90
80
70
60
50
m
IL
40
30
20
10
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
UT1 XSEC #3 Subpavement Sediment Distribution
-n-Cumulative Percent
¦ Class Percent
0.01 0.1. 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
100
90
80
70
60
50.-
40--
30--
20--
10--
0--
0.01
- - Pavement
- - - Pavement (Bucket)

UT1 XSEC #3 Sediment Distribution by Layer
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Channel materials - UT1 XSEC #7
Pavement Pavement Subpavement
D15 = 8.85 23.62 1.24
D35 = 15.31 32.59 5.75
D50 = 19.98 52.17 12.00
D, = 40.66 77.62 30.58
D95 = 57.48 85.93 39.86
User defined %:
99
D99 = 75.77 89.17 43.92
100
90
80
70
60
m
? 50
m
CL
40
30
20
10
0
UT1 XSEC #7 Pavement Sediment Distribution
-o-Cumulative Percent
¦ Class Percent
0.01
100
90
80
70
60
50
m
a
40
30
20
10
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
UT1 XSEC #7 Subpavement Sediment Distribution
-- Cumulative Percent
¦ Class Percent
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
100
90
80
70
60
50
d
a
40
30
20
10
0
UT1 XSEC #7 Sediment Distribution by Layer
- - Pavement
Pavement (Bucket)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
100

90
.
80
•
70
•
60

•
?
50

n
• 40
• 30
• 20
10
0
IIT9 PFRRI F MIINT
Cummulative Riffle Pool
Channel materials Channel materials Channel materials
D16 =
D35 =
D5o =
D64 =
D95 = #N/A
0.82
11.19
38.37
63.16 D16 =
D35 =
D50 =
D84 =
D95 = 6.46
12.39
18.55
41.15
61.24 D16 =
D35 =
D50 =
D84 =
D95 = #N/A
#N/A
0.07
0.91
144.22

Percent: 99 Percent: 99 Percent: 99
D99 = 253.31 D99 = 2521.38 D99 = 227.91
UT1 Pebble Count Sediment Distribution
-*-Cumulative Percent
¦ Class Percent
0.01
•
•
•
•
•
100
90
• 90
• 70
so
50
• i
40
• 30
• 20
• 10
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size Class (mm)
UT1 Pebble Count Sediment Distribution by Feature
10000
• 0.01
•
•

•

•
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Cummulative UT2
Channel materials
D16 =
D35 =
D50 =
D84 =
D95 = 0.20
0.39
0.66
9.84
20.67

Percent: 99
D99 = 38.18
UT2 Sand Bed/Bedrock Sediment Distribution - Bulk Sample
100
90
60
70
60
50
m
a
40
30
20
10
0
-a- Cumulative Percent
¦ Class Percent
0.01
100
90
80
70
50
50
m
a.
40
30
20
10
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
UT2 Bulk Sediment Distribution
J- - Bulk Summarv I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Cummulative UT3
Channel materials
1315 =
D35 =
D50 =
D84 =
D95 = 0.36
0.67
1.00
6.80
15.38

Percent: 99
D99 = 59.38
100
90
80
70
60
UT3 Bulk Sample Sediment Distribution for Sediment Transport
-$-Cumulative Percent
¦ Class Percent
50
0
a
40
30
20
10
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Cummulative Riffle Pool
Channel materials Channel materials Channel materials
D16 =
D35 =
1350 =
D84 =
D95 = 0.13
0.79
32.00
2628.46
3565.78 D16 =
D35 =
D5o =
D84 =
D95 = 0.18
8.19
43.12
2538.92
3527.36 D1 fi =
D35 =
D50 =
D64 =
D95 = 0.07
0.24
0.77
2795.50
3635.10

Percent: 99 Percent: 99 Percent: 99
D99 = 3983.99 D99 = 3975.37 D99 = 3999.37
100
90
60
70
60
50
d
a
40
30
20
10
0
UT3b Pebble Count Sediment Distribution
-m-Cumulative Percent
¦ Class Percent
0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle Size Class (mm)
100
90
80
70
60
3 50
a.
a
40
30
20
10
0
UT# Sediment Distribution by Feature
100 1000 10000
Reach Summary
- Riffle Summary
- - - Pool Summary

0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Cummulative
Channel materials
D16 =
D35 =
D50 =
D84 =
D, = 0.28
0.58
0.89
4.23
11.97

Percent: 99
UT4 Bulk Sample Sediment Distribution
100
90
80
70
60
-• Cumulative Percent
¦ Class Percent
c
50
m
a
40
30
20
10
0 1 i m, i i 1 m i m, I= I I I I* -- m I= - im m im i i I I I I I! i i I I I III! i i i I I i I 11
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Cummulative
Channel materials
D16 =
D35 =
D50 =
D64 =
D, = 0.26
0.61
1.00
8.49
23.73

Percent: 99
D99 = 37.83
UT5 Bulk Sample Sediment Distribution
100--
go--
80--
70--
60--
50--
m
0.
40
30
20
10
0
0.01
-¦-Cumulative Percent
¦ Class Percent
0:1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Appendix D
Site Photographs
•
•
Meredell Farm Photo Log
• ?..? ., .?' IY':i:1tl .. I VAX
•
•
•
•
•
•
77
•
•
•
• Runoff from dairy enters UT1
•
• 4:,?'?,;y M ?i '",.;,vr- .yn,7irL?."A. jj, ? ?e '.?1M
?' Sr I. r,, ? • 4d
YEA,.. ??
I r, Soh
• M1;'r't 1 M
i+', 161*' Ire.
td t. r{
• hM?'?r, ? '
M1-Location whcrC cattle now cross
•
ti+ :i I ,11{
• TXay, A ? s ? A',.?r
r 6»f :K ' -
e I AI
?
Y
4 lI
M1-Lower end near confluence with Sandy Creek
•
c
vti
14A "All
. i .
M 1-Typical Bank Lrosion

M1

access
4t ?
I .11W
MI' :J
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Meredell Farm Photo Log

f A J
4F',v
Y ?

UT1 -Approximate location to begin restoration
Beginning of UT3
Meredell Farm Photo Lo
Creek
UT5 to be
buffer
and improving
Beginning of UT4
Appendix E
DWQ Stream Forms

. NCDWO Stream Classification Form
ding Terrain?
Different From Surroun
3) Are Natural Levees Present?
.
.
4) Is The Channel Sinuous?
.
Floodplain Present?
6) Is The Channel Braided?
. 7) Are Recent Alluvial Deposits Present?
Project Name: Meredell Farms - UTl River Basin: Cape Fear County: Randolph Evaluator: JR, SR
. DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Sandy Creek Latitude: Signature:
Date: June 28, 2004 USGS QUAD: Longitude: Location/Directions:
. *PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if in the best professional
judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Per Line)
Number
. I. Geomorubologv Moderate Strone
Absent Weak
1) Is There ARiffle-Pool Sequence? 1 2
0
. 2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2
*NOTE: If Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
r 10) Is A 2"d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
10
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
On Toro Man And/Or In Field) Present? Yes=3 No
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 14
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater Flow/Discharge Present? 0 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 1
III. Biology
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way? 0 .5 1 I .
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOL OG Y INDICA TOR POINTS: _3.5
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambed? 1.5 1 .5 0
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 -15 1 1.5
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? .5 1 1.5
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.
Last Known Rain? (*NOTE: IfDitch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #S Below*)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1
Conditions Or In Growing Season,)?
6) Are Hvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes=1.5 No= 0
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 5.0

III. Biology
Absent Weak Moderate
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) = 34
(If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
Strong
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 6
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPI,
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants 2 1 .75 .5 0
In Streambed As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SA VPresent*).
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 4.5

i NCDWO Stream Classification Form
Different From Surrounding Terrain?
.
3) Are Natural Levees Present?
.
4) Is The Channel Sinuous?
Floodplain Present?
6) Is The Channel Braided?
7) Are Recent Alluvial Deposits Present?
.
H. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 1
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? I 0
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS:
1. Geomorphology
.
1) IsThere A Head Cut Present In Channel?
Project Name: Meredell Farms - UT2 River Basin: Cape Fear County: Randolph Evaluator: JR, SR
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Sandy Creek Latitude: Signature:
Date: June 28, 2004 USGS QUAD: Longitude: Location/Directions:
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if in the best professional
judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a ma-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system should not be used*
n
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
. I. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There ARiffle-Pool Sequence? 1 2 3
0
. 2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
10 3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Wav? 0 .5 1 1,5
1b SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. _3.5
a
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
8 Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 2 3
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2
(*NOTE .• If Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
10) Is A 2na Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On ToPo MaP And/Or In Field) Present? Yes=3 Nom
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOG Y INDICA
TOR
POINTS: 12
1) Is There A Groundwater Flow/Discharge 0 _ 2 3
Present?
III. Biology

11 Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? Absent
3 Weak Moderate

1
2 Strong

0
3 2
3 Is Periphyton Present? 0
1 ? 3

4) Are Bivalves Present?
i 2
3
6

Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambed? 1.5 1 .5 0
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? (1 .5 1.5
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? .5 1 1. ?
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
Last Known Rain? (*NOTE: IfDitch Indicated In #9 Above Skin This Step And #S Below*)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 *101
Conditions Or In Growing Season?
6) Are Hvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes=1.5 No=()
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 5.5
(*NOTE. If Total Absence Of All Plants 2 1 .75 0 0
III. Biology
1) Are Fish Present? Absent
0 Weak
.5 Moderate
1 Strong
1.5
2) Are Amphibians Present? 0 5 1.5
Are AquaticTurtles Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
4 Are Crayfish Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 5 1 1.5
6) Are Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fungus Present? 0 5 1 1,5
7) Is Filamentous Algae Present? 0 5 1 1.5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly 1''ACU Mostly UPL
In Streambed As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAV Present*
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 4.0
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) = 32
(If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
NCDWO Stream Classification Form
Project Name: Meredell Farms - UT3 River Basin: Cape Fear County: Randolph Evaluator: JR, SR
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Sandy Creek Latitude: Signature:
Date: June 28, 2004 USGS QUAD: Longitude: Location/Directions:
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if in the best professional
judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream--this rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomornholoey Absent Weak Moderate StronE
1)-Is There A Riffle-Pool Seauence? 0 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Floodplain Present? 0 1 2 3
6) Is The Channel Braided? 1 2 3
Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present?
10) Is A 2' Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo Map And/Or In Field) Present? Yes=3 NoA
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDIC-4 TOR POINTS: 14
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater Flow/Discharge Present? 0 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS: 1
III. Biology
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? Absent
3 Weak
2 Moderate
1 Strong
0
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0
3) Is Periphyton Present? 0 1 2 3
4) Are Bivalves Present? 11 1 2 3
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. 5
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomor holo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 .5 1.5
2) Is There _A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 .5 1 1.
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Wav?
0
.5 1
1.5
SECONDAR Y GEOMORPHOLOG Y INDICA TOR POINTS: 4.0
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambed? 1.5 1 .5 0
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 1 1.5
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0
Last Known Rain? (*NOTE: IfDitch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step .5
And #5 Below*) 1 1.5
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry
Conditions Or In Growing Season)? 0 .5 1 1.5
6 Are Hi4ric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes=1:5 No=d
SECONDARY HYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: _5.0
III. Biology
1) Are Fish Present? Absent Weak
.5 Moderate
1 Strong
1.5
2 Are Amphibians Present? 0 .5 1.5
3) Are AauaticTurtles Present? .5 1 1.5
4 Are Cravfish PresenO 0 .5 t 1.5
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 .5 1.5.
6 Are Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fun s Present? .5 1 1.5
7) Is Filamentous Algae Present? .5 1 1.5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed?
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants SAV Mostly OBL
2 1 Mostly FACW
.75 Mostly FAC
5 Mostly FACU Mostly UPI,
0 0
In Streambed As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAV Present*
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 3.5
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) = 32.5
(If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least intermittent)

NCDWO Stream Classification Form
Project Name: Meredell Farms - UT4 River Basin: Cape Fear County: Randolph Evaluator: JR, SR
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Sandy Creek Latitude: Signature:
Date: June 28, 2004 USGS QUAD: Longitude: Location/Directions:
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if in the best professional
judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
s_ There A Riffle-Pool Seauence? 0 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2
*NOTE. If Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0
10) Is A 2nd Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tono May And1Or In Field) Present? Yes--3 Nom
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 12.0
H. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater Flow/Discharge Present? 1 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. 0
III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
PRIMAR Y BIOLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS: 4.0
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
I. Geomor holo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 .5 1.5
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 1 1.5
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Wav? 0 .5 1
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 3.0
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambed? 1.5 .5 0
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 1 1.5
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? .5 1 1.5
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
Last Known Rain? (*NOTE: If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #5 Below*)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.
Conditions Or In Growin Season)
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes=1.5 No=
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 4.5
III. Biology
Absent Weak Moderate
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) = 26.5
(If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
Strong
7) Is Filamentous Algae Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPI,
(*NOTE. If Total Absence Of All Plants 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
In Streambed As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAVPresent*).
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 3.0

NCDWO Stream Classification Form
Project Name: Meredell Farms - UT5 River Basin: Cape Fear County: Randolph Evaluator: JR, SR
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Sandy Creek Latitude: Signature:
Date: June 28, 2004 USGS QUAD: Longitude: Location/Directions:
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if in the best professional
judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
I. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Seauence? 0 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
• 9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2
*NOTE: If Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
2nd
10
h
) Is A
Order Or Greater C
annel (As Indicated
On Topo Map And1Or In Field) Present? Yes--3 No
. PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: _13
•
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
. 1) Is There A Groundwater Flow/Discharge Present? 0 2 3
. PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS.
III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0
. 3) Is Periphyton Present? 0 1 2 3
. 4) Are Bivalves Present? 0 1 2 3
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATORPOINTS. 4

Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
I. Geomorphology Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 .5 1 1.5
• 2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 .5 1 1.5
. 3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way? 0 .5 1 ,.
. SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
. H. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
. 1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambed? 1 .5 0
. 2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 .1 1 1.5
3,) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
. 4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
Last Known Rain? (*NOTE: If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #5 Below*)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
. 6) Are Hyddc Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes=1.5 No=d
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS. 5.0

III. Biology Absent Weak . Moderate Strong
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) = 28.5
(If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
In Streambed As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SA VPresent*).
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 2.0

NCDWO Stream Classification Form
Project Name: Meredell Farms - M 1 River Basin: Cape Fear County: Randolph Evaluator: JR, SR
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Sandy Creek Latitude: Signature:
Date: June 28, 2004 USGS QUAD: Longitude: Location/Directions:
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if in the best professional
judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
I. Geomorpholoffy Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Seauence? 0 1 _ 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2
CNOTE. If Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
10) Is A 2nd Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On TODD Mav And/Or In Field) Present? Ye No--O
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS: 16
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater Flow/Discharge Present? 0 2 3
PRIMARYHYDROLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS. 1
III. Biology
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? Absent Weak
3 2 Moderate
1 Strong
0
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0
3 Is PgdRhvton Present? 0 2 3
4) Are Bivalves Present? 1 2 3
PRIMAR Y BIOLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS: 7
. Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 .5 1 1.5
• 2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 .5 1 1.5
• 3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage WU2 0 .5 1 J .
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: _3.0
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
. 1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambed? 1.5 1 .5 0
• 2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? u 1 1.5
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? .5 1 1.5
• 4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
Last Known Rain? (*NOTE: IfDitch Indicated In #9 Above Skin This Step And #5 Below*)
!
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 l .
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
6) Are Hvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes=1.5 No
SECONDARY HYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS. 5.0
! III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
. 1) Are Fish Present? 0 .5 1.5
2) Are Amphibians Present? 0 .5 1.5
. 3 Are A uaticTurtles Present? .5 1 1.5
4 Are Crayfish Present? 5 1 1.5
! t
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 5 1 1.5
6 Are Iron Oxidizin Bacteria/Fun s Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
• 7) Is Filamentous Algae Present? 0 .5 1.5
• 8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPI,
(* NOTE. If Total Absence Of All Plants 2 1 .75 .5 0
• In Streambed As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SA V Present*).
• SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 4.0
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) = 36
(If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)

Appendix F
Design Parameters
npsinn Parameters from Datahase
West Branch of
Tibbs Run Tributary To
Sandy Creek Tributary To
Fork Creek
Parameter . MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 1.08 0.97 0.19
Stream Type (Rosgen) E5 E4 E4
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs) 88 70 38
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 20.7 17.4 9.3 9.4
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 4.3 4 4
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 4.57 8.57 5.5 18.9
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 28.1 6.67 9.6 13.4
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.1 1.6 1.3 2.3
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.5
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf 7.6 7.23
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf 4.72 2.5
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf 7.29 8.5
Sinuosity, K 1.2 1.80 1.1
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0043 0.0025 0.0095
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0037 0.0014 0.0088
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 2.03 1.36 2.85
Run Slope Ratio, Srun/Srif
Glide Slope Ratio, Sglide/Schan
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.11 0.29 0.12
Slope Run, Srun (ft/ft)
Run Slope Ratio, Srun/Schan
Slope Glide, Sglide (ft/ft)
Glide Slope Ratio, Sglide/Schan 1.30 2.00
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 1.19 1.45 1.6 2.1
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 1.17 1.1 0.6 0.8
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 6.09 5.25
d16 (mm) 0.136 0.21 0.19
d35 (mm) 0.24 0.44 6.72
d50 (mm) 0.7 2.7 12.9
d84 (nun) 12 15.7 49.8
d95 (mm) 22 38.6 88.6
Notes:
All slopes are water surface slopes.
Meredell Farm Ml Design Stream
Values Rationale Design Reference
Parameter MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 0.26 Final Design Report, Page 2-4
Stream Type (Rosgen C Note 1
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs) Note 2 Final Design Report, Page 4-6
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf ( ft) 8.6 8.6 Note 2 Final Design Report, Page 4-6
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 0.0 0.0 V=Q/A
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 10.2 10.2 Abk * W / D Rosgen Level 4
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.8 0.8 d=A/W
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 12.0 12.0 Note 3 Reference Parameters
Width Flood prone Area, Wfpa (ft) Project Plan Map
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 0.0 0.0 Note 4
Riffle Max Depth bkf, Dmax (ft) 1.0 1.3
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.2 1.5 Note 5 Reference Parameters
Max Depth tob, Dmaxtob (ft) 1.0 1.3
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 1.0 Note 6
Meander Length, Lm (ft) 71 112
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf * 7.0 11.0 Note 7 Reference Parameters
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft) 20 30 Reference Parameters
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf * 2.0 3.0 Note 8
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) 36 81
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf * 3.5 8.0 Note 9 Reference Parameters
Sinuosity, K 1.38 TW length/Valley len Project Plan Map
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0180
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0130 Sval / K Rosgen Level 4
Slope Riffle, Srif (ft/ft) 0.0156 0.0260
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.2 2.0 Note 10 Reference Parameters
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft) 0.0000 0.0007
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.00 0.05 Note 10
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft) 1.7 2.5
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 2.0 3.0 Note 11 Reference Parameters
Pool Width, Wpool (ft) 13.2 17.3
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 1.3 1.7 Note 12 Reference Parameters
Pool-Pool Spacing, Lps (ft) 20.3 50.8
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 2.0 5.0 Note 13 Reference Parameters
d16 (mm) N/A
d35 (mm) 0.3
d50 (mm) 16.5
d84 (mm) 60.4
d95 (mm) 128.0
Notes:
Note 1: A C stream type is appropriate for a wide alluvial valley with a gravel streambed. A C was used rather than
an E to prevent vertical streambanks and provide a more conservative design.
Note 2: The North Carolina Piedmont regional curve along with existing, stable cross sections were used for obtaining
dimension information.
Note 3: A final W/D ratio was selected by reviewing the reference parameters and sediment transport competency information.
Note 4: Required for stream classification.
Note 5: The Reference Reaches did not list a ratio for this parameter. A ratio was selected from other reference reaches
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
and past project experience.
Note 6: A bank height ratio of 1.0 ensures that all flows greater than bankfull will spread onto a floodplain. This
minimizes shear stress in the channel and maximizes floodplain functionality resulting in lower risk of channel instability.
Note 7: The reference ratios were used as the low range. We increased the range to allow for a higher pool to pool spacing.
Note 8: The reference ratios were used for this ratio.
Note 9: The Oak Forest Branch ratio was not used for this parameter because it is too low. Low ratios increase shear stress
in the channel and decrease bedform diversity. The tributary to Cane Creek was used as the upper range. The values shown are common
throughout North Carolina, based on our experience. Generally, a higher value results in better bedform diversity. Max
values are often not obtained due to site constraints. Belt width constraints for this site include hillslopes and pastureland.
Note 10: Profile slope ratios were taken from the Reference Reaches and evaluation of past projects.
Note 11: The Oak Forest Branch reference reach ratio was used as the low range for max pool depth. We increased the range
to allow for better quality habitat.
Note 12: Based on previous project experience, the reference ratios for pool width were too low.
It is more conservative to design a pool wider than the riffle. Over time, the pool
width may narrow, which is a positive evolution.
Note 13: The pool to pool spacing range was taken from the Reference Reach data and past project experience.
Meredell Farms Reach UT1b Design Stream
Values Rationale Design Reference
Parameter MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 0.1 Final Design Report, Page 2-4
Stream Type (Rosgen) C Note 1
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs) Note 2 Final Design Report, Page 4-6
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 4.5 4.5 Note 2 Final Design Report, Page 4-6
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 0.0 0.0 V=Q/A
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 7.3 7.3 Ab * W / D Rosgen Level 4
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.6 0.6 d=A/W
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 12.0 12.0 Note 3 Reference Parameters
Width Floodprone Area, W a (ft) Project Plan Map
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 0.0 0.0 Note 4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 0.7 0.9
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.2 1.5 Note 5 Reference Parameters
Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft) 0.7 0.9
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 1.0 Note 6
Meander Length, Lm (ft) 51 81
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf * 7.0 11.0 Note 7 Reference Parameters
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft) 15 22 Reference Parameters
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf * 2.0 3.0 Note 8
Belt Width, Whit (ft) 26 59
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf * 3.5 8.0 Note 9 Reference Parameters
Sinuosity, K 1.40 TW length/Valley len Project Plan Map
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0159
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0110 Sval / K Rosgen Level 4
Slope Riffle, Srif (ft/ft) 0.0132 0.0220
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.2 2.0 Note 10 Reference Parameters
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft) 0.0000 0.0006
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.00 0.05 Note 10
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft) 1.2 1.8
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 2.0 3.0 Note 11 Reference Parameters
Pool Width, W pool (ft) 9.6 12.5
Pool Width Ratio, WpooMkf 1.3 1.7 Note 12 Reference Parameters
Pool-Pool Spacing, Lps (ft) 14.7 36.7
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 2.0 5.0 Note 13 Reference Parameters
d16 (mm) N/A
d35 (mm) 0.8
d50 (mm) 11.2
d84 (mm) 38.4
d95 (mm) 63.2
Notes:
Note 1: A C stream type is appropriate for a wide alluvial valley with a gravel streambed. A C was used rather than
an E to prevent vertical streambanks and provide a more conservative design.
Note 2: The North Carolina Piedmont regional curve along with existing, stable cross sections were used for obtaining
dimension information.
Note 3: A final W/D ratio was selected by reviewing the reference parameters and sediment transport competency information.
Note 4: Required for stream classification.
Note 5: The Reference Reaches did not list a ratio for this parameter. A ratio was selected from other reference reaches
and past project experience.
i
Note 6: A bank height ratio of 1.0 ensures that all flows greater than bankfull will spread onto a floodplain. This
minimizes shear stress in the channel and maximizes floodplain functionality resulting in lower risk of channel instability.
Note 7: The reference ratios were used as the low range. We increased the range to allow for a higher pool to pool spacing.
Note 8: The reference ratios were used for this ratio.
Note 9: The Oak Forest Branch ratio was not used for this parameter because it is too low. Low ratios increase shear stress
in the channel and decrease bedform diversity. The tributary to Cane Creek was used as the upper range. The values shown are common
throughout North Carolina, based on our experience. Generally, a higher value results in better bedform diversity. Max
values are often not obtained due to site constraints. Belt width constraints for this site include hillslopes and pastureland.
Note 10: Profile slope ratios were taken from the Reference Reaches and evaluation of past projects.
Note 11: The Oak Forest Branch reference reach ratio was used as the low range for max pool depth. We increased the range
to allow for better quality habitat.
Note 12: Based on previous project experience, the reference ratios for pool width were too low.
It is more conservative to design a pool wider than the riffle. Over time, the pool
width may narrow, which is a positive evolution.
Note 13: The pool to pool spacing range was taken from the Reference Reach data and past project experience.
Meredell Farm UT2b Design Stream
Values Rationale Design Reference
Parameter MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 0.1 Final Design Report, Page 2-4
Stream Type (Rosgen) C Note 1
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs) Note 2 Final Design Report, Page 4-6
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 4.5 4.5 Note 2 Final Design Report, Page 4-6
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 0.0 0.0 V=Q/A
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 7.3 7.3 Ab * W / D Rosgen Level 4
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.6 0.6 d=A/W
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 12.0 12.0 Note 3 Reference Parameters
Width Floodprone Area, W a (ft) Project Plan Map
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 0.0 0.0 Note 4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 0.7 0.9
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.2 1.5 Note 5 Reference Parameters
Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft) 0.7 0.9
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 1.0 Note 6
Meander Length, Lm (ft) 51 81
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf * 7.0 11.0 Note 7 Reference Parameters
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft) 15 22 Reference Parameters
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf * 2.0 3.0 Note 8
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) 26 59
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf * 3.5 8.0 Note 9 Reference Parameters
Sinuosity, K 1.2 TW length/Valley len Project Plan Map
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0166
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0134 Sval / K Rosgen Level 4
Slope Riffle, Srif (ft/ft) 0.0161 0.0268
Riffle Slope Ratio, SriFSchan 1.2 2.0 Note 10 Reference Parameters
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft) 0.0000 0.0007
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.00 0.05 Note 10
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft) 1.2 1.8
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 2.0 3.0 Note 11 Reference Parameters
Pool Width, W pool (ft) 9.6 12.5
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 1.3 1.7 Note 12 Reference Parameters
Pool-Pool Spacing, Lps (ft) 14.7 36.7
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 2.0 5.0 Note 13 Reference Parameters
d16 (mm)
d35 (mm)
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)
d95 (mm
Notes:
Note 1: A C stream type is appropriate for a wide alluvial valley with a gravel streambed. A C was used rather than
an E to prevent vertical streambanks and provide a more conservative design.
Note 2: The North Carolina Piedmont regional curve along with existing, stable cross sections were used for obtaining
dimension information.
Note 3: A final W/D ratio was selected by reviewing the reference parameters and sediment transport competency information.
Note 4: Required for stream classification.
Note 5: The Reference Reaches did not list a ratio for this parameter. A ratio was selected from other reference reaches
and past project experience.
Note 6: A bank height ratio of 1.0 ensures that all flows greater than bankfull will spread onto a floodplain. This
minimizes shear stress in the channel and maximizes floodplain functionality resulting in lower risk of channel instability.
Note 7: The reference ratios were used as the low range. We increased the range to allow for a higher pool to pool spacing.
Note 8: The reference ratios were used for this ratio.
Note 9: The Oak Forest Branch ratio was not used for this parameter because it is too low. Low ratios increase shear stress
in the channel and decrease bedform diversity. The tributary to Cane Creek was used as the upper range. The values shown are common
throughout North Carolina, based on our experience. Generally, a higher value results in better bedform diversity. Max
values are often not obtained due to site constraints. Belt width constraints for this site include hillslopes and pastureland.
Note 10: Profile slope ratios were taken from the Reference Reaches and evaluation of past projects.
Note 11: The Oak Forest Branch reference reach ratio was used as the low range for max pool depth. We increased the range
to allow for better quality habitat.
Note 12: Based on previous project experience, the reference ratios for pool width were too low.
It is more conservative to design a pool wider than the riffle. Over time, the pool
width may narrow, which is a positive evolution.
Note 13: The pool to pool spacing range was taken from the Reference Reach data and past project experience.
Meredell Farm Reach UT3b Design Stream
Values Rationale Design Reference
Parameter MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 0.23 Final Design Report, Page 2-4
Stream Type (Rosgen) C5 Note 1
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs) Note 2 Final Design Report, Page 4-6
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 8.0 8.0 Note 2 Final Design Report, Page 4-6
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 0.0 0.0 V=Q/A
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 9.8 9.8 Ab * W / D Rosgen Level 4
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.8 0.8 d=A/W
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 12.0 12.0 Note 3 Reference Parameters
Width Flood rove Area, Wfpa (ft) Project Plan Ma
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 0.0 0.0 Note 4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 1.0 1.2
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.2 1.5 Note 5 Reference Parameters
Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft) 1.0 1.2
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 1.0 Note 6
Meander Length, Lm (ft) 69 108
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf * 7.0 11.0 Note 7 Reference Parameters
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft) 20 29 Reference Parameters
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf * 2.0 3.0 Note 8
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) 34 78
Meander Width Ratio, Wb1tlWbkf * 3.5 8.0 Note 9 Reference Parameters
Sinuosity, K 1.30 1.30 TW length/Valley len Project Plan Map
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0014
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0080 Sval / K Rosgen Level 4
Slope Riffle, Srif (ft/ft) 0.0096 0.0000
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.2 2.0 Note 10 Reference Parameters
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft) 0.0000 0.0000
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.00 0.05 Note 10
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft) 1.6 2.4
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 2.0 3.0 Note 11 Reference Parameters
Pool Width, Wool (ft) 12.7 16.7
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 1.3 1.7 Note 12 Reference Parameters
Pool-Pool Spacing, Lps (ft) 19.6 49.0
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 2.0 5.0 Note 13 Reference Parameters
d16 (mm) 0.1
d35 (mm) 0.8
d50 (mm) 32.0
d84 (mm) >2048
d95 mm >2048
Notes:
Note 1: A C stream type is appropriate for a wide alluvial valley with a gravel streambed. A C was used rather than
an E to prevent vertical streambanks and provide a more conservative design.
Note 2: The North Carolina Piedmont regional curve along with existing, stable cross sections were used for obtaining
dimension information.
Note 3: A final W/D ratio was selected by reviewing the reference parameters and sediment transport competency information.
Note 4: Required for stream classification.
Note 5: The Reference Reaches did not list a ratio for this parameter. A ratio was selected from other reference reaches
and past project experience.
Note 6: A bank height ratio of 1.0 ensures that all flows greater than bankfull will spread onto a floodplain. This
minimizes shear stress in the channel and maximizes floodplain functionality resulting in lower risk of channel instability.
Note 7: The reference ratios were used as the low range. We increased the range to allow for a higher pool to pool spacing.
Note 8: The reference ratios were used for this ratio.
Note 9: The Oak Forest Branch ratio was not used for this parameter because it is too low. Low ratios increase shear stress
in the channel and decrease bedform diversity. The tributary to Cane Creek was used as the upper range. The values shown are common
throughout North Carolina, based on our experience. Generally, a higher value results in better bedform diversity. Max
values are often not obtained due to site constraints. Belt width constraints for this site include hillslopes and pastureland.
Note 10: Profile slope ratios were taken from the Reference Reaches and evaluation of past projects.
Note 11: The Oak Forest Branch reference reach ratio was used as the low range for max pool depth. We increased the range
to allow for better quality habitat.
Note 12: Based on previous project experience, the reference ratios for pool width were too low.
It is more conservative to design a pool wider than the riffle. Over time, the pool
width may narrow, which is a positive evolution.
Note 13: The pool to pool spacing range was taken from the Reference Reach data and past project experience.