20120102 Ver 1_401 Application_20130213

o stem
E ar ement
PROGRAM
February 5, 2013
Ian McMillan, 401 Coordinator
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1650
i0� -0to�)-
Re: Permit Application- Byrds Creek Mitigation Project, Person County (EEP Full Delivery
Project)
Dear Mr. McMillan
Attached for your review are two sets of copies of 401/404 permit application package and
mitigation plans for Byrds Creek mitigation project in Person County. A memo for the permit
application fee is also included in the package. Please feel free to contact me with any questions
regarding this plan (919- 707 - 8319).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely
J
Lin Xu
D �
Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package (2 originals) F F R 0 7 613
Final Mitigation Plan (2 originals)
Permit Application Fee Memo
gran(
CD containing all electronic files W
PYQ C 4ir Std t DENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699 -1652 / 919 -115 -0416 / www.nceep.net

Y
ENaOncement
PROGRAM
September 12, 2011
Andrea Eckardt — Project Contact
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
Subject: Task 1 - Categorical Exclusion
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site (EEP #95020)
Neuse River Basin — CU# 03020201
Person County, North Carolina
Contract No. 003987
Dear Mrs. Eckardt:
Attached please find the original, approved Categorical Exclusion Form (Part 1 only) for the subject full
delivery project. Please include this original Categorical Exclusion (Part 1) in your Mitigation Plan.
I have also approved your invoice, in the amount of $76,764.75 (5% of contract value) for completion of the
Task 1 deliverable.
If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me at any time.
I can be reached at (919) 715 -1359, or via email at perry.sugggncdenngov.
Sincerely,
Perry Sugg
EEP Project Manager
cc: file
Rmt-oriktg... EKAa"... Prohe Our IM&
WDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 / 919 -715 -0476 / www.nceep.net

Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Part
1: General Project Information
Project Name:
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site E e " - `j ;A U
Count Name:
Person County
EEP Number:
Contract Number 003987, RFP 16-003624
Project Sponsor:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Project Contact Name:
Andrea Eckardt
Project Contact Address:
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203
Project Contact E -mail:
aeckardt @wildlandseng.com
EEP Project Mana er:
Perry Sugg
Project Description
The Byrds Creek Mitigation Site is a stream mitigation project located in southern Person County,
NC, immediately south of the Town of Hurdle Mills. The project is located on Byrds Creek and
five of its tributaries. The project will provide stream mitigation units to NCEEP in the
Neuse River Basin (03020201).
The mitigation project involves a combination of stream
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
Piect
Date
an ager
Conditional Approved By:
Date
For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
i
Date
For Division A ministrator
FHWA
�
AUG 2 3 2011
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF 3 October, 2012
Regulatory Division
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Byrds Creek Mitigation Plan; SAW 2012 -00230
Ms. Suzanne Klimek
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Dear Ms. Klimek:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(NCEEP) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team ( NCIRT)
during the 30 -day comment period for the Byrds Creek Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed on 15
September, 2012. These comments are attached for your review.
Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns have been
identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan. However, the minor issues with the Draft as discussed in the
attached comment memo must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan
The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN) Application
for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter and a summation of the
addressed comments. If it is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army
permit, you must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the
appropriate USACE field office at least 30 days in advance of beginning construction of the project.
Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in the permit
authorization for the project, particularly if issues mentioned above are not satisfactorily addressed.
Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Mitigation Plan, but this does not guarantee that
the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues
may arise during construction or monitoring of the project that may require maintenance or
reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions regarding this
letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation Rule, please call me at
919 - 846 -2564.
Sincerely,
Tyler Crumbley
Regulatory Specialist
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
CESAW- RG/McLendon
CESAW- RG- R/Alsmeyer
Jeff Jurek, NCEEP
Perry Sugg, NCEEP

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
CESAW- RG /Crumbley 17 September, 2012
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: NCIRT Comments During 30 -day Mitigation Plan Review
Purpose: The comments and responses listed below were posted to the NCEEP Mitigation Plan
Review Portal during the 30 -day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(8) of the
2008 Mitigation Rule.
NCEEP Project Name: Byrds Creek Restoration Site, Person County, NC
USACE AID #: SAW- 2012 -00230
30 -Day Comment Deadline: 15 September, 2012
1. 9/14/2012 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Eric Alsmeyer:
• 1 did not see any information in the document addressing the mitigation plan's
impacts to Wetland BB, which is bisected by the relocation of South Branch,
Reach 1, Sheet 2.8. Will the restoration effectively drain the wetland area? Will
it cut off hydrology to either of the remaining wetland polygons? How will the
wetland be affected by the buffer plantings?
2. 9/15/2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Aeencv: Jeffrev Garnett:
• 1 question the need for priority one restoration reach SB1. I have not had the
opportunity to visit the site, but dimensions seem to indicate that the stream
channel is in relatively good shape and does not warrant full restoration (ER >
12.4; width to depth ratio > 6.2; bank height ratio = 1.0). The existing stream
channel is an E5 and the proposed channel is an E4; the minimum proposed ER
is 7.0, while the existing minimum ER is 12.4. According to the numbers, it does
not seem that enough lift is occurring (and is needed) for P1 restoration of SB1.
• It seems that no livestock fencing will be placed on the Homeplace and Bradsher
properties since no livestock is currently grazing there. In the event that
livestock are reintroduced to the properties, the provider should guarantee that

fencing will be erected to keep livestock out of the easement.
• Goals of this project are to "create and improve aquatic habitat, reduce
sediment inputs from streambank erosion, and improve water quality..." No
quantifiable performance standards have been presented to directly test for
these parameters. Monitoring channel pattern, profile, and design over the first
five years of the bank only serves as a surrogate that sediment loads are
decreasing, and the assumption is being made that improving the channel will
reduce sediment loads. The provider should develop a quantifiable plan to
directly measure success of the project goal. For example, simple turbidity
measurements could be taken on a regular basis (during base flows and bank
full events) both upstream and downstream of the site. These measurements
should be taken before restoration, during restoration, and for a minimum of
five years post- restoration in order to document achievement of the goal.
Similarly, macroinvertebrate sampling would help to verify an improvement in
aquatic habitat.
3. 9/17/2012 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Todd Tugwell:
• Several wetlands are located within the proposed stream corridor that may be
impacted during construction, including a wetland that will be crossed by the
proposed stream alignment. (See Sta. 20 +00 on Sheet 2.1 and Sta 29 +00 on
Sheet 2.7) All impacts to wetlands along the project corridor should be avoided
and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Existing wetlands should be
fenced off to prevent unintended impacts. Additionally, all wetland impacts
need to be accounted for in the permit application.
• The stream crossings should be designed to meet the current regional
nationwide permit conditions, which include standards for culvert embedment.
The crossing at Sta. 35 +00 is proposed at 6" of embedment depth, but regional
conditions require 12" for culverts of 48" and greater. Please check culvert
crossings against the regional conditions and revise if necessary.
• The proposed easement crossing located approximately at Sta. 38 +50 is located
at an angle to the stream channel, reducing the amount of stream located in the
easement and setting the stage for potential impacts to the buffer if the road to
the crossing is not aligned /constructed properly. Please consider relocating this
crossing if possible, and make sure to clearly identify the locations of the
easement in this area to prevent unintentional encroachments.

r NP-
_4;J
L11 "KI, ement
stem
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Cindy Perry
FROM: Lin Xu
SUBJECT: Payment of Permit Fee
401 Permit Application
DATE: February 5, 2013
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program is implementing a mitigation project for
Byrds Creek Site in Person County. The activities associated with this restoration
project involve stream restoration related temporary stream impact. To conduct these
activities the EEP must submit a Pre - construction Notification (PCN) Form to the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for review and approval. The DWQ assesses a fee of
$570.00 for this review.
Please transfer $570.00 from Fund # 2981, Account # 535120 to DWQ as
payment for this review. If you have any questions concerning this matter I can be
reached at 919- 707 -8319. Thanks for your assistance.
cc: Ian McMillan, 401 Coordinator, DWQ
kfftDf�f.G ... E .. PYateetr,�r� otty State, N� ENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 1 919 -115 -0476 1 www.nceep.net

r Iltm-
-41;J
El0 S em
age ment
PROGRAM
February 5, 2013
Ian McMillan, 401 Coordinator
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1650
Re: Permit Application- Byrds Creek Mitigation Project, Person County (EEP Full Delivery
Proj ect)
Dear Mr. McMillan
Attached for your review are two sets of copies of 401/404 permit application package and
mitigation plans for Byrds Creek mitigation project in Person County. A memo for the permit
application fee is also included in the package. Please feel free to contact me with any questions
regarding this plan (919- 707 - 8319).
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Sincerely
Lin Xu
Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package (2 originals)
Final Mitigation Plan (2 originals)
Permit Application Fee Memo
CD containing all electronic files
TPt D Prom 0" St�� C N"19 NE R
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 / 919 -115 -0476 / www.nceep.net

Cry\NAT��gQG
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: No. 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1 c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
® No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
2b.
County:
Person
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Hurdle Mills, NC
2d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
The Homeplace; Charles E. Hall; Noell W. and Floyd D. Bradsher
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
DB819 /PN 191; DB819 /PN 202; DB819 /PN 176
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
NCDENR - North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Contact: Jeff Jurek
3d.
Street address:
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000A
3e.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27603
3f.
Telephone no.:
919 - 707 -8976
3g.
Fax no.:
919 - 715 -0710
3h.
Email address:
Jeff.Jurek @ncdenr.gov
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
Jeff Jurek
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
4d.
Street address:
217 W. Jones St
4e.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27603
4f.
Telephone no.:
919 - 715 -8291
4g.
Fax no.:
919 - 715 -2001
4h.
Email address:
Jeff.Jurek @ncdenr.gov
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
John Hutton
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
5c.
Street address:
5605 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 122
5d.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27607
5e.
Telephone no.:
919 - 851 -9986
5f.
Fax no.:
919 - 851 -9987
5g.
Email address:
jhutton @wildlandseng.com
Page 2 of 10

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
PIN# 9981- 00 -41- 3891.000, 9981- 00 -80- 6086.000, 9980-
00-68- 5749.000
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 36° 14.744'N Longitude: 79° 2.636'W
1c. Property size:
Final protected easement acreage will be 25.9 Acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to
Byrds Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
Class WS -III; NSW
2c. River basin:
Neuse 03020201
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application: The project area is located within a rural watershed of Person County, NC. Byrds Creek and its unnamed
tributaries exhibit severe bank erosion, incision, and over - widening. The properties are active cattle pastures and
consistently exhibit impacts from cattle access and heavy vegetation management.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
The project site includes a total of 0.22 acre of jurisdictional wetlands.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Approximately 6,501 linear feet of perennial channel and approximately 976 linear feet of intermittent channel within the
project area.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The primary goal for the project is to reclaim the natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain and stream channel
within Byrds Creek and its unnamed tributaries through enhancement and restoration activities. As well as improve
terrestrial riparian habitat through native vegetation plantings.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Grading and planting bank slopes with native riparian species, excavation of new channel and floodplain, excavation of
riffle and pool bedform features and installation of in- stream structures. A trackhoe will be used for in- stream work.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
F] Preliminary Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency /Consultant Company:
Name (if known): Matt L. Jenkins, PWS — Wildlands Eng.
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
A Request for Jurisdictional Determination was submitted to Eric Alsmeyer of the USACE on January 24, 2012. As of the
date of this submittal, a copy of the final verification has not yet been received (Action Id. SAW- 2012 - 00230)
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond- Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
AA ❑ P ®T
Grading;
Enhancement with
Bottomland
® Yes
® Corps
0.06
Plantings
Hardwood
❑ No
®DWQ
BB ❑ P ®T
Grading;
Enhancement with
Bottomland
® Yes
® Corps
0.13
Plantings
Hardwood
❑ No
®DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
0.19
2h. Comments: Portions of Wetlands AA and BB will be temporarily graded from adjacent channel construction and will be
planted and enhanced with native vegetation.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ❑ P ®T
Restoration
Byrds Creek
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
19 -36
1,368
S1 ❑ P ® T
Enhancement I
Byrds Creek
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
19 -36
1,630
S1 ❑ P ® T
Enhancement II
Byrds Creek
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
19 -36
1,424
S2 ❑ P ® T
Restoration
SB1
❑ PER
® INT
® Corps
® DWQ
7-8
976
S3 ❑ P ® T
Restoration
SE1
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
8
916
S4 ❑ P ® T
Restoration
SE2
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
7
50
S4 ❑ P ®T
Enhancement I
SE2
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
7
524
S5 ❑ P ®T
Enhancement II
WB1
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
9 -11
589
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
7,477
3i. Comments: Impacts to on -site streams typically include temporary enhancement and restoration activities and will result in
a net gain of 44 linear feet of perennial stream channel for a total of 7,521 linear feet.
Page 4 of 10

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivi ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
4b.
4c.
4d.
4e.
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number —
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ❑ PEI T
02 ❑P ❑T
03 ❑P ❑T
04 ❑P ❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.
5b.
5c.
5d.
5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
❑ Neuse ❑Tar- Pamlico F] Other:
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b.
6c.
6d.
6e.
6f.
6g.
Buffer impact
number —
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary T
impact
required.
B1 ❑P ❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑ PEI T
❑Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D.
Impact Justification and Mitigation
1.
Avoidance and Minimization
1 a.
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The project constitutes a positive impact, enhancing and restoring stream function and habitat by improving bed features
in the streams and establishing flood storage. Wetland habitat will also be enhanced and created through improved
hydrologic function and vegetation. Biodegradable coir fiber matting and native vegetation will be used to stabilize the
newly graded banks throughout the project.
1 b.
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Construction practices will follow guidelines from the NC Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual.
2.
Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a.
Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ® No
2b.
If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3.
Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a.
Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type 77rQuantity
3c.
Comments:
4.
Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a.
Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b.
Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c.
If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d.
Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e.
Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f.
Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g.
Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h.
Comments:
5.
Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a.
If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments:
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0%
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: This
project involves the restoration and
enhancement of on -site jurisdictional stream channels, no increase in impervious cover will result from the construction of
this project.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative
description of the plan:
❑ Certified Local Government
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
❑ Phase II
3b.
Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a.
Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply):
❑ Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8of10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
® Yes
❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
® Yes
❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
® Yes
❑ No
letter.)
Comments: The approved Categorical Exclusion is attached in Appendix 5.
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes
® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes
® No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes
® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
This is a stream restoration and enhancement project and will not cause an increase in development nor will it negatively
impact downstream water quality.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
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.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

5.
Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a.
Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ® No
habitat?
5b.
Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
® Yes ❑ No
impacts?
® Raleigh
5c.
If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
❑ Asheville
5d.
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Utilized the NC Natural Heritage Program's element occurrence GIS data layer as well as contact the USFWS Raleigh
office for any additional information on the presence of endangered or protected species or critical habitat (Appendix 5).
Wildlands Engineering also performed a pedestrian survey of the site on February 4, 2011.
6.
Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a.
Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ® No
6b.
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
Contacted NC Wildlife Resource Commission (see enclosed letter in Appendix 5).
7.
Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a.
Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
M Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b.
What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
The NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted regarding the presence historic properties or cultural
resources within the project area. SHPO conducted a review of the area and "have determined that the project as
proposed will not have an effect on any historic structure" (see enclosed letter, Appendix 5).
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes ® No
8b.
If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
No detailed flood studies will be required as a part of this project, however, hydrologic methods and hydraulic modeling
will be performed to verify the design approach and analyze the potential for hydrologic trespass
8c.
What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FIRM Panels 9980 and 9981
Jeff Jurek
DENR, NCEEP
Date
A li nt/ g Frt`s Signature
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
(Agent's signature is ali only i n authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 10 of 10

HAWKINS LOOP RD
TOM MONK RD
Npt.EU`w psN�
aJ�
CHARLIE MONK RD
SITE
157
�i v �MgERTH
Ro
W
7
V JACK CRAMS RD
Vicinity Map
Not to Scale
9
BEFORE YOU DIGI
CALL 1 -800-632 -4949
N.C. ONE -CALL CENTER
ITS THE LAWI
Directions to Project Site
The Site is located in southwestem Person County,
southwest of Roxboro. From Roxboro take Route 157
south 9.8 miles. Turn right on Charlie Monk Road.
Travel 1.0 miles and turn left on Wolfe Road. Travel
0.4 miles to the end of Wolfe Road. The project site is
located south and east of the end of Wolfe Road and
is bound by Route 157 to the west and Walnut Grove
Church Road to the east.
for
North Carolina ]Ecosystem
]Enhancement Program
7mement E ar�e
PROGRAM
Draft ]Plan Submittal
February 01, 2013
Sheet Index
Title Sheet 0.1
]Project Overview 0.2
General Notes and Symbols 0.3
Typical Sections 1.1 -1.4
Plan and Profile Sheets 2.1 -2.13
Planting Sheets 3.1 -3.4
Details 4.1 -4.6
Erosion and Sediment Control (Not Included)
]Project Directory
Engineering:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
License No. F -0831
5605 Chapel Hill Road
Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27607
Jeff Keaton, PE
919- 851 -9986
EEP Contract #: 95020
Owner:
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Perry Sugg
919.715.1359
ji
1,40
0
b
s�
AZl §919
u��z
Q.0 w ���0
C,
ii
d�
bN U
lJ1 rA
U
d
e
1

GENERALNOTES
1. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES SHALL COMPLY WITH
THE NORTH CAROLINA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND
DESIGN MANUAL WHERE APPLICABLE.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL DISTURB ONLY AS MUCH CHANNEL BANK AS CAN BE
STABILIZED WITH TEMPORARY SEEDING, MULCH, AND EROSION CONTROL
MATTING BY THE END OF EACH WORKDAY.
3. CONTRACTOR WILL INSTALL PUMP - AROUND SYSTEMS TO DIVERT FLOW
WHILE WORKING IN LIVE, FLOWING CHANNELS. PUMP AROUND SYSTEMS
SHALL BE INSTALLED SUCH THAT ALL WORK IN THE PROTECTED WORK
AREA CAN BE COMPLETED BY THE END OF THE WORK DAY. CONTRACTOR
SHALL NOT REMOVE PUMP - AROUND SYSTEMS AND ADVANCE TO THE NEXT
PHASE UNTIL THE CURRENT PHASE IS COMPLETED AND STABILIZED.
4. LOCATIONS FOR STAGING AND STOCKPILE AREAS AND STREAM
CROSSINGS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. ADDITIONAL OR ALTERNATIVE
STAGING AND /OR STOCKPILE AREAS AND STREAM CROSSINGS MAY BE
UTILIZED BY THE CONTRACTOR PROVIDED THAT ALL PRACTICES COMPLY
WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING
AND DESIGN MANUAL AND ARE APPROVED BY ENGINEER PRIOR TO
IMPLEMENTATION.
5. VARIOUS TYPES OF CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES ARE SPECIFIED IN THIS PLAN
SET PER PROFILES, PLANS, AND DETAILS. CONTRACTOR WILL BUILD THE
SPECIFIC TYPES OF CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES AT LOCATIONS SHOWN ON
THE PLANS. CHANGES IN CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE TYPE MUST BE
APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
6. CONTRACTOR WILL PRESERVE TREES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. NO WORK SHALL OCCUR
WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF TREES IDENTIFIED TO BE PRESERVED.
CONTRACTOR IS TO MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO AVOID DAMAGING OR
REMOVING EXISTING TREES.
SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION:
1. CONTACT NORTH CAROLINA "ONE CALL" CENTER (1.800.632.4949) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION.
2. MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS TO THE SITE.
3. IDENTIFY AND ESTABLISH CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE, STAGING AND STOCKPILE AREAS, HAUL ROADS, SILT FENCING, AND STREAM
CROSSINGS AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS FOR WORK AREAS. NOTE THAT ALL CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC WILL ENTER THE SITE
FROM THE ONE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHOWN ON THE PLANS AT THE END OF WOLFE ROAD. ALL HAUL ROADS SHALL BE
MONITORED FOR SEDIMENT LOSS ON A DAILY BASIS. IN THE EVENT OF SEDIMENT LOSS, SILT FENCE OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE
SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES SHALL BE INSTALLED
4. SETUP TEMPORARY FACILITIES, LOCATE EQUIPMENT WITHIN STAGING AREA, AND STOCKPILE MATERIALS NEEDED FOR THE INITIAL
STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION WITHIN STOCKPILE AREA(S).
5. PERFORM ANY NECESSARY CLEARING AND GRUBBING IN PHASES AS WORK PROGRESSES. BANK VEGETATION AND VEGETATION
IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO LIVE CHANNELS SHALL BE LEFT UNDISTURBED AS LONG AS POSSIBLE.
6. CONSTRUCTION SHOULD GENERALLY PROGRESS FROM UPSTREAM TO DOWNSTREAM TO PREVENT SEDIMENT RUNOFF FROM
UPSTREAM CONSTRUCTION ON COMPLETED DOWNSTREAM REACHES.
7. IN AREAS WHERE A PUMP AROUND IS REQUIRED AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, INSTALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES AT UPSTREAM AND
DOWNSTREAM ENDS OF PUMP AROUND LOCATIONS. THE PUMP AROUND OPERATION SHALL BE PERFORMED BETWEEN THESE
LOCATIONS AS DESCRIBED IN THE PLANS AND DETAILS. THE PUMP AROUND OPERATION SHALL BE INSTALLED IN A MANNER THAT IT
WILL BE ALLOWED TO RUN FOR TWENTY FOUR HOURS A DAY UNLESS CHANNEL WITHIN THE PUMP AROUND LOCATION CAN BE
STABILIZED WITHIN THE WORK DAY.
S. PERFORM EXCAVATION AND GRADING OF CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN. GRADE AREA BETWEEN UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM DIKE
LOCATIONS WHERE PUMP AROUND OPERATIONS ARE NEEDED. THE PUMP AROUND OPERATION SHALL BE INSTALLED IN A MANNER
THAT IT WILL BE ALLOWED TO RUN FOR TWENTY FOUR HOURS A DAY UNLESS CHANNEL WITHIN THE PUMP AROUND LOCATION CAN
BE STABILIZED WITHIN THE WORK DAY.
9. STOCKPILE SOIL IN DESIGNATED STOCKPILE AREAS AS NECESSARY. ENSURE THAT SILT FENCE IS PROPERLY INSTALLED AND
FUNCTIONING ALONG STREAM SIDE OF STOCKPILES AS SHOWN ON EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN (ESC PLAN).
10. CONSTRUCT IN- STREAM STRUCTURES AND INSTALL RIFFLE FEATURES ACCORDING TO PLANS AND DETAILS.
11. SEED, MAT, AND MULCH BANKS AND FLOODPLAIN AREAS ACCORDING TO PLANS AND DETAILS.
12. ONCE DISTURBED AREAS AND EXPOSED SLOPES ARE STABILIZED, REMOVE PUMP AROUND SYSTEM, IF USED, AND PROGRESS TO
THE NEXT PHASE. NOTE: AT CERTAIN LOCATIONS, WATER WILL BE REROUTED TO THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL IN
CONJUNCTION WITH REMOVAL OF PUMP AROUND SYSTEMS.
13. BACKFILL ABANDONED CHANNEL SECTIONS WITH STOCKPILED SOIL. ALL NON - NATIVE, INVASIVE SPECIES SHALL BE TREATED
AND /OR REMOVED FROM THE OLD CHANNEL PRIOR TO BACKFILLING.
14. SEED AND MULCH ANY BACKFILL SECTIONS BEFORE PROCEEDING TO NEXT PHASE.
15. ONCE ALL PHASES OF CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN CONSTRUCTION ARE COMPLETE, PREPARE THE FLOODPLAIN FOR PLANTING
PER THE SPECIFICATIONS.
16. REMOVE TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSINGS, STOCKPILE AREAS, AND EROSION CONTROL DEVICES.
17. APPLY PERMANENT SEED, MULCH AND VEGETATION IN THE FLOODPLAIN.
18. ENSURE THAT THE SITE IS FREE OF TRASH, DEBRIS, AND ANY LEFTOVER CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRIOR TO DEMOBILIZATION.
19. DEMOBILIZE GRADING EQUIPMENT FROM THE SITE.
20. SEED, MULCH AND STABILIZE STAGING AREAS, STOCKPILE AREAS, AND CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES.
AZa §919
'w VU��z
AzA°
a55
z
GPI
e�
1-4 OEL4
1�
to
U
rA
ii
fA
ro
iy
d
°s�
W
O
z
A
Existing Property Boundary
N N Proposed Silt Fence (See Detail 2, Sheet 4.5)
Proposed Brush Toe
Existing 1' Minor Contour
Loo LOO
Proposed Limits of Disturbance
See Detail 3, Sheet 4.3
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Existing 5' Major Contour
CE CE
Proposed Conservation Easement
PA-X
Proposed Pump Around
X x
Existing Fenceline
10 +00
- i -
Proposed Stream Alignment
%ate
1�7Ci1
See Detail 4, Sheet 4.5
Existing Thalweg
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• Proposed Bankfull
RAW RAW
Existing Right of Way
Proposed Major Contour
l�
Proposed Impervious Dike
See Detail 4, Sheet 4.5
Proposed Minor Contour
Existing Ford Crossing
CR -x
Proposed Constructed Riffle
See Details 1 4 Sheet 4.1 and ------
- - - - --
Proposed Construction Access Road
Po
Detail 1, Sheet42
Existing Moveable Concrete Pad
Proposed Log Sill
4
=
See Detail 2, Sheet 42
Proposed Stockpile Area
Proposed Angled Log Step Pool
See Detail 3, Sheet 4.2
Existing Bedrock
Log J -Hook
Proposed Construction Entrance
See Detail 3, Sheet 4.5
D
Existing Cobble / Stone Outcrop
�d
See Detail 4, Sheet 4.2
Log Vane
W W W
Existing Wetlands
See Detail 1, Sheet 4.3
` - - - - - - -- y
Proposed Temporary Stream Crossing
8%
b
See Detail 1, Sheet 4.5
Rock Cross Vane
Existing Treeline
See Detail 2, Sheet 4.3
C�
e�
Existing Tree
AZa §919
'w VU��z
AzA°
a55
z
GPI
e�
1-4 OEL4
1�
to
U
rA
ii
fA
ro
iy
d
°s�
W
O
z
A

25.0
7.5 5.0 5.0 7.5 —
EXISTING GRADE �– _--- -__ - --
_ ...............�.......... . .�......... .–.i................
VARIES
DESIGNED GRADE
2.5 2.8 2.5
/
44
BACKFILL EXISTING
NOTES:
CHANNEL
DESIGNED BANKFULL STAGE DESIGNED THALWEG
ELEVATION PER PROFILE
Byrds Creek ]Reach 3 (BC3) - Typical Section: Riffle
Sta: 33+40 - 34+56, 35 +16 - 48+02
Not To Scale
27.0 VARIES
8.0 4.0 15.0
EXISTING GRADE
- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – --- – _ – – _ _ _ _ _ _ _ �.
............................. _................... .......... v... ................................
. /
BANK SLOPE VARIES PER – – – –
POOL DEPTH (TYP) – – – – – /
DESIGNED GRADE
3.7-4.6
BANK SLOPE VARIES PER
POOL DEPTH (1.7:1 - 2.2:1TVP)
DESIGNED BANKFULL STAGE
DESIGNED THALWEG
ELEVATION PER PROFILE
Byrdls Creek Reach 3 (BC3) - Typical Section: Pool
Sta: 33+40 - 34+56, 35+16 - 48+02
Not To Scale
BACKFILL EXISTING
CHANNEL
v7
AZa §919
u��z
az,;,,
Q � ti�1 v
GPI
e�
t�
id
f�
lJ1
O�
Vd
a
FA
rte'
� O
� v
u
e1
m .�
F
AKA
e
a��A
44
NOTES:
1. BANK SLOPES ON POOL SECTIONS VARY WITH VARIATIONS
IN POOL DEPTH. CONTRACTOR TO GRADE POOL SLOPES TO
ACCOMMODATE POOL DEPTHS SHOWN ON THE PROFILE AND
AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
2. TIE OUT SLOPES FROM TOP OF BANK TO LIMIT OF GRADING
VARY. CONTRACTOR TO GRADE TIE -OUT SLOPES PER THE
GRADING PLAN AND AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
°®
v7
AZa §919
u��z
az,;,,
Q � ti�1 v
GPI
e�
t�
id
f�
lJ1
O�
Vd
a
FA
rte'
� O
� v
u
e1
m .�
F
AKA
e
a��A

BACKFILL EXISTING CI
EXISTING GRADE
— — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
'.D THALWEG
ELEVATION PER PROFILE
South Branch Reach l (SB1) - Typical Section: Piffle
Sta: 20 +76 - 27+09, 27+69 - 31+07
Not To Scale
VARIES
DESIGNED GRADE
BACKFILL EXISTING CHANNEL
DESIGNED BANKFULL STAGE
BANK SLOPE VARIES PER
POOL DEPTH (1.4:1 -1.9:1 TYP)
2.0
10.0
4.4
EXISTING GRADE
BANK SLOPE VARIES PER
POOL DEPTH (TYP)
DESIGNED THALWEG
ELEVATION PER PROFILE
South Branch Reach l (SBl) - Typical Section: ]Pool
Sta: 20+76 - 27+09, 27+69 - 31 +07
Not To Scale
v7
AZa §919
u��z
az,;,,
�
�
0
Q � w �0
GPI
e�
t�
id
lJ1
rA
ro
Vd
a
FA
rte'
v
v
N
e
a��A
44
NOTES:
1. BANK SLOPES ON POOL SECTIONS VARY WITH VARIATIONS
IN POOL DEPTH. CONTRACTOR TO GRADE POOL SLOPES TO
ACCOMMODATE POOL DEPTHS SHOWN ON THE PROFILE AND
AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
2. TIE OUT SLOPES FROM TOP OF BANK TO LIMIT OF GRADING
VARY. CONTRACTOR TO GRADE TIE -OUT SLOPES PER THE
GRADING PLAN AND AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
°®
v7
AZa §919
u��z
az,;,,
�
�
0
Q � w �0
GPI
e�
t�
id
lJ1
rA
ro
Vd
a
FA
rte'
v
v
N
e
a��A

VARIES
--- - - - - -_ DESIGNEDGRADE
BACKFILL EXISTING
BYRD'S CREEK CHANNEL
BACKFILL EXISTING
CHANNEL
2.3
23,y
DESIGNED BANKFULL STAGE
AZa §919
u��z
8.0 VARIES
3.4 2.3
r�
- - -- ----- - - - - --
1.0
EXISTING GRADE l
DESIGNEDTHALWEG GO
ELEVATION PER PROFILE
Southeast Reach 1(SE1) - Typical Section: Riffle
Sta: 30+18 - 37+92
VARIES
DESIGNED GRADE
Not To Scale
BANK SLOPE VARIES PER
POOL DEPTH (TYP)
DESIGNED BANKFULL STAGE
BANK SLOPE VARIES PER
POOL DEPTH (1.1:1 - 2.1:1 TYP)
Southeast Reach 1(SE1) - Typical Section: Pool
Sta: 30 +18 - 37 +92
Not To Scale
EXISTING GRADE
NOTES:
1. BANK SLOPES ON POOL SECTIONS VARY WITH VARIATIONS
IN POOL DEPTH. CONTRACTOR TO GRADE POOL SLOPES TO
ACCOMMODATE POOL DEPTHS SHOWN ON THE PROFILE AND
AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
2. TIE OUT SLOPES FROM TOP OF BANK TO LIMIT OF GRADING
VARY. CONTRACTOR TO GRADE TIE -OUT SLOPES PER THE
GRADING PLAN AND AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
�f
0
e�
e�
t�
id
f�
lJ1
rA
d
u
FA
rte'
v
O
v
IUD
N
e

VARIES
BACKFILL EXISTING
BYRD'S CREEK CHANNEL
VARIES
DESIGNED GRADE
DESIGNED GRADE
9.0
2.5 4.0 2.5
1.0
DESIGNED BANKFULL STAGE
Southeast Reach 2b (SE2b) - Typical Section: Riffle
Sta: 44+48 - 46 +28
Not To Scale
BANK SLOPE VARIES PER 1.6-2.1
POOL DEPTH (1.3:1 - 1.7:1 TYP)
\ DESIGNED THALWEG
- - - -- ELEVATION PER PROFILE
--_ -__ -_
BACKFILL EXISTING ---- - - - - -- DESIGNED BANKFULL STAGE -
BYRD'S CREEK CHANNEL
u7
AZa §919
u��z
VARIES
EXISTING GRADE
._.._._._._. --- __ -__ -- "40 O�
�����1
G�
DESIGNED THALWEG
ELEVATION PER PROFILE
VARIES
EXISTING GRADE -\
9.0
2.7 2.0
4.3
BANK SLOPE VARIES PER 1.6-2.1
POOL DEPTH (1.3:1 - 1.7:1 TYP)
\ DESIGNED THALWEG
- - - -- ELEVATION PER PROFILE
--_ -__ -_
BACKFILL EXISTING ---- - - - - -- DESIGNED BANKFULL STAGE -
BYRD'S CREEK CHANNEL
u7
AZa §919
u��z
VARIES
EXISTING GRADE
._.._._._._. --- __ -__ -- "40 O�
�����1
G�
DESIGNED THALWEG
ELEVATION PER PROFILE
VARIES
EXISTING GRADE -\
Southeast Reach 2b (SE2b) - Typical Section: ]Pool
Sta: 44+48 - 46+28
Not To Scale
BANK SLOPE VARIES PER
POOL DEPTH (TYP)
NOTES:
1. BANK SLOPES ON POOL SECTIONS VARY WITH VARIATIONS
IN POOL DEPTH. CONTRACTOR TO GRADE POOL SLOPES TO
ACCOMMODATE POOL DEPTHS SHOWN ON THE PROFILE AND
AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
2. TIE OUT SLOPES FROM TOP OF BANK TO LIMIT OF GRADING
VARY. CONTRACTOR TO GRADE TIE -OUT SLOPES PER THE
GRADING PLAN AND AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
�f
0
e�
e�
C11
rA
Vd
u
FA
rte'
v
O
v
IUD
N
e
a��A
i
T
Southeast Reach 2b (SE2b) - Typical Section: ]Pool
Sta: 44+48 - 46+28
Not To Scale
BANK SLOPE VARIES PER
POOL DEPTH (TYP)
NOTES:
1. BANK SLOPES ON POOL SECTIONS VARY WITH VARIATIONS
IN POOL DEPTH. CONTRACTOR TO GRADE POOL SLOPES TO
ACCOMMODATE POOL DEPTHS SHOWN ON THE PROFILE AND
AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
2. TIE OUT SLOPES FROM TOP OF BANK TO LIMIT OF GRADING
VARY. CONTRACTOR TO GRADE TIE -OUT SLOPES PER THE
GRADING PLAN AND AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
�f
0
e�
e�
C11
rA
Vd
u
FA
rte'
v
O
v
IUD
N
e
a��A

N ^
A C� r t7 fp �
yj O
AO
m Y� r rypPp
m
N
N
~ N
¢ N J
II
F W Q
II N
580 N
W N r
fJ N H
N J fl 580
N
W II N
�
N
575
575
EXISTING GROUND
\
—
570
—
570
PROPOSED GRADE
565
565
10 +00 10 +50 11 +00 11 +50 12 +00 12 +50 13 +00 13 +50 14 +00 14 +50 15 +00 15 +50 16 +00 16 +50 17 +00 17 +50 18 +00 18 +50 19 +00
19 +50 20 +00 20 +20
0' 4' 8'
12'
(VERTICAL)
0' 40' 80'
120'
(HORIZONTAL)
585
START BVRbS CREAK,``
REACH BCI� `�
\\
__ - %• _' ?1"QO - - -_ �; -- ��'`�-
'� -�__ _ �_____ ,' --?
_-�- ______
STA 10 +73
-�
"sb
`\
V
.'`e.,- -:>';� _ a` \ �; `. ,,44''�� \
•% �// / , i / SE ROCkCR \
ao
..�.. -- - - ---
�Lay.Y,`�� }lilm�``�f```.��
_575 ---------------
_____________
1
`. __ _
____
— 580 —��
�__` —_ "` 11 U `�\�`.� �' `Y '�R� \\•�` \\\ ' :; /' / /
`.
`M'
�___------------
/V' / , 4j ^� A/ „ /// '� �i— i ----
-----------------------------------------
Area
------ - - - - --
-- `_ ___ - -_
�(j1� _________
k9 - -_
_____
`'o
LOG AIDDK'' ,
/ END BY RD$ CREEK REACH BCi \
/ '
` EEETDETAIL 4, SHEET 4.2
- -, __ 1 w`�
`\ --------
START BYRDS CREEK REACH BC2
i' ' ' STA 17 +10
1 \\ 1 i it / / / "F'' ' LOG\"E'
'j
0
_
BRUSH TOE
\LSEE DETAIL 3, SHEET 4.3
SEE [7ETA/L 1,HE�'f 4.3
'1
tF
``
te®�
a
1�
AZa §919 o
u��z
0+
Aq
e�
t�
td
1�
Vd
a
FA
ri'
O
E
U
rb+
A�
9 QQ m m
i4 p

w0 0 0
+ 1° �+
N M a N N +
N N
580
+
o 0 0 0
p o V
560
N ✓n y id N W
co W
f J f J Q
tll W n W co
575
575
EXISTING
GROUND
4%
4
570
/
570
PROPOSED GRADE
565
565
20 +20 20 +50 21 +00 21 +50 22 +00 22 +50 23 +00 23 +50 24 +00 24 +50 25 +00 25 +50 26 +00 26 +50 27 +00 27 +50 28 +00 28 +50 29 +00
29 +50 30 +00
0' 4' 8'
12'
(VERTICAL)
0' 40' 80'
120'
(HORIZONTAL)
CE CE
- i _ _ _
-
\ '�, /' ,'.i; ' — _ 58_0_ —� ; �� '- ' �� _ � � r� '�.sl Fib
` `•�`• ____-
_ i
�
a.�\."
___575_______ - �� 4+� , ' ,- _ ,___
so-
\�
,
—' __— ')` � \` �'
+o _ - -o� %_ - --- - -- ----- - - - -'- X130
----------------------------- __,!�_ _�
ROCK CROSS VANE , -�0
���`�
SEE DETAIL 2, SHEEP 4.3 �� „__ ___ -_,; ____�. 3� '\\`
3a - -- _= -
. `,
rI d 30 _` -= ,: - -- -- -- , -- '------- - - - - --
_
e "' 0000
\ ,.
7 — --
_— _580 "-" _ ----- --- -------------------------- ------
i i i i I l j l s <rC•'� ' �:.!,, %;,.! ,, ��� �_-- ------ ,, ' ,; - ---__`-- _= -------- --- - - - - ---
ov
AZa §919
�u��z
a55
z
0 0+
�
Q
GPI
e�
t�
td
CIO
W
ro
Vd
a
FA
W1111111
O
E
CIS
b

PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSING
RIGHT AND LEFT CULVERTS - 48' CMP
INV UP - 568.1 (STA 34 +71)
INV DIN = 567.9 (STA 35 +03)
CENTER CULVERT -60 "CMP
EMBEDMENT DEPTH= 12"
575
570
565
560
30+00
rA
0
m
I
30 +50 31+00 31 +50 32+00 32 +50 33+00 33 +50 34+00 34 +50 35+00 35 +50 36+00 36 +50 37+00 37 +50 38+00 38 +50
CF
_—_-----------------
; =LOG VANE
SEE DE_TAll SHEET4.3'��-- _'____ - -'/
EK REACH Cl B
START BYRDS CREEK REACH BC3,
STA 33+40
- -- -- _
/ EXISTING BREACHED ` -- '580----------- -- - - ---- -- \
RUBBLE/ EARTHEN DAM -' _
DO NOT DISTURB ` -----------
_____ --
- -' _____
- - - - -- -- ----- - - - - -; ---- - - - - -- -------- --- `cy
_
SBRUSH TOE - -_ __—
_ ___
- _ _ __
DETAIL 3, SHEET 4.3 -� �_ ------- _ _______________- '\
CE
,. rr --- r CE
\ I
`111p ROCK CROSS VANE
33 �r =EE DETAIL 2, SHEET 4.3 �\ `
39+00 39 +50 40 +00
0' 4' 8' 12'
(VERTICAL)
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)
_
------------------------------ - ----` _
` --
: ------------ --575-
r - - -- - \ �- _ --------- 1_ �E '
/ — - 570- - - -- -- ,570'
__ ,
oc
—_ _- _- — - 575 -_ _ -__
' _ - -_ - -- _ ----- - -_
__PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSING
-- LEFT CULVERT -48 "CMP
- - -_ __
--- --- ------ -
-
-
�---
_ _--- -__
_
UP 34 +71)
__ `. _ ______ _ __,_-
\
---------
__- -____, _____,-
' -__�_
_______ _-INV
_____ �- ____ _ _ -_INV DN= 567.9(STA 35 +03)
;'•_ \\ �� ___�_
'
�______ - •�
_
-- �_
- -- --_- __-- __-__-_- __ -_-_ 580- _ - --
-' --- ---- _-- -' \`
____PROPOSED
-- � "' / � -
_
'� --' `'----
��\\ -_____
--i
_
'
NV
DN
,
/-r - --- ---- -- ------
/ii: -------- - - - - --
___CENTER CULVERT -60
EMBEDMENT DEPTH =12"
- -___ ________INV
UP =567.1 (STA 34 +71)
85------ - - -
- -- INV ON = 566.9 (STA 35 +03)
�- --
------
'
- ----- -
- - -— -
_5
-
_
■ ■ ■I
■ ■ ■ ■■ E■ I�1 ■1 ■ ■ ■■ I■ . ■ . F■ I ■ ■■ I�1■ I■ I ■■
■■■■
11■■■■■■■■■■
t1■■■
I■■■■■■■■■■■
11■■■■
■ ■
■ ■
■11
■
■11
■
■I
■ ■
■�
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■11
■
■ ■I■
■■■■
11■■■■■■■■■■
t1■■■
I■■■■■■■■■■■
11■■■■■■■■■
11■■
11■■
I■
II■\`
I■■■■
■11
■
■ ■I
■ ■I ■ ■I ■ ■I
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■11 ■ ■I ■ ■1■ I■ E� owl ■ ■loom ■I ■■ Ik■ I ■■
._,., ,
■ ■ ■ ■ ■11 ■■I ■ ■IG : I ■ ■I■ ■11 ■■I ■ ■ ■■I ■■ IN I■■
■ ■■ ■■ ■11 ■ ■I■ ■111 I ■ ■I ■ ■11 ■ ■I ■■ ■ ■I ■ ■ ■I ■ ■ ■I ■■
■■■■
11■■■■■■■■■■
t1■■■
I■■■■■■■■■■■
11■■■■■■■■■
11■■
11■■
I■
r�■
1�►!■■■
■11
■
■ ■I■
■I■
■I■
■I■
■■■■
11■■■■■■■■■■
t1■■■
I■■■■■■■■■■■
11■■■■■■■■■
lleell■■
I■.
���
■
■■
■11
■■
■I
■ ■I
■ ■I
■ ■I
■■■■
11■
�■■■■■■■■■
1■■■
I■
■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■11
■
■
■ ■
■ ■■
■
■11
■
■11
■
■I■
■
■
■i
■ ■
■
■ ■il
■
■IS!
eels'
L'
I■■ I■
e■■■
I:
IIiT�I■
aIR
■
■
■■I
■
■I■
■11
■■I
■
■ ■■I
■
■■I
■
■■I
■■
■■■■
r�■■■■■■■■
�r'd�v
■
■■
■■
■■
■■
■
■N
■
■■
■■
■■
■
■11
■'
fill
■
■I■
■■■
I■■
■
■ ■11
■d
■I
■ ■I
■ ■I
■ ■I
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■li
■
■I ■■
Ili
■
■
■ ■I
■
■I
■ ■!1
■
■leel■Ala
■ ■I
■
■
■I ■S
i11;
l�lii■■►
�■■
Sa■■
�Ti■
liii■
�iil■
■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■11
■
■z
■
■1ea
■r'�'aa9
■
■f■
■.�':3
■I
■■■■■
u■■■
I■■
I■■
I■■ I■■■■■■
11■■
I■■
I■
■
■
■■I
■
■I■
■11
■■I
■
■ ■■I
■Ir■Ir
■
■I■■
■■
1■■■■■
Gi■■■■■■■■■■■■
■os
■S!!
■ ■�!
\I
■'lr
■ ■
■ ■
\ ■i��i
■ ■
\�
II��:iiJ
■i
\■
iii:■■■
I■■
I■■ �i'■¢
3■■■
11■■
I■■
1■■
!11
■ ■I
■
■I
■ ■11
■
■I ■
■ ■
■I ■
■ ■I
■
■
■I ■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■ ■
■ ■
■la
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ar�ISea
■►ii
■■
Igo=
aes;
��ev■■■.
eaee■■■
e-.
au■■
a.e►e:e_e■I■
■11
■reea
■ ■
■■I
■
■■I
■■
■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■
■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■■
■■■
II■■
�■
�■■■■■■■■■
��11■■■■■■■■\■■■■■
d■■
rii
■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■ii:�
■i`Id
■s
■ ■
■■
\ ■I
■ ■
■I ■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
iik�5l���
■li
■iiiii
■
■ ■
■ ■
■dlfl�,■
■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■\
. -... GRADE
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■�
■F�'■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■■
Ilia' Id�i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■■
560
30+00
rA
0
m
I
30 +50 31+00 31 +50 32+00 32 +50 33+00 33 +50 34+00 34 +50 35+00 35 +50 36+00 36 +50 37+00 37 +50 38+00 38 +50
CF
_—_-----------------
; =LOG VANE
SEE DE_TAll SHEET4.3'��-- _'____ - -'/
EK REACH Cl B
START BYRDS CREEK REACH BC3,
STA 33+40
- -- -- _
/ EXISTING BREACHED ` -- '580----------- -- - - ---- -- \
RUBBLE/ EARTHEN DAM -' _
DO NOT DISTURB ` -----------
_____ --
- -' _____
- - - - -- -- ----- - - - - -; ---- - - - - -- -------- --- `cy
_
SBRUSH TOE - -_ __—
_ ___
- _ _ __
DETAIL 3, SHEET 4.3 -� �_ ------- _ _______________- '\
CE
,. rr --- r CE
\ I
`111p ROCK CROSS VANE
33 �r =EE DETAIL 2, SHEET 4.3 �\ `
39+00 39 +50 40 +00
0' 4' 8' 12'
(VERTICAL)
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)
_
------------------------------ - ----` _
` --
: ------------ --575-
r - - -- - \ �- _ --------- 1_ �E '
/ — - 570- - - -- -- ,570'
__ ,
oc
—_ _- _- — - 575 -_ _ -__
' _ - -_ - -- _ ----- - -_
__PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSING
-- LEFT CULVERT -48 "CMP
- - -_ __
--- --- ------ -
- --
5;10--
�---
_ _--- -__
_
UP 34 +71)
__ `. _ ______ _ __,_-
\
---------
__- -____, _____,-
' -__�_
_______ _-INV
_____ �- ____ _ _ -_INV DN= 567.9(STA 35 +03)
;'•_ \\ �� ___�_
'
�______ - •�
_- -__ _�� - --
-- �_
- -- --_- __-- __-__-_- __ -_-_ 580- _ - --
-' --- ---- _-- -' \`
____PROPOSED
-- � "' / � -
_
'� --' `'----
��\\ -_____
--i
_
'
_ ________ __________________
CULVERT CROSSING
"CMP
/-r - --- ---- -- ------
/ii: -------- - - - - --
___CENTER CULVERT -60
EMBEDMENT DEPTH =12"
- -___ ________INV
UP =567.1 (STA 34 +71)
85------ - - -
- -- INV ON = 566.9 (STA 35 +03)
�- --
------
'
- ----- -
- - -— -
_5
-
_
AZa �
d) AL)�A°
a55
,]z$ Fk 5
e�
I�
t�
td
I�
f�
e�
Vd
FA
c-
�1
O
w
PP�
AI
v
0+
azr�a m
— '570'
-�
AZa �
d) AL)�A°
a55
,]z$ Fk 5
e�
I�
t�
td
I�
f�
e�
Vd
FA
c-
�1
O
w
PP�
AI
v
0+
azr�a m

40 +00 40 +50 41 +00 41 +50 42 +00 42 +50 43 +00 43 +50 44 +00 44 +50 45 +00 45 +50 46 +00 46 +50 47 +00 47 +50 48 +00 48 +50 49 +00 49 +50 50 +00 50 +20
i
I
I
i
i
i
w�
UI
I
I
,I
SOUTHEASTBRANCH REACH
^^S>FE SHEET 2.12_
v7
AZa §919
�
o
u��z
1 ■■
11■■
11■■ ■11
11 ■ ■ ■11
In" - liri - Gi
1 li ©
I■ I ■ ■I
■III ■ ■ ■ ■I
In ■ ■■ III
■ ■ ■■ III
■ ■ ■ ■ ■I
.. . NINON
° ■ II■■■■
■■ - ■■ E' ■ ■■ .
■■ II■■ 1 ■ ■■
■■■ L■■ L ■ ■ ■ ■I■■
li ■■ iii ■ ■ ■I
li ■■ ■11■■■ ■I
IFS■11111111
1®■IH
■ ■ ■ ■ ■I■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■I
I■ 1■
11■
1■
li
■ ■I ■
1■ I�■
Iii ■■ �7■ Gi ■■ 1■ ■ d � ■ ■■ :: IE�■ ■■ ■ ■■ : E� ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ MEN
Ei i ■■ 1-1■ . I�■■ 1■ .190 ..1■ ' IE■■■ Iwo ' E ■■ = tl■■ " Id ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■
Ii 1 ■■ I ■■ ®■■ I■ l�■ I■ I ■■■ IE ■■ . E ■■ . I�■■ I®■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■
i■ IJ ■ ■ ■ ■■ li■ I■ I1 Ii ■■ 111■ . lu ■■ . I ■ ■■ 11l ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■
li■ limo■■■ ■11■ ■■ I ■ ■11 ■ ■ ■ ■I ■■ E ■■ mom I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■
11■ 111■
1■ Ili■
li ■I ■
■I ■ ■I ■
■
■
"
■11■
NINE
11■■
■11
■III■■■
■1
'
:! ■
■ ■11■
III ■
■ ■
■I
■ ■
■
■ ■II
■
■
■■
III■■■
(VERTICAL)
11■■■■
I■■■■■
0' 40' 80'
120'
I■■
I■■
I■■
I■■■
11■■
11■■■
I■■■■■■■
4
11■■
I■■■
I■■
11■■■■
I■■■
11
■
■
■ ■
■ ■
■I ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■
■ ■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■■
,
IIIIA
■ ■11
■J:'fafll
■iBE■i
� 51 +00
■
■
■i11
■
■
■■
III■■■
11■
d■■
I■■■■
SI■■
I■■
I■■
I■■■
11■■
11■■■
I■■■■■■■
-- -- -- - - --
11■■
I■■■
I■■
11■■■■
I■■■
11
■
■
■ ■
■ ■
■I ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■
■ ■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■■
11 ■
■ ■11■
III ■
■ ■
■I
■ ■
■
■ ■I
■
■
■■
Ili■■■
11■
11■■
I■
EES�7■■
lillll■■
IL,!
11OIiii1■■
11■■■
I■■■■■■■
11■■
I■■■
I■■
11■■■■
I■■■
11
■
■
■ ■
■ ■
■I ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■
■ ■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■■
�1���11■
III ■
■ ■
■I
■ ■
■
■ ■I
■
■
■■
III ■
■ ■11
■H
■
■I
■
■ ■
■ ■I
■
■I
■ ■I
■
■I ■
■■
1111■
Ii■■■
I■■■■■■■
11®
E11I■■
iI■■
ICCI=
ICCIIIl
i�a11
■
■
■ ■
■ ■
■I ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■
■ ■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■■
..
����■
■III
■
■ ■
■i!�i
■
■
■
■■
III■■■
11■■■■■■■■■
I■■
I■■
I■■
I■■■
11■■
11■■■
I■■
Ili l■■■■
11■■
Ir■■
I■■
11■■■■
I■■■
11
■
■
■ ■
■ ■
■I ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■
■ ■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■■
_
'
■ ■■
Iii\
11 ■
■■■
■
■ ■liiliii
■i!!
■ ■11
■
■llli■
�■!
I■■
I■■
I■
IN■
�■■■■
11■■■
9■■■■■■■
11■■
I■■■
I■■
11■■■■
I■■■
11
■
■
■ ■
■ ■
■I ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■
■ ■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■rii
■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■
■
\il■
■
■■
Ili_■
% ■
■■
III■■■\'
v■■
p■■■■!•
H■
11■■■
I■■
i::!!
Y■■
I■■■
I■■
Y!•
�H■
■ ■
■11
■
■
■ ■
■ ■
■I ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■� STING GROUND
■ ■
■ ■
■■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■
■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■
■
■1
' '■■■■■■■■■
■ ■
■
■
■ ■
■I\
■��■
loom■■
i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■\
D■\'
Ei■■■
i!/■■■
tiC■■
11■
is
■
::i
■ ■��.'Clril
■ ■
■ ■
■
■ ■IiDi■lI
■ ■
■■1
■
■ ■si!
■
■
■ ■
■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■I
■■
■i
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
��■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■ ■
■
■ ■
■
■ ■
■ ■
■
■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■
■
■ ■■
■Viii■■■
40 +00 40 +50 41 +00 41 +50 42 +00 42 +50 43 +00 43 +50 44 +00 44 +50 45 +00 45 +50 46 +00 46 +50 47 +00 47 +50 48 +00 48 +50 49 +00 49 +50 50 +00 50 +20
i
I
I
i
i
i
w�
UI
I
I
,I
SOUTHEASTBRANCH REACH
^^S>FE SHEET 2.12_
v7
AZa §919
�
o
u��z
li
°TAIL 3, SHEET 4.2 --------------- _ - - --
_ _ __ —___ — _ _
ENPi BYRDS CREEKREACH BC3 _ - -_ _ _ =
-- --- 575
START BYRDS CREEK REACH BC4 - - -- I
STA 48+92. - - -- -------
0+
v
w
PP�
U
M�
V,
44
e�
I�
0
®
0' 4' 8'
12'
r
(VERTICAL)
!�
0' 40' 80'
120'
(HORIZONTAL)
4
___
PE4
� 51 +00
-- ----- -- -- -- --
---------
-- -- -- - - --
ry�
li
°TAIL 3, SHEET 4.2 --------------- _ - - --
_ _ __ —___ — _ _
ENPi BYRDS CREEKREACH BC3 _ - -_ _ _ =
-- --- 575
START BYRDS CREEK REACH BC4 - - -- I
STA 48+92. - - -- -------
0+
v
w
PP�
U
M�
V,
44
0
4

570
565
560
555
50 +20 50 +50
51 +00 51 +50 52 +00 52 +50 53 +00 53 +50 54 +00 54 +50 55 +00 55 +50 56 +00
570
bi8r7
560
555
56 +50
v7
AZa §919
u��z
v
w
PP�
v
rb+
44
e�
®
0
0' 4' 8' 12'
r
!�
(VERTICAL)
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)
°s
Fa
Ln
�
lJ1
v
w
PP�
v
rb+
44
0
°s
Ln

580
575
570
565
20 +00
START SOUTH
BRANCH REACH
- -_ SB1 STA 20 +22
`\
20 +50 21 +00 21 +50 22 +00 22 +50 23 +00 23 +50 24 +00 24 +50
25 +00 25 +13
0' 21 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
CE ____ ___ ___________ _______
/ -----------------------------------------------------
__________________ __- _______ __________________ _ ___ _ _ _ _ ___-- - -____
___________ _
- -- - - -- --- -- - - -- - -- - - ------ - - - - -- ' -eel- - -- ,= -- __ -- 580-- - - - - --
°
0
-- ----- - --------
---- -- --- --------- -- -- - ---
----------------
- ;
-------- - ---
' - --
-- - --- '" - - - -- - - -- -- -- -- ' -
-- -- - - -= -' - -- -- - -
--
W
' ROPOS�D CULVERT CROSSING
____580__ _______________
______ ----- - - --�-
__ -- __
_ -- -- - -�-
_______ -,____ _______
- _ __
CE
-� - -__
� _______ _ -
42"CMP - LENGTH = 28 LF /_____________�'
)EMBEDMENT DEPTH =6" ________
LOG SILL
___ __________________
'
__________ __
__ ______
�_________________________ _'
_____________
- __________ ' - -- ______----------------- - -- --'
�`
�INV UP= 573.5(STA 20 +22)
_ _ SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET 4.2 _________ _________________
___ ______ ____
__________
/_
____' ______
i \
_-
.INV DN =573.2 (STA 20 +50)
--
--------- _
_
_ -
_____ - - -- � -- -__, - - - - -- 5
- _'575 - 7g,
'-----------
_ -- 575- ---- -- ---- - ---
���__
-__�'/
� -- -.---- - - - --- - -`
561
m
m
SI
m
m
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
N
N
o
n
3j
`8i
w
n
n
m
w
in
n
0
#
\\
fn
W
m
W
m
F W
N
C
F
W
n
N
C
N
6
C
n
7,
oil
id
PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSING
42" CMP - LENGTH = 28LF
\y
-�15%
(
^
--
r
--
EMBEDMENT DEPTH = 6"
-1.i
1
)
INV UP - 573.5 (STA 20 +22)
- 1.
1
NV
I DN = 573.2 (STA 20 +50)
_
PROPOSED
GRADE
I /
1
1
-:2.0%
1
)
EL
= 57241
EXISTING
GROUND
571
561
565
20 +00
START SOUTH
BRANCH REACH
- -_ SB1 STA 20 +22
`\
20 +50 21 +00 21 +50 22 +00 22 +50 23 +00 23 +50 24 +00 24 +50
25 +00 25 +13
0' 21 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
CE ____ ___ ___________ _______
/ -----------------------------------------------------
__________________ __- _______ __________________ _ ___ _ _ _ _ ___-- - -____
___________ _
- -- - - -- --- -- - - -- - -- - - ------ - - - - -- ' -eel- - -- ,= -- __ -- 580-- - - - - --
/ 1 - - --�- - - --- _ -`-
_- _
_ �, Via: ``
575. -- - - - -
T
BRUSH TOE
SEE DETAIL 3, SHEET 4.3 a _ _ _ ____ _- ____
_ _ ________ _________
_____— _— _____
__________________
------------------- - - - - -- ________ - -- 30 _ 3J
580 -- -- - - - -____
AZa §919
- °W, m n w
� w �
�k
A 40p4i
Y
Q44'0 ti 0
V ��y
e�
t�
td
�dd
bN
e�
Vd
r
a
6
FA
rte'
�v
W
i-1
5
O
O
w
b
ICI
v
db+
_
_-
-- -------- - - - - -- -- - /
-------------- --- -- = -" _
-- ----- - --------
---- -- --- --------- -- -- - ---
----------------
- ;
-------- - ---
' - --
-- - --- '" - - - -- - - -- -- -- -- ' -
-- -- - - -= -' - -- -- - -
--
W
' ROPOS�D CULVERT CROSSING
____580__ _______________
______ ----- - - --�-
__ -- __
_ -- -- - -�-
_______ -,____ _______
- _ __
CE
-� - -__
� _______ _ -
42"CMP - LENGTH = 28 LF /_____________�'
)EMBEDMENT DEPTH =6" ________
LOG SILL
___ __________________
'
__________ __
__ ______
�_________________________ _'
_____________
- __________ ' - -- ______----------------- - -- --'
�`
�INV UP= 573.5(STA 20 +22)
_ _ SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET 4.2 _________ _________________
___ ______ ____
__________
/_
____' ______
i \
_-
.INV DN =573.2 (STA 20 +50)
--
--------- _
_
_ -
_____ - - -- � -- -__, - - - - -- 5
- _'575 - 7g,
'-----------
_ -- 575- ---- -- ---- - ---
���__
-__�'/
� -- -.---- - - - --- - -`
/ 1 - - --�- - - --- _ -`-
_- _
_ �, Via: ``
575. -- - - - -
T
BRUSH TOE
SEE DETAIL 3, SHEET 4.3 a _ _ _ ____ _- ____
_ _ ________ _________
_____— _— _____
__________________
------------------- - - - - -- ________ - -- 30 _ 3J
580 -- -- - - - -____
AZa §919
- °W, m n w
� w �
�k
A 40p4i
Y
Q44'0 ti 0
V ��y
e�
t�
td
�dd
bN
e�
Vd
r
a
6
FA
rte'
�v
W
i-1
5
O
O
w
b
ICI
v
db+
_
s�

N f o m e o°
N N N t7 m + O N O Q ^ N N N
n m N
575 N
Q �
570
565
562
25 +13
25 +50
26 +00
CE E_
CE -- CE � CE � -------- -��`
--- — `` '- --
T,9 \
2Sx >�
-- -
26 +50
27 +00
27 +50
28 +00
28 +50
29 +00
I -fm
570
565
AZa §919
�°,mu." z
a55
z 901E.
k, 5
� w �
y o 0
Q �Z
N
N
m
F
N
e�
562
�
29 +50 30 +00
p, .
ib
®
0' 21 4'
6'
r
!�
(VERTICAL)
0.
0' 20' 40'
60'
(HORIZONTAL)
Q
F
n
w
m w
m
m
I I
0
a
PROF
OSEI
B, kNKFUL L
w
rn
J
w
N w
m
m
y
w
J
F
J
II
• . .
I
El
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
2%\
��
)
-0.4%
PROPOSED
GRADE
EXISTING GROUND
\_
/7
Ogg
I
ST
= 26+58.48
S
A = 27
83.41
PROPOSED
42' CMP
CULVERT
- LENGTH
= 28
CROSSING
LF
EMBEDMENT
DEPTH
-
6'
INV UP
INV DIN
= 568.8
= 568.3
(STA 27
(STA 27
+26)
+54)
562
25 +13
25 +50
26 +00
CE E_
CE -- CE � CE � -------- -��`
--- — `` '- --
T,9 \
2Sx >�
-- -
26 +50
27 +00
27 +50
28 +00
28 +50
29 +00
I -fm
570
565
AZa §919
�°,mu." z
a55
z 901E.
k, 5
� w �
y o 0
Q �Z
- -- - - - - -- o u
FA
_ Q I
570 -
FRS IE E
E � <OG p,,
E E E \
E E E E AFT
E E E E E ,.
11 I �,yOSO
G
1
1
1
11
1
v
N
b
b
44
e�
562
�
29 +50 30 +00
p, .
ib
®
0' 21 4'
6'
r
!�
(VERTICAL)
0.
0' 20' 40'
60'
(HORIZONTAL)
- -- - - - - -- o u
FA
_ Q I
570 -
FRS IE E
E � <OG p,,
E E E \
E E E E AFT
E E E E E ,.
11 I �,yOSO
G
1
1
1
11
1
v
N
b
b
44

575
570
565
562
30 +00
0' 21 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60' v /
I
(HORIZONTAL) 1
I
1
\ 11
u�
i j 9
0
LOG J -HOOK 1 -
/ SEE DETAIL 4, SHEET 4.2 Y
..:
E
\ k S10 / E
30 +50 31 +00
I
1 ii; h
I
I
1
1 1111111
I
'illil I
6'
�
N
�
m
O
EXISTING
GROUND
/
\�♦
BRUSH TOE
�\`;�
SEE DETAIL 3, SHEET 4.3 \`
N
r
N
'
O
N
�
W
M
N e
M
p
m
w
Q w
rn
Q
TI;
y W
OF
AF
-
..
\
.
•2.o
-.6
\�
PROPOSED BANKFULL
PROPOSED
PROPOSED GRADE
0' 21 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60' v /
I
(HORIZONTAL) 1
I
1
\ 11
u�
i j 9
0
LOG J -HOOK 1 -
/ SEE DETAIL 4, SHEET 4.2 Y
..:
E
\ k S10 / E
30 +50 31 +00
575
PROPOSED STREAMED GRADE
SOUTH BRANCH INTO LOG J -HOOK
N ON BYRDS CREEK.
570
6::3.7
562
31 +30
U
•, , I ♦- - - - ---
\ \ \ - - - - --
— _
\ `♦ `♦ `♦ ' -_ -, — -- 575--------- - ---- -�
\\ __ ------------------
`\ -- - - -- -- A
----------------- \ F£
\• \��� i' BYRDS CREEK REACH BC3
\ �`♦ (y,,,��`�� SEE SHEET 2.4
END SOUTH BRANCH REACH SB1
STA 31-07
I -
\ _
I
\ -
AZa §919
�
o
u��z
� a55
F k, 5
0+
Q � w ����
e�
u
1�
f�
lJ1 FA
PE1
a,
Vd
v
N
V
b
b
4
°s 00
4
az�a m
I
1 ii; h
I
I
1
1 1111111
I
'illil I
6'
�
/
\�♦
BRUSH TOE
�\`;�
SEE DETAIL 3, SHEET 4.3 \`
575
PROPOSED STREAMED GRADE
SOUTH BRANCH INTO LOG J -HOOK
N ON BYRDS CREEK.
570
6::3.7
562
31 +30
U
•, , I ♦- - - - ---
\ \ \ - - - - --
— _
\ `♦ `♦ `♦ ' -_ -, — -- 575--------- - ---- -�
\\ __ ------------------
`\ -- - - -- -- A
----------------- \ F£
\• \��� i' BYRDS CREEK REACH BC3
\ �`♦ (y,,,��`�� SEE SHEET 2.4
END SOUTH BRANCH REACH SB1
STA 31-07
I -
\ _
I
\ -
AZa §919
�
o
u��z
� a55
F k, 5
0+
Q � w ����
e�
u
1�
f�
lJ1 FA
PE1
a,
Vd
v
N
V
b
b
4
°s 00
4
az�a m

590
585
580
575
30+00
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
START SOUTHEAST BRANCH
REACH SE1
STA 30 +00
30 +50 31+00 31 +50
U
CONTRACTOR TO REMOVIt
EXISTING MOVEABLE
/ CONCRETE CROSSING
/ o
'LOG SILL
v SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET 4.2
.1
32+00 32 +50 33+00
-- 590 --_ - --
Ai ,11y
CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE
EXISTING MOVEABLE
%. D wncntlt
/ ANGLED LOG STEP POOL
O / SEE DETAIL 3, 4.2
// \ 590—
_ BRUSH TOE, \
SEE DETAIL 3, SHEET 4.3._
_ II
ROCK CROSS VANE j
SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET 4.3
4
'
i I I
I
I '
I
I
I �
1 I
I
m i I
-c�
33 +50
i \ kh
34 +00
34 +50 34 +70
CE c
CE Cr CE —
/
I
7/
AZA�.,4
W
�'Z P__P
0+
0
CO�
e�
1�
f�
u
Vd
v
V
Q
4
°
+p2p
�
co o
m'n
III
F
QW
N
W F
N
, om�m �"
W + IA II
W
W�tm�op
i9
O O tip
tN�I
N
fn
W
t7 ¢
� j
m v) �
�y �mp Gp
N
W +o
mC
Ifl Q
� II �
tNpp
tL C7 N m
im�pp
m O I� tOp
4
a
W W
O
N
W
N
W W
F> w N
IW
N JW
Ny
t' Ol N N tO
Zvi a� Inn 590
0 W M m a0 mm
cp w
w W—
m N
m to O
¢
TA = 3
+53.72
I P $
II °w n
� � _ — — 9 N � F � � n ¢ '�'/
�.
w
ISTIN
3 GRO
ND
585
PROPOSED BANKFULL
•qS6
\
2.8
\
580
1
575
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
START SOUTHEAST BRANCH
REACH SE1
STA 30 +00
30 +50 31+00 31 +50
U
CONTRACTOR TO REMOVIt
EXISTING MOVEABLE
/ CONCRETE CROSSING
/ o
'LOG SILL
v SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET 4.2
.1
32+00 32 +50 33+00
-- 590 --_ - --
Ai ,11y
CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE
EXISTING MOVEABLE
%. D wncntlt
/ ANGLED LOG STEP POOL
O / SEE DETAIL 3, 4.2
// \ 590—
_ BRUSH TOE, \
SEE DETAIL 3, SHEET 4.3._
_ II
ROCK CROSS VANE j
SEE DETAIL 2, SHEET 4.3
4
'
i I I
I
I '
I
I
I �
1 I
I
m i I
-c�
33 +50
i \ kh
34 +00
34 +50 34 +70
CE c
CE Cr CE —
/
I
7/
AZA�.,4
W
�'Z P__P
0+
0
CO�
e�
1�
f�
u
Vd
v
V
Q
4
°s
ON
!�
4
a
44

f
58- [
580
575
570
34 +70
W
�
m
0
m
N
r +
flnD o
N
Oa
A
p
C4
W
i
m
'l N
p
m g
2 n
�$
+
5&
N
W
�
J -II
o +
N -fll
-m
N
°Ot
r
fp0 O
N
W
ny�
f0
y
W F
�_
fN0
}p
PROPOSED BANKFULL
r J
y W
N W
N w
N W
n
0
Q
N
J
W
I >>
Q W
F
A m + N +I
N -�
O
N_
O m
t0
n N
In ^
V
N w
ry
a !
0
m
N W
f7 F Q
N W H
J A a
f7
f7
+
u^i
W N
N fN0
f J
N
W N
W N
Q W
O N M
m
N
O
N
I
rn w
uwJi
y w
m m
+m
In —o+
N^
—a
v
561
i
\
Q
co
w
p
NQww
yw
"
2.3
\
1
-2.2
2g%
\
PROPOSED GRADE
I\
/\
-1.3%
EXISTING
GROUND
57:
STA
37 +5.33
\\
i
/
�'
2'5%
-1.2%
EL
V= 57
3.19
A = 37
78.01
�
LEV =
75.39
— —
/
STA = ,7+85.3(—/
\
PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSING
—
—
36" CM - LENGTH = 47LF
EMBEDMENT DEPTH= 6'
INV UP = 575.10 (STA 38 +15)
-F
±
INV DN = 574.70 (STA 38 +62)
-
-
I I 1 1
571
35 +00
35 +50
36 +00
I DE
CEO CEO 0I CEO CCE-�� CEO _
\J J
I /
36 +50
37+00
37 +50
38+00
38 +50
39+00
------- -- --
._____________ ____________ /
cE
/ /PROPOSED BOULDER TOE
PROTECTION TO BE INSTALLED
UNDERTHE DIRECT SUPERVISION
_ OF THE PROJECT ENGINEER /M
39 +50 39+60
0' 21 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
1
I 1
II
- - - - --
AZa §919
�� �u�� z
�zfra
,]z$ ER, 5
� W �
r�
Q �o
e�
t�
r
dd
bN
lJS1 �
0
u
Vd
v
v �
JR.
IUD
v
44
0
C4

560
575
570
565
39 +60
40+00
40 +50
41 +00
41 +50
42 +00
42 +50
43 +00
43 +50
44 +00
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
AZa §919
�zaa
0
,]z$ 1E. 5
n�
e�
t�
r
lJ1 rA
0
0
0
W
u
d
v
v �
JR.
CU v
+b+
+
44
0
561
p
A
�
e
C4
azr�a
m
#Oq1
N
Wh
' N
W N
1
i
O
N
>
N O
N N
N
N
O
p
W
N
¢
N
W a
F
Q
'+
57!
y
W
V
N
o2
N
mp
m
Q
F W
N
W
N
WC
W m
meo
V
i
N
co
N
O
PROPOSED
GRADE
y
N
w vi
w
F
W
q
W
571
I1
�
EXISTING
GROUND
\ V
0
-2.8
STA =
43 +33.
-
ELEV=
56C
0
-
-
56!
565
39 +60
40+00
40 +50
41 +00
41 +50
42 +00
42 +50
43 +00
43 +50
44 +00
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
AZa §919
�zaa
0
,]z$ 1E. 5
n�
e�
t�
r
lJ1 rA
0
0
0
W
u
d
v
v �
JR.
CU v
+b+
44
0
�
e
C4
azr�a
m

tttiy
570
565
562
44 +00
\ y
7
v�
�q
i
cly
i
44 +50
45 +00
I1I
"� l � Ilflll
I
II I
!ti
45 +50
` ` N ` -44 +00
ao
i
i
46 +00
575
570
TIE PROPOSED SREAMBED GRADE
� OF SOUTHEAST BRANCH INTO LOG J -HOOK
ARM ON BYRDS CREEK
565
562
46 +40
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
c'
\ - -----------
--- - -565 -_
BYRDS CREEK REACH BC3
------ SEE�SHEFT2.4, %, 6S \mss
REACH SE2b
STA 46 +28
e�
t�
td
f�
Vd
AZa §919
�
o
u��z
z $ F k, 5
r�
cp
Wi p
I
0
O
w
b
�I
CIS
ON it
Milit,
n
8
1
m
o
m
n
°
11 Q
W
N W
Q
F W
y w
Q
�
6 m
N
Q
v
N
W
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
0
I
2.p
I
'17%
I
I
I
0%
)
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GROUND
\
/
\ y
7
v�
�q
i
cly
i
44 +50
45 +00
I1I
"� l � Ilflll
I
II I
!ti
45 +50
` ` N ` -44 +00
ao
i
i
46 +00
575
570
TIE PROPOSED SREAMBED GRADE
� OF SOUTHEAST BRANCH INTO LOG J -HOOK
ARM ON BYRDS CREEK
565
562
46 +40
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
c'
\ - -----------
--- - -565 -_
BYRDS CREEK REACH BC3
------ SEE�SHEFT2.4, %, 6S \mss
REACH SE2b
STA 46 +28
e�
t�
td
f�
Vd
AZa §919
�
o
u��z
z $ F k, 5
r�
cp
Wi p
I
0
O
w
b
�I
CIS
ON it
Milit,
1

570
565
�Yd�l
AZa §919 o
u��z
570
0
y� e��
565
6Y: r�
e�
555 555
40 +00
40 +50 41 +00 41 +50 42 +00 42 +50 43 +00 43 +50 44 +00 44 +50 45 +00 45 +50
/
ct
_ `` ` \\` -- CE
`` `•I \\`��FS�{ _ „7`-`C1_ <' ` -.580 __ -_-
_SEE DETAIL 2. SHEET
575- -
I START WEST BRANCH REACH WB1 ` \ 57$ - -- - - --
STA 40 +18 '-CT - - -- - _-__'_ -
-
0 5 __ 0 - l __
/ - - - -
_
” - - -
_ -- - - -- -- 570 -`ie y "' "- -Y %a
- -----
/
:: •` yr" i III - LOG VANE _ _________________ _
SEE DETAIL 1, SHEET 4.3
P�p
N
\ I i
I
END REACH WEST BRANCH NBI
STA 46 +03 �
-I
BYhDS CRE�Kl2EACH BC4
SHEET 2.5 b
1 I
I I
` I /
0
p,
ib
®
I V .� I ",'1 '•
0' 30' 60' 90'
(HORIZONTAL)
;g''�
vi
m
n
N
w
W
AZa §919 o
u��z
570
0
y� e��
565
6Y: r�
e�
555 555
40 +00
40 +50 41 +00 41 +50 42 +00 42 +50 43 +00 43 +50 44 +00 44 +50 45 +00 45 +50
/
ct
_ `` ` \\` -- CE
`` `•I \\`��FS�{ _ „7`-`C1_ <' ` -.580 __ -_-
_SEE DETAIL 2. SHEET
575- -
I START WEST BRANCH REACH WB1 ` \ 57$ - -- - - --
STA 40 +18 '-CT - - -- - _-__'_ -
-
0 5 __ 0 - l __
/ - - - -
_
” - - -
_ -- - - -- -- 570 -`ie y "' "- -Y %a
- -----
/
:: •` yr" i III - LOG VANE _ _________________ _
SEE DETAIL 1, SHEET 4.3
P�p
N
\ I i
I
END REACH WEST BRANCH NBI
STA 46 +03 �
-I
BYhDS CRE�Kl2EACH BC4
SHEET 2.5 b
1 I
I I
` I /
m°
,An
46 +00 46 +20
0' 3' 6'
(VERTICAL)
9'
p,
ib
®
I V .� I ",'1 '•
0' 30' 60' 90'
(HORIZONTAL)
m°
,An
46 +00 46 +20
0' 3' 6'
(VERTICAL)
9'
p,
ib
®
r
!�
0' 30' 60' 90'
(HORIZONTAL)
;g''�
vi
p
9 m m
v
N
v �
M/ 'b
�I
b

STREAMBANK PLANTING ZONE
Lire Stakes and Herbacous Plugs ( -5,000 linear footp/ardbrg area)
Species
Common Name
Max. Spacing
Indiv. Spacing
Min. Size
0 Plants
Comus amomum
Silky Dogwood
3 It
3ft
0.5 " -1.0" cal.
687
Comus sedcea
Redoiser Dogwood
3 R
3ft
0.5 "-1.0" cal.
687
Selix sericea
Silky Willow
3-6 ft
3-6 ft
0.5 " -1.0 "cal.
1237
Sell. nigre
Black Willow
3-6 It
3-6 It
0.5"-1.0" cal.
137
Bare Root (Planting Area =15.1 acres planted at 605 stems /acre)
Species
Common Name
Max. Spacing
Indiv. Spacing
Min. Caliper
/
Cards canadensis
American Redbud
12 ft
6 -12 ft
0.25" -1.0"
457
Lidodendron tulipifern
Tulip Poplar
12 It
6 -12 ft
0.25 " -1.0"
1372
Quemus phellos
Willow Oak
12ft
6-12 ft
0.25" -1.0"
915
Plantus occiderdalis
Sycamore
12 ft
6 -12 ft
0.25 " -1.0"
2267
Betula nigra
River Birch
121t
6 -12 ft
0.25 "A D"
915
Quercus michauxif
Swamp Chestnut Oak
12 ft
6 -12 ft
0.25 " -1.0"
457
Frexinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
12 R
6 -12 ft
0.25' -1.0"
2287
Quercus mbm
Northam Red Oak
12 ft
6 -12 ft
0.25"-1.0"
457
PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED PLANTING ZONE
Pure Live Seed (Planting area =15.1 acres)
Species Name
Common Name
Ibsiacm
Agrostis slolonifem
Creeping bentgmss
2.0
Andropogon temanus
Split beardgmw
0.4
Bouteloua wrtipendula
Side oats grams
2.8
Bouteloua giacilis
Blue grams
3.6
Panicum clandestinum
Deertongue
3.6
Schizachyrium scoparium
Little bluestem
2.8
Spombolus dandestinus
Rough dropseed
1.6
Vicia WIosa
Hairy vetch
0.8
Chasmanthium labfolium
River Oats
1.6
Carex wlpinoides
Foxsedge
0.8
BYRDS CREEK ce
4
sJ��� 4
d 44444444444 4 4 \
' �� _ a d� 4 4 4 44 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 a�
4 a /4� 21 a 4 4 4 <I,- ��-d- 4�'�' 3' �\ _ \\ \ 4 4
4a44444p44444�d�4 �4��4�41�4�9//
9f44444444444
33. < a 4 Q� 4' 4' �d' '�q �SI�`
-- -- - - — — — — — — —
t- - - - - - - -' --
- -- -- - - - - --
- j ICI l I r 4
'\Vd 4 4 4
/4
II
Ir(
/VIII I'I
II II
I ' Jill,
1 \ \I II 11
\ \ I
\ \III 111 11 \ \ \V
`,`\ \11111 X41
I 4 4 4 fil // �I
4
`\ 4444_ l 'rilllil .'4
iEf-
<:\ \� \4
i �
QIIQ
4
d 4 \�\
4 4`4 4 4 T// j /
` �� � /.,, /��/, /,� �� 1�111��ry 1411
4 4 9/ —/ s1i \ \ rI
4 4 1111 \\\\ / `_� \ \ IQ
4 4 4 lu /' - -- _
4 4 4 4 4
4
I L'
d4 ,
4 4 \4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4
9 �— _ _- ;_I
— �
�
'Q
Q/a
<A /Vii/ 4 4 4/4�
0' 50' 100' 150'
(HORIZONTAL)
zol §919
o
uz �Z
H W frr
0+
GPI
e�
f�
C11 v'
C�
Vim,
a P
A

c—
\ \� `.�_`� -� ���_ - "` --�'\ \fin,, -�_ � -_- /_ -;;�' `\ \_-- -- - -___' - - -- \\\� \ � � -- -- \\�_ - - -� -� / / � /�I� p ���•ts'\ 1 >p\ \m
CE \ — \� \ ��_ ` �— — // /' r/4 D D III
°�D cE D\
D � D � D p --- ''-- /,__---- - - - - -/ � / 9 // I
` \ ��\� �I , \ -- �•� \p D
-�) -per t� -fib Dry D D D �D 7' A --- - - - - -j D p<
\111 / �R e D p - 17 D D fs --0 p -p �� p� - �E D p \ 4
\\ \ `\ D D pD pD D D D D D �pD CE �� -Jp D�D /� /� -p>
\ 1) - R� R D D Q b _ - - - - - -_ - �D 1v D 11 \
jI� �• - / \ \� p R p -- D p-,D D- B-D�"� - R D
cDD��D�p�R DptrD DD DD Dp D � �L>�y- �D�pBDp�$f���bQ irppDpR Ir p�DpD `\ `•���
1
\ \ \1\\ D D -�_� D
\\ �\ll ;' __ \ \�\ V D D �\ \•\� D D Csp D D \D p D D D D B D D�
` D D D
D D D D D D D D D
D D D D D D, p ® \p D D D D_-�• D 1 D D- -� \ D D -�, J\ ��\
p D /— D
\D \
-_p �D __ -
-- - - - - -- `_ ��R �_ D/ \
- - -
D - -pTs� D p \\ D \ ®D p D
I I t I � I ah \ \ \I 1.\ ( � - - - -- - - - -- ----- - - -- -� ___ - - -- _ - _ - ----- _- --- �_�" --� 'R•�\• Q� �- _ -6 D L> � �'\2 DAD \ D D � p p D
D
---------
ItlI I l \ \`1\ 11 11 1 111 I I / 1 /
BYRDS CREEK -- - - - - --
jIWIIII INulllllll III I I 1 IIIIII / - �\\-� \\
j I I� /1% `•t/ I I I I � Q- r I I � // /� % / /// / �\ ��\ � ��� \�\ �I I �ICD\ D \� p \D p p D
/III I II III/ � r,1�11) /� I I I) /r / \gyp p��,b p D D D D D
/ lP f I /a /r I I I/� // I i j 1 1 l� p )p r/ D C
D D
D p D D p D C
D
qr
If
/ p/
p
WEST BRANCH p
\_IrYlpl
STREAMBANK PLANTING ZONE
Live Stakes and Nerbaccus Plugs f- 5,0061inear lootplan6ng area)
Species
Common Name
Max. Spacing
Indiv. Spacing
Min. Size
# Plants
Comus amomum
Silky Dogwood
3 ft
3ft
0.5"-1.0" cal.
687
Comus sedcea
Redoiser Dogwood
3 It
3ft
0.5"-1.0" cal.
687
Sall. sedces
Silky Willow
3-6 ft
3-6 ft
0.5"-1.0'cal.
1237
Salix nigre
Black Willow
3-6 ft
3-6 ft
0.5"-1.0" cal.
137
Bare Root (Pianding area =15.1 acres planted at 605 sdsmsracre)
Species
Common Name
Max. Spacing
Indiv. Spacing
Min. Caliper
#
Cemis canadenais
American Redbud
12 ft
6 -12 ft
0.25 " -1.0"
457
Lidodendron tulipi/ere
Tulip Poplar
12 ft
6 -12 ft
0.25 " -1.0"
1372
Quemus phellos
Willow Oak
12 ft
6 -12 ft
0.25 " -1.0"
915
Plantus occidentelis
Sycamore
12 ft
6 -12 ft
0.25 " -1.0"
2287
Betula nigra
River Birch
12 ft
6 -12 ft
0.25 " -1.0"
915
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
12 ft
6 -12 ft
0.25 " -1.0"
457
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
12 ft
6 -12 ft
0.25 " -1.0"
2287
Quartos cobra
Northern Red Oak
12 ft
6 -12 ft
0.25 " -1.0"
457
PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED PLANTING ZONE
Pure Lire Seed (Planting area = 15.1 acres)
Species Name
Common Name
Ibs/acre
Agrosbs stolanifera
Creeping bentgrass
2.0
Andropogon temanus
Split beanlgrass
0.4
Bcuteloua curbpendula
Side oats grams
2.8
Bouteloua grecilis
Blue grema
3.6
Panicum dandestinum
Deer tongue
3.6
Schizachyrium sooparium
Little bluestem
2.8
Sporobolus dandestinus
Rough dropseed
1.6
Vicia villosa
Hairy vetch
0.8
Chasmanthium latifolium
River Oats
1.6
Cam vulpinoidea
Foxsedge
0.8
/p ,�ID/ D, D V / / / i
D
x'
p
0' 50' 100' 150'
(HORIZONTAL)
AZa �
d) AO0aaa
a55
z$ FW5
0+
'o
C,
ti
® r�
r
U
rA
tol
U
rA
Vim,
INIII
V
U
b
'_1
a

/
QQ,Q Q
4 Q Q /a /� / 'Q Q Q yJr�
r / / Q /
QQQ 9rr'�4Q /i i /.'
Q Q Q�YQ�Q Q �• 4
SOUTH BRANCH / ,a J a Q - Q a
_ — — — — — ' /'/ �- _ Q Q Q /�I
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
ce<
Q
Q Q QI d� _ Q Q Q Q Q • / / / /
Q Q Q Q Q Q� ¢�� �4 Q Q Q Q Q /Q Q QI Q Q//
Q / Q Q Q QI Q Q d - -d Q Q a Q Q / Q/y
Q Q Q Q Q 9 Q QI
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q, a r� Q Q Q Q a Q/
Q ti a Q T Q Q �
Q a Q Q// 41
Q Q,�fJ/ i
Q Q Q Qi Q 4 Q Q ��Q ` Ql Q QIQIQ 4\ IQIQ
yob Q \ l}\ \
4 Q_ <i —� —��
Q Q - - Q- - Q 4 /
Q Q Q Q 4 Q Q ®_ 4. • Q Q Q 41
4I / Q Q
i QQ4Q
4�y�
- �_- _- \�3'J-
" Q Q Q Q Q \Q \ \
- _---- - - - - _ - - -- /\� � �\d�Q \ \aQQQQa Q I
STREAMBANK PLANTING ZONE
Live Stakes and Harbacous Plugs (- 400011near fbot planting area)
Species
Common Name
Max. Spacing
Indiv. Spacing
Min. Size
0 Plante
Comus amomum
Silky Dogwood
3 ft
aft
0.5 " -1.0" cal.
687
Comus sencea
Redoiser Dogwood
3 ft
3ft
0.5 " -1.0" cal.
687
Safix sencea
Silky Willow
3-6 ft
3-6 ft
0.5--l.0- 1.
1237
Saiix nigra
Black Willow
3-6 ft
3-6 ft
0.5 "-1.0 "cal.
137
Bare Root (Planting Area = 15.1 acres planted at 605 stems /acre)
Species
Common Name
Max. Spacing
Indiv. Spacing
Min. Caliper
0
Cards canadensis
American Redbud
1211
6-121t
0.25 "A ff
457
Linodendron tulipdbre
Tulip Poplar
12 ft
6 -12 It
0.25 " -1.0"
1372
Quercus pheilos
Willow Oak
1211
6-121t
0.25 "A ff
915
Plautus occidentalis
Sycamore
12 ft
6-12 It
0.25 " -1.0"
2287
Betide nigra
River Birch
1211
6 -12 ft
0.25 "A ff
915
Quercus michawdi
Swamp Chestnut Oak
12 ft
6-12 It
0.25"-1.0"
457
Fmxinus pennsytvanica
Green Ash
1211
6 -12 ft
0.25 " -1.0"
2287
Quercus mbre
Northern Red Oak
12 ft
6-121t
0.25"-1.0"
457
PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED PLANTING ZONE
Pure Live Sean (Planting area =15.1 acres)
Species Name
Common Name
Iba/acre
Agroslis stolonifem
Creeping bentgrass
2.0
Andropogon temanus
Split beardgmss
0.4
Bouteloua curtipendula
Side oats grema
2.8
Bouteloua grecilis
Blue grams
3.6
Panicum dandestinum
Deertongue
3.6
Schizachyrium scopanum
Little bluestem
2.8
Sporobolus clandeslinus
Rough dropseed
1.6
Vida villosa
Hairy vetch
0.8
Chasmanthium latifolium
River Oats
1.6
Carex vulpinoidea
Fox sedge
0.8
<1 l
�QaQ4 /QQ Q _Q4<
--1A Q Q� -- �Q3\ !!g
Q1� QQ Q
I
\<Q4 b
0' 50' 100' 150'
(HORIZONTAL)
AZa §919
H"iP
Bz,;a
a55
z $ F p, 5
Q � w � 0+
C,
f�
C11 v'
!eA
°s�
v

IIWII��I41'Ilr \'��IQ Qa \ \�I'�Iv' °a /i�
JQ 14 I
�4I 4 I \ \ \\
`\
\ b I \
I I I II II
� 1 1
I I I I
Ikl
STREAMBANK PLANTING ZONE
Live Stakes and Nerbacous Plugs ( -5,000 linear footpinMng area)
Species
Common Name
Max. Spacing
Indi, Spacing
Min. Size
0 Plants
Comus amomum
Silky Dogwood
3 it
3ft
0.5" -1.0" cal.
687
Comus Wricea
Redoiser Dogwood
3 ft
3ft
0.5 " -1.0" cal.
687
Salix sericee
Silky Willow
3-6 ft
3-6 ft
0.5'-1.0' cal.
1237
Salix nigra
Black Wil low
3-6 ft
3-6 ft
0.5 "-1.0" oal.
137
Bere Root (Planting arse =15.1 acres planted at 605 stems /acre)
Species
Common Name
Max. Spacing
Indiv. Spacing
Min. Caliper
0
Cards canedensis
American Redbud
12 ft
6 -12 ft
0.25" -1.0"
457
Lidodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
12 ft
6 -12 ft
0.25• -1.0"
1372
Quercus phallus
Willow Oak
12 ft
6 -12 ft
0.25" -1.0"
915
Plantus occiderdelis
Sycamore
12 ft
6 -12 ft
0.25• -1.0"
2287
Betule nigra
River Birch
12 ft
6 -12 ft
0.25" -1.0"
915
Quemus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
12 ft
6 -12 ft
0.25 " -1.0"
457
Fmxinus pennsylvanwe
Green Ash
12 ft
6 -12 ft
0.25• -1.0"
2287
Querous cobra
Northern Red Oak
12 ft
8 -12 8
0.25 " -1.0"
457
PERMANENT RIPARIAN SEED PLANTING ZONE
Pure Live Seed (Planting area =15.1 acres)
Species Name
Common Name
Ibelacre
Agrosbs stolonifere
Creeping bentgress
2.0
Andropogon temanus
Split beardgiass
0.4
Bouteloua curtipendula
Side oats grams
2.8
Bouteloua gmcilis
Blue grema
3.6
Panicum clandestinum
Deertongue
3.6
Schizachyrium scopanum
Little bluestem
1 2.8
Sporobolus dandestinus
Rough dropseed
1.6
Vida villose
Hairy vetch
0.8
Chasmanthium latitolium
River Oats
1.8
Carexvulpinoidan
Fox sedge
0.8
`-
/ �_ --
/ SOLITHEASTBRANCH
CE
Ceia -
1 - - - - -- / /, ,
- - - -- -- - - -___
� C � \j 4 i4
Q4
I Ib /4/4/4 I dl 4 \4 4 CE��
l�Q // �7 411�r 414 4 44 44 4 Q� \4\ \ate 4d/
KOM
hyl
4 /� /� I 11 \\ \d Q\4 4 4 4 'Q_� a�ig III J `�\ \\ \ - , ,�• 4� �` 4/
4 \a 4 � 4 - - -� r / / � /// / � _ -Q b - -'•4' r ""
Ladd /ap4a;ba�/ 44�1� �1. \44 �4 4r4 4 4// / �__ _ _ _ /,_ - / /�\_ _ /} ^a4 44�
da
3D
I a
6
4 4 4/4 / +h /
�4_A� X4444444 1 / �I 1( l j �ji�%l
744 4444 ®4a a 4a �7 I/
4 �, 1 4444 Q/g
\4qq
\ \ 4\ 4 d
\ \ \4 <��g4 41� 4 rl ImI
\
0' 50' 100' 150'
(HORIZONTAL)
AZa�
0 �°�uz
Bz,;a
AzFA°`
d i a55
,]z$ FW5
0+
vo
d�
bN
lJ1 rA
tol
U
Vim,
°s�
v
r�

SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLEIGRAVEL
FLOW BED MATERIAL
RIFFLE DEPTH BYRDS CREEK = 12"
RIFFLE DEPTH TRIBUTARIES = 6"
Profile View
AAA'
LOG STRUCTURE
EXPOSED UNTIL
TOP OF BANK CENTER OF CHANNEL
TOE OF SLOPE
Log Section B -B'
NOTES:
• STRUCTURES SHOULD VARY IN SIZE
AND TYPE WITHIN EACH RIFFLE.
• LOGS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED BY ROCK
AT ENGINEERS DISCRETION.
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
HEAD OF RIFFLE
ELEVATION POINT
PER PROFILE
BURY INTO RANK R MIN (TYPI
BURY INTO BANK 1' MIN. Cr
B.
O�
(a:) Jazz Riffle structure
4,1 lNot to mcm
LENGTH VARIES PER PLAN
B
B'
Plan View
Chunky Raffle
4.1 Not to
CLASS 1 STONE
OR SALVAGED
ONSITE BOULDERS
MIN 0.5'x17c1.5'
BANKFULL
)CK VANES MAY
USED IN PLACE
=LOGS
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLEIGRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
RIFFLE DEPTH BYRDS CREEK = 12'
RIFFLE DEPTH TRIBUTARIES = 6"
CR -1
CR-2
CR -3
CR-4
TAIL OF RIFFLE CONTRACTOR TO USE SALVAGED
ELEVATION POINT STREAMBED MATERIAL FROM
PER PROFILE EXISTING CHANNELS IN THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ALL RIFFLES
CR -1 - CR -5 AS DIRECTED BY
THE ENGINEER AND DESCRIBED IN
THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
Section B -B'
LENGTH VARIES PER PLAN BOULDER
(n
TOP OF BANK (TYP) B A zol 91
Z a N§
Z 9? 9
�^��x�
l �,;a
I"y Z �
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP) A ZF W 6
TAIL OF RIFFLE L-1 •' $ µ,
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION POINT
ELEVATION POINT PER PROFILE
PER PROFILE
A A'
Profile A -A'
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATIOI
POINT PER PROFILI
Plan Viewp�4 p+
A�Ay p1s�p
�Ii¢:,�
i�
SALVAGED ONSITE
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLEIGRAVEL
COBBLEIGRAVEL
CLASS 1 STONE
RIFFLE DEPTH BYRDS CREEK = 12"
BED MATERIAL
RIFFLE DEPTH TRIBUTARIES = 6"
ONSITE BOULDERS
RIFFLE DEPTH BYRDS CREEK = 12"
MIN 0.5'xl Al.5'
SALVAGED ONSITE
RIFFLE DEPTH TRIBUTARIES = 6"
CLASS 1 STONE
COBBLEIGRAVEL
OR SALVAGED
BED MATERIAL
RIFFLE INVERT PER PROFILE
ONSITE BOULDERS
RIFFLE DEPTH BYRDS CREEK = 12"
0
MIN 0.Sk1Sc1.5'
RIFFLE DEPTH TRIBUTARIES =6' RIFFLE INVERT PER PROFILE
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
r 3" MAX
Section B -B'
LENGTH VARIES PER PLAN BOULDER
(n
TOP OF BANK (TYP) B A zol 91
Z a N§
Z 9? 9
�^��x�
l �,;a
I"y Z �
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP) A ZF W 6
TAIL OF RIFFLE L-1 •' $ µ,
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION POINT
ELEVATION POINT PER PROFILE
PER PROFILE
A A'
Profile A -A'
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATIOI
POINT PER PROFILI
Plan Viewp�4 p+
A�Ay p1s�p
�Ii¢:,�
i�
CLASS 1 STONE
OR SALVAGED
ONSITE BOULDERS Section B -B'
MIN 0.5'xl'c1.5'
2 ]Boulder Tail Riffle
4.1 Not to 5cate CR -2
SEE PROFILE
RIFFLE INVERT PER PROFILE
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
3' MAX
Plan View
RIFFLE
m
2
kW�o.
mFco
wo�
LL3
" a
iY
IF RIFFLE ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
SALVAGED ONSITE
FH
COBBLEIGRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
CLASS 1 STONE
RIFFLE DEPTH BYRDS CREEK = 12"
OR SALVAGED
RIFFLE DEPTH TRIBUTARIES = 6"
ONSITE BOULDERS
MIN 0.5'xl Al.5'
SALVAGED ONSITE
,�— 3" MAX
CLASS 1 STONE
OR SALVAGED
ONSITE BOULDERS Section B -B'
MIN 0.5'xl'c1.5'
2 ]Boulder Tail Riffle
4.1 Not to 5cate CR -2
SEE PROFILE
RIFFLE INVERT PER PROFILE
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
3' MAX
Plan View
RIFFLE
m
2
kW�o.
mFco
wo�
LL3
" a
iY
IF RIFFLE ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
Q
e�
U
U
ld1 FA
w
U
W
ro
d
W
A
a
e
a A
FH
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLEIGRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
RIFFLE DEPTH BYRDS CREEK = 12"
RIFFLE DEPTH TRIBUTARIES = 6"
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLEIGRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
RIFFLE DEPTH BYRDS CREEK = 12"
0
RIFFLE DEPTH TRIBUTARIES =6' RIFFLE INVERT PER PROFILE
i
d
�®
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
�
Profile A -A'
Section B -B'�
Constructed Riffle
G�
a
4.1 Not to Scale CR-0
Q
e�
U
U
ld1 FA
w
U
W
ro
d
W
A
a
e
a A

CONTRACTOR TO USE SALVAGED
STREAMBED MATERIAL FROM
EXISTING CHANNELS IN THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ALL RIFFLES
CR -1 — CR -5 AS DIRECTED BY
THE ENGINEER AND DESCRIBED IN
THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
N
Z
�wU
Oaw
g�
LL � as
MICRO POOL HABITAT
BEHIND LARGER
WOODY DEBRIS
Plan View
3" TO 6" DIAMETER WOODY DEBRIS
WORKED INTO RIFFLE SUBSTRATE MICRO POOL HABITAT
BEHIND LARGER WOODY DEBRIS
04! SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLEIGRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
RIFFLE DEPTH BYRDS CREEK = 12"
RIFFLE DEPTH TRIBUTARIES = 6"
Section A -A'
DIRE (TYP)
3" TO 6" BRUSHY MATERIAL
TOP OF BANK
WORKED INTO ROCKY SUBSTRATE
\NK (TYP)
TOE OF SLOPE
SALVAGED ONSITE
LOG EXPOSED 1" TO 3" ABOVE
HEADER LOG
COBBLEIGRAVEL
FINISHED RIFFLE ELEVATION
BED MATERIAL
RIFFLE DEPTH BYRDS CREEK = 12"
RIFFLE DEPTH TRIBUTARIES = 6"
Section B -B'
Woody ]Rff le
4.2 Not to b.W.
BURY INTO BANK 3' MIN. (T
THALWEG ° SALVAGEDONSITE
FLOW TOP OF AN COBBLEIGRAVEL
� NORMAL WATER BED MATERIAL
SURFACE RIFFLE DEPTH BYRDS CREEK = 12"
RIFFLE DEPTH TRIBUTARIES = 6"
5' MIN.
(NP) NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
Profile View
A -A' o !�
Log Section B -B'
NOTE:
1. LOGS WITHOUT ROOT MASS MAY
BE USED ONLY IF APPROVED BY
THE PROJECT ENGINEER.
2. BOULDER MATERIAL CAN BE
SUBSTITUTED IN PLACE OF
ANGLED LOGS WITH APPROVAL
OF ENGINEER.
Angled Log Step ]PoolLog Saep ]Pool
4.2 of to e
vim view
065.
(P)
(FULL
DIAMETER OR
;EATER (TYP)
)L
TH
R
aAL
ION
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE (TYP)
FLOW
Plan View
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLEIGRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
RIFFLE DEPTH BYRDS CREEK = 12"
RIFFLE DEPTH TRIBUTARIES = 6"
PLACE HEADER BOULDERS
WITH V TO 2' CLEAR SPACE
BETWEEN ROCKS
FLOW
LOOT B m
off=
3: L)
INVERT ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
PLACE HEADER BOULDER
TO PREVENT LOG FROM SHIFTING.
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLEIGRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
RIFFLE DEPTH BYRDS CREEK = 12"
RIFFLE DEPTH TRIBUTARIES = 6"
FILTER FABRIC
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
EXCAVATED
SCOUR POOL
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC
5' MIN. UPSTREAM
WI $
\ HEADER LOG
EMBED LOG SILL ELEVATION FOOTERLOG
3' (MIN.) PER PROFILE (TYP)
Section A - A'
2 Log Sill
4.2 Not to Scale
EXCAVATE POOL
PER PROFILE
SCOUR
POOL
Plan View
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLEIGRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
RIFFLE DEPTH BYRDS CREEK = 12"
RIFFLE DEPTH TRIBUTARIES = 6" HEADER LOG\
FL = SLOPE S
n
Section B -B'
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLEIGRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
RIFFLE DEPTH BYRDS CREEK = 12"
RIFFLE DEPTH TRIBUTARIES = 6"
TOE OF SLOPE
NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
Log J -Hook
4.2 Not to Scale
FOOTERLOG
r
OFFSET HEADER LOG
OQ
F 0.25' TO 0.5' UPSTREAM
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLEIGRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
RIFFLE DEPTH BYRDS CREEK = 12"
RIFFLE DEPTH TRIBUTARIES = 6"
PLACE HEADER BOULDERS
WITH V TO 2' CLEAR SPACE
BETWEEN ROCKS
FLOW
LOOT B m
off=
3: L)
INVERT ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
PLACE HEADER BOULDER
TO PREVENT LOG FROM SHIFTING.
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLEIGRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
RIFFLE DEPTH BYRDS CREEK = 12"
RIFFLE DEPTH TRIBUTARIES = 6"
FILTER FABRIC
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
EXCAVATED
SCOUR POOL
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC
5' MIN. UPSTREAM
WI $
\ HEADER LOG
EMBED LOG SILL ELEVATION FOOTERLOG
3' (MIN.) PER PROFILE (TYP)
Section A - A'
2 Log Sill
4.2 Not to Scale
EXCAVATE POOL
PER PROFILE
SCOUR
POOL
Plan View
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLEIGRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
RIFFLE DEPTH BYRDS CREEK = 12"
RIFFLE DEPTH TRIBUTARIES = 6" HEADER LOG\
FL = SLOPE S
n
Section B -B'
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLEIGRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
RIFFLE DEPTH BYRDS CREEK = 12"
RIFFLE DEPTH TRIBUTARIES = 6"
TOE OF SLOPE
NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
Log J -Hook
4.2 Not to Scale
FOOTERLOG
r
12
In
AZa�
9 �m _u!�
AD�aaa
,]Z$FW6
ry -• w
cp
e�
ii
® U
lb1
0
0
u
w
ro
Vd
T
A
A
e
OFFSET HEADER LOG
F 0.25' TO 0.5' UPSTREAM
OF FOOTER LOG
0
HEADER LOG
FOOTERLOG
FILTER FABRIC
EXTENDS 5' MIN.
e�
12
In
AZa�
9 �m _u!�
AD�aaa
,]Z$FW6
ry -• w
cp
e�
ii
® U
lb1
0
0
u
w
ro
Vd
T
A
A
e

Y w 3�
z LL
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLEIGRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
RIFFLE DEPTH BYRDS CREEK = 12"
RIFFLE DEPTH TRIBUTARIES = 6"
HEADERLOG
NONWOVEN STREAMBED
FOOTER LOG
FILTER FABRIC
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC
VANE &MIN. UPSTREAM
BOULDER
TIDE Section A -A'
Plan View
NOTE: DIMENSIONAL VALUES
LISTED ON SHEET 5.8.
Log Vane
4.3 Not to Seale
INVERT ELEVATION BANK
PER PROFILE Top OF
/
FLOW
x
TOE OF
SLOPE
/ HEADERLOG
FOOTERLOG
Profile B - B'
POOL
LE
In
BE LOGS
ERNATINGSOIUSALVEGED STREAM BED MATERIAL
i BRUSHNVOODY DEBRIS LAYERS
XPOSED BRUSH MATERIAL
AND BASE LOGS SHALL NOT
EXTEND MORE THAN 25% OF
'HANNEL BANKFULL WIDTH
MAX Yz TO %
BANKFULL
(-,--,Brush Toe
4.3 Not to Scale
Plan View
3'
'P)
x
SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLEIGRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
RIFFLE DEPTH BYRDS CREEK = 12"
RIFFLE DEPTH TRIBUTARIES = 6" CHANNEL BED
TYPE 2 TOE F SL PE
FILTER FABRIC
BOULDER
EXTEND FILTER (SEE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
FABRIC U MIN. FOR SIZE)
UPSTREAM
Section A -A'
STRUCTURE INVERT ELEVATION / HEADER ROCK
/ PER PROFILE
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
EXTEND FILTER
f— FABRIC5'MIN.
UPSTREAM
Rock Goss Vane
L3�) Not to Scale
BACKFILL
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
BRUSH AND WOOD DEBRIS
SOIUSALVAGED STREAM BED MATERIAL
BRUSH AND WOOD DEBRIS
SOIUSALVAGED STREAM BED MATERIAL
0
SLOPE L L
SALVAGED ONSITE FOOTER ROCK
COBBLEIGRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
RIFFLE DEPTH BYRDS CREEK = 12"
RIFFLE DEPTH TRIBUTARIES = 6"
Profile View
V7
AZa §919
�w :�Ug5z
,]z$ Fk 5
� w �
GPI
Q
e�
Zd �q
f�
CJf1 FA
Vd
A
°s�
W
A
F
2~MIN
BASE LOGS
4 " -6" DIAMETER
NOTES:
1.
OVEREXCAVATE V OUTSIDE OF TOP OF BANK ( BANKFULL).
0
Section A
2.
INSTALL BASE LOGS IN A CRISS CROSS PATTERN, DRIVING THEM INTO THE
-A'
EXISTING BANK A MINIMUM OF 2'. BASE LOGS SHALL BE 6 " -12" DIAMETER.
3.
INSTALL A LAYER OF SOIUSALVAGED STREAM BED MATERIAL ON TOP OF THE
BASE LOGS.
4.
LIGHTLY SPREAD SOIUSALVAGED STREAM BED MATERIAL TO FILL VOIDS
BETWEEN BASE LOGS. AVOID HEAVY COMPACTION TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO
THE BASE LOGS.
5.
INSTALL A LAYER OF BRUSHNVOODY DEBRIS, WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF
SMALL BRANCHES AND ROOTS COLLECTED ON -SITE. LIGHTLY COMPACT
BRUSHNVOODY DEBRIS LAYER.
6.
BRUSH SHOULD BE ALIGNED SO STEMS ARE ROUGHLY PARALLEL AND IS
INSTALLED POINTING SLIGHTLY UPSTREAM.
7.
INSTALL ALTERNATING SOIUSALVAGED STREAM BED MATERIAL AND
e
BRUSHNVOODY DEBRIS LAYERS TO Y" TO % BANKFULL HEIGHT.
8.
INSTALL EARTH BACKFILL OVER FINAL BRUSH/WOODY LAYER ACCORDING TO
TYPICAL SECTION DIMENSIONS.
9.
INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING AND BANK STABILIZATION PER PLANS.
V7
AZa §919
�w :�Ug5z
,]z$ Fk 5
� w �
GPI
Q
e�
Zd �q
f�
CJf1 FA
Vd
A
°s�
W
A

INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR PUSH THE DIBBLE, OR PULL BACK ON THE HANDLE REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, STRAIGHT DOWN SHOVEL, AND PUSH THE SHOVEL, SEVERAL INCHES SHOVEL, DOWN TO THE TO CLOSE THE BOTTOM OF SHOVEL, AND CLOSE AND FIRM
INTO THE SOIL TO THE SEEDLING ROOTS DEEP INTO IN FRONT OF THE FULL DEPTH OF THE THE PLANTING HOLD. THEN UP THE OPENING WITH YOUR
FULL DEPTH OF THE THE PLANTING HOLE. PULL SEEDLING AND PUSH THE BLADE. PUSH FORWARD TO CLOSE HEEL. BE CAREFUL TO AVOID
BLADE AND PULL BACK ON THE SEEDLING BACK UP TO BLADE HALFWAY INTO THE THE TOP, ELIMINATING AIR DAMAGING THE SEEDLING.
THE HANDLE TO OPEN THE CORRECT PLANTING SOIL. TWIST AND PUSH POCKETS AROUND THE
THE PLANTING HOLE. (DO DEPTH (THE ROOT COLLAR THE HANDLE FORWARD TO ROOT.
NOT ROCK THE SHOVEL SHOULD BE 1 TO 3 INCHES CLOSE THE TOP OF THE
BACK AND FORTH AS THIS BELOW THE SOIL SURFACE). SLIT TO HOLD THE
CAUSES SOIL IN THE GENTLY SHAKE THE SEEDLING IN PLACE.
PLANTING HOLE TO BE SEEDLING TO ALLOW THE
COMPACTED, INHIBITING ROOTS TO STRAIGHTEN OUT. �p '_v
ROOT GROWTH. DO NOT TWIST OR SPIN THE ]Bare Root ]Plaxntuap.
SEEDLING OR LEAVE THE 1 t� 7 v v v v v v v v
ROOTS J- ROOTED. 4.4 lNot to bcaLe vvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvv
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING
See plan view and notes for spacing (SEE DETAIL)
TOP OF BANK
LIVE STAKE (TYP)_"
TOE OF SLOPE n
LIVE S
NOTE:
1. LIVE STAKES TO BE PLANTED IN AREAS AS SHOWN
ON PLANS AND DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
2. LIVE STAKES PLANTED IN ENHANCEMENT
SECTIONS SHALL BE PLANTED ON T CENTERS
PER THE TANGENT SECTION PLAN VIEW THIS
SHEET.
3. IF THE PROPOSED BANK HEIGHT IS LESS THAN
THE PROPOSED LIVE STAKE ROW SPACING THE
FIRST ROW SHALL BE PLACED AT TOP OF BANK
AND THE SECOND ROW SHALL BE PLANTED JUST
ABOVE THE TOE OF BANK
Section View
-IARt tIYY) IUPOh BANK
� 6.0' f de de Ae &
3.
Plan View
(Tangent Section)
LIVE STAKE (TYP:
NOTES:
1. LNESTANESTOBEPLANTEDINAREASAS
SHOWN
ON PLANS AND DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER
Plan View
(Out Bend
Section)
]Live Staking
4.4 of to bcale
Typical Stake
)P OF BANK
SECURE MATTING IN
6" DEEP TRENCH
]Erosion Control Matting
\,!,y 1NOIUGDcate
wp
�k
to
112"T02" j
DIAMETER p
in ww
Ow
N f
TOP OF BANK
TSPACING
AZa�
0 �zaa"
z$
A��A°
a55
FW5
Y
Q44'� ti 4��0
co
Q
e�
t�
f�
s�pyp�
V1 FA
Ve
�L
R
Vim,
H 1
0
°s
e
WIDTH
IES
DIBBLE BAR
PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A
)
BANKFULL
w BLADE WITH A TRIANGULAR
r1CROSS-SECTION,
AND SHALL BE
NOTES:
IFA-
121NCHESL NG,41NCHESWIDE
OTHICKAT
° AND I INCH CENTER.
1. ALL SOILS WITHIN THE BUFFER
O
I
' : DISKED,
REQUIRED, PRIOR PLANTING.
2. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE PROPERLY
\/\
/ / //✓i/
j/�p� /l�
HANDLED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION
p\\
p�\ \j /� \p�j/ \ /�
/� \
\
ROOTING
SPAC�NG PER
ALL ROOTS
PLANT NG PLAN
TO AN APPORIATE LENGTH TO
st'etion view
PREVENT
INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR PUSH THE DIBBLE, OR PULL BACK ON THE HANDLE REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, STRAIGHT DOWN SHOVEL, AND PUSH THE SHOVEL, SEVERAL INCHES SHOVEL, DOWN TO THE TO CLOSE THE BOTTOM OF SHOVEL, AND CLOSE AND FIRM
INTO THE SOIL TO THE SEEDLING ROOTS DEEP INTO IN FRONT OF THE FULL DEPTH OF THE THE PLANTING HOLD. THEN UP THE OPENING WITH YOUR
FULL DEPTH OF THE THE PLANTING HOLE. PULL SEEDLING AND PUSH THE BLADE. PUSH FORWARD TO CLOSE HEEL. BE CAREFUL TO AVOID
BLADE AND PULL BACK ON THE SEEDLING BACK UP TO BLADE HALFWAY INTO THE THE TOP, ELIMINATING AIR DAMAGING THE SEEDLING.
THE HANDLE TO OPEN THE CORRECT PLANTING SOIL. TWIST AND PUSH POCKETS AROUND THE
THE PLANTING HOLE. (DO DEPTH (THE ROOT COLLAR THE HANDLE FORWARD TO ROOT.
NOT ROCK THE SHOVEL SHOULD BE 1 TO 3 INCHES CLOSE THE TOP OF THE
BACK AND FORTH AS THIS BELOW THE SOIL SURFACE). SLIT TO HOLD THE
CAUSES SOIL IN THE GENTLY SHAKE THE SEEDLING IN PLACE.
PLANTING HOLE TO BE SEEDLING TO ALLOW THE
COMPACTED, INHIBITING ROOTS TO STRAIGHTEN OUT. �p '_v
ROOT GROWTH. DO NOT TWIST OR SPIN THE ]Bare Root ]Plaxntuap.
SEEDLING OR LEAVE THE 1 t� 7 v v v v v v v v
ROOTS J- ROOTED. 4.4 lNot to bcaLe vvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvv
vvvvvvvvv
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING
See plan view and notes for spacing (SEE DETAIL)
TOP OF BANK
LIVE STAKE (TYP)_"
TOE OF SLOPE n
LIVE S
NOTE:
1. LIVE STAKES TO BE PLANTED IN AREAS AS SHOWN
ON PLANS AND DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
2. LIVE STAKES PLANTED IN ENHANCEMENT
SECTIONS SHALL BE PLANTED ON T CENTERS
PER THE TANGENT SECTION PLAN VIEW THIS
SHEET.
3. IF THE PROPOSED BANK HEIGHT IS LESS THAN
THE PROPOSED LIVE STAKE ROW SPACING THE
FIRST ROW SHALL BE PLACED AT TOP OF BANK
AND THE SECOND ROW SHALL BE PLANTED JUST
ABOVE THE TOE OF BANK
Section View
-IARt tIYY) IUPOh BANK
� 6.0' f de de Ae &
3.
Plan View
(Tangent Section)
LIVE STAKE (TYP:
NOTES:
1. LNESTANESTOBEPLANTEDINAREASAS
SHOWN
ON PLANS AND DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER
Plan View
(Out Bend
Section)
]Live Staking
4.4 of to bcale
Typical Stake
)P OF BANK
SECURE MATTING IN
6" DEEP TRENCH
]Erosion Control Matting
\,!,y 1NOIUGDcate
wp
�k
to
112"T02" j
DIAMETER p
in ww
Ow
N f
TOP OF BANK
TSPACING
AZa�
0 �zaa"
z$
A��A°
a55
FW5
Y
Q44'� ti 4��0
co
Q
e�
t�
f�
s�pyp�
V1 FA
Ve
�L
R
Vim,
H 1
0
°s
e
Plan View
(Tangent Section)
LIVE STAKE (TYP:
NOTES:
1. LNESTANESTOBEPLANTEDINAREASAS
SHOWN
ON PLANS AND DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER
Plan View
(Out Bend
Section)
]Live Staking
4.4 of to bcale
Typical Stake
)P OF BANK
SECURE MATTING IN
6" DEEP TRENCH
]Erosion Control Matting
\,!,y 1NOIUGDcate
wp
�k
to
112"T02" j
DIAMETER p
in ww
Ow
N f
TOP OF BANK
TSPACING
AZa�
0 �zaa"
z$
A��A°
a55
FW5
Y
Q44'� ti 4��0
co
Q
e�
t�
f�
s�pyp�
V1 FA
Ve
�L
R
Vim,
H 1
0
°s
e

SUPPORTLOG
12"0 MIN.
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
(SEE INSET -B-)
MUD MATS
X DIM
WATER DIVERSION CHANNEL
7 FILTERFABRIC
CLASS B
STONE
NOTE:
1. CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS AT NORMAL
BASEFLOW.
2. MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS. DO NOT
EXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM.
3. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW.
4. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION
ROAD DOES NOT ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL.
5. STABILIZE AN ACCESS RAMP OF CLASS B STONE TO THE EDGE OF
THE MUD MAT.
6. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE
ACCORDING TO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED.
7. DIMENSIONS X AND Y TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD AS
DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
Temporary Stream Crossing - Mud Mat
4.5 0
Plan View
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
(SEE INSET -B-)
ZED OUTLET
S RIPRAP AND
! FILTER FABRIC.
(SEE INSET "C ")
8'MAX, WITH WIRE
(6- MAX. WITHOUT WIRE)
FH
MIDDLE
SHALL BE 12 1 GAGE M I
LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED IN THE
FAB
TOP AND BOTTOM STRAND
FLEXIBLE DISCHARGE HOSE FROM
PUMP AROUND PUMP HELD IN PLACE
WITH SAND BAGS AS NEEDED.
LFILTER
SHALL BE 10 GAUGE 4MIN.
0
WIRE
NOTES:
1. USE WIRE A MINIUM OF 32" IN WIDTH AND
WITH A MINIMUM OF 6 LINES OF WIRES WITH
12" STAY SPACING.
2. USE FILTER FABRIC A MINIMUM OF 36" IN
WIDTH AND FASTEN ADEQUATELY TO THE
WIRES AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
3. PROVIDE 5' STEEL POST OF THE
SELF - FASTENER ANGLE STEEL TYPE. ANGLE
STEEL TYPE.
HIGH STRENGTH
DOUBLE STITCHED
"J' TYPE SEAMS.
BAG PLACED ON
AGGREGATED OR STRAW..
FILTER FABRIC
COMPACTED FILL - ' = /- EXISTING GROUND
�4. OaW
EXTEND FABRIC w
INTO TRENCH w iv
m
Temporary Silt ]Fence
4.s iNOT to 5
(�j:) Pump Around System
4.5 Not to Scale
NOTES:
1. PROVIDE TURNING RADIUS SUFFICIENT TO
ACCOMMODATE LARGE TRUCKS.
5. LOCATE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AT ALL
POINTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS UNTIL SITE IS
STABILIZED. PROVIDE FREQUENT CHECKS OF
THE DEVICE AND TIMELY MAINTENANCE.
6. MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH
WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR DIRECT FLOW OF
MUD ONTO STREETS. PERIODIC TOP DRESSING
WITH STONE WILL BE NECESSARY.
7. ANY MATERIAL TRACKED ONTO THE ROADWAY
MUST BE CLEANED IMMEDIATELY.
8. USE CLASS A STONE OR OTHER COARSE
AGGREGATE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
9. PLACE FILTER FABRIC BENEATH STONE.
3 Construction Entrance
¢.5 of to bcalc
SAND BAG
(24" X 12" X 6 ")
OR STONE.
IMPERVIOUS SHEETING
FLOW
meet "B"
Impervious Dike
10' MIN.
FILTER FABRIC
Inset "C"
Stabilized Outlet
STABILIZED OUTLET USING CLASS B
FH
RIPRAP TRENCHED INTO EXISTING
GROUND A MINIMUM OF 6 ". SIZE AND
LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED IN THE
FIELD BY THE ENGINEER.
FLEXIBLE DISCHARGE HOSE FROM
PUMP AROUND PUMP HELD IN PLACE
WITH SAND BAGS AS NEEDED.
0
Q
ti
ld 1
Q
w
U
W
ro
d
v7
AZa §919
uz
�zaa
0+
0
z
GPI
a
U
(A
Zd
rte'
°s Ln
e
aA
�I

580.00
575.00
570.00
565.00
IIIIIIIiiiiii
COMPACTED EARTH FILL
COVERED BY MIX CLASS - CULVERT CENTER - 60' CMP
A AND B STONE - EMBEDMENT DEPTH = 12"
INV UP = 567.1 (STA 34 +71)
INV DN = 566.9 (STA 35 +03)
LENGTH = 32 -LF
PROPOSED ROAD CL
TOP ELEV = 574.0
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■1� �+ ■ ■i- ■i�1�� �■ ► \GI ■ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■
■■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ \�E7 ■y ■ ■ ►7f■► \II ■r ■'■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■
■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■r ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■
■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■
580.00
575.00
570.00
565.00
- 120.00 - 110.00 - 100.00 -90.00 -80.00 -70.00 -60.00 -50.00 -40.00 -30.00 -20.00 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00
]PERMANENT CROSSING: BYRDS CREEK STA. 34 +87
575.00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■.- ..... -.. ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■�� ■ ■ ■!.� ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■i ■� ® ■:'� ■ ■'�' 9'�'C�'f'�'�' �'1'�"�"iC#' ifs '�'1'�'1'�l'x$f'�'C�'�'1'■"�' �'L'C�'■'�li"�' ■ ■'�'1"�' C#'if�fL'■.y3"�` ■ice ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ iil■ WiIZ'' i'' 7■■ itxt33i333373A3�G ■t33333337�A13�ER \li 33�G3�rt3�i3333a ■'j"irir ■ ■r, ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■
575.00
•••■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■����if.y ■�■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ •••
■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■..,., ■ ■ ■1J ■ ■i■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■
I. I. I . L �, I � IC • . I .I ,�,
0' 10' 20' 30'
(HORIZONTAL)
0' 5' 10' 20'
(VERTICAL)
580.00
575.00
571 00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ -. E•■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■EW t♦ ■■W - .. ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■r`�C■ri ■ \' ■�■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■EM■Wr■__ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Wr■■ME■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■
580.00
575.00
571.00
-60.00 -50.00 -40.00 -30.00 -20.00 -10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
]PERMANENT CROSSING: SOUTH BRANCH STA. 20+36
580.00
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
;:.:;
■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■
■r...
■�
■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■■
■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■i
■
■ ■
■iR
■K/
■�I�l
■
■LA■1�1■
i�■■■■■■■■■
■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■
■ ■■
580.00 MEE
MEN
•• ••
• •• • •• • •• • •• • •• • •• • •• • of • •• • •• • ••
AZa §919
uz
�zaa
0 p
Q44'� ti 4��0
Q
� U G
C11 FA
u
d
H 1
°s

ko
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
January 29, 2013
Mr. Tyler Crumbley
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Drive
Wilmington, NC 28403 -1343
RE: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Byrds Creek Mitigation Plan; SAW 2012-
00230
Response to NCIRT Comments on Byrds Creek Mitigation Plan
Dear Mr. Crumbley:
We have read the NCIRT comments on the Byrds Creek Mitigation Plan dated October 3, 2013.
We have updated the Mitigation Plan based on these comments. Below are our responses to
each of the comments (italycs) including how each was addressed in the revisions to the
mitigation plan. The original comments are also included below in bold text.
1. 9/14/2012 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Eric Alsmeyer:
did not see any information in the document addressing the mitigation plan's
impacts to Wetland BB, which is bisected by the relocation of South Branch,
Reach 1, Sheet 2.8. Will the restoration effectively drain the wetland area? Will it
cut off hydrology to either of the remaining wetland polygons?
The restoration will not drain the Wetland BB. The Wetland BB area includes a bowl
shaped feature hydrated by a groundwater seep. The bowl feature transitions to a wet
swale (also part of wetland BB) that is positioned on the South Branch floodplain
generally parallel to the existing stream channel. A combination of the seep, a
seasonally high ground water table, and overbank flooding comprise the existing
sources of wetland hydrology for this wetland area. The proposed stream restoration
invert is set at approximately existing wetland grade as it crosses wetland BB. in this
location, the wetland is 1.5 foot (Jeep, wide swale. A riffle is proposed at this location with
a log j -hook structure located at the downstream point where the stream will cross
Wetland BB. This structure combination will ensure that the channel does not down cut
which reduces the chance of long term drainage of the wetland. No changes to the
mitigation plan were made to address this comment.
How will the wetland be affected by the buffer plantings?
The buffer plantings will help convert the wetland from an emergent to forested system
and therefore will have a positive effect in terms of a net gain in wetland function. The
plant species selected do not have unusually high evapotranspiration rates and the
wetland seems to have moderate to strong hydrology so there are no apparent concerns
about drying the wetland though evapotranspiration. No changes to the mitigation plan
were made to address this comment.
Wildlands Engincering, Ine. - plmne 919 -851 -9986 • fax [phone] • 5605 Chapel Hill Road 9 122 • Raleigh, NC 27007

2. 9/15/2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Jeffrey Garnett:
question the need for priority one restoration reach S131. I have not had the
opportunity to visit the site, but dimensions seem to indicate that the stream
channel is in relatively good shape and does not warrant full restoration (ER >
12.4; width to depth ratio > 6.2; bank height ratio = 1.0). The existing stream
channel is an E5 and the proposed channel is an E4; the minimum proposed ER is
7.0, while the existing minimum ER is 12.4. According to the numbers, it does not
seem that enough lift is occurring (and is needed) for P1 restoration of S131.
IRT members reviewed this reach during the field visit on 81512011 and agreed that
restoration was the appropriate approach on this reach due to the poor channel
conditions as discussed below.
While South Branch is currently connected to its floodplain with a low BHR (1) and also
has a moderate ER (12.4 — 13.1) it lacks riffle pool morphology and has extremely poor
in- stream habitat conditions. It is also important to note that there is no overall reduction
in the floodprone width proposed. The ER listed in the mitigation plan for the proposed
channel is lower than that of the existing channel due to an increase in proposed
channel width from 7 feet to 10 feet. The width to depth ratio will increase slightly, also
as a result of the increase in bankfull width.
The priority one restoration will convert a plane -bed, ditched stream with a sandy /loamy
bottom, raw eroding banks, and no woody debris to a meandering riffle -pool stream with
native gravel /cobble riffle substrate, incorporated woody debris, and brushy, vegetated
banks. This will result in significant ecological lift including but not limited to:
• increased diversity of flow regimes,
• suitable substrate for benthic colonization and spawning,
• pool habitat for refugia,
• increased complexity in aquatic habitats, and
• holding water during dryer periods.
No changes to the mitigation plan were made to address this comment.
It seems that no livestock fencing will be placed on the Homeplace and Bradsher
properties since no livestock is currently grazing there. In the event that livestock
are reintroduced to the properties, the provider should guarantee that fencing will
be erected to keep livestock out of the easement.
The owners of the Homeplace property were provided with a cattle exclusion fencing
allowance as part of the easement payment, Their obligation tinder this agreement was
to erect fencing using these funds or permanently move cattle off the property with the
knowledge that if cattle were re- introduced, these funds were to be used to erect fencing
at that time. Because cattle do not pose a threat to the easement at this time, no fencing
is proposed on this property as would be the case on any mitigation site where cattle
were not present. It is the landowner's long term obligation to ensure that they do not
violate the easement. The Bradsher property is wooded and has not been used for
cattle grazing in the vicinity of the easement at any time in recent history if ever. For this
reason, cattle are not considered to be a threat and no fencing is proposed. No changes
to the mitigation plan were made to address this comment.
Wildlands Engineering, ]ne, • phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • 1430 S. NEW Street, 9 104 1 Charlotte, NC 28203

Goals of this project are to "create and improve aquatic habitat, reduce sediment
inputs from streambank erosion, and improve water quality,.." No quantifiable
performance standards have been presented to directly test for these parameters.
Monitoring channel pattern, profile, and design over the first five years of the bank
only serves as a surrogate that sediment loads are decreasing, and the
assumption is being made that improving the channel will reduce sediment loads.
The provider should develop a quantifiable plan to directly measure success of
the project goal. For example, simple turbidity measurements could be taken on a
regular basis (during base flows and at bankfull events) both upstream and
downstream of the site. These measurements should be taken before restoration,
during restoration, and for a minimum of five years post- restoration in order to
document achievement of the goal. Similarly, macro!nvertebrate sampling would
help verify an improvement in aquatic habitat.
The goals of the project were established with consideration of the watershed
improvement goals laid out by EEP's 2090 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities
(RBRP) document. The monitoring plan was developed in accordance with the current
Stream Mitigation Guidelines document and represents the accepted approach to
monitoring this type of project. In response to this comment, we have reworded Section
1.0 of the mitigation plan to state that "Sediment load reduction will be monitored through
assessing bank stability with cross section and profile surveys and visual assessment
through photo documentation which serves as an accepted surrogate for direct turbidity
measurements." This is accepted practice for this type of "typical" stream restoration
project in North Carolina at this time.
3. 9/1.7.12012 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Todd Tuqwell:
Several wetlands are located within the proposed stream corridor that may be
impacted during construction, including a wetland that will be crossed by the
proposed stream alignment. (See sta. 20 +00 on Sheet 2.1 and Sta 29 +00 on Sheet
2.7) All impacts to wetlands along the project corridor should be avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Existing wetlands should be
fenced off to prevent unintended impacts. Additionally, all wetland impacts need
to be accounted for in the permit application.
Text has been added to the mitigation plan (Section &.1) stating that safety fence will be
used to protect all wetland areas within the limits of disturbance (LOD) during
construction. The final erosion and sediment control plan will show safety fencing
around all wetland areas within the LOD. All wetland impacts have been accounted for
in the 404 permit application.
The stream crossings should be designed to meet the current regional nationwide
permit conditions, which include standards for culvert imbedment. The crossing
at Sta. 35 +00 is proposed at 6" of embedment depth, but regional conditions
require 12" for culverts of 48" and greater. Please check culvert crossings
against the regional conditions and revise if necessary.
We have made changes to the construction plan set indicating that culverts are to be
embedded to a depth of 12 inches. No change to the mitigation plan document is
necessary.
Wildlands Engineering, ]ne. • phone [phone] • fix 704 -332 -3306 - 1430 S. Mint Strect, 9 10 i + Charlotte, NC 28203

The proposed easement crossing located at Sta. 38 +50 is located at an angle to
the stream channel, reducing the amount of stream located in the easement and
setting the stage for potential impacts to the buffer if the road to the crossing is
not aligned/ constructed properly. Please consider relocating this crossing if
possible, and make sure to clearly identify the locations of the easement in this
area to prevent unintentional encroachments.
The proposed culvert crossing located within the easement break on Southeast Branch
has been modified to run parallel to the easement break and be centered within the
break to the maximum extent practicable. The culvert length has been extended to
accommodate for the fact that the stream does not run perpendicular to the easement
break in this location. This greatly reduces the risk of easement encroachment due to
the culvert crossing.
SincerO
J3 n H
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • plione 709- 332 -7759 • Fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, 4 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

MITIGATION PLAN
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Person County, North Carolina
EEP ID #95020
Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020201
Prepared for:
1{,Il lil I111
PROGRAM
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
January, 2013

MITIGATION PLAN
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Person County, North Carolina
EEP ID #95020
Neuse River Basin
HUC 03020201
Prepared for:
E t� ii ellt
rmba�
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Prepared by:
i*A
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
5605 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone — 919 - 851 -9986
John Hutton
[e-mail]
January 2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (WEI) is completing a full delivery project for the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to restore and enhance a total of 7,477 existing linear
feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream in Person County, NC. The streams proposed for
restoration include Byrds Creek (a third order stream) and South Branch, Southeast Branch, and
West Branch which are all tributaries to Byrds Creek. This site is located in the Neuse River
Basin within HUC 03020201 (Neuse 01). Buffer restoration will also take place but is not
intended for mitigation credit at this time.
The Byrds Creek Mitigation Site (Site) is located in the South Flat River Watershed which is
located within the Falls Lake Water Supply Watershed. The Site's watershed is within
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201010020 which was identified as a Neuse 01 Targeted
Local Watershed (TLW) in NCEEP's 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) plan.
Priority projects for the watershed include agricultural best management practices (BMPs) that
offset nutrient inputs to streams, stream restoration in altered reaches where erosion is a major
source of sediment inputs, and the protection of rare species and communities.
The proposed project will help meet the goals for the watershed outlined in the RBRP and
provide numerous ecological benefits within the Neuse River Basin. While many of these benefits
are limited to the Byrds Creek project area, others, such as pollutant removal, reduced sediment
loading, and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have farther - reaching effects. In addition,
specific Neuse 01 goals include supporting the Falls Lake Watershed Management Plan. The
design will not result in adverse impacts to wetlands.
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register
Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8
paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14).
• NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated
July 28, 2010.
These documents govern EEP operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory
mitigation.
W
W Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ............................................................................... ...............................
i
1.0
Restoration Project Goals and Objectives ............................................. ...............................
1
2.0
Project Site Location and Selection ...................................................... ...............................
2
2.1 Directions to Project Site .............................................................. ...............................
2
2.2 Site Selection and Project Components ........................................ ...............................
2
3.0
Site Protection Instrument ..................................................................... ...............................
3
4.0
Baseline Information - Project Site and Watershed Summary .............. ...............................
3
4.1 Watershed Historical Land Use and Development Trends ........... ...............................
4
4.2 Watershed Assessment ................................................................. ...............................
4
4.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils ................................................ ...............................
5
4.4 Valley Classification ..................................................................... ...............................
5
4.5 Surface Water Classification and Water Quality .......................... ...............................
6
5.0
Baseline Information - Reach Summary .............................................. ...............................
7
5.1 Existing Stream and Vegetation Condition ................................... ...............................
7
5.2 Stream Geomorphology ................................................................ ...............................
8
5.3 Channel Evolution ...................................................................... ...............................
13
5.4 Channel Stability Assessment ..................................................... ...............................
14
5.5 Bankfull Verification .................................................................. ...............................
15
5.6 Design Discharge ........................................................................ ...............................
16
6.0
Baseline Information - Regulatory Considerations ............................. ...............................
17
6.1 401/404 ....................................................................................... ...............................
17
6.2 Endangered and Threatened Species .......................................... ...............................
18
6.3 Cultural Resources ...................................................................... ...............................
19
6.4 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass .......... ...............................
19
6.5 Essential Fisheries Habitat .......................................................... ...............................
19
6.6 Utilities and Site Access ............................................................. ...............................
19
7.0
Reference Sites .................................................................................... ...............................
20
7.1 Reference Streams ...................................................................... ...............................
20
8.0
Determination of Credits ..................................................................... ...............................
25
9.0
Project Site Mitigation Plan ................................................................ ...............................
26
9.1 Designed Channel Classification ................................................ ...............................
26
9.2 Target Buffer Communities ........................................................ ...............................
28
9.3 Stream Project and Design Justification ..................................... ...............................
29
9.4 Sediment Transport Analysis ...................................................... ...............................
30
9.5 Project Implementation Summary .............................................. ...............................
34
10.0
Maintenance Plan ................................................................................ ...............................
36
11.0
Performance Standards ....................................................................... ...............................
37
11.1 Streams ....................................................................................... ...............................
37
11.2 Vegetation ..................................................................................... .............................38
12.0
Monitoring Plan .................................................................................. ...............................
39
12.1 Additional Monitoring Details .................................................... ...............................
40
13.0
Long -Term Management Plan ............................................................ ...............................
40
14.0
Adaptive Management Plan ................................................................ ...............................
40
15.0
Financial Assurances ........................................................................... ...............................
41
16.0
References ............................................................................................. .............................41
IM
W Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Draft Mitigation Plan Page ii

TABLES
Table 1. Site Protection Instrument ............................................................. ...............................
Table 2. Project and Watershed Information ............................................... ...............................
Table 3. Floodplain Soil Types and Descriptions ........................................ ...............................
Table 4. Reach Summary Information ........................................................ ...............................
Table 5a. Existing Stream Conditions ......................................................... ...............................
Table 5b. Existing Stream Conditions ......................................................... ...............................
Table 7. Design Discharge Analysis Summary ........................................... ...............................
Table 8. Regulatory Considerations ............................................................ ...............................
Table 9. Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Person County, NC .............................
Table 10a. Summary of Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters ............ ...............................
Table 10b. Summary of Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters ........... ...............................
Table 11. Determination of Credits Byrds Creek Mitigation Site ............... ...............................
Table 12a. Design Morphologic Parameters — Restoration Reaches ........... ...............................
Table 12b. Design Morphologic Parameters — Enhancement I Reaches ..... ...............................
Table 13. Bankfull Shear Stress Calculations .............................................. ...............................
Table 14. Shear Stress in Design Reaches by Bed Feature Type ................ ...............................
Table 15. Grain Size Calculations for Bankfull Shear Stress ...................... ...............................
Table 16. Sediment Impact Assessment Model (SIAM) Results ................ ...............................
Table18. Maintenance Plan ........................................................................ ...............................
Table 19. Monitoring Requirements ............................................................ ...............................
FIGURES
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Watershed Map
Figure 3
Site Map
Figure 4
Soils Map
Figure 5
Hydrologic Features Map
Figure 6
NC Piedmont Regional Curves with Project Data Overlay
Figure 7
Reference Site Vicinity Map
Figure 8
Stream Design
APPENDICES
.3
.3
.5
.7
11
12
17
17
18
23
24
25
27
28
31
31
33
34
36
39
Appendix 1 Project Site Photographs
Appendix 2 Historic Aerial Photographs
Appendix 3 Project Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination and NCWAM Data Forms
Appendix 4 Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix 5 Resource Agency Correspondence
Appendix 6 Existing Morphologic Survey Data
Appendix 7 Floodplain Check List
M
W Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Draft Mitigation Plan
Page iii

1.0 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
The 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) identified HUC 03020201010020, the South
Flat River Watershed, as a Targeted Local Watershed
(http: // www .nceep.net/services /reslplans/ FINAL %20RBRP %2ONeuse %2020111207 %2000RRECTED.
pdf). The watershed is 38% agriculture and 57% forest or wetland areas. 23% of the streams within the
watershed are without riparian buffers. There are 53 documented Natural Heritage Element Occurrences
and 13 permitted animal operations in the watershed. The Flat River Aquatic Habitat is a Significant
Natural Heritage Area (SNHA) and is located in close proximity downstream of the Byrds Creek
Mitigation Site (Site). There are also records for several state endangered, threatened, and significantly
rare species in the South Flat River. One of the species is also a federal species of concern (See Figure 1
and Appendix 5).
The 2010 Neuse River Basin RBRP identified nutrient inputs from agriculture and stream bank erosion in
altered reaches as major stressors within this TLW. The Site was identified as a stream restoration and
cattle exclusion opportunity to improve water quality and buffers within the TLW. Restoration goals for
the Neuse 01 catalog unit are defined in the 2010 Neuse River Basin RBRP and include the following:
• Promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas by restoring and preserving
wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers;
• Support the Falls Lake Watershed Management Plan; Continue to implement planning initiatives
including the NCEEP Phase IV LWP for the Upper Neuse (incorporates updated plans for Ellerbe
Creek, Lake Rogers /Ledge Creek, Lick Creek, Little Lick Creek, and Upper Swift Creek) and the
Upper Neuse River Basin Association's Upper Neuse Watershed Management Plan; and
• Protect, augment and connect Natural Heritage Areas and other conservation lands.
Priorities of the South Flat River TLW outlined in the 2010 Neuse River Basin RBRP are:
Projects that offset nutrient inputs to the streams and agricultural best management practices
(BMPs);
• Stream restoration in altered reaches where erosion is a major source of sediment inputs to the
stream; and
• Protection of rare species and communities.
The Byrds Creek Mitigation Project will contribute to meeting restoration goals as described above for
the Neuse 01 Catalog Unit and the South Flat River TLW by:
• Restoring a degraded stream impacted by cattle to create and improve aquatic habitat, reduce
sediment inputs from streambank erosion, and improve water quality and
• Restoring a riparian buffer along stream corridors for additional terrestrial and aquatic habitat,
nutrient input reduction, and water quality benefits.
The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
• On -site nutrient inputs will be decreased by removing cattle from streams and filtering on -site
runoff through buffer zones. Off -site nutrient input will be absorbed on -site by filtering flood
flows through restored floodplain areas, where flood flow will spread through native vegetation.
Vegetation is expected to uptake excess nutrients.
w
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 1

Stream bank erosion which contributes sediment load to the creek will be greatly reduced, if not
eliminated, in the project area. Eroding stream banks will be stabilized using bioengineering,
natural channel design techniques, and grading to reduce bank angles and bank height. Storm
flow containing grit and fine sediment will be filtered through restored floodplain areas, where
flow will spread through native vegetation. Spreading flood flows will also reduce velocity and
allow sediment to settle out. Sediment transport capacity of restored reaches will be improved so
that capacity balances more closely to load. Sediment load reduction will be monitored through
assessing bank stability with cross section and profile surveys and visual assessment through
photo documentation which serves as an accepted surrogate for direct turbidity measurements.
• Restored riffle /pool sequences will promote aeration of water and create deep water zones,
helping to lower water temperature. Establishment and maintenance of riparian buffers will create
long -term shading of the channel flow to minimize thermal heating. Lower water temperatures
will help maintain dissolved oxygen concentrations.
• In- stream structures will be constructed to improve habitat diversity and trap detritus. Wood
habitat structures will be included in the stream as part of the restoration design. Such structures
may include log drops and rock structures that incorporate woody debris.
• Adjacent buffer and riparian habitats will be restored with native vegetation as part of the project.
Native vegetation will provide cover and food for terrestrial creatures. Native plant species will
be planted and invasive species will be treated. Eroding and unstable areas will also be stabilized
with vegetation as part of this project.
• The restored land will be protected in perpetuity through a conservation easement.
2.0 Project Site Location and Selection
2.1 Directions to Project Site
The Site is located in southwestern Person County, southwest of Roxboro (Figure 1). From Roxboro take
Route 157 south 9.8 miles. Turn right on Charlie Monk Road. Travel 1.0 miles and turn left on Wolfe
Road. Travel 0.4 miles to the end of Wolfe Road. The project site is located south and east of the end of
Wolfe Road and is bound by Route 157 to the west and Walnut Grove Church Road to the east.
2.2 Site Se lection and Project Components
The Byrds Creek Mitigation Site has been selected to provide stream mitigation units (SMUs) in the
Neuse Basin. The site was selected based on the current degraded condition of the onsite streams and the
potential for functional restoration as described in Section 1.0. Credit determinations are presented in
Section 8.0.
The streams proposed for restoration and enhancement include Byrds Creek (BC) and three unnamed
tributaries to BC: South Branch (SB), Southeast Branch (SE), and West Branch (WB) (Figure 3). Byrds
Creek flows northward along the eastern edge of the project site until turning and flowing southeastward
at a point approximately one third of its length through the site. It continues in this direction until the
confluence with South Branch and Southeast Branch. Byrds Creek turns again after this confluence and
flows generally northward to the downstream end of the project. South Branch flows due north and enters
Byrds Creek very near to where Southeast branch enters from the east. West Branch flows eastward and
enters Byrds Creek at the downstream end of the project. During the pre- restoration assessment, Byrds
Creek was divided into 4 reaches based on differences in existing conditions: BC 1, BC2, BC3, and BC4.
South Branch and West Branch are presented as single reaches: SB1 and WB1, respectively. Southeast
Branch is broken into an upper and lower reach: SE1 and SE2, respectively. The project streams
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 2

ultimately flow into South Flat River which is part of the Neuse River Basin. Photographs of the project
site are included in Appendix 1.
3.0 Site Protection Instrument
The land required for construction, management, and stewardship of the mitigation project includes
portions of the parcels listed in Table 1. A land protection instrument will be recorded following
finalization of the mitigation plan but prior to project permit issuance.
Table 1. Site Protection Instrument
All site protection instruments require 60 -day advance notification to the Corps and the State prior to any
action to void, amend, or modify the document. No such action shall take place unless approved by the
State.
4.0 Baseline Information — Project Site and Watershed Summary
Table 2 presents the project information and baseline watershed information.
Table 2. Proiect and Watershed Information
Project County
Person County
Site
Deed Book
Project Area (acres)
Landowner
PIN
County
Protection
and Page
Acreage
Instrument
Number
Protected
The Homeplace
TBD
Person
TBD
TBD
20.0
Charles E. Hall
TBD
Person
TBD
TBD
3.4
Noell W. and Floyd D.
NCDWQ Sub -basin
03 -04 -01
Bradsher
TBD
Person
TBD
TBD
2.5
All site protection instruments require 60 -day advance notification to the Corps and the State prior to any
action to void, amend, or modify the document. No such action shall take place unless approved by the
State.
4.0 Baseline Information — Project Site and Watershed Summary
Table 2 presents the project information and baseline watershed information.
Table 2. Proiect and Watershed Information
Project County
Person County
Project Area (acres)
25.9
Project Coordinates
36° 14.744'N, 79° 2.636'W
Physiographic Region
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
Ecoregion
Piedmont
River Basin
Neuse River
USGS HUC (8 digit, 14 digit)
03020201, 03020201010020
NCDWQ Sub -basin
03 -04 -01
CGIA Land Use
Classification
2.01.01 - Row Crops; 2.01.03 - Hay and Pasture Land; 2.99.05 - Farm
Ponds, 7 — Unused
Reaches
Byrds
(BC1 -BC2)
Byrds
(BC3 -BC4)
South
Branch
(SB1)
Southeast
Branch
(SE1 -SE2)
West
Branch
(WB1)
Drainage Area (acres)
2635-2637
2703-2957
164
56 -62
255
Watershed Land Use
Developed
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Forested /Scrubland
54%
52%
63%
18%
26%
Agriculture /Managed Herb.
46%
48%
37%
82%
74%
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 3

Open Water
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
Watershed Impervious
1%
<1%
<1%
1%
2.5%
Cover
4.1 Watershed Historical Land Use and Development Trends
Much of the Byrds Creek watershed and the project site was cleared for agricultural use at some point
prior to or during the early 1900's as is typical to the region, although no information exists to verify
when the clearing was completed. Draining of wetland and channelization or relocation of streams were
common practices during such land conversion activities. Historic USDA aerial photographs from 1955
and 1975 (Appendix 2) were compared to a series of aerial photographs from 1993 to 2010 available in
Google Earth.
The 1955 aerial photograph shows that, while most fields had been established on the higher, flatter
sections of the site, the stream valley floors and major portions of the valley side slopes remained in a
forested condition. By 1975, it appears that the stream valleys have been timbered with the possible
exception of the upper end of Southeast Branch (reach SE I). It appears that the natural vegetation in the
stream valleys was allowed to naturally regenerate and was mostly scrub and young trees.
There is remarkably little change in the location and extents of forested and agricultural areas between
1975 and 1993. A slight increase in forested areas has occurred from 1993 to the present, likely due to
fallow fields being converted to cultivated tree plots for eventual timbering. It was also noted that the
majority of farm ponds in the Byrds Creek watershed appear to have been constructed after 1975. Only a
few of the farm ponds that are currently present within the watershed are visible on the 1955 and 1975
aerials.
The watershed area for the project streams (Figure 2) was delineated using a combination of USGS 7.5-
minute topographic quadrangles, site specific topographic survey, and available GIS data.
4.2 Watershed Assessment
On March 27, 2012, WEI conducted a watershed reconnaissance to verify current land uses observed
from the aerial photography and to identify potential stressors. Windshield and on -foot reconnaissance of
the Byrds Creek watershed confirmed that there has been little or no change in the overall location and
extents of forested and agricultural land use since at least as far back as 1955. The forested land use
observed consisted primarily of semi - mature hardwood canopies. It does appear that there were select and
sporadic timbering activities over the years given that most of the canopy trees appeared to be between 25
and 100 years old based on height and spread. The agricultural land use observed is a mix of row crops,
hay, and pasture. Few livestock grazing operations were observed in the watershed. The condition of
Byrds Creek in the forested sections above and below the project area was similar to that of the project
reaches with the exception of the prevalent livestock impacts and associated streambank trampling
present on the project site.
The watershed assessment supports the conclusion that the overall watershed hydrology and sediment
regime have remained essentially the same for the last half of a century and no recent watershed stressors
are affecting the stability of the project reaches. On -going agricultural practices within areas of highly
erodible soils within the watershed may be contributing a portion of the sand deposition observed in
sections of Byrd's Creek. However, specific local stressors including lack of riparian buffers and
livestock access are mostly responsible for the current degraded conditions of the onsite streams.
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 4

4.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils
The Site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The Piedmont
Province is characterized by gently rolling, well rounded hills with long low ridges, with elevations
ranging from 300 to 1,500 feet above sea level. The Carolina Slate belt consists of heated and deformed
volcanic and sedimentary rocks (NCGS, 2009). Approximately 550 to 650 million years ago, this region
was the site of a series of oceanic volcanic islands. The belt is known for its numerous abandoned gold
mines and prospects. The eastern portion of the project site is located within the Felsic Metavolcanic
Rock (CZfv) region of the Carolina Slate Belt. This rock type is comprised of metamorphosed dacitic to
rhyolitic flows and tuffs that are a medium to dark grayish green in color. In addition, this rock is
typically interbedded with mafic and intermediate metavolcanic rock, meta - argillite, and metamudstone.
The southern and northwestern portions of the project site are located in the Metamorphosed Granite
Rock (CZg) region. This region is classified as intrusive, metamorphosed granite rock. Furthermore, this
rock type is described as being a well foliated, megacrystic that locally contains hornblende.
The floodplain areas of the proposed project are mapped by the Person County Soil Survey (NRCS,
2011). Soils in the project area floodplain are primarily mapped as Chewacla and Georgeville loam.
These soils are described below in Table 3. A soils map is provided in Figure 4.
Table 3. Floodplain Soil Types and Descriptions
EEP Mitigation Plan Template
Soil Name
Location
IF 9r
Description
Chewacla soils are found in valleys and
Chewacla, 0 -2%
Byrds Creek and Southeast Branch
floodplains. They are nearly level and
slopes
floodplains, downstream reaches of
somewhat poorly drained. Shrink -swell
West Branch and South Branch
potential is low. These soils are frequently
flooded.
The Georgeville series consists of very
deep, well drained, moderately permeable
Small section of Byrds Creek valley,
soils that formed in material mostly
Georgeville loam, 1-
located near upstream project
p p
weathered from fine - grained metavolcanic
6%
boundary
rocks of the Carolina Slate Belt. These
soils are found on upland ridges, knolls,
and side slopes. Soil erodibility factor of
0.37, moderately high range.
The Georgeville series consists of very
deep, well drained, moderately permeable
Byrds Creek valley walls, upstream
soils that formed in material mostly
Georgeville loam, 6-
reaches of West Branch and South
weathered from fine - grained metavolcanic
10% slopes
Branch
rocks of the Carolina Slate Belt. These
soils are found on upland ridges, knolls,
and side slopes. Soil erodibility factor of
0.37, moderately high range.
Source: Person County Soil Survey, USDA -NRCS, http: / /efotq.nres.usda.gov
4.4 Valley Classification
The majority of the Byrds Creek project area is bound by valleys with relatively narrow floodplains and
valley side slopes ranging from 8% — 33% and valley slopes ranging from 0.1% — 2.0 %. It should be
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 5

noted that the surrounding fluvial and morphological landforms do not fit neatly into any of the Rosgen
(1996) valley type classification descriptions which are mostly based on landforms of the Western and
Central United States. However, the Byrds Creek valleys most closely resemble Valley Type IV, which
are steeper, moderately confined valleys with narrow valley bottoms containing the stream and an
associated floodplain. While Valley Type IV is described in publication as bedrock controlled gorges and
canyons, personal communication with the author had indicated that bedrock controlled confined valleys
in the Mid - Atlantic and Southeast piedmont are accurately described as Valley Type IV ( Rosgen, 2006
and 2007).
4.5 Surface Water C/assiflcation and Water Qua /lty
On February 7, 2011 and January 13, 2012, WEI investigated and assessed on -site jurisdictional
Waters of the United States using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) Routine On -Site
Determination Method. This method is defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual and subsequent Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Regional Supplement. Potential jurisdictional
wetland areas as well as typical upland areas were classified using the USACE Routine Wetland
Determination Data Form. Determination methods also included stream classification utilizing the NC
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Stream Identification Form and the USACE Stream Quality
Assessment Worksheet. On -site jurisdictional wetland areas were also assessed using the North Carolina
Wetland Assessment Method ( NCWAM). All USACE and NCWAM wetland forms are included in
Appendix 3.
The results of the on -site field investigation indicate that there are four jurisdictional stream channels
within the project area including Byrds Creek and three unnamed tributaries herein referred to as South
Branch, Southeast Branch, and West Branch.
There are three (3) jurisdictional wetland areas located within the project easement: Wetlands AA, BB,
and CC. Wetland AA is located along the right bank side of West Branch, immediately upstream of the
confluence with Byrds Creek, and is approximately 0.06 acre in size (Figure 3). This riverine forested
jurisdictional wetland exhibited low chroma soils (IOYR 5/2), many distinct iron concentrations (7.5YR
5/6), oxidized root channels, water marks, drainage patterns, and saturation in the upper 12 inches of the
soil profile. Dominant vegetation includes sweetgum (Liquidambar styracif ua), ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), creeping grass (Microstegium vimineum), and soft stem rush (Juncus effuses). Wetland AA
is located within Chewacla soils (ChA); this soil type is a deep, somewhat poorly - drained soil with
moderate permeability (Figure 4). A Wetland Determination Data Form representative of Wetland AA
(DP 1) is included in Appendix 3.
Wetland BB is located within the left bank floodplain of South Branch, approximately 130 feet upstream
of the confluence with Byrds Creek, and is approximately 0. 13 acre in size (Figure 3). This riverine
emergent jurisdictional wetland receives water from South Branch during high flow events and exhibited
low chroma soils (IOYR 6/1), many distinct iron concentrations (7.5YR 5/6), inundation from 1 to 3
inches, oxidized root channels, water marks, drainage patterns, water - stained leaves, and saturation in the
upper 12 inches of the soil profile. Dominant vegetation includes green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica),
creeping grass, strawcolored flatsedge (Cyperus strigosus), and soft stem rush. Wetland BB is also
located within Chewacla soils (Figure 4). A Wetland Determination Data Form representative of Wetland
BB (DP5) is included in Appendix 3.
Wetland CC is located in the southeast portion of the project, within the right bank floodplain of Byrds
Creek and is approximately 0.03 acre in size (Figure 3). This riverine emergent jurisdictional wetland is a
linear ditched feature and exhibited low chroma soils (IOYR 511), distinct iron concentrations (7.5YR
5/4), oxidized root channels, water marks, drainage patterns, and saturation in the upper 12 inches of the
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 6

soil profile. Dominant vegetation includes soft stem rush, strawcolored flatsedge, and common
switchgrass (Panicum virgatum). Wetland CC is also located within Chewacla soils (Figure 4). A
Wetland Determination Data Form representative of Wetland CC is included in Appendix 3 (DP7).
Wetland Determination Data Forms representative of on -site non jurisdictional upland areas have also
been enclosed (DP2 — DP4, and DP6).
Byrds Creek and its unnamed tributaries are located within the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
subbasin 03- 04 -01. None of the project streams are classified by NCDWQ and therefore are required to
meet standards for Class C waters. Byrds Creek is in the South Flat River watershed. South Flat River is
classified as WS -III; NSW by NCDWQ. South Flat River has a use support rating of "not rated" at this
time. All NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms are included in Appendix 4.
5.0 Baseline Information — Reach Summary
On -site existing conditions assessments were conducted by WEI in August and September 2011. The
locations of the project reaches and surveyed cross sections are shown in Figure 5. Existing geomorphic
survey data is included in Appendix 6. Table 4 presents the reach summary information.
Table 4. Reach Summary Information
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
5_1 Existing Stream and Vegetation Condition
Byrds Creek exhibits approximately the same overall alignment and pattern in the 1955 aerial photo as it
does today including the exaggerated meander bend at the bottom of reach BC 1 and the same sharp
southeastward and northward turns as it follows the valley. It is unclear as to whether the stream, or
portions of the stream, were relocated or channelized prior to 1955. However, given that it sits in a
relatively narrow, confined, bedrock controlled valley, it is possible that the alignment has remained
generally the same since before the land was originally cleared. The streams flow through pastures used
primarily for grazing livestock with the exception of West Branch which flows through a semi - mature
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 7
BC1
BC2
BC3
BC4
SE1
SE2
W131
Restored Length
637
1,630
1,402
787
971
792
713
589
LF
ValleV TVpe
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
Valley Slope (feet/
0.0022
0.0017
0.0018
0.0021
0.0097
0.0173
0.0195
0.0118
foot
Drainage Area
2,635
2,637
2,703
2,957
164
56
62
255
(acres)
NCDWQ stream ID
51.75
51.75
51.75
51.75
25.75
46.25
46.25
46.75
score
Perennial or
Intermittent
P
P
P
P
I
P
P
P
NCDWQ
WSIII/
WSIII/
WSIII/
WSIII/
WSIII/
WSIII/
WSIII/
WSIII/
Classification
NSW
NSW
NSW
NSW
NSW
NSW
NSW
NSW
Existing Rosgen
E5
C5 /E5
C4 /E4
E4
E5
G5 /F5
G6
Be4 /E4
Classification
Simon Evolutionary
Stage
IV /V
IV
IV/V
IV
III
IV/V
III /IV
IV/V
FEMA classification
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
5_1 Existing Stream and Vegetation Condition
Byrds Creek exhibits approximately the same overall alignment and pattern in the 1955 aerial photo as it
does today including the exaggerated meander bend at the bottom of reach BC 1 and the same sharp
southeastward and northward turns as it follows the valley. It is unclear as to whether the stream, or
portions of the stream, were relocated or channelized prior to 1955. However, given that it sits in a
relatively narrow, confined, bedrock controlled valley, it is possible that the alignment has remained
generally the same since before the land was originally cleared. The streams flow through pastures used
primarily for grazing livestock with the exception of West Branch which flows through a semi - mature
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 7

forested area. The streams themselves are used as water sources for the animals. As a result, the stream
banks are heavily trampled.
BC1 has the most intact riparian buffer with an expansive forest on the left bank and a riparian buffer of
variable width (0 to 100 feet) on the right. BC2 has an expansive forest of the left bank and sparse trees
and patches of dense scrub vegetation along the top of bank on the right. The riparian zones of BC3 and
BC4 are vegetated by a few sparse trees along the top of bank. South Branch also has some streamside
trees and a relatively young and narrow riparian buffer along the last 300 feet of stream length before the
confluence with Byrds Creek. The riparian zone along SE1 is heavily grazed and relatively devoid of
herbaceous groundcover and understory but does contain a semi - mature stand of trees. SE2 has sparse
trees along the top of both banks.
There is a breached earthen and stone dam on BC2 upstream of the confluence with South Branch. The
1955 and 1975 photos do not have sufficient resolution to determine if this dam (currently breached) was
present or absent when the photos were taken. There is also a farm pond is located at the upstream end of
Southeast Branch, but it is not within the project area.
Due to heavy agricultural activities and vegetation management for many decades, pasture grasses
dominate the acreage included in the project easements along with some woody vegetative cover as
described above. Sparse tree species throughout the easement include red cedar (Juniperus virginiana),
red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), southern red oak (Quercus falcata),
willow oak (Quercus phellos), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera).
S.2 Stream Geomorphology
The streams run through relatively narrow, bedrock controlled valleys and exhibit low sinuosity and, with
the exception of West Branch, are all clearly degraded by livestock access. The streams generally lack
well defined bed features such as riffle /pool sequences and have low width to depth ratios ( <10). It does
not appear that the streams have been relocated significantly from the center of their valleys.
The stream banks are unstable and many of the banks have been heavily impacted by cattle access;
therefore bankfull indicators where limited and difficult to identify. An estimate of bankfull stage was
made for each reach based on potential field indicators including top of bank, bench features below top of
bank, and in some cases where no other features were apparent, secondary features such as scour lines.
The bankfull stage estimates were verified using the drainage area to discharge relationships from the
analysis described in section 5.5 below. WEI conducted morphologic surveys including cross sections and
longitudinal profiles and classified the streams based on the Rosgen (1994) classification system to the
degree possible using these best estimates of bankfull stage. Existing geomorphic conditions for each
reach included in the project are summarized below in Tables 5a and 5b. The reaches and surveyed cross
sections are mapped on Figure 5. With the exception of SE2, all project streams were relatively straight
and did not have a defined, meandering pattern with riffles in the straight sections and pools in the bends.
Therefore pattern measurements were not collected.
BC1 is the upstream reach of Byrds Creek and flows northward from the southwest corner of the
Homeplace Property. It has a drainage area of 4.12 square miles. With the exception of one exaggerated
meander bend approximately 400 feet below the upstream end of the project and a sharp turn to the right
as it follows its valley one -third of the way through its length on the project properties, it is relatively
straight. Byrds Creek through this reach is confined within a somewhat narrow valley with moderately
steep side slopes. For this reach, WEI completed a geomorphic survey of 400 feet of longitudinal profile
and cross sections of two riffles and one pool. The top of bank was identified as the most likely bankfull
stage. The entrenchment ratio for this reach ranges from 6.6 to 6.7. The width to depth ratio ranges from
8.9 to 9.5. The sinuosity is 1.3, due primarily to the lateral shifts across the valley and the exaggerated
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 8

meander bend. The average reach slope is 0.0017 ft /ft. The reachwide pebble count d50 is 0.46 mm —
medium sand. Therefore, BC classifies most closely to an E5 stream type.
BC2 flows westward at the beginning of the reach but turns north and follows the valley toe for several
hundred feet. BC2 turns southeast towards the downstream end of the reach. As it flows southeastward in
this lower section it is situated in the center of a moderately confined valley floor. It then turns sharply to
the right following the valley and flows eastward to its end at the partially breached mill dam. The
drainage area is essentially the same as BC1 (4.12 square miles). With the exception of one sharp turn to
the left towards the toe of the valley it is very straight. WEI completed morphologic survey of 405 feet of
longitudinal profile and 2 riffle and 1 pool cross sections. The top of bank was determined to be the most
likely bankfull stage. The entrenchment ratio ranges from 5.5 to 12. 1, increasing in a downstream
direction. The width to depth ratio ranges from 5.6 to 11.7. Overall the reach is fairly straight but the
sinuosity is 1.18 due primarily to the valley turn. The average reach slope is 0. 00 14 ft /ft. The reachwide
pebble count d50 is 0.41 mm — medium sand. Therefore, BC2 classifies as a C5 /E5 stream type depending
on width to depth ratio.
BC3 starts at the breached mill dam and flows westward to the confluence with South Branch and
Southeast Branch and then south to north through a relatively narrow and confined valley. It has a
drainage area of 4.22 square miles. With the exception of one sharp turn to the left near the confluences of
South Branch and Southeast Branch is the stream is very straight. WEI completed a morphologic survey
of 386 feet of longitudinal profile and cross sections of two riffles and one pool. The top of bank was
determined to be the most likely bankfull stage. The entrenchment ratio ranges from 3.2 to 5.5, increasing
in a downstream direction. The width to depth ratio ranges from 9.3 to 19.3. The sinuosity is 1.01. The
average channel slope is 0.0018 ft /ft. The reachwide pebble count d50 is 22.6 mm — coarse gravel.
Therefore with the exception of low sinuosity, BC3 classifies most closely to a C4 or E4 stream type
depending on width to depth ratio for a particular section.
BC4 starts below the confluence with South Branch and Southeast Branch and runs northward to the
fence line on the northern boundary of the Homeplace property through a relatively narrow and confined
valley. It has a drainage area of 4.62 square miles. It exhibits some lateral pattern that appears to be
associated with bedrock controls but is relatively straight. WEI completed morphologic survey of 367 feet
of longitudinal profile and cross sections of two riffles and one pool. The top of bank was the primary
bankfull feature identified. The channel appears to become slightly incised and persistent scour lines were
used as a secondary indicator in these locations. The entrenchment ratio ranges from 6.5 to 6.8. The width
to depth ratio ranges from 6.4 to 6.9. The sinuosity is 1.11. The average slope of the reach is 0.0019 ft /ft.
The reachwide pebble count d50 is 4.0 mm — fine gravel. The bed material in this reach also includes a
significant portion of sand. BC4 is most similar an E4 stream type.
Sand deposition was observed in sections of Byrds Creek during the geomorphic assessment conducted in
August and September of 2011. The most likely contributing factors to the sand deposition are the flat
channel gradient and an on -going sequence of beaver dams on the creek. While a portion of the sand
load may be delivered from the watershed, it is believed that a majority of the sand deposits observed
were from local streambank erosion on Byrds Creek and the tributaries.
South Branch consists of a single reach, SB 1, and flows northward through a moderately confined valley
reaching its confluence with Byrds Creek midway along reach BC3. It has a drainage area of 0.25 square
miles. It appears to be adjusting laterally but at this time is still very straight. WEI completed a
morphologic survey of 264 feet of longitudinal profile and cross sections of four riffles and one pool. Top
of bank was determined to be the most likely bankfull stage for the profile and most of the cross sections.
Persistent scour lines were the best indicator available for bankfull stage in the two downstream cross
sections because, in these locations, the stream was more incised. The entrenchment ratio averages 12.4 to
13.1. The width to depth ratio ranges from 6.2 to 7.8. The sinuosity is 1.03. The average channel slope is
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 9

0.0094 ft /ft. The reachwide pebble count d50 is 1.0 mm — coarse sand. Therefore, SB1 classifies most
closely an E5 stream type.
SE1, the upstream reach of Southeast Branch, flows westward through a narrow, steep sided, and
confined valley on the Hall property. It has a drainage area of 0.09 square miles. It meanders slightly, in
some cases associated with bedrock controls, and contains one exaggerated meander bend. WEI
completed morphologic survey of 249 feet of longitudinal profile and cross sections for two riffles and
one pool. The channel has been severely over widened and the banks have been trampled by livestock;
therefore, reliable bankfull indicators could not be identified. The only available indicators were scour
lines which were used to estimate bankfull stage. The entrenchment ratio is 1.2. The width to depth ratio
is 9.6. Only one cross section was surveyed because only one location with channel conditions suitable
for discharge analysis was identified. However, it should be noted that the width to depth ratio typical for
the overall reach is greater than 9.6 and in areas appears to be greater than 12. The sinuosity is 1.31. The
average reach slope is 0.0132 ft /ft. The reachwide pebble count d50 is 0.09 mm — very fine sand. Therefore
SE1 classifies as a G5 /F5 stream type depending on the variability observed, but not measured, in width
to depth ratio.
SE2 flows westward through a confined valley that is slightly less narrow than that of SE1. The reach
begins at the boundary between the Hall property and the Homeplace property and continues to the
confluence with Byrds Creek. It has a drainage area of 0.10 square miles. SE2 meanders laterally more
than SE I, and exhibits some pattern associated with riffle /pool sequences. WEI completed a morphologic
survey of 321 feet of longitudinal profile and cross sections of two riffles and two pools. The channel is
narrow and incised and persistent scour lines were the only feature that could be used to estimate bankfull
stage. The entrenchment ratio ranges from 1.6 to 6.2. The width to depth ratio ranges from 5.8 to 7.3. The
sinuosity is 1.17. The average reach slope is 0.0167. The reachwide pebble count d50 is 0.04 mm —
silt /clay. Therefore SE2 classifies as an E6 /G6 stream type depending on entrenchment ratio.
West Branch flows northward then eastward on the Bradsher property through a wooded valley. It has a
drainage area of 0.40 square miles. It is relatively straight and centered in the valley for most of its length
until it shifts left and runs along the valley toe for the last several hundred feet. WEI completed
geomorphic survey of 302 feet of longitudinal profile and 2 riffle and 1 pool cross sections. The channel
is entrenched and incised and reliable bankfull features were not apparent. Persistent scour lines and one
stable depositional bench feature were used to estimate bankfull stage. The entrenchment ratio ranges
from 1.7 to 2.4. The width to depth ratio ranges from 6.1 to 9.4. The sinuosity is 1.07. The average
channel slope for the reach is 0.0111 ft /ft. The reachwide pebble count d50 is 8.66 mm — medium gravel.
This reach does not fit well into any of the Rosgen classifications but has characteristics similar to B4
streams in some locations and E4 streams in other locations.
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 10

Table 5a. Existing Stream Conditions - Byrds Creek Mitigation Proiect
Notes: 1. Valley slopes approximated based on bed elevations selected using best professional judgment given no flow and therefore no
water surface shots at time of survey.
2. Sinuosity based on valley length/channel length given no flow and therefore no water surface shots at time of survey.
W
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan Page 11
Notation
Units
BCi
BC2
BC3
BC4
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
MinMax
stream type
E5
C5 /E5
C4 /E4
E4
drainage area
DA
sq mi
4.12
4.12
4.22
4.62
bankfull cross-
Abkf
SF
55.8
62.6
58.4
64.5
62.5
66.7
60.9
65.1
sectional area
average bankfull
vbkf
Fps
3.2
3.6
2.7
3.0
2.5
2.5
3.4
3.5
velocity
width at bankfull
Wbkf
feet
23
23.6
19.0
26.1
27.4
35.9
19.7
24.9
max. bankfull
d max
feet
3.3
3.6
3.8
4.4
2.6
3.4
3.7
3.9
depth
mean bankfull
depth
dbkf
feet
2.4
2.7
2.2
3.4
1.9
2.3
3.1
3.1
bankfull width /
Wbkf /dbkf
8.9
9.5
5.6
11.7
9.3
19.3
6.4
6.9
depth ratio
low bank height
feet
3.3
3.6
3.8
4.4
3.4
3.4
3.7
3.9
bank height ratio
BHR
1 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
floodprone area
width
Wfpa
feet
156
157
145
231
116
124
134
138
entrenchment
ratio
ER
6.6
6.7
5.5
12.1
3.2
5.5
6.5
6.8
valley slopes
Svalley
ft/ft
0.0022
0.0017
0.0018
0.0021
channel sloe
Schannel
ft/ft
0.0017
0.0014
0.0018
0.0019
riffle slope
Sriffle
ft/ft
0.0023
0.0074
0.0074
0.0075
0.0043
0.0133
0.0061
0.0162
riffle slope ratio
Sriffle /Schannel
1.4
4.4
5.3
5.4
2.3
7.4
3.2
8.5
ool slope
spool ft/ft
0.0001
0.0033
0.0029
0.0034
0.0005
0.0020
0.0003
0.0048
pool slope ratio
S ool /Schannel
0.1
1.9
2.1
2.4
0.3
1.1
0.2
2.5
pool -to -pool
Lp_p
feet
28
101
54
103
70
124
63
120
spacing
pool spacing
Lp_p /Wbkf
1.2
4.4
2.1
5.4
1.9
4.5
2.5
6.1
ratio
Sinuosity
K
1.30
1.18
1.01
1.11
belt width
Wblt feet
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
meander width
ratio
Wblt /Wbkf
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
linear meander
Lm
feet
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
len th
linear meander
length ratio
Lm /Wbkf
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
radius of
curvature
RC
feet
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
radius of
Rc/ Wbkf
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
curvature ratio
Particle Size Distribution from Reachwide Pebble Count
d5o Description
Medium Sand
Medium Sand
Coarse Gravel
Fine Gravel
d16
mm
0.25
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
d35
mm
0.35
0.19
0.41
0.33
d50
mm
0.46
0.41
22.60
4.00
d84
mm
11.00
115.98
143.40
1 82.01
d95
mm
1 168.14
232.07
2048.00
123.09
d1oo
mm
1 >2048
>2048
>2048
>2048
Notes: 1. Valley slopes approximated based on bed elevations selected using best professional judgment given no flow and therefore no
water surface shots at time of survey.
2. Sinuosity based on valley length/channel length given no flow and therefore no water surface shots at time of survey.
W
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan Page 11

Table 5b. Existinu Stream Conditions
Notes:
Valley slopes approximated based on bed elevations selected using best professional judgment given no flow and therefore no water
surface shots at time of survey.
2. Sinuosity based on valley length/channel length given no flow and therefore no water surface shots at time of survey.
w
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 12
Notati
on
Units
SB1
SE1
SE2
WB
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min I Max
stream type
E5
G5 /F5
E6 /G6
B4 /E4
drainage area
DA
sq mi
0.25
0.09
0.10
0.40
bankfull cross-
sectional area
Abkf
SF
8.0
8.7
6.2
8.9
9.4
13.7
15.0
average bankfull
velocity
vbkf
Fps
3.7
3.7
2.8
2.9
3.4
3.8
4.2
width at bankfull
Wbkf
Feet
7.4
7.9
7.7
7.2
7.4
9.1
11.3
maximum depth at
bankfull
dmax
Feet
2.3
2.4
1.0
1.6
1.9
1.6
2.1
mean depth at
bankfull
dbkf
Feet
1.0
1.2
0.8
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.3
bankfull width to
depth ratio
Wbkf /dbkf
6.2
7.8
9.6
5.8
7.3
6.1
9.4
low bank height
Feet
2.3
2.4
3.8
2.7
3.0
3.6
4.1
bank height ratio
BHR
1.0
1.0
3.7
1.5
2.1
1.9
1.9
floodprone area
width
Wfpa
Feet
96
98
9.5
8.0
9.8
19.3
23.3
entrenchment ratio
ER
12.4
1 13.1
1.2
1.6
6.2
1.7
2.4
valley slopes
Svalley
ft/ft
0.0097
0.0173
0.0195
0.0118
channel sloe
Schannel
ft/ft
0.0094
0.0132
0.0167
0.0111
riffle sloe
Sriffle
ft/ft
0.0176
0.0349
0.0247
0.0490
0.0047
0.0147
0.0090
0.0134
riffle slope ratio
Sriffle /Schannel
1.9
3.7
1.9
3.7
0.3
0.9
0.8
1.2
pool slope
S ool ft/ft
0.0001
0.0058
0.0001
0.0053
0.0022
0.0147
0.0085
0.0159
pool slope ratio
S ool /Schannel
0.01
0.6
0.01
0.4
0.1
0.9
0.8
1.4
pool -to -pool
spacing
Lp_p
Feet
30
62
35
90
17
122
52
72
pool spacing ratio
L _ /Wbkf
3.8
8.4
4.5
1 11.7
2.3
1 17
4.6
1 7.9
Sinuosity
K
1.03
1.31
1.17
1.07
belt width
Wblf Feet
NA
NA
NA
NA
14
33
NA
NA
meander width ratio
Wblt /Wbkf
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.9
4.6
NA
NA
linear meander
length
Lm
Feet
NA
NA
NA
NA
88
104
NA
NA
linear meander
length ratio
Lm /Wbkf
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.2
14.4
NA
NA
radius of curvature
Rc Feet
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
17
NA
NA
radius of curvature
ratio
R./ Wbkf
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.2
2.4
NA
NA
Particle Size Distribution from Reachwide Pebble Count
d5o Descri tion
Coarse Sand
Very Fine Sand
Silt/Clay
Medium Gravel
d16
Mm
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
d35
Mm
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.02
0.044
d50
Mm
1.00
0.09
0.04
8.66
d84
Mm
45.00
26.23
0.05
26.23
d95
Mm
107.33
50.61
33.20
50.61
d1oo
Mm
180
180
79.60
180
Notes:
Valley slopes approximated based on bed elevations selected using best professional judgment given no flow and therefore no water
surface shots at time of survey.
2. Sinuosity based on valley length/channel length given no flow and therefore no water surface shots at time of survey.
w
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 12

5.3 Channel Evolution
Channelization usually includes straightening and deepening of streams and is one of the major causes of
channel down - cutting or incision (Simon, 1989; Simon and Rinaldi, 2006). Based on Simon's model
termed the Channel Evolution Model (CEM) for Incised Rivers (1989), alluvial streams follow a
sequential series of evolutionary stages as they respond and ultimately recover from impacts due to
channelization or majors changes to hydrologic and sediment regime. Pre - disturbance is considered Stage
I - Equilibrium. Stage II - Channelization occurs when the stream is either directly channelized by man
through ditching or channelization occurs as an indirect result of hydrologic or sediment regime changes
in the watershed. These actions take the stream out of equilibrium and alluvial channels will incise and
degrade in response to the excess stream energy associated with Stage II. This incision process is Stage III
- Degradation. As the bottom of the channel continues to erode and stream banks are undercut, the banks
will begin to fail and the channel widens as it degrades. This is Stage IV — Degradation and Widening.
Eventually, the stream slope will decrease enough that the stream stops incising but continues to widen
through alternate bank erosion and aggradation (Stage V- Aggradation and Widening). At Stage V, new
bankfull features begin to establish at a lower position relative to the old valley floor, and the stream
continues to widen its new floodplain through alternate bank erosion until it eventually returns to a state
of quasi - equlibrium (Stage VI). Lateral adjustment processes (migration) are often associated with Stages
IV and V.
Byrds Creek sits on a confined bedrock controlled valley and does not appear to have significantly
downcut as the top of bank is approximately the bankfull stage along most of the project reaches. While
there are locally over - widened areas, overall width to depth ratios are low and there are few areas where
both stream banks are eroding. Bank failure and widening seem to be more associated with livestock
access, but because of the livestock trampling of the banks it is impossible to know the extent of fluvial
bank erosion. The Byrds Creek pattern and alignment have also not changed substantially in over half a
century. Any further downcutting that would have occurred seems to have been arrested by the bedrock
control. There is bank erosion and trampling and a large amount of sand in the bed of the stream.
Aggradation following bank erosion appears to have begun, possibly due to the over widening of the
stream channel that has resulted in the reduction of stream power. Byrds Creek was likely similar to an
E/C stream type prior to disturbance. In general, Byrds Creek is in stages IV and V. The majority of the
sand deposition observed in Byrds Creek is likely associated with the bank failure mechanisms associated
with stages IV and V and cattle trampling.
South Branch appears to be in the early phases of Stage III as the lower end appears incised while the
upper portion is not (bankfull identified as the top of bank). There is some early evidence of lateral
migration and Stage IV processes especially on the lower end. South Branch has likely historically been
and remains an E channel. If incision continues upstream, it will eventually evolve to a channel most
similar to an E/C or Be channel type but at a lower elevation relative to the valley floor.
SE appears to be in late Stage IV of the CEM The stream is overwidened due to heavy livestock access
and lateral cutting of the stream. The livestock access is also likely hampering the recovery processes
typical of Stage V. SE was likely an E/C channel prior to disturbance, is currently most similar to a G or
F channel, and is evolving towards an E/C or Be channel type but at a lower elevation relative to the
valley floor.
SE2 has downcut to bedrock (Stage III). Existing trees and scrub vegetation along the streambanks seems
to be retarding Stage IV (channel widening) processes although some limited bank erosion on one side or
the other is evident. There is limited evidence of lateral migration. In the pre - disturbance condition it is
likely that the channel was most similar to an E/C stream type. It is currently best described as a G stream
type and would likely remain that type for some time without intervention due to lack of bank erosional
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 13

processes and woody vegetation along the top of banks. It may eventually evolve to an E/C or Be channel
type but at a lower elevation relative to the valley floor.
West Branch has downcut to bedrock (Stage III) and appears to have progressed to late Stage IV / early
Stage V as evidenced by the early formation of depositional features in some locations within the channel.
It also appears to be laterally adjusting slightly. West Branch was probably historically similar to an E/C
and is currently best described as a G or B but is evolving towards an E/C or Be channel type but at a
lower elevation relative to the valley floor.
S. 4 Channel Stability Assessment
WEI utilized a modified version of the Rapid Assessment of Channel Stability as described in Hydrologic
Engineering Circular (HEC) -20 (Lagasse, 2001). The method is semi - quantitative and incorporates
thirteen stability indicators that are evaluated in the field. In a 2007 publication, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) updated the method for HEC -20 by modifying the metrics included in the
assessment and incorporating a stream type determination. The result is an assessment method that can be
rapidly applied on a variety of stream types in different physiographic settings with a range of bed and
bank materials.
The Channel Stability Assessment protocol was designed to evaluate 13 parameters: watershed land use,
status of flow, channel pattern, entrenchment/channel confinement, bed substrate material, bar
development, presence of obstructions and debris jams, bank soil texture and coherence, average bank
angle, bank vegetation, bank cutting, mass wasting/bank failure, and upstream distance to bridge. Once all
parameters are scored, the stability of the stream is then classified as Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor. As
the protocol was designed to assess stream channel stability near bridges, two minor modifications were
made to the methodology to make it more applicable to project specific conditions. The first modification
involved adjusting the scoring so that naturally meandering streams score lower (better condition) than
straight and /or engineered channels. Because straight, engineered channels are hydraulically efficient and
necessary for bridge protection, they score low (excellent to good rating) with the original methodology.
Secondly, the last assessment parameter — upstream distance to bridge — was removed from the protocol
because it relates directly to the potential effects of instability on a bridge and should not influence
stability ratings for the streams assessed for this project. The final scores and corresponding ratings were
based on the twelve remaining parameters. The rating adjectives were assigned to the streams based on
the FHWA guidelines for pool -riffle stream types.
The HEC -20 manual also describes both lateral and vertical components of overall channel stability
which can be separated with this assessment methodology. Some of the 13 parameters described above
relate specifically to either vertical or horizontal stability. When all parameter scores for the vertical
category or all parameter scores for the horizontal category are summed and normalized by the total
possible scores for their respective categories, a vertical or horizontal fraction is produced. These
fractions may then be compared to one another determine if the channel is more vertically or horizontally
unstable.
The assessment results for the streams on the Byrds Creek site indicate that all of the streams are rated in
the second to the lowest category — fair. For every stream assessed, the lateral fraction was greater than
the vertical fraction. This indicates that lateral instability is a greater problem for these streams than
vertical instability. Total scores, stability ratings, and vertical and horizontal fractions are provided in
Table 6.
w
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 14

Table 6. Existing Conditions Channel Stability Assessment Results
Byrds Creek Mitigation Project
Parameter
BC1— BC3
BC4
SB1
SE1— SE2
1. Watershed characteristics
5
5
5
5
3
2. Flow habit
4
3
4
4
4
3. Channel pattern
8
8
7
5
7
4. Entrenchment
7
7
4
5
9
5. Bed material
8
7
8
8
5
6. Bar development
8
5
3
7
7
7. Obstructions
7
7
5
5
6
8. Bank soil texture and coherence
8
8
10
10
9
9. Average bank slope angle
11
11
11
10
11
10. Bank protection
9
9
8
8
7
11. Bank cutting
8
9
8
7
11
12. Mass wasting or bank failure
4
7
5
5
10
Score
87
86
78
79
89
Ranking
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Lateral Score
40
44
42
40
48
Vertical Score
23
19
15
20
21
Lateral Fraction
0.67
0.73
0.70
0.67
0.80
Vertical Fraction
0.64
0.53
0.42
0.56
0.58
5.5 Bankfuii Verification
On many of the project reaches streambanks have been trampled by cattle and therefore bankfull
indicators were difficult to identify. However, during the existing conditions assessment, WEI staff
identified the best available bankfull indicators and surveyed cross sections at those locations. Potential
bankfull indicators included top of bank, slope breaks, and, where better indicators were not present,
persistent scour lines. The Manning's equation was applied to the surveyed cross - sections to calculate an
estimated bankfull discharge. The computed bankfull discharges and bankfull cross - sectional areas of
each reach were plotted on the North Carolina rural Piedmont regional curves in order to verify that the
bankfull stage estimates were reasonably similar to values predicted by the regional curves.
A nearby USGS gauging station (station 02008650112 — Flat River Tributary Near Willardville, NC) was
used to develop a calibrated estimate of bankfull discharge for use in verifying the existing conditions
discharges calculated at the project site. The bankfull discharge of the Flat River gauge site was
determined to be 72 cfs with a recurrence interval of 1.31 years. Bankfull data for the gauge site, the
surveyed project reaches, and the project reference reaches (see Section 7) are plotted with the North
Carolina rural Piedmont regional curves and are shown overlaid with the rural curves for discharge in
Figure 6a.
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 15

Analysis of the bankfull discharges for the project reaches, reference reaches, and gauge survey reveals
that the data consistently plot within the 95% confidence intervals of the regional curve in all cases where
the points are within the range of drainage areas (independent variable) covered by the regional curves.
This information indicates that the bankfull indicators identified during the existing conditions assessment
provide reasonable estimates of bankfull discharge and associated hydraulic geometry for the existing
conditions.
5.6 Design Discharge
Multiple methods were used to develop bankfull discharge estimates of the project reaches. The resulting
values were compared and concurrence between the estimates and best professional judgment were used
to determine the specific design discharge for each project reach.
The methods to estimate discharge included:
The published North Carolina rural piedmont regional curve (Harman, et al., 1999) and the
calibrated discharge for the Flat River gauge;
• Regional flood frequency analysis developed for this project; and
• Drainage area — discharge relationships from select reference reaches.
A common practice for stream restoration projects in the North Carolina Piedmont is to use the 1999
regional curves to estimate discharge and /or cross - sectional area. The regional curve for discharge was
used to estimate bankfull discharge with the drainage area for each project reach as the input.
To develop the regional flood frequency relationships, four USGS stream gauge sites were identified
within reasonable proximity of the project site. Data from these gauges were used to develop two regional
flood frequency curves as described by Dalyrmple (1960). The gauges used were:
• 208650112 Flat River Tributary Near Willardville, NC —Drainage Areal. 14 square miles
• 2065100 Snake Creek Near Brookneal, VA —Drainage Area 1.65 square miles
• 2075350 Powells Creek Near Turbeville, VA —Drainage Area 0.29 square miles
• 2086000 Dial Creek Near Bahama, NC — Drainage Area 4.73 square miles
Flood frequency curves were developed for the 1.25 year and 1.50 year recurrence interval discharges.
These relationships can be used to estimate discharge of those recurrence intervals for ungauged streams
in the same hydrologic region and were solved for discharge with the drainage area for each project reach
as the input.
The drainage area and discharge values for four reference reaches selected for use in the project (see
Section 7) were compiled for comparison to the discharge estimates described above. These drainage area
and discharge values were used to create a project - specific drainage area — discharge regression curve.
Table 7 summarizes the results of each of the discharge analyses described in this section and the selected
design discharge based on those analyses. The project - specific curve predicts bankfull discharges for the
project reaches between the 1.25- and 1.5 -year flood frequency curve values. The project specific curve
values are somewhat lower than the existing Piedmont regional curve (but all within the 95 percent
confidence interval). Values similar to those predicted by the methods summarized in Table 7 were
selected as design discharges.
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 16

Table 7. Design Discharge Analysis Summary
Byrds Creek Miti ation Site
6.0 Baseline Information - Regulatory Considerations
Table 8 presents the project information and baseline wetland information.
Table 8. Regulatory Considerations
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Applicable?
Project-
North
Flood
Flood
Yes
NW27 Permit
pending
Waters of the US — Section
401
Specific
Carolina
Frequency
Frequency
Yes
Yes
Drainage
Drainage
Piedmont
Curve 1. 25
Curve 1. 50
Design Q
Reach
Area (AC)
Area-
Rural
Year
Year
(CFS)
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
Discharge
Regional
Recurrence
Recurrence
Curve (CFS)
Curve (CFS)
Interval
Interval
CFS
CFS
BC1 and
4.12
239
248
133
215
200
BC2
BC3
4.22
243
252
134
218
210
BC4
4.62
259
269
141
230
220
SB1
0.25
32
33
27
44
30
SE1
0.09
15
16
15
25
20
SE2
0.10
16
17
16
26
20
WB1
0.40
44
46
35
57
45
6.0 Baseline Information - Regulatory Considerations
Table 8 presents the project information and baseline wetland information.
Table 8. Regulatory Considerations
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
6.1 4011404
As discussed in Section 4.5, the results of the onsite field investigation indicate that four channels
including Byrds Creek, South Branch, Southeast Branch, and West Branch are jurisdictional within the
project limits (Figures 3 and 5). Additionally there are three jurisdictional wetland areas (Wetland AA,
BB, and CC) located within the proposed project area. Each of the described tributaries and wetland
features will be protected under the conservation easement to be placed on the properties. The wetland
areas will be protected by safety fence during construction. The Jurisdictional Determination, including
all necessary and required forms (see Appendix 3), was submitted to the Wilmington office of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers on January 24th, 2012 but has not been approved as of the date of this
report. Correspondence with the assigned project manager indicates that an additional site visit will not be
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 17
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the US — Section
404
Yes
Yes
NW27 Permit
pending
Waters of the US — Section
401
Yes
Yes
401
Certification pending
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
N/A
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Letter from SHPO
Coastal Zone Management
Act /Coastal Area Management
Act
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
6.1 4011404
As discussed in Section 4.5, the results of the onsite field investigation indicate that four channels
including Byrds Creek, South Branch, Southeast Branch, and West Branch are jurisdictional within the
project limits (Figures 3 and 5). Additionally there are three jurisdictional wetland areas (Wetland AA,
BB, and CC) located within the proposed project area. Each of the described tributaries and wetland
features will be protected under the conservation easement to be placed on the properties. The wetland
areas will be protected by safety fence during construction. The Jurisdictional Determination, including
all necessary and required forms (see Appendix 3), was submitted to the Wilmington office of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers on January 24th, 2012 but has not been approved as of the date of this
report. Correspondence with the assigned project manager indicates that an additional site visit will not be
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 17

required to review the delineation but that the approval may take some time given a recent increase in
permit applications which take priority over JD approvals.
6.2 Endangered and Threatened Species
6.2.1 Site Evaluation Methodology
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), defines protection for
species with the Federal Classification of Threatened (T) or Endangered (E). An "Endangered
Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range" and a "Threatened Species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become
an Endangered Species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range" (16 U.S.C. 1532).
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) databases
were searched for federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species for Person
County, NC. One federally listed species, the dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) is
currently listed in Person County (Table 9). The record status of the dwarf wedgemussel is listed as
obscure.
Table 9. Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Person County, NC
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
6.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species Descriptions
Dwarf Wedg emussel
The dwarf wedgemussel is a relatively small freshwater mussel with a yellowish brown shell
approximately 1 inch in length. This species typically inhabits creeks and rivers with slow to
moderate current and sand, gravel or muddy substrate. Typical threats to this species include
common pollutants from municipal and industrial wastewater discharges as well as sedimentation
and runoff from agricultural and forestry operations. This species is known to occur in stream
reaches along the Atlantic Coast, including North Carolina.
6.2.3 Biological Conclusion
Based on a pedestrian survey of the site that was performed on February 4, 2011, no individual
species, critical habitat, or suitable habitat was found to exist on the site. It was determined that the
biological conclusion is "no effect."
Review and comment from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was requested on
June 30, 2011 in respect to the Byrds Creek Mitigation Site and its potential impacts on threatened or
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 18
Federal
Biological
Species
Status
Habitat
Conclusion
Invertebrate
Dwarf
wedgemussel
E
Slow to moderate stream
No effect
(Alasmidonta
currents; sand, gravel,
heterodon)
muddy bottom.
E = Endangered; T= Threatened; BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
6.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species Descriptions
Dwarf Wedg emussel
The dwarf wedgemussel is a relatively small freshwater mussel with a yellowish brown shell
approximately 1 inch in length. This species typically inhabits creeks and rivers with slow to
moderate current and sand, gravel or muddy substrate. Typical threats to this species include
common pollutants from municipal and industrial wastewater discharges as well as sedimentation
and runoff from agricultural and forestry operations. This species is known to occur in stream
reaches along the Atlantic Coast, including North Carolina.
6.2.3 Biological Conclusion
Based on a pedestrian survey of the site that was performed on February 4, 2011, no individual
species, critical habitat, or suitable habitat was found to exist on the site. It was determined that the
biological conclusion is "no effect."
Review and comment from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was requested on
June 30, 2011 in respect to the Byrds Creek Mitigation Site and its potential impacts on threatened or
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 18

endangered species. Since no response was received from the USFWS within a 30 -day time frame, it
is assumed that the site determination is correct and that no additional, relevant information is
available for this site.
6.3 Cultural Resources
6.3.1 Site Evaluation Methodology
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, amended (16 U.S.C. 470), defines the
policy of historic preservation to protect, restore, and reuse districts, sites, structures, and objects
significant in American history, architecture, and culture. Section 106 of the NHPA mandates that
federal agencies take into account the effect of an undertaking on any property, which is included in,
or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. A letter was sent to the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on July 8, 2011, requesting review and comment
on any cultural resources potentially affected by the Byrds Creek Mitigation Project.
6.3.2 SHPO/THPO Concurrence
A request for review and comment from the SHPO with respect to any archeological and architectural
resources related to the Byrds Creek Mitigation Site was made on July 8, 2011. SHPO responded on
July 21, 2011 and determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic
structures. They also requested that a permanent state site number be obtained for the mill dam that is
located in the undisturbed area. This number (31PR129) was issued on August 18, 2011.
6.4 FEMA Floodolain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
The project stream channels do not have an associated regulated floodplain and are not located along a
studied section of stream. All reaches flow into a mapped section of Byrds Creek, approximately 5,000
feet downstream of the property limits. The site is located on Panels 9980 and 9981 of the Person County
FIRM panels. However, a DFIRM is not available for panel 9980 as there are no mapped streams or
special flood hazard areas within the panel boundary. No detailed flood studies will be required as a part
of this project, however, hydrologic methods and hydraulic modeling will be performed to verify the
design approach and analyze the potential for hydrologic trespass.
6.5 Essential Fisheries Habitat
6.5.1 Habitat Description
The USFWS does not list any Critical Habitat areas for Person County. Agency correspondence
received for the project contains no mention of essential fisheries or requests for additional
information related to essential fisheries.
6.5.2 Biological Conclusion
Given that there are no listed Critical Habitat areas, the project will have no effect on essential
fisheries habitat.
6.6 Utilities and Site Access
There are no known utilities or other easements located on the properties. There are three unimproved
ford crossings on the Homeplace Property with one crossing located on Byrds Creek, South Branch, and
Southeast Branch each. There are two concrete ford crossings on Southeast Branch on the Hall property.
All fords will be removed during restoration construction. The proposed design includes two culvert
W
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 19

crossings on South Branch and one culvert crossing on Byrds Creek. The culvert crossings are excluded
from the proposed project easements and no mitigation credit is included for the crossing areas.
The site will be accessed from the end of Wolfe Road through an existing gate on the Homeplace property
and through Lamberth Hall Road on the Hall property. Open fields will allow easy movement of
construction equipment within the properties. The construction plans will include a defined access route
to West Branch from the Homeplace Property onto the Bradsher property that will minimize tree impacts
within the existing forest.
7.0 Reference Sites
7.1 Reference Streams
Four reference reaches were identified near the project area and used to support the design of the project
reaches (Figure 7). Reference reaches can be used as a basis for design or, more appropriately, as one
source of information on which to base a stream restoration design. Most, if not all, reference reaches
identified in the North Carolina Piedmont are in heavily wooded areas and the mature vegetation
contributes greatly to their stability. Design parameters for this project were also developed based on the
design discharge along with dimensionless ratio values associated with successful restoration designs of
streams in the North Carolina Piedmont. Reference reach data for similar streams were obtained from
existing data sets and used to verify design parameters. The reference streams considered when
developing design parameters for this project include UT to Rocky Branch, Spencer Creek, UT to Cane
Creek, and UT to Richland Creek. These reference streams were chosen because of similarities to the
project streams including drainage area, valley slope and morphology, and bed material. The reference
reaches are within the Carolina Slate Belt region of the Piedmont with the exception of Cane Creek.
7.1.1 Reference Streams Chanel Morphology and C/assiflcation
The UT to Rocky Branch reference site is located in Central Montgomery County within the
Uwharrie National Forest. The stream was used as a reference stream in the Big Cedar Creek
Restoration Plan by Baker Engineering NY, Inc. (2007). The drainage area is 1.10 square miles and
the land use within the drainage area is a semi - mature forest. The UT to Rocky Creek Reference site
was classified as an E4b stream type with a low sinuosity (1.1). The channel has a width to depth ratio
of 9.1 and an entrenchment ratio of 6. The reach has a valley slope of 2.6% while the channel slope is
2.4 %. The bed material d50 for the reach is 22.6 mm. Due to the low sinuosity, no pattern data were
collected.
Because of the differences in stream and valley slope and the coarseness of the bed material, it was
decided that the primary purpose of the UT to Rocky Creek reference reach for the Byrds Creek
project is as a reference point in the project - specific drainage area - discharge curve described in
section 5.6 above. WEI visited the UT to Rocky Creek site in March, 2012 to visually confirm land
use and lateral and vertical stream stability.
The Spencer Creek reference site consists of upstream and downstream reaches with separate datasets
and is located in Central Montgomery County within the Uwharrie National Forest. The dataset was
used as a reference stream in the Big Cedar Creek Restoration Plan by Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
(2007) and is included in the NC Department of Transportation Reference Reach Database.
The Spencer Creek Upstream site has a drainage area of 0.50 square miles and the land use within the
drainage area is a semi - mature forest. The reach was classified as an E4 stream type with a low
w
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 20

sinuosity (1. 1). The channel has a width to depth ratio of 7.3 and an entrenchment ratio of 26.3. The
reach has a valley slope of 1.4% while the channel slope is 1.3 %. The bed material d50 for the reach is
8.6 mm. Pattern data are included in the dataset.
The Spencer Creek Downstream site has a drainage area of 0.96 square miles and the land use within
the drainage area is a semi - mature forest. The reach was classified as an E4 stream type with a
sinuosity of 1.3. The channel has a width to depth ranging from 5.8 to 7.1 and an entrenchment ratio
ranging from 5.5 to 10.2. The reach has a valley slope of 0.4% while the channel slope is 0.3 %. The
bed material d50 for the reach is 8.8 mm. Pattern data are included in the dataset.
WEI visited the Spencer Creek site in March, 2012 and visually confirmed that the land use is
unchanged and that the stream is laterally and vertically stable. Spencer Creek exhibits a stable,
measurable, meandering pattern. Given the similarities in drainage area, stream type, stream and
valley slope, and bed material size, Spencer Creek Upstream is most directly applicable as a reference
reach for South Branch and Southeast Branch. Spencer Creek Downstream is similar to Byrds Creek
but has a smaller drainage area. Both data sets are reference points on the project - specific curve
described in section 5.6 above. The pattern data is applicable to all C/E stream types and were used in
the design of C/E reaches for this project.
The UT to Cane Creek reference is located in Northeastern Rutherford County. The dataset was used
as a reference stream for the Cane Creek Restoration prepared by Restoration Systems and Axiom
Environmental in 2007. The drainage area is 0.29 square miles and the land use within the drainage
area is a semi - mature forest. The UT to Cane Creek reference site was classified as a C4 /E4 stream
type with a sinuosity of 1.4. The channel has a width to depth ratio ranging from 8.9 — 12.2 and an
entrenchment ratio greater than 2.5. The reach has a valley slope of 2.6% while the channel slope is
1.5 %. The bed material d50 for the reach is 27.8 mm.
Given that the UT to Cane Creek is located west of Charlotte and not within the Carolina Slate Belt, it
was decided that it is not a suitable reference reach for the Byrds Creek site in terms of dimension and
profile. However, the pattern data is applicable to C/E stream types and was used as a secondary
dataset to the Spencer Creek pattern data. It also provides a reference point in the project - specific
regional curve described in section 5.6 above.
The UT to Richland Creek reference site is located in north- central Moore County. The stream was
originally used as a reference site for the Collins Creek Restoration plan by KCI Technologies (2007).
The site was visited by WEI in December, 2012. The exact location and extents of the original survey
could not be determined. During the site visit it was determined that two reaches upstream of the
original survey were appropriate reference reaches for the Byrds Creek project. The UT to Richland
Creek Upstream and UT to Richland Creek Downstream reaches were surveyed by WEI in January,
2012.
The UT to Richland Creek Upstream site has a drainage area of 0.28 square miles and the land use
within the drainage area is approximately 10 year old timber regrowth. The reach was classified as a
C4 /E4 stream type with a low sinuosity ( -1.0). The Upstream reach consists of a long armored
riffle /run sequence and is incised with a bank height ratio of 1.4 — 2.1. While the incision and lack of
riffle -pool sequences may make the reach unsuitable as a dimension and profile reference reach, the
reach was very suitable for discharge calculations and was used in the analysis presented in section 5.
Three riffle cross sections, a reachwide pebble count, and approximately 120 linear feet of
longitudinal profile data were collected. The channel has a width to depth ratio ranging from 10.0 —
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 21

12.8 and an entrenchment ratio of 2.5 — 4.0. The reach has a channel slope is 1.3% — 1.8 %. Valley
slope was not measured. The bed material d50 for the reach is 46.0 mm. Pattern data was not collected
due to the lack of sinuosity.
The UT to Richland Creek Downstream site has a drainage area of 0.97 square miles and the land use
within the drainage area is 10 year old timber regrowth. The reach was classified as a C4 /E4 stream
type with a low sinuosity (-1.1). Three riffle and two pool cross sections were surveyed along with
approximately 700 linear feet of profile. Riffle and reachwide pebble counts were collected. The
channel has a width to depth ratio ranging from 10.1 — 13.9 and an entrenchment ratio greater than
2.5. The reach has a valley slope of 1.6% and a channel slope is 1.4 %. The d50 for the reach is 46.0
mm. Pattern data was not collected due to low sinuosity.
The UT to Richland Creek Upstream site was used solely as a reference point on the project - specific
curve described in section 5.6 above. The UT to Richland Creek Downstream site was determined to
be an applicable reference reach for South Branch and Southeast Branch specifically for dimension
and profile design.
7.1.2 Reference Streams Vegetation Community Types Descriptions
Designed stream vegetation communities will be similar to that of the downstream reach of Byrds
Creek. This portion of Byrds Creek is surrounded by mature hardwood forests composed of typical
Piedmont bottomland riparian forest tree species. Dominant canopy species in this area include river
birch (Betula nigra), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styracifua), red
maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and sycamore (Platanus occidentahs) with
American beech (Fagus grandifolia) at higher elevations. Common understory vegetation includes
red maple, American holly (Ilex opaca), red elm (Ulmus rubra), ironwood (Carpinus carohniana),
and paw paw (Asimina triloba).
The mature trees within the riparian buffers provide significant bank reinforcement to keep the
streams from eroding horizontally and maintain channel width to depth ratios. The forested floodplain
areas of this portion of the site are classified as a Piedmont bottomland forest (Schafale & Weakley,
1990). This forest community type generally occurs on floodplain ridges and terraces on various
alluvial soil types including Chewacla.
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 22

Table 10a. Summary of Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
Bvrds Creek Mitigation Site
w
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 23
UT to Cane
Creek
Spencer Creek
Upstream
Spencer Creek
Downstream
Parameter
Notation
Units
min
Max
Min
max
Min
max
stream type
C4 /E4
E4
E4
drainage area
DA
sq mi
0.29
0.5
0.96
bankfull discharge
Qbkf
Cfs
40
--
97
bankfull cross - sectional area
Abkf
SF
8.9
12.2
10.6
17.8
19.7
average bankfull velocity
Vbkf
Fps
3.8
--
4.9
5.4
width at bankfull
Wbkf
Feet
11.5
12.3
8.7
10.7
11.2
maximum depth at bankfull
dmax
Feet
1.2
1.6
1.9
2.1
2.6
mean depth at bankfull
dbkf
Feet
0.8
1
1.2
1.6
1.8
bankfull width to depth ratio
Wbkf /dbkf
1
12.3
14.4
7.3
5.8
7.1
depth ratio
dmax /dbkf
1.7
1.6
1.3
1.4
bank height ratio
BHR
-
-
1.0
1.0
floodprone area width
Wfpa
Feet
31
229
60
114+
entrenchment ratio
ER
>2.5
26.3
5.5
1 10.2
valley slope
Svalley
ft/ft
0.0262
0.0139
0.0039
channel slope
Schannel
ft/ft
0.0150
0.0132
0.0030
sinuosity
K
1.4
1.1
1.3
riffle slope
Sriffle
ft/ft
0.0188
0.0704
0.01
0.067
0.013
riffle slope ratio
Sriffle /Scha
nnel
1.3
4.7
0.8
5.1
4.3
pool slope
Spool
ft/ft
0.0005
0.0108
0.0001
0.0007
0.0009
pool slope ratio
Spool /Scha
nnel
0
0.72
0.01
0.2
0.3
pool -to -pool spacing
Lp_p
Feet
27
73
13.0
46.5
71.0
pool spacing ratio
Lp_p /Wbkf
2.3
6.1
1.5
5.3
6.3 1 6.6
maximum pool depth at
bankfull
dpool
Feet
2.6
2.5
0.0
pool depth ratio
dpool /dbkf
1.7
2.1
0.0
0.0
pool width at bankfull
Wpool
Feet
8.5
8.4
17.5
pool width ratio
Wpool /Wbkf
0.7
1.0
1.6
1.6
pool cross - sectional area at
bankfull
Apool
SF
11.9
12.8
24.5
pool area ratio
Apool /Abkf
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.4
belt width
Wblt
Feet
102
24.0
52.0
38.0
41.0
meander width ratio
Wblt /Wbkf
8.3
8.9
2.8
6.0
3.6
3.7
linear wavelength length
n
Feet
45
81
54.0
196.0
46.0
48.0
linear wavelength ratio
A /Wbkf
3.9
6.6
6.2
22.5
4.3
4.3
radius of curvature
Rc
Feet
23
38
5.4
22.1
11.0
15.0
radius of curvature ratio
Rc/ Wbkf
2
3.1
0.6
2.5
1.0
1.3
w
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 23

Table 10b. Summary of Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
Bvrds Creek Mitigation Site
w
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 24
UT to Richland
Creek
Upstream
UT to Richland
Creek
Downstream
UT to Rocky
Branch
Parameter
Notation
Units
min
T Max
Min
max
min
max
stream type
C4 /E4
C4 /E4
E4b
drainage area
DA
sq mi
0.28
0.97
1.1
bankfull discharge
Qbkf
Cfs
29.1
32.0
68.9
78.6
85
bankfull cross - sectional
area
Abkf
SF
7.8
8.5
16.5
17.5
16.3
average bankfull velocity
vbkf
Fps
3.5
4.1
4.2
4.5
5.5
width at bankfull
Wbkf
Feet
8.8
10.4
13.3
15.2
12.2
maximum depth at bankfull
dmax
Feet
1.1
1.3
1.8
2.1
1.8
mean depth at bankfull
dbkf
Feet
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.3
bankfull width to depth ratio
Wbkf /dbkf
10.0
12.8
10.1
13.9
9.1
depth ratio
dmax /dbkf
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.7
1.3
bank height ratio
BHR
1.4
2.1
1.0
1.0
floodprone area width
Wfpa
Feet
27.6
31.4
>50
72
entrenchment ratio
ER
2.5
4.0
>2.5
6
valley slope
Svalley
ft/ft
-
0.0160
0.0261
channel slope
Schannel
ft/ft
0.0131
0.0178
0.0140
0.0235
sinuosity
K
1.0
1.1
1.1
riffle slope
Sriffle
ft/ft
0.0210
0.0450
0.0183
0.0355
0.0606
0.0892
riffle slope ratio
Sriffle /Schannel
1.18
3.43
1.3
2.5
2.6
3.8
pool slope
Spool
ft/ft
NA
0.0003
0.0038
0
0.0037
pool slope ratio
Spool /Schannel
NA
0.0214
0.2714
0
0.16
pool -to -pool spacing
Lp_p
Feet
NA
33
93
26
1 81
pool spacing ratio
Lp_p /Wbkf
NA
2.5
6.1
2.2
1 6.7
maximum pool depth at
bankfull
dpool
Feet
NA
1.8
1.8
2.2
pool depth ratio
dpool /dbkf
NA
1.4
1.6
1.6
pool width at bankfull
Wpool
Feet
NA
14.7
16.0
10.9
pool width ratio
Wpool /Wbkf
NA
1.0
1.2
0.9
pool cross - sectional area at
bankfull
Apool
SF
NA
14.7
15.8
19.3
pool area ratio
Apool /Abkf
NA
0.9
0.9
1.2
belt width
Wblt
Feet
NA
NA
NA
meander width ratio
Wblt /Wbkf
NA
NA
NA
Linear Wavelength
n
Feet
NA
NA
NA
linear wavelength ratio
A /Wbkf
NA
NA
NA
radius of curvature
Rc
Feet
NA
NA
NA
radius of curvature ratio
Ro/ Wbkf
NA
NA
NA
w
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 24

8.0 Determination of Credits
Mitigation credits presented in Table 11 are projections based upon site design. Upon completion of site
construction the project components and credits data will be revised to be consistent with the as -built
condition.
Table 11. Determination of Credits Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site, Person County, DENR Contract #95020
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non - riparian
Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient
Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Totals
3345
2247
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Project Components
Project
Component
or Reach ID
Stationing /
Location
Existing
Footage /
Acreage
Approach
(PI PII ' etc.)
Restoration
or
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
BC1
10+73— 17 +10
637
NA
E2
637
2.5:1
BC2
17+10— 33 +40
1630
NA
E1
1630
1.5:1
BC3
33+40— 34 +56
35+16— 48 +02
1368
PI
R
1402
1:1
BC4
48+02— 55 +89
787
NA
E2
787
2.5:1
S131
20+76— 27 +09
27+69— 31 +07
976
PI
R
971
1:1
SE1
30+00— 37 +92
916
P1
R
792
1:1
SE2a
39+15— 44 +48
524
NA
E1
533
1.5:1
SE2b
44+48— 46 +28
50
P1
R
180
1:1
W131
40+18— 46 +07
589
NA
E2
589
2.5:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (linear
feet)
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non - Riparian
Wetland
(acres)
Buffer (square
feet)
Upland
(acres)
Riverine
Non -Riv.
Restoration
3345
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Enhancement
4176
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Enhancement 1
2163
Enhancement 11
2013
Creation
NA
NA
NA
Preservation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
High Quality
Preservation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
kb
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 25

9.0 Project Site Mitigation Plan
9.1 Designed Channel Classification
The design streams will be restored to the appropriate type based on the surrounding landscape, climate,
and natural vegetation communities but also with strong consideration to existing watershed conditions
and trajectory. The project includes stream restoration and enhancement as shown in Figure 8. The
specific proposed stream types are described below.
The stream restoration portion of this project includes three reaches:
BC3: Byrds Creek from the downstream end of breached mill dam rubble to a large, instream
bedrock outcropping at approximately 500 feet upstream from the Homeplace /Bradsher property
boundary. There is an easement break on reach BC3 downstream of the breached dam;
SB 1: South Branch for its entire length within the Homeplace property not including two
easement breaks;
SE 1: Southeast Branch on the Hall parcel from the property line with the Homeplace property
to about 650 feet upstream of the parcel line; and
SE2b: A short 180 foot length of restoration at the bottom of Southeast Branch from reach SE2a
to the restored reach BC3.
The project also includes stream enhancement on seven reaches classified as either enhancement I (EI) or
enhancement 11 (Ell):
BC1, EIL Byrds Creek from where it enters the Homeplace Property to the downstream end of
the exaggerated mender bend;
BC2, EL Byrds Creek from the downstream end of BC to the downstream end of the breached
mill dam rubble;
BC4, EIL Byrds Creek from a large instream bedrock outcropping approximately 500 feet
upstream from the property line between the Homeplace and Bradsher parcels (the downstream
end of BC3) to the downstream project limit.
SE2a, EL From downstream of the proposed easement break directly downstream of the
Hall/Homeplace property boundary to the start of the short restoration segment, SE2b; and
WB 1, EII: West Branch from 500 feet upstream of the confluence with Byrds Creek to the
confluence with Byrds Creek.
The Byrds Creek stream restoration reach was designed to be similar to a C type stream according to the
Rosgen classification system (Rosgen, 1996). Type C streams are slightly entrenched, meandering
streams with access to the floodplain (entrenchment ratios >2.2) and channel slopes of 2% or less. They
occur within a wide range of valley types and are appropriate for the project landscape. The restoration
reaches for South Branch and Southeast Branch were designed to be similar to E type streams. Type E
streams are slightly entrenched, meandering streams with low width to depth ratios. The enhancement I
reaches will be C/E stream types.
The morphologic design parameters as shown in table 12 for the restoration and enhancement I reaches
fall within the ranges specified for C and E streams (Rosgen, 1996). However, the specific values for the
design parameters were selected based on designer experience and judgment and were verified with
morphologic data form reference reach data sets.
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 26

Table 12a. Design Morphologic Parameters - Restoration Reaches
Bvrds Creek Mitigation Site
w
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 27
Notation
Units
BC3
SBi
SE1
SE2b
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Stream Type
C4
E4
E4
C4
Drainage Area
DA
sq mi
4.22
0.25
0.09
0.10
Design Discharge
Q
cfs
210
30
20
20
Bankfull Cross-
Sectional Area
Abkf
SF
45.3
9.6
5.7
6.5
Average Bankfull
Velocity
Vbkf
fps
4.6
3.1
3.5
3.1
Width at Bankfull
Wbkf
feet
25.0
10.0
8.0
9.0
Maximum Depth at
Bankfull
dmax
feet
2.8
1.3
1.0
1.0
Mean Depth at
Bankfull
dbkf
feet
1.81
0.96
0.71
0.72
Bankfull Width to
Depth Ratio
Wbkf /dbkf
13.8
10.4
11.2
12.5
Low Bank Height
feet
3.8
1.3
1.0
1.0
Bank Height Ratio
BHR
1
1
1
1
Floodprone Area
Width
Wfpa
feet
95
350
70
375
30
100
140
310
Entrenchment Ratio
ER
3.8
14
7.0
37.5
3.8
12.5
15.6
34.4
Valley Slope
Svalley
feet/ foot
0.0046
0.0075
0.0182
0.0122
Channel Slope
Schannel
feet/ foot
0.0039
0.0068
0.0161
0.0101
Riffle Slope
Sriffle
feet/ foot
0.0076
0.0134
0.0052
0.0199
0.0220
0.0410
0.0202
Riffle Slope Ratio
Sriffle /Schannel
1.9 1
3.4
0.69
2.65
2.40
3.19
2.0
Pool Slope
Spool
feet/ foot
0.0006
0.0001
0.0009
0.0029
0.0043
0.0014
Pool Slope Ratio
Spool /Schannel
0.15
0.01
0.13
0.18
0.26
0.14
Pool -to -Pool
Spacing
Lp_p
feet
60
141
34
85
21
53
43
49
Pool Spacing Ratio
Lp_p /Wbkf
2.4
5.6
3.4
1 8.5
2.6
1 6.6
4.8
5.4
Sinuosity
K
1.11
1.10
1.13
1.21
Belt Width
Wblt
feet
52
116
25
48
16.0
39.0
27
Meander Width
Ratio
Wblt /Wbkf
2.1
4.6
2.5
4.8
2.0
4.9
3
Linear Wavelength
feet
177
263
76
120
47
93
82
Linear wavelength
ratio
A /Wbkf
7.1
10.5
7.6
12.0
5.9
11.6
9.1
Radius of Curvature
Rc
feet
50
80
20
35
18
26
22
30
Radius of Curvature
Ratio
Rc/ Wbkf
2.0
3.2
2.0
3.5
2.3
3.3
2.4
3.3
w
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 27

Table 12b. Design Morphologic Parameters - Enhancement I Reaches
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
The width to depth ratios range from 10 to 25. The design channel slopes of the restoration and
enhancement I reaches ranged from 0.0014 to 0.0161. Each of the design reaches will be reconnected
with the existing floodplain (Priority 1). The restored channels will have entrenchment ratios of greater
than 2. The sinuosity for the restoration reaches will be near 1.1. The sinuosity measurements for the
enhancement I reaches will match the existing sinuosity.
9.2 Target Buffer Communities
The target communities for the restored riparian buffer zones will be based on the following:
• Reference conditions from forested areas around the project site;
• Existing mature trees throughout the project area;
• Vegetation listed for these community types in Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina (Shafale and Weakley,1990);
• Native trees with proven success in early successional restoration sites; and
• Consultation with native tree suppliers.
The primary reference site is the semi - mature Piedmont bottomland forest along Byrds Creek downstream
of the Homeplace property (see section 7.1.2 for documented species).
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 28
Notation
Units
BC2
SE2a
Min
Max
Min
Max
Stream Type
C4
C4
Drainage Area
DA
sq mi
4.12
0.09
Design Discharge
Q
cfs
-200
-30
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area
Abkf
SF
59.8
61.5
10.2
10.5
Average Bankfull Velocity
vbkf
fps
3.1
3.4
3.0
3.3
Width at Bankfull
Wbkf
feet
33.2
38.3
11.7
15.0
Maximum Depth at Bankfull
dmax
feet
2.8
3.2
0.9
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull
dbkf
feet
1.6
1.9
0.7
0.9
Bankfull Width to Depth Ratio
Wbkf /dbkf
18.0
24.5
13.5
21.3
Low Bank Height
Feet
2.8
3.2
0.9
1.0
Bank Height Ratio
BHR
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Floodprone Area Width
Wfpa
feet
156
1 160
114.7
1 120.1
Entrenchment Ratio
ER
4.1
1 4.8
7.7
1 10.3
Channel Slope
•Schannel
feet/ foot
0.0014
0.0126
Riffle Slope
Sriffle
feet/ foot
0.0029
0.0052
0.0122
0.0367
Riffle Slope Ratio
Sriffle /Schannel
1.9
3.7
1.0
2.9
Pool Slope
Spool
feet/ foot
0.0001
0.0001
0.0006
Pool Slope Ratio
Spool /Schannel
0.07
0.01
0.05
Pool -to -Pool Spacing
Lp_p
feet
1 102
211
1 27
1 55
Pool Spacing Ratio
Lp_p /wbkf
1 2.7
6.4
1 1.8
1 4.1
The width to depth ratios range from 10 to 25. The design channel slopes of the restoration and
enhancement I reaches ranged from 0.0014 to 0.0161. Each of the design reaches will be reconnected
with the existing floodplain (Priority 1). The restored channels will have entrenchment ratios of greater
than 2. The sinuosity for the restoration reaches will be near 1.1. The sinuosity measurements for the
enhancement I reaches will match the existing sinuosity.
9.2 Target Buffer Communities
The target communities for the restored riparian buffer zones will be based on the following:
• Reference conditions from forested areas around the project site;
• Existing mature trees throughout the project area;
• Vegetation listed for these community types in Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina (Shafale and Weakley,1990);
• Native trees with proven success in early successional restoration sites; and
• Consultation with native tree suppliers.
The primary reference site is the semi - mature Piedmont bottomland forest along Byrds Creek downstream
of the Homeplace property (see section 7.1.2 for documented species).
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 28

9.3 Stream Project and Design Justification
Based on assessments of the watershed and existing channels, the project design has been developed to
address stream degradation caused by incision, bank instability caused by erosion and livestock access,
associated sand deposition, lack of vegetation in riparian zones, and lack of riparian and aquatic habitat.
The existing conditions assessment of the project reaches of Byrds Creek and the tributaries included in
the project area indicated that livestock operations have resulted in bank trampling, bank erosion. The
tributaries are incising or are incised and in the case of SEI, overwidened. The result is degraded aquatic
and benthic habitat and net sediment export from streambanks to downstream receiving waters. With the
exception of West Branch, the riparian buffers on all of the project streams have either been maintained in
pasture, lack an understory and herbaceous layer, or are otherwise severely degraded.
The restoration and enhancement I reaches (BC2, BC3, SBI, SEI, SE2a, and SE2b) are all currently
unstable. BC2 and BC3 are severely impacted by livestock access, associated sand deposition, and the
breached mill dam and are exhibiting indicators of Stage IV of the Simon channel evolution model. The
widening of BC3 has resulted in a decrease in the stream capacity as evidence in sand deposition
throughout the reach. All of the project tributaries (SBI, SEI, and SE2) appear to be between Stage III
and Stage IV. Because of the slow rate of these geomorphic processes and continual livestock access
there is little evidence of the depositional recovery processes associated with Stage V. According to the
Rosgen channel type succession model, given the size of the streams and regional physiography, these
tributary streams were likely C or E streams prior to disturbance, and are progressing to more entrenched
and incised G type streams. They are likely to eventually become the wider, incised F type streams.
If livestock access was removed and buffers were not managed, eventually Bryds Creek and its tributaries
would recover to stable C or E streams. However, the tributaries would stabilize at a lower position
relative to the valley floor and be cut off from the original floodplain. However, with continued livestock
access, management of buffers, and no bank / bed stabilization treatments, the streams will not stabilize
and will continue to export tons of sediment per year to downstream waters.
The portions of the project that are planned for enhancement II activities are not in as poor condition as
the restoration reaches and are not as unstable. However, aquatic, benthic, and riparian habitats are
degraded in all of these reaches. Intervention will be required to improve the habitat conditions in all of
the project reaches. Livestock will also be excluded from the enhancement reaches in order to prevent
further degradation and the potential for greater instability. Severely eroded streambanks will be
stabilized to improve instream habitat and reduce sediment delivery to receiving waters.
The design objectives were developed to deal with the issues described in the paragraphs above. The key
factors driving the need for this intervention are:
• Without intervention, it is likely that downstream sedimentation will continue to occur.
The intervention will provide functional improvement to the ecosystem by restoring riffle /pool
sequences to promote aeration of water, lower water temperature, help maintain dissolved oxygen
concentrations, and restore the aquatic, benthic, and riparian habitat.
Treatment of agricultural runoff is needed to support the Falls Lake Watershed Management plan
and help meet nutrient reduction goals in downstream waters.
The restoration and buffer enhancement efforts will reduce on -site nutrient inputs by removing
cattle from streams and filtering on -site runoff through buffer zones. Off -site nutrient input will
be absorbed on -site by filtering flood flows through restored floodplain areas, where flood flow
will spread through native vegetation.
w
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 29

The project will restore and enhance well over a mile of riparian buffers and will create a
conservation corridor by connecting these lands to forested upstream and downstream properties.
The project area will be protected in perpetuity with a conservation easement.
9.4 Sediment Transport Ana /ysis
A sediment transport analysis was performed for the restoration reaches including BC3, SB1, SE1, and
SE2. In general, the analysis was performed to answer two questions:
1. What size bed material particles will become entrained at flows at or near the bankfull discharge
(competence), and
2. Does the stream have the ability to pass the sediment load supplied to it (capacity)?
Because the bed material in the project streams is a mix of sand, gravel, and cobble (even though several
of the streams currently classify as sand bed channels due to small diameter d50 values) the analysis
performed for this project addresses both the competence and capacity questions with the information
available. Stream competence can be determined through calculations performed with data commonly
collected for stream restoration projects. The issue of capacity is much more difficult to analyze due to
lack of reliable data on sediment supply for a given stream and, therefore, must often be analyzed
qualitatively unless initial qualitative analysis warrants further field data collection.
Restoration reach BC3 was determined to be a gravel bed stream with a reachwide pebble count d50 of
22.6 mm. Coarse riffles are present in this reach. Restoration reach SB 1 was determined to be a sand bed
stream based on a reachwide pebble count d50 of 1.0 mm. Restoration reach SE1 was determined to be a
gravel bed stream based on a reachwide pebble count d50 of 13.63 mm. The existing bed material matrix
in all design reaches is comprised of cobble, gravel and sand. Multiple pebble counts and pavement
samples throughout the project reaches show bimodal distributions of particle size with a larger sand
fraction as discussed above. In gravel bed streams, including bimodal systems, bed load is the dominant
component of sediment transport (Wilcock, et al., 2009). Therefore bed load was the focus of this
sediment transport analysis.
Competence Analysis
A competence analysis was performed for each of the restoration reaches by computing the bankfull shear
stress based on the design bankfull depth and slope (table 12a). Standard equations were used to calculate
the critical dimensionless shear stress needed to move the bed material and the depth and slope
combination needed to produce that stress. The equations are:
(1) i,;
= 0.0834(d50 /ds50 -0.872
(2) i,;
= 0.0384(Di /d50 ) -0.887
(3) i =
y,Sd
(4) S =
(i,, *ys *Di) /d
where i,; is critical dimensionless shear stress, d50 is median diameter of pavement material, ds50 is median
diameter of subpavement material, ys is specific weight of sediment, Di is the largest diameter of
subpavement material, d is mean bankfull depth of channel, and S is the water surface slope at bankfull
stage. The results are shown in Table 13.
w
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 30

Table 13. Bankfull Shear Stress Calculations
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
In addition to the analysis described above, a HEC -RAS sediment transport model was built to represent
the proposed conditions of each restoration reach. Bankfull shear stresses were calculated in the model at
each pool and riffle cross section throughout the restoration reaches. Results are presented in Table 14.
Table 14. Shear Stress in Design Reaches by Bed Feature Type
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
BC3
Shear Stress
Statistic
(lb /ft2)
BC3
SB1
SE1
SE2
Design Mean Bankfull
1.81
0.96
0.71
0.72
Depth (ft)
0.05
50 Percentile
0.73
0.88
Calculated D,;t;ca, (ft)
1.41 -1.95
0.73 -1.01
0.62 -0.82
0.70 -0.74
Design bankfull water
0.0076-
0.0052-
0.0220
0.0202
surface slope (ft /ft)
0.0134
0.0199
0.0078-
0.0061-
0.024-
0.021 -
Calculated Scr;t;ca, (ft/ft)
0.014
0.0155
0.026
0.025
Critical shear stress
required to move largest
0.69 -1.71
0.28 -0.98
0.94 -1.34
0.93 -1.14
subpavement particle"
(Ibs /ft2)
Design Discharge
Boundary Shear Stress
0.86 -1.51
0.31 -1.19
0.97
0.91
(Ibs /ft2)
In addition to the analysis described above, a HEC -RAS sediment transport model was built to represent
the proposed conditions of each restoration reach. Bankfull shear stresses were calculated in the model at
each pool and riffle cross section throughout the restoration reaches. Results are presented in Table 14.
Table 14. Shear Stress in Design Reaches by Bed Feature Type
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
BC3
Shear Stress
Statistic
(lb /ft2)
Channel
Riffle
Pool
Minimum
0.03
0.26
0.03
25 Percentile
0.10
0.65
0.05
50 Percentile
0.73
0.88
0.10
75 Percentile
0.96
1.18
0.20
Maximum
2.06
2.06
0.29
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 31

SB1
Shear Stress
Statistic
(lb /ft2)
Channel
Riffle
Pool
Minimum
0.03
0.22
0.03
25 Percentile
0.85
0.44
0.06
50 Percentile
0.17
0.54
0.09
75 Percentile
0.275
0.67
0.19
Maximum
0.86
0.86
0.50
SE1
Shear Stress
Statistic
(lb /ft2)
Channel
Riffle
Pool
Minimum
0.03
0.44
0.03
25 Percentile
0.12
0.83
0.07
50 Percentile
0.21
1.00
0.17
75 Percentile
0.38
1.05
0.25
Maximum
1.18
1.18
0.44
SE2
Shear Stress
Statistic
(lb /ft2)
Channel
Riffle
Pool
Minimum
0.05
0.61
0.05
25 Percentile
0.19
0.71
0.11
50 Percentile
0.23
0.97
0.21
75 Percentile
0.57
0.98
0.23
Maximum
0.73
0.98
0.23
As expected, the shear stresses summarized in Table 14 are greater in riffles than pools for each reach.
The median shear stress values shown in Table 14 were plotted on the revised Shields diagram (Rosgen,
2001) to determine the moveable grain size for the calculated shear stress. The movable grain sizes are
presented in Table 15.
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 32

Table 15. Grain Size Calculations for Bankfull Shear Stress
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
The results of the competence analyses indicate that the channel will move the existing bed material at
design bankfull flow. To minimize the scour potential, riffles will be constructed with the d50 grain sizes
exceeding the values presented in Table 15. Grade control structures such as reinforced constructed riffles
will be installed during construction at locations where bed scour potential is significant. Natural material
revetments such as brush mattresses and brush toe will also be used along with bioengineering to prevent
bank erosion. In- stream structures and revetments are shown on the design plans.
Capacity Analysis
The competence analysis described above only provides an estimate of the necessary shear stress and
related slope and flow depth needed to move the existing bed material. A capacity analysis is necessary to
determine if the stream has the ability to pass its sediment load. A capacity analysis is much more
difficult to perform and is prone to error (Wilcock, 2009).
Sediment deposition was observed in the existing Byrds Creek channel and has been interpreted to come
primarily from bank erosion upstream and on the tributaries due to lateral instability and cattle trampling
but also from watershed erosion. Multiple site visits indicated that the deposition may be temporal and
vary with flow regime and the frequency and magnitude of flushing flows. Nonetheless, observations
indicate that the existing stream reach is not adequately moving all the sediment supplied to it. The design
approach for BC3 increases stream power by increasing the stream slope and reducing mean depth. This
should facilitate increased transport of sands in a wider range of flow conditions. In addition, upstream
enhancement and tributary restoration activities should decrease supply. To validate the design approach,
sediment capacity models were performed with HEC -RAS for the existing reach, BC3 and for the
restoration reach BC3. The analysis was performed to ensure the restoration reach has a greater transport
capacity as compared to the existing reach.
South Branch, and Southeast Branch were observed to be in or following the Stage IV and Stage V
process and the bed and bank degradation has likely contributed to the sediment deposition in Byrds
Creek. The capacity of these reaches has likely exceeded the supply and the systems are now sediment
starved. The design approach for SB1, SE1, and SE2 was to stabilize the stream reaches to reduce the
erosion and construct threshold bed structures that are not mobile during bankfull flows. In addition width
to depth ration is increased and mean depth and, in some cases, slope are decreased. These measures are
predicted to reduce the stream capacity and help to balance the sediment supply. To validate the design
approach, sediment capacity models were performed with HEC -RAS for the existing and proposed
reaches of SB1, SE1, and. The analysis was performed to verify the improvement to the sediment balance.
A HEC -RAS Sediment Impact Assessment Model (SIAM) was prepared for BC3, SB, SE1, and SE2 to
estimate the sediment balance in each of the restored stream reaches. This module of HEC -RAS allows
the user to input flow data, bed material data, sediment source data, channel dimension, and slope data
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 33
BC3
SB1
SE1
SE2
Calculated Grain Diameter
(mm), Colorado Data Power
Trendline
138
96
152
149
Calculated Grain Diameter
(mm), Leopold, Wolman, and
Miller Power Trendline
68
41
78
75
The results of the competence analyses indicate that the channel will move the existing bed material at
design bankfull flow. To minimize the scour potential, riffles will be constructed with the d50 grain sizes
exceeding the values presented in Table 15. Grade control structures such as reinforced constructed riffles
will be installed during construction at locations where bed scour potential is significant. Natural material
revetments such as brush mattresses and brush toe will also be used along with bioengineering to prevent
bank erosion. In- stream structures and revetments are shown on the design plans.
Capacity Analysis
The competence analysis described above only provides an estimate of the necessary shear stress and
related slope and flow depth needed to move the existing bed material. A capacity analysis is necessary to
determine if the stream has the ability to pass its sediment load. A capacity analysis is much more
difficult to perform and is prone to error (Wilcock, 2009).
Sediment deposition was observed in the existing Byrds Creek channel and has been interpreted to come
primarily from bank erosion upstream and on the tributaries due to lateral instability and cattle trampling
but also from watershed erosion. Multiple site visits indicated that the deposition may be temporal and
vary with flow regime and the frequency and magnitude of flushing flows. Nonetheless, observations
indicate that the existing stream reach is not adequately moving all the sediment supplied to it. The design
approach for BC3 increases stream power by increasing the stream slope and reducing mean depth. This
should facilitate increased transport of sands in a wider range of flow conditions. In addition, upstream
enhancement and tributary restoration activities should decrease supply. To validate the design approach,
sediment capacity models were performed with HEC -RAS for the existing reach, BC3 and for the
restoration reach BC3. The analysis was performed to ensure the restoration reach has a greater transport
capacity as compared to the existing reach.
South Branch, and Southeast Branch were observed to be in or following the Stage IV and Stage V
process and the bed and bank degradation has likely contributed to the sediment deposition in Byrds
Creek. The capacity of these reaches has likely exceeded the supply and the systems are now sediment
starved. The design approach for SB1, SE1, and SE2 was to stabilize the stream reaches to reduce the
erosion and construct threshold bed structures that are not mobile during bankfull flows. In addition width
to depth ration is increased and mean depth and, in some cases, slope are decreased. These measures are
predicted to reduce the stream capacity and help to balance the sediment supply. To validate the design
approach, sediment capacity models were performed with HEC -RAS for the existing and proposed
reaches of SB1, SE1, and. The analysis was performed to verify the improvement to the sediment balance.
A HEC -RAS Sediment Impact Assessment Model (SIAM) was prepared for BC3, SB, SE1, and SE2 to
estimate the sediment balance in each of the restored stream reaches. This module of HEC -RAS allows
the user to input flow data, bed material data, sediment source data, channel dimension, and slope data
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 33

and then choose from a variety of transport functions to analyze transport capacity. For this analysis the
Meyer- Peter - Mueller (MPM) equation was used because the range of input values best reflect the values
for the restored stream reaches. It is important to note that this model is not expected to produce precise
results but rather provide an estimate of the proposed channel's capacity to move an estimated sediment
load from the local bed supply, upstream reaches, and watershed erosion.
The results of the SIAM sediment supply, transport, and balance for each reach for existing and restored
conditions are presented in Table 16.
Table 16. Sediment Impact Assessment Model (SIAM) Results
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Stream Reach
Transport
Capacity
(g /sec.)
Sediment Supply
(g /sec.)
Local Balance
(g /sec.)
BC3 Existing
313.4
1318.2
+1004.8
BC3 Restored
1325.0
878.0
-447.0
SB Existing
137.1
6.9
-130.2
SB Restored
17.7
6.9
-10.8
SE1 Existing
74.2
2.9
-71.4
SE1 Restored
9.1
2.9.
-6.2
SE2 Existing
197.7
2.9
-194.9
SE2 Restored
21.5
2.9
-18.6
In general, the sediment impact assessment models described in this section indicate the restoration
reaches have lower sediment balances closer to equilibrium than the existing reaches (Table 17). The
modeling results also demonstrate the transport capacity for BC3 restored reach exceeds the transport
rates for the existing reach. Therefore, it is expected that the restored reach will transport a larger
sediment load than the existing channels and evacuate the accumulating sands more effectively. The
proposed channels will move their sediment loads and any bed adjustments will most likely be in the form
of scour. As concluded in the competence analysis section, constructed riffles and grade control structures
will therefore be a key component of the design.
9.5 Project Implementation Summary
The stream restoration will be constructed as described in this section. A full set of preliminary (60 %)
design plans are included with this mitigation plan for review.
9.51 Site Grading, Structure Installation, and Other Project Related Construction
The stream restoration elements of the project will be constructed as Priority 1 restoration. The stream
bed will be raised so that the bankfull elevation will coincide with the existing floodplain, the cross
sections will be constructed for the design discharge, and the pattern will be reconstructed so that the
channel meanders through the floodplain. In the case of BC3 and SB 1, the stream is connected at or
near the existing floodplain at the existing bankfull elevation but does not exhibit proper pattern and
dimension for long term stabililty. In these two reaches the stream bed will be raised to accommodate
the increase in width to depth ratio and the corresponding decrease in depth associated with correcting
the existing dimension deficiencies. Enhancement I components of the project will involve
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 34

constructing riffle structures and stabilizing banks as necessary but will not involve altering the
existing channel pattern. Enhancement II construction will include bank treatments and stabilization
only.
The stream reconstruction will result in appropriately sized channels that will meander across the
floodplain. The cross - sectional dimensions of the design channels will be constructed to flood the
adjacent floodplain and the existing wetlands frequently. The reconstructed channel banks will be
built with stable side slopes, planted with native materials, and matted for long -term stability. The
sinuous planform of the channel will be built to mimic a natural Piedmont stream.
The bedform of the reconstructed gravel and sand bed channels will vary between pools and riffles.
Generally the pools will occur in the outside of the meander bends and the riffles in the straight
sections of channel between meanders. Riffle /pool sequences will be built in the new channels as they
are common for streams in Piedmont streams with bed material similar to the project reaches. These
features provide energy dissipation and aquatic habitat. As a result of the project, the floodplain will
be more frequently inundated.
Instream structures will include constructed riffles, log sills, log vanes, log J- hooks, and rock cross
vanes. The constructed riffles will include native gravel /cobble material harvested from the existing
channel, Class A and B quarry stone, and a mix of native and quarry gravel. Riffles will also include
wood in some cases. Log J -hooks and log vanes will provide additional grade control and will deflect
flows away from banks while creating habitat diversity. Log sills will be used to allow for small grade
drops across pools. In a few instances rock cross vanes will be used as grade control structures and to
prevent potential bank erosion. At select outer meander bends, the channel banks will be constructed
of brush toe or brush mattress treatments to reduce erosion potential and encourage pool formation.
Four culvert crossings will be installed outside of the easement boundaries at the request of the
landowner on the Homeplace Property. These include one crossing on Byrds Creek, two on South
Branch, and one on Southeast Branch. Livestock have been removed from the Homeplace property.
There is no livestock on the Bradsher property. Livestock will be excluded from the Hall property
utilizing existing fencing.
9.5.2 Natural Plant Community Restoration
As a final stage of construction, riparian stream buffers will be planted and restored with native trees
and herbaceous plants. The natural community within and adjacent to the project easement can be
classified as Piedmont bottomland forest (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). The woody and herbaceous
species selected are based on this community type, observations of the occurrence of species in the
downstream forest previously described, and best professional judgment on species establishment and
anticipated site conditions in the early years following project implementation. Permanent herbaceous
seed will be placed on stream banks and bench areas and all disturbed areas within the project
easement. The stream banks will be planted with live stakes. The riparian buffers and wetland areas
will be planted with bare root seedlings. Proposed permanent herbaceous species are shown in the
plan set.
Individual tree and shrub species will be planted throughout the project easement including stream
banks, benches, tops of banks, and floodplains zones. These species will be planted as bare root and
live stakes and will provide additional stabilization to the outsides of constructed meander bends and
side slopes. Species planted as bare roots will be spaced at an initial density of 520 plants per acre (12
feet by 7 feet spacing). Live stakes will be planted on channel banks at 2 -foot to 3 -foot spacing on the
outside of meander bends and 6 -foot to 8 -foot spacing on tangent sections. Point bars will not be
planted with live stakes. Targeted densities after monitoring year 3 are 320 woody stems per acre.
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 35

Proposed tree and shrub species are representative of existing on -site vegetation communities and are
typical of Piedmont bottomland forests. Species are detailed in the plan set.
10.0 Maintenance Plan
The site shall be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site shall be conducted a
minimum of once per year throughout the post - construction monitoring period until performance
standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine
maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site
construction and may include the following:
Table 18. Maintenance Plan
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Component/ Feature
Maintenance through project close -out
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking
of in- stream structures to prevent piping, securing loose coir matting,
Stream
and supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation
along the channel. Areas where storm water and floodplain flows
intercept the channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank
failures and head - cutting.
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the
targeted community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair
activities may include supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and
Vegetation
fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species shall be controlled by
mechanical and /or chemical methods. Any vegetation control requiring
herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC
Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction
between the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may
Site boundary
be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree - blazing, or other
means as allowed by site conditions and /or conservation easement.
Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired
and /or replaced on an as- needed basis.
Utility right -of -way within the site may be maintained only as allowed by
Utility Right -of -Way
Conservation Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights
of way, or corridor agreements.
Ford crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by
Ford Crossing
Conservation Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights
of way, or corridor agreements.
Road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by
Road Crossing
Conservation Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights
of way, or corridor agreements.
Storm Water
Storm Water management devices will be monitored and maintained
Management Device
per the protocols and procedures defined by the NC Division of Water
Quality Storm Water Best Management Practices Manual.
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 36

11.0 Performance Standards
The stream restoration success criteria for the project site will follow approved performance criteria
presented in the EEP Mitigation Plan Template (version 1.0, 10/01/2010), EEP Baseline Monitoring
Template (version 2.0, 10/14/2010), and the Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003 by the
USACE and NCDWQ. Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits will be conducted to assess the
condition of the finished project for five years, or until success criteria are met. The stream restoration
and enhancement level I reaches (BC -2, BC -3, SB -I, SE -1, and SE -2) of the project will be assigned
specific performance criteria components for stream morphology, hydrology, and vegetation. The
enhancement level II reaches (BC -1, BC -4, and WB -1) will be documented through photographs and
visual assessments to verify that no significant degradational changes are occurring in the stream channel
or riparian corridor. These success criteria are covered in detail as follows.
11.1 Streams
11.1.1 Dimension
Riffle cross - sections on the restoration and enhancement reaches should be stable and should show
little change in bankfull area, maximum depth ratio and width -to -depth ratio. Riffle cross - sections
should generally fall within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate Rosgen stream
type. If any changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is
showing signs of instability. Indicators of instability include a vertically incising thalweg or eroding
channel banks. Changes in the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat
include a decrease in the width -to -depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth.
Remedial action would not be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability.
In order to monitor the channel dimension, two permanent cross - sections will be installed per 1,000
linear feet of stream restoration work, with riffle and pool sections in proportion to EEP guidance.
Each cross - section will be permanently marked with pins to establish its location. An annual cross -
section survey will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull,
edge of water, and thalweg.
11.1.2 Pattern and Profile
Longitudinal profile data for the stream restoration reaches should show that the bedform features are
remaining stable. The riffles should be steeper and shallower than the pools, while the pools should
be deep with flat water surface slopes. The relative percentage of riffles and pools should not change
significantly from the design parameters. Adjustments in length and slope of run and glide features
are expected and will not be considered a sign of instability. The longitudinal profile should show that
the bank height ratio remains very near to 1.0 for the majority of the restoration reaches.
A longitudinal profile will be completed for the restoration reaches of the project in years one, three
and five of the monitoring period. For reaches greater than 3,000 feet in length, the profile will be
conducted for at least 30% of the restoration length of the channel, per USACE and NCDWQ Stream
Mitigation Guidance. For reaches less than 3,000 feet in length, the profile will be completed for the
entire reach length. Measurements will include thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low bank.
These profile measurements will be taken at the head of each riffle, run, pool, and glide, as well as at
the maximum pool depth. The survey will be tied to a permanent benchmark and NC State Plane
coordinates.
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 37

11.1.3 Photo Documentation
Photographs should illustrate the site's vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis.
Cross - section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks.
Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of persistent bars within the channel or vertical
incision. Grade control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of
vane arms is preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.
Reference photos will also be taken for each of the vegetation plots.
Photographs will be taken once a year to visually document stability for five years following
construction. Permanent markers will be established so that the same locations and view directions on
the site are monitored each year. Photos will be used to monitor restoration and enhancement stream
reaches as well as vegetation plots.
Lateral reference photos should show a stable cross - section with no excessive erosion or degradation
of the banks. The reference photo transects will be taken of both banks at each permanent cross -
section. A survey tape pulled across the section will be centered in the photographs of the bank. The
photographer will make every effort to maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or vertical
incision. The photographer will make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each
photo over time.
Grade control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms
is preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected. Photographs
will be taken at representative grade control structures along the restored stream. The photographer
will make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Reference photos will also be taken for each of the vegetation plots. One representative digital photo
of each vegetation plot will be taken on the same day vegetative cover estimates are conducted.
11.1.4 Substrate
Substrate materials in the restoration reaches should indicate a progression towards or the
maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle features and smaller particles in the pool features. A
reach -wide pebble count will be performed in each restoration reach each year for classification
purposes. A pebble count will be performed at each surveyed riffle to characterize the pavement.
11.1.5 Bankfuii Events
Two bankfull flow events in separate years must be documented on the project within the five -year
monitoring period. Bankfull events will be documented using a crest gage, photographs, and visual
assessments such as debris lines. Three crest gages will be installed; one on Byrds Creek, one on
South Branch, and one on Southeast Branch. The crest gages will be installed within a riffle cross -
section of the restored channels at a central site location. The gages will be checked at each site visit
to determine if a bankfull event has occurred. Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of
debris lines and sediment deposition.
11.2 Vegetation
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260 five -year planted stems per acre in the
riparian corridor along restored and enhanced reaches at the end of the five -year monitoring period. The
interim measure of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 38

acre at the end of the third monitoring year. The extent of invasive species coverage will also be
monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the required monitoring period (year five).
12.0 Monitoring Plan
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the EEP Monitoring Report template (version 1.3,
01/15/2010). The monitoring report shall provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an
understanding of project status and trends, population of EEP databases for analysis, research purposes,
and assist in decision making regarding close -out. The monitoring period will extend five years for stream
and hydrology assessments beyond completion of construction or until performance criteria have been
met. Project monitoring requirements are listed in more detail in Table 21. All survey will be tied to grid.
Table 19. Monitoring Requirements
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Notes:
1. Cross - sections will be permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys will include points
measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg.
2. Survey will include thalweg, water surface, and bankfull, and top of low bank at the head of each riffle, run,
pool, and glide, and max pool.
3. Device will be inspected quarterly or semi - annually, evidence of bankfull will be documented with a photo
4. Vegetation monitoring will follow CVS protocols.
5. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped.
6. Locations of fence damage, vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped.
7. Permanent markers will be established so that the same locations and view directions on the site are monitored.
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 39
Quantity/ Length by Reach
Parameter
Monitoring
Frequency
Notes
SB
Feature
BC -1
BC -2
BC -3
BC-4
SE -1
SE -2
WBA
Riffle Cross
n/a
3
2
n/a
1
1
1
n/a
Annual
Sections
Dimension
1
Pool Cross
Section
n/a
2
2
n/a
1
1
1
n/a
Annual
Pattern
Pattern
Annual
Longitudinal
1,639
970
710
2
Profile
Profile
n/a
LF
1,411 LF
n/a
LF
787 LF
LF
n/a
Annual
Reach wide
(RW), Riffle
1
Substrate
(RF) 100
n/a
3R`F'
1 RW3 RF
n/a
RW
1 RW 1 RF
1 RW
n/a
Annual
pebble
count
RF
Hydrology
Crest Gage
1
n/a
1
1
n/a
Annual
3
Vegetation
CVS Level 2
3
5
5
2
4
3
3
2
Annual
4
Exotic and
nuisance
Annual
5
vegetation
Project
Boundary
Annual
6
Reference
Photos
photographs
3
8
7
2
5
4
4
3
Annual
Notes:
1. Cross - sections will be permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys will include points
measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg.
2. Survey will include thalweg, water surface, and bankfull, and top of low bank at the head of each riffle, run,
pool, and glide, and max pool.
3. Device will be inspected quarterly or semi - annually, evidence of bankfull will be documented with a photo
4. Vegetation monitoring will follow CVS protocols.
5. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped.
6. Locations of fence damage, vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped.
7. Permanent markers will be established so that the same locations and view directions on the site are monitored.
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 39

121 Addition/ Monitoring Detai /s
Vegetation
Vegetation monitoring plots will be installed and evaluated within the restoration and
enhancement areas to measure the survival of the planted trees. The number of monitoring
quadrants required is based on the EEP monitoring guidance documents (version 1.3,
11/15/2010). The size of individual quadrants will be 100 square meters for woody tree species
and shrubs. Vegetation assessments will be conducted following the Carolina Vegetation Survey
(CVS) Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation (2006).
The initial baseline survey will be conducted within 21 days from completion of site planting and
used for subsequent monitoring year comparisons. The first annual vegetation monitoring
activities will commence at the end of the first growing season, during the month of September.
The restoration and enhancement sites will then be evaluated each subsequent year between June
1 and September 31. Species composition, density, and survival rates will be evaluated on an
annual basis by plot and for the entire site. Individual plot data will be provided and will include
diameter, height, density, vigor, damage (if any), and survival. Planted woody stems will be
marked annually as needed and given a coordinate, based off of a known origin, so they can be
found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference between
the previous year's living planted stems and the current year's living planted stems.
13.0 Long -Term Management Plan
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT) the site will be transferred to the
( NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation and Stewardship Program). This
parry shall be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the
conservation easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to
uphold easement and deed restrictions shall be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
The NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program currently
houses EEP stewardship endowments within the non - reverting, interest - bearing Conservation Lands
Stewardship Endowment Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account is governed by North
Carolina General Statue GS 113A- 232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used only
for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if
applicable. The NCDENR Stewardship Program intends to manage the account as a non - wasting
endowment. Only interest generated from the endowment funds will be used to steward the compensatory
mitigation sites. Interest funds not used for those purposes will be re- invested in the Endowment Account
to offset losses due to inflation.
14.0 Adaptive Management Plan
Upon completion of site construction EEP will implement the post - construction monitoring protocols
previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described previously in
this document. If, during the course of annual monitoring it is determined the site's ability to achieve site
performance standards are jeopardized, EEP will notify the USACE of the need to develop a Plan of
Corrective Action. The Plan of Corrective Action may be prepared using in -house technical staff or may
require engineering and consulting services. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized
EEP will:
1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and /or required by the USACE.
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan Page 40

3. Obtain other permits as necessary.
4. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
5. Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the
extent and nature of the work performed.
15.0 Financial Assurances
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program's In -Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
has provided the US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund
projects to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by EEP. This commitment provides financial
assurance for all mitigation projects implemented by the program.
16.0 References
Bunte, K, Swingle, K.W., and Abt, S.R., 2007. Guidelines for Using Bed load Traps in Course - Bedded
Mountain Streams: Construction, Installation, Operation, and Sample Processing. General Technical
Report RMRS- GTR -191. USDA, Fort Collins, CO.
Dalrymple, T. 1960. Flood- Frequency Analyses. Manual of Hydrology: Part 3. Flood -Flow Techniques.
USGS Water Supply Paper #1543 -a. USGPO, 1960
Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, 1981. Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow
Frequency. Bulletin 17B. Washington, D.C.
KCI Technologies, 2007. Collins Creek Restoration Plan. Morrisville, NC
Multi- Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC), 2001. National Land Cover Database.
http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd.php
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), 2011. Web Soil Survey.
http://websollsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), 2006. Chatham County Soil Survey.
http://solls.usda.gov/survey/online surveys /north_carolina/
North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NC CGIA), 2001. Landcover GIS layer.
http://data.nconemap.com/geoportal/catalog/main/home.page
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/draftCPFApn*12005.htm
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 2009. Mineral Resources.
http: / /www.geology.enr. state. nc. us / Mineral% 20resources /mineralresources.html
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), 2009. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Database,
Chatham County, NC. http:/ /149.168.1.196 /nhp /county.html
North Carolina State University (NCSU), 2010. DramMod Related Publications. Accessed May 10, 2010,
at: http: / /www.bae.ncsu.edu /soil water /drainmod /drainmod _papers.html #wetland
Lagasse, P.F., Schall, J.D., Johnson, F., Richardson, E.V., Richardson, J.R., and Chang, F., 2001. Stream
Stability at Highway Structures, Second Edition. U.S. Department of Transportation, Report No.
F14WA -IP -90 -014, HEC- 20 -ED -2. Washington, DC.: Federal Highway Administration, 132 p.
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 41

Pitlick, J., Cui, Y., and Wilcock, P., 2009. Manual for Computing Bed Load Transport Using BAGS (Bed
load Assessment for Gravel Bed Streams) Software. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS- GTR -223. Fort Collins,
Co: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 45 p.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169 -199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. Proceedings of the
Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Center For Computational
Hydroscience and Bioengineering, Oxford Campus, University of Mississippi, Pages 12 -22.
Rosgen, D.L. 2006 & 2007. Personal Communication
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
3rd approx. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(1):11 -26.
Simon, A., Rinaldi, M. 2006. Disturbance, stream incision, and channel evolution: The roles of excess
transport capacity and boundary materials in controlling channel response. Geomorphology 79: 361-
383.
Simon, A. 2006. Flow energy, time, and evolution of dynamic fluvial systems: implications for
stabilization and restoration of unstable systems. In: Proceedings of the 2006 World Environmental
and Water Resources Congress (R. Graham, Ed.), May 21 -25, 2006, Omaha, Nebraska. CDROM.
Skaggs, R. W. 1980. DramMod Reference Report: Methods for design and evaluation of drainage -water
management systems for soils with high water tables. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service. 329 pp.
Shields, D. F., Copeland, R. R Klingman, P. C., Doyle, M. W., and Simon, A. 2003. Design for Stream
Restoration. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 129(8): 575 -582.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2009. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil
Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database for Chatham County, North Carolina.
http : / /SoilDataMart.nres.usda.gov
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2006. Assessing
Stream Channel Stability at Bridges in Physiographic Regions. Publication no. FHWA- HRT -05 -072.
McLean, VA.: Federal Highway Administration Office of Infrastructure Research and Development,
147 p.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008. Endangered Species, Threatened Species,
Federal Species of Concern and Candidate Species, Rockingham County, NC.
http://www.fivs.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html
URS Corporation, 2007. Unnamed Tributary to Cane Creek Restoration Plan. Morrisville, NC
Wilcock, P., et al., 2009. Sediment Transport Primer: Estimating Bed - Material Transport in Gravel Bed
Rivers. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS- GTR -226. Fort Collins, Co: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 78 p.
w
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Plan
Page 42

Figures

South FI
t S011 cit.. -
.Illgt Culillil 1S7
1 � s
_.`
03020201020010 —
03020261020020
I •n
r
�r
i
® Significant Natural Heritage Areas
J
rr
on 4 11ty '
illn_Cu11.475 - - I _.
0030 = {
l
- -� [ - 02020 �0
03020201040010
!.i
IWO
_�
-- •
z Oz0040
II,
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
Records found of Threatened and Endangered Species in the South Flat River
I
Common Name
yellow lanpnussel
Scientific Name
Lampsilis cariosa
Federal Species
Significance
of Concern, State Endangered
�
EEP Targeted Local Watershed
creeper
Strophitus undulates
fns
State Threatened
Eastern lanpnussel
chanelenn lanpnussel
Lampsilis radi.t.
Lampsilis sp.
State Threatened
State Signdicantly Rare
Natural Heritage Element Occurances
South FI
t S011 cit.. -
.Illgt Culillil 1S7
1 � s
_.`
03020201020010 —
03020261020020
I •n
r
�r
i
® Significant Natural Heritage Areas
J
rr
on 4 11ty '
illn_Cu11.475 - - I _.
0030 = {
l
- -� [ - 02020 �0
03020201040010
!.i
IWO
If
I � � 03020201030040
03020 / 50
Project lies within
Falls Lake Water f
�z 030202
Supply Watershed._ / '1
- r �
Rr.,FF i�a�rt� ?,1rr.
ktry WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
C OrVq 21
11t s1 �..tl�
all
_' �302aP010600;
• L f,
of *0030
50010 %�
Figure I Vicinity Map
0 1.1 2.2 Miles Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
EEP #95020
Person County, NC
_�
-- •
z Oz0040
,
I
�•'>~i
.-•�
�`i
03020201020030
�
1
1
��
fns
If
I � � 03020201030040
03020 / 50
Project lies within
Falls Lake Water f
�z 030202
Supply Watershed._ / '1
- r �
Rr.,FF i�a�rt� ?,1rr.
ktry WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
C OrVq 21
11t s1 �..tl�
all
_' �302aP010600;
• L f,
of *0030
50010 %�
Figure I Vicinity Map
0 1.1 2.2 Miles Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
EEP #95020
Person County, NC

Figure 2 Watershed Map
W I L D L A N D S 0 1,250 2,500 Feet Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I i i i I Mitigation Plan
EEP # 95020
Person County, NC

Figure 3 Site Map
W I L D L A N D S Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
E NO] N E E R I NO, 0 150 300 600 Feet Mitigation Plan
I i I i I EEP #95020
Person County, NC

II . 1 . 1 .
1 Easement Area
Reach Breaks
Streams
Project Streams
ChA - Chewacla, 0 -2% slopes
GeB - Georgeville loam, 1 -6% slopes
GeC - Georgeville loam, 6 -10% slopes
WB -1
1 4%� �•,
I �
I �
1
I
BC -4
*'. ON
♦ BC -3
SE -2b
� • BC -2 �.,.1
•,�,,' ,N1
,
I • 4
I � SE -2a
r,I I.1,
`',I►�
-
♦ 1
I j
♦%#% ,.
I �
I �
I �
I �
� GeC
1
I
•
1
r
t.
II ��r lrlrl
�� i
N-
Figure 4 Soils Map
W Y L D L A ITT D S 0 150 300 600 Feet Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I I I I I MiEEPt #95020
Person County, NC
x
.Y
Figure 4 Soils Map
W Y L D L A ITT D S 0 150 300 600 Feet Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I I I I I MiEEPt #95020
Person County, NC

J-
=I=IE
Easement Area
® Jurisdictional Wetlands
Reach Breaks
- Streams o
m
Project Streams
Cross Section Locations
i
i • 4 !
=BC-2
•
• • It
1 j
I j
- � I
7i
"t
i
r„ I
L-.O�
• I
• • • ' iii � : , �►
i
_
I '
it Cambe"lh N
�.
i r�
i •
•
' S i
•,
SE -2b
i
r'
jo '.r
Figure 5 Hydrologic Features Map
W I L D L A ITT D S 0 150 300 600 Feet Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I I I I I Mitigation Plan
EEP #95020
Person County, NC

.:
t,
n:
1000
W
`m
s
y 100
D
10
0.05 0.5 5
Drainage Area (square miles)
North Carolina Piedmont Regional Curve: Discharge
• Rural Regional Curve Data Flat River Gage • Project Reference Sites
O Combined a Design Values • Design Values
-Power (Rural Region al Curve Data) - Power (Reg Flood Freq 1.25YR) -Power (Reg Flood Freq 1.5YR)
-- Power(Combined) - - - -- Power (Lower 95 %) - - - -- Power (Up per 95 %)
WWILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 6 Regional Curve
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Person County, NC
offs
10
rrrrr� rr�
����■■
■ ■
MIMI
r■ � ■ ■ ■ r r rrrrr� rr� r■ � ■ ■ � r r rrrrr� rr� r■ � ■ ■ � r r rrrrr� rr�
�rrrrrrrr■ rr���■■ ��rrrrrr�rr�r ■�■■��rrrrrr�rr����i�rr
■ ■�IIII ■ ■■ ■1111 ■ ■■ ■1111 ■fi
r■ � ■ w s r r rrrrr�
■S�Ii�:'
,,, � ■_
irr�r■
■_ ■_1IIII� ■_ ■_111111 ■ ■1111lI���'.illll
�!■■ rrirr�r ■� ■ ■urirrws�� ■ ■�rrl��iwsaroui
■ ■
■ ■�IIII ■ ■■ ■Ile! ■ ■ ■s��l�ll ■
■ ■ ■�IIII
„ �■_■_
irr�r■
I_ I_I_III� ■_ ■_�_illll�% ■illlil�
�!■■ rri >_i�i ■uria�r ■� ■ ■urirr�r
■_ ■_1_1.1.111
■� ■oui
■ ■
■ ■�IIII ■� ■ ■�lilll ■ ■■ ■1111 ■
■ ■ ■■ ■111
����
� ■
■Illlli� ■ ■illlll�■ ■111111
■ ■1____'�
A
Rural Regional Curve Data
Flat River Gage
*
Reference Reaches
-
Power (Rural Reg io n al Curve Data)
.:
t,
n:
1000
W
`m
s
y 100
D
10
0.05 0.5 5
Drainage Area (square miles)
North Carolina Piedmont Regional Curve: Discharge
• Rural Regional Curve Data Flat River Gage • Project Reference Sites
O Combined a Design Values • Design Values
-Power (Rural Region al Curve Data) - Power (Reg Flood Freq 1.25YR) -Power (Reg Flood Freq 1.5YR)
-- Power(Combined) - - - -- Power (Lower 95 %) - - - -- Power (Up per 95 %)
WWILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 6 Regional Curve
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Person County, NC

I r
�
F
r Park __ _
i ____�____
_ _ — _ y
— —
{
A, -
Reference Sites
29
rbe
ton
! its Suiltntr
'
!
-
t urlit;rd C'ourtltouse
t �� � l,urllurd
t �l National r
1
Y
[
t; M t+♦ne
c -kill
R1ildary X4.,
I
n
70 `�
gibs e
Whi et! Elon Burl
n rr�c 70 I
Flillsh u h.
Y Greensboro
r �'
cc eerttze
I•.70efr•', L
I
�h'si�''1 l}a "
State Ila r A.! 3,
nr-an;;,.
421 5 „�
i Alam nrr
Grab m
S pwm C
t ,ltnt}
1 ttti
1 Pleasant
t oitlr Garden
!
30
A 1.1 Ind `
L ape
,�tit�
['Hann
Carrkronr ill +
F
Arrhd —__"_ __...___
t
J
!
311
1
220
Ll
viIIL
F—--- ___--- ------ _r
Zeman
r
A. h slnu
t
15 H. Et'tr rr
!
j<,n�lrrn Luk,
A le
� � 321
r
+ amsr
+ It.ulsl „lpit
I rr
I
! hath.an
-baro ••
.Jordan Lake state
�
Rrcrcasran a sra
r t:.r1,.:. Nor
karoIi
�, ,
■!=
n:I Golds n
•'
_ j
�, r
ro►x
<
►- "ti9+LrHARRIE t
1
,`
— — — —
/�YJ
— — — _ `r' — — .•..- —
— — — — — `
I
��
�
_► 5a
rHunty
F d
�Nspc��c�
�
c
Rrnadtil:a}•
{!o In$
i
42
`
U7
��SD��D�nd Q m,-, ° K.
r
l5�
Y !
�.r��halrw . liisrne 7
is
f
[;r agr
:Z
U7 W Roo L�9K
'
Ssi • �- •
/
�l
t
elk 1�
Figure 7 Reference Site Vicinity Map
%twv W I L D L A N D S Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G 0 4.1125 j 5 Miles Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Person County, NC

11.1.1E
Easement Area
Reach Breaks
Streams
Project Streams o
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11 '
ft, 4V#
i %, i
I �
•
BC -2
• j
1 j
I �
''''''''All
•��
'� t BC -1
• I
♦, i
�va,r,I
i,.,.,.,
WB -1
r,n, �r.1 , ♦,1
j
I
•
s j BC -4
• i
i •
i ti� •
i •
i
• SE -2b
•
I �i
.10;N
�.,.!
PSE'
2a
fI
I �
j T, -
I �
SB -1
�i
ii �'�'•.. SE -1
k
P-4
ti
Cambe�`h
13
Figure 8 Stream Design
kt� W I L D L A N D S 0 150 300 600 Feet Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
E N G IN E ER I N G I I I I I Mitigation Plan
EEP #95020
Person County, NC

Appendix 1 Project Site Photographs

BYRDS CREEK REACH BC1
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan 1 Appendix 1 — Project Site Photographs

BYRDS CREEK REACH BC2
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan 2 Appendix 1 — Project Site Photographs

BYRDS CREEK REACH BC3
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan 3 Appendix 1 — Project Site Photographs

BYRDS CREEK REACH BC4
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan 4 Appendix 1 — Project Site Photographs

SOUTH BRANCH REACH SB1
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan 5 Appendix 1 — Project Site Photographs
t.
,gyp. � �•.
,.
;.�.. -�� ,
? E
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan 5 Appendix 1 — Project Site Photographs

SOUTHEAST BRANCH REACH SE1
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan 6 Appendix 1 — Project Site Photographs

SOUTHEAST BRANCH REACH SE2
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan 7 Appendix 1 — Project Site Photographs

WEST BRANCH REACH Wa!
Byr Creek iga m Site Mitigation Mm 8 Appendix 1 -w§e Site Photographs

Appendix 2 Historic Aerial Photographs

Approximate Scale
1" =999'
1955 Aerial (Source USDA)
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan
vk
t'Vi . ,
1 Appendix 5 — Historic Aerial Photographs

1975 Aerial (Source USDA)
Approximate Scale
1" = 1346'
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan
Appendix 5 — Historic Aerial Photographs

Appendix 3 Project Site USACE Routine Wetland
Determination and NCWAM Data Forms

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Byrds Creek Mitigation Site City /County: Person Sampling Date: 1/13/12
Applicant /Owner: Wildands Engineering State: NC Sampling Point: DP1
Investigator(s): Matt Jenkins, PWS Section, Township, Range: Bushy Fork Township
d lain o °
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floo p Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope ( /°): °
Subregion (LRR or MLR,,. MLRA 136 Lat: N 36.250082 Long: W 79.043548 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla (ChA) NWI classification: PF01
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampling point is representative of a jurisdictional wetland AA in the floodplains of Byrds Creek
and West Branch.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
° Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): 6 -12"
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP1
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Liquidambar styraciflua
40 Yes FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
2 Carpinus caroliniana 5 No FAC
3.
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
6.
7
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8
OBL species x 1 =
45 = Total Cover
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5'
= Total Cover
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Juncus effusus
80 Yes FACW
-
2 Microstegium vimineum
10 No FAC
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
90 = Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6.
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0 -2 10YR 3/4 100
silt loam
2 -12 10YR 5/2 75
7.5YR 5/6 25 C PL
silt loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Byrds Creek Mitigation Site City /County: Person Sampling Date: 1/13/12
Applicant /Owner: Wildands Engineering State: NC Sampling Point: DP2
Investigator(s): Matt Jenkins, PWS Section, Township, Range: Bushy Fork Township
d lain o
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floo p Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope ( /°): ° °
Subregion (LRR or MLR,,. MLRA 136 Lat: N 36.251192 Long: W 79.042521 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla (ChA) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampling point is representative of a non - jurisdictional upland area in the floodplain of Byrds Creek.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP2
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Fagus grandifolia
50 Yes FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
2 Carpinus caroliniana 5 No FAC
3 Acer rubrum 5 No FAC
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67% (A/B)
6.
7
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8
OBL species x 1 =
60 = Total Cover
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FACW species x 2 =
1 Ulmus rubra
2 Yes FAC
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5'
2 = Total Cover
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Polystichum acrostichoides
40 Yes FAC
-
2.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
40 = Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6.
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0 -1 7.5YR 3/4 100
sandy silt loam
1 -12 10YR 4/4 100
silt loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Byrds Creek Mitigation Site City /County: Person Sampling Date: 1/13/12
Applicant /Owner: Wildands Engineering State: NC Sampling Point: DP3
Investigator(s): Matt Jenkins, PWS Section, Township, Range: Bushy Fork Township
d lain o
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floo p Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope ( /°): ° °
Subregion (LRR or MLR,,. MLRA 136 Lat: N 36.253643 Long: W 79.041267 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Georgeville loam (GeC) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampling point is representative of a non - jurisdictional upland area in the floodplain of Byrds Creek.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP3
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Fagus grandifolia
50 Yes FACU
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
2 Carpinus caroliniana 5 No FAC
3 Acer rubrum 5 No FAC
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 67% (A/B)
6.
7
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8
OBL species x 1 =
60 = Total Cover
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FACW species x 2 =
1 Ulmus rubra
2 Yes FAC
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5'
2 = Total Cover
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Polystichum acrostichoides
40 Yes FAC
-
2.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
3.
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
40 = Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6.
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0 -12 10YR 4/4 100
sandy silt loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Byrds Creek Mitigation Site City /County: Person Sampling Date: 1/13/12
Applicant /Owner: Wildands Engineering State: NC Sampling Point: DP4
Investigator(s): Matt Jenkins, PWS Section, Township, Range: Bushy Fork Township
lo a o
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hills p Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope ( /°): ° °
Subregion (LRR or MLR,,. MLRA 136 Lat: N 36.247061 Long: W 79.044003 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla (ChA) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampling point is representative of a non - jurisdictional upland area adjacent to Southeast Branch.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP4
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 Liquidambar styraciflua
30 Yes FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
2 Juniperus virginiana 2 No FACU
3.
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50% (A/B)
6.
7
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8
OBL species x 1 =
32 = Total Cover
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5'
2 = Total Cover
-
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Festuca rubra
80 Yes FACU
-
2 Microstegium vimineum
15 No FAC
3 Solidago canadensis
5 No FACU
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
100 = Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6.
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP4
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0 -2 7.5YR 4/3 100
silt loam
2 -12 10YR 5/4 100
silt loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Byrds Creek Mitigation Site City /County: Person Sampling Date: 1/13/12
Applicant /Owner: Wildands Engineering State: NC Sampling Point: DP5
Investigator(s): Matt Jenkins, PWS Section, Township, Range: Bushy Fork Township
d lain o
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floo p Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope ( /°): ° °
Subregion (LRR or MLR,,. MLRA 136 Lat: N 36.246306 Long: W 79.045068 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla (ChA) NWI classification: REM
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampling point is representative of a jurisdictional wetland area BB, connected to South Branch.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
° Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): 1 -3"
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): <12"
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): 0 -12"
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP5
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
6.
7
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8
OBL species x 1 =
= Total Cover
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FACW species x 2 =
1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica
10 Yes FACW
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5'
= Total Cover
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Microstegium vimineum
50 Yes FAC
-
2 Cyperus strigosus
20 Yes FACW
3 Juncus effusus
5 No FACW
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
75 = Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6.
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP5
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0 -12 10YR 6/1 80
7.5YR 5/6 20 C PL
silt loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Byrds Creek Mitigation Site City /County: Person Sampling Date: 1/13/12
Applicant /Owner: Wildands Engineering State: NC Sampling Point: DP6
Investigator(s): Matt Jenkins, PWS Section, Township, Range: Bushy Fork Township
d lain o
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floo p Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope ( /°): ° °
Subregion (LRR or MLR,,. MLRA 136 Lat: N 36.246351 Long: W 79.048094 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla (ChA) NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampling point is representative of a non - jurisdictional upland area in the floodplain of Byrds Creek.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP6
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
6.
7
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8
OBL species x 1 =
= Total Cover
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5'
2 = Total Cover
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Panicum virgatum
95 Yes FAC
-
2 Solidago canadensis
4 No FACU
3 Juncus effusus
1 No FACW
Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
100 = Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6.
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Area is located within an actively
maintained open pasture.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP6
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0 -12 10YR 5/4 100
silt loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: Byrds Creek Mitigation Site City /County: Person Sampling Date: 1/13/12
Applicant /Owner: Wildands Engineering State: NC Sampling Point: DP7
Investigator(s): Matt Jenkins, PWS Section, Township, Range: Bushy Fork Township
d lain o
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): floo p Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope ( /°): ° °
Subregion (LRR or MLR,,. MLRA 136 Lat: N 36.245827 Long: W 79.047789 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: Chewacla (ChA) NWI classification: PEM
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
Sampling point is representative of a small jurisdictional wetland depression CC in the floodplain of
Byrds Creek.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
° Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): 4 -12"
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring
well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: DP7
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B)
6.
7
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
8
OBL species x 1 =
= Total Cover
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15'
)
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8.
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
9.
3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
10.
4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
5'
= Total Cover
_
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
1 Juncus effusus
60 Yes FACW
-
2 Cyperus strigosus
30 Yes FACW
3 Panicum virgatum
10 No FAC
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
7.
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
9.
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
11.
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12.
100 = Total Cover
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
5
Vegetation
6.
Present? Yes No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Area is located within an actively
maintained, open pasture.
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: DP7
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
Texture Remarks
0 -2 10YR 4/3 100
silt loam
2 -12 10YR 5/1 90
7.5YR 5/4 10 C PL
silt loam
'Type: C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 3.0
Rating Calculator Version 3.0
Wetland Site Name Byrds Creek - Wetland AA Date 01/13/12
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Matt Jenkins, PWS
Level III Ecoregion Redmont Nearest Named Water Body Byrds Creek
River Basin Neuse USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
r, Yes r; No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci- degrees) 36.250082 °N, 79.043548 °W
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and /or make note below if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in recent
past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub - surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat /plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear- cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? r Yes ro., No
Describe effects of stressors that are present.
No visible stressors are present
Regulatory Considerations
Select all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)- listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)- listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (Check all that apply)
r Blackwater
' Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind ` Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? r Yes MNo
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ; Yes M No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
M A M A Not severely altered
B r B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], artificial hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub - Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub - surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
<_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub - surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
M A M A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B , B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C r C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area /wetland type condition metric
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
A , A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B , B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C , C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
M D M D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
M C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture /Structure — assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoxymorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoxymorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ? 1 inch
A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub - surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub - surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
M A M A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
F A A I— A ? 10% impervious surfaces
F?_ B B r B < 10% impervious surfaces
F?_ C r C r? C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
F?_ D r D 17 D ? 20% coverage of pasture
F E r E r E ? 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F?_ F r F r F ? 20% coverage of maintained grass /herb
F G r G r G ? 20% coverage of silvicultural land characterized by a clear -cut < 5 years old
F H r H r H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes r. No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
r, A ? 50 feet
M B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels /braids for a total width.
rJ <_ 15 -feet wide r± > 15 -feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
r. Yes r± No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
M Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed — adjacent open water with width ? 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type /wetland complex metric
Check a box
in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the appropriate width for the wetland type at the assessment
area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT
WC
A
A
? 100 feet
B
B
From 80 to < 100 feet
C
C
From 50 to < 80 feet
D
D
From 40 to < 50 feet
M E
M E
From 30 to < 40 feet
F
F
From 15 to < 30 feet
G
G
From 5 to < 15 feet
H
H
<5feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short- duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
M B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long- duration inundation or very long- duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
�± A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (VVC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear -cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ? 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
. J . J . J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear -cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (? 90 %) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and /or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, urban landscapes, maintained
fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
A A ? 500 acres
B . B From 100 to < 500 acres
. C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
L' Yes L: No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters /stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
permanent features such as fields, development, two -lane or larger roads (? 40 -feet wide), utility line corridors wider than a two -lane road,
and clear -cuts < 10 years old. Consider the eight main points of the compass.
A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear -cut
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
EA Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
u C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected strata are unnaturally absent or dominated by exotic
species or composed of planted stands of non - characteristic species or inappropriately composed of a single species.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
"A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species ( <10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
uC Vegetation is dominated by exotic species ( >50% cover of exotics).

r'i
u
17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area /wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
rr' Yes r' No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
r' A
? 25%
coverage of vegetation
uB
< 25%
coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box
in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA
WT
A
A
Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B
B
Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C
C
Canopy sparse or absent
A
A
Dense mid - story/sapling layer
. B
. B
Moderate density mid - story/sapling layer
C
C
Mid - story/sapling layer sparse or absent
A
Dense shrub layer
B
B
B
Moderate density shrub layer
. C
. C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
A
A
Dense herb layer
. B
. B
Moderate density herb layer
u C
C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric
r' A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12- inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric
EA Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
r' B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 -inch DBH.
uC Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man - placed natural debris.
r' A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not
21. Vegetation /Open Water Dispersion — wetland typelopen water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
r"A B r 'iC r D
1
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric
Evaluate for riverine wetlands only. Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive
ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man -made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision.
r.' A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
uD Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 3.0
Rating Calculator Version
3.0
Wetland Site Name Byrds Creek - Wetland AA
Date
01/13/12
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name /Organization
Matt Jenkins, PWS
Presence of stressor affecting assessment area (Y /N)
YES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y /N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y /N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y /N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y /N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y /N)
NO
Sub - function Rating Summary
Function Sub - function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Sub - Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition /Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition /Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Vegetation Composition
Condition
HIGH
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics /Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Habitat Conditon
HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 3.0
Rating Calculator Version 3.0
Wetland Site Name Byrds Creek - Wetland BB Date 01/13/12
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Matt Jenkins, PWS
Level III Ecoregion Redmont Nearest Named Water Body Byrds Creek
River Basin Neuse USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
r, Yes r; No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci- degrees) 36.246306 °N, 79.045068 °W
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and /or make note below if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in recent
past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub - surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat /plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear- cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? r: Yes r No
Describe effects of stressors that are present.
The area exhibits extensive management of vegetation and is part of the active pastures located on -site.
Regulatory Considerations
Select all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)- listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)- listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (Check all that apply)
r Blackwater
' Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind ` Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? r Yes MNo
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ; Yes M No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
M A M A Not severely altered
B r B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], artificial hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub - Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub - surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
<_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub - surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A , A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
M B M B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C r C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area /wetland type condition metric
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
A , A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B , B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
M C M C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D , D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
M C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture /Structure — assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoxymorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoxymorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ? 1 inch
A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub - surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub - surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
M A M A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
F A A I— A ? 10% impervious surfaces
F?_ B B r B < 10% impervious surfaces
F?_ C r C r? C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
F?_ D r D 17 D ? 20% coverage of pasture
F E r E r E ? 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F?_ F r F r F ? 20% coverage of maintained grass /herb
F G r G r G ? 20% coverage of silvicultural land characterized by a clear -cut < 5 years old
F H r H r H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes r. No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
A ? 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
M C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
rJ E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels /braids for a total width.
M:5 15 -feet wide r. > 15 -feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
r. Yes r± No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
M Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed — adjacent open water with width ? 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type /wetland complex metric
Check a box
in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the appropriate width for the wetland type at the assessment
area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT
WC
A
A
? 100 feet
B
B
From 80 to < 100 feet
C
C
From 50 to < 80 feet
D
D
From 40 to < 50 feet
E
E
From 30 to < 40 feet
M F
M F
From 15 to < 30 feet
G
G
From 5 to < 15 feet
H
H
<5feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
�± A Evidence of short- duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long- duration inundation or very long- duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
�± A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (VVC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear -cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ? 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
. I . I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K . K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear -cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (? 90 %) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and /or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, urban landscapes, maintained
fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
A C A ? 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D . D From 10 to < 50 acres
. E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
L' Yes L: No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters /stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
permanent features such as fields, development, two -lane or larger roads (? 40 -feet wide), utility line corridors wider than a two -lane road,
and clear -cuts < 10 years old. Consider the eight main points of the compass.
A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
. C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear -cut
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
u C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected strata are unnaturally absent or dominated by exotic
species or composed of planted stands of non - characteristic species or inappropriately composed of a single species.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
"A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species ( <10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
uC Vegetation is dominated by exotic species ( >50% cover of exotics).

r'i
u
17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area /wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
rr' Yes r' No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
r' A
uB
? 25%
< 25%
coverage of vegetation
coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box
in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA
WT
A
A
Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B
B
Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
. C
. C
Canopy sparse or absent
A
A
Dense mid - story/sapling layer
B
B
Moderate density mid - story/sapling layer
. C
. C
Mid - story/sapling layer sparse or absent
A
Dense shrub layer
B
B
B
Moderate density shrub layer
. C
. C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
A
A
Dense herb layer
B
B
Moderate density herb layer
u C
"C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric
r' A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12- inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
r' B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 -inch DBH.
uC Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man - placed natural debris.
r' A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not
21. Vegetation /Open Water Dispersion — wetland typelopen water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
r"A B r 'iC r D
1
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric
Evaluate for riverine wetlands only. Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive
ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man -made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision.
r.' A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
uD Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 3.0
Rating Calculator Version
3.0
Wetland Site Name Byrds Creek - Wetland BB
Date
01/13/12
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name /Organization
Matt Jenkins, PWS
Presence of stressor affecting assessment area (Y /N)
YES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y /N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y /N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y /N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y /N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y /N)
NO
Sub - function Rating Summary
Function Sub - function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Sub - Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition /Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition /Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition /Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics /Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Habitat Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 3.0
Rating Calculator Version 3.0
Wetland Site Name Byrds Creek - Wetland CC Date 01/13/12
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Matt Jenkins, PWS
Level III Ecoregion Redmont Nearest Named Water Body Byrds Creek
River Basin Neuse USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
r, Yes r; No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci- degrees) 36.245827 °N, 79.047789 °W
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and /or make note below if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in recent
past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub - surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat /plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear- cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? r: Yes r No
Describe effects of stressors that are present.
The area exhibits extensive management of vegetation and is part of the active pastures located on -site. The area shows evidence of ditching.
Regulatory Considerations
Select all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)- listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)- listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (Check all that apply)
r Blackwater
' Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind ` Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? r Yes MNo
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ; Yes M No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
A , A Not severely altered
M B M B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], artificial hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub - Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub - surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
<_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub - surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A , A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
M B M B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C r C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area /wetland type condition metric
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
A , A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B , B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
M C M C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D , D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
M C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture /Structure — assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoxymorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoxymorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ? 1 inch
A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub - surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub - surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
M A M A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use — opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
F A A I— A ? 10% impervious surfaces
F?_ B B r B < 10% impervious surfaces
F?_ C r C r? C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
F?_ D r D 17 D ? 20% coverage of pasture
F E r E r E ? 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F?_ F r F r F ? 20% coverage of maintained grass /herb
F G r G r G ? 20% coverage of silvicultural land characterized by a clear -cut < 5 years old
F H r H r H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer — assessment area condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes r. No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
A ? 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
M C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
rJ E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels /braids for a total width.
rJ <_ 15 -feet wide r± > 15 -feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
r. Yes r± No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
M Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed — adjacent open water with width ? 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type /wetland complex metric
Check a box
in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the appropriate width for the wetland type at the assessment
area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT
WC
A
A
? 100 feet
B
B
From 80 to < 100 feet
C
C
From 50 to < 80 feet
D
D
From 40 to < 50 feet
E
E
From 30 to < 40 feet
F
F
From 15 to < 30 feet
M G
M G
From 5 to < 15 feet
r�H
r�H
<5feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short- duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
M B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long- duration inundation or very long- duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
�± A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (VVC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear -cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ? 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
. J . J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K . K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear -cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (? 90 %) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and /or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, urban landscapes, maintained
fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Loosely
A A ? 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
. F . F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
L' Yes L: No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters /stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
permanent features such as fields, development, two -lane or larger roads (? 40 -feet wide), utility line corridors wider than a two -lane road,
and clear -cuts < 10 years old. Consider the eight main points of the compass.
A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
. C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in more than four (4) directions or assessment area is clear -cut
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
u C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected strata are unnaturally absent or dominated by exotic
species or composed of planted stands of non - characteristic species or inappropriately composed of a single species.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
"A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species ( <10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
uC Vegetation is dominated by exotic species ( >50% cover of exotics).

r'i
u
17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area /wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
rr' Yes r' No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
r' A
uB
? 25%
< 25%
coverage of vegetation
coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box
in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA
WT
A
A
Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B
B
Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
. C
. C
Canopy sparse or absent
A
A
Dense mid - story/sapling layer
B
B
Moderate density mid - story/sapling layer
. C
. C
Mid - story/sapling layer sparse or absent
A
Dense shrub layer
B
B
B
Moderate density shrub layer
. C
. C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
A
A
Dense herb layer
B
B
Moderate density herb layer
u C
"C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric
r' A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12- inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
r' B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 -inch DBH.
uC Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man - placed natural debris.
r' A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not
21. Vegetation /Open Water Dispersion — wetland typelopen water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
r"A B r 'iC r D
1
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric
Evaluate for riverine wetlands only. Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive
ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man -made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision.
r.' A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
uD Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual
Version 3.0
Rating Calculator Version
3.0
Wetland Site Name Byrds Creek - Wetland CC
Date
01/13/12
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name /Organization
Matt Jenkins, PWS
Presence of stressor affecting assessment area (Y /N)
YES
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y /N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y /N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y /N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open
water (Y /N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y /N)
NO
Sub - function Rating Summary
Function Sub - function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub - Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition /Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition /Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition /Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics /Notes
Rating
Hydrology Condition
LOW
Water Quality Condition
MEDIUM
Condition /Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (Y /N)
YES
Habitat Conditon
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

Easement Area
Reach Breaks
® Jurisdictional Wetlands
O Wetland Determination Point
Project Streams
Intermittent Stream
Perennial Stream
4%,,
i
,'.
4e I
2010 Aerial Photography
wWILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
�. Alal
.a"
1
,01
I 4f
I i
I i
1 �
I �
•
V.
.4
i r
r
L.
Jack Chavis Rd
Wetland Determination Points
0 200 400 Feet Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
I I I Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Person County, NC

Appendix 4 Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms

Date; L(7111
Project/Site: k
CQ.,
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (c * 11 ne'�'
Ephemeral Intermittent rerenn!aq
Other SC P1
Name,
ff z- 19 or perennial if >_ 30*
�
I e.g. Quad
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
V- Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
-2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
1.6
1
2
0
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence
-0
0
1
2
0
-4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
22. Fish
5. Activelrelict floodplain
0
1
2
1.5
-6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
1
-7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
CD
-8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
-9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.
-10. Natural valley
0
0.5
-11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
(-Yes
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions In manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal= 10 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
1
-13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.6
1
fl.
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
-21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
3
22. Fish
rl 7. Soil-based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
,Yes = 3)
C. Bioloctv (Subtotal = I Z )
-18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
-19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
(-,-S)
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
-21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
1.5
25. Algae
0
-0,5
0.5
GD
1.5
26. Wetiand plants In streambed
FACW.=QA)0BL=1.5
Other =O
*perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual,
Notes:
Sketch:

Date: ZI-7111
Project/Site: '16 t.f�'s
Latitude:
Evaluator:
county;
Longitude:
Total Points-,
Stream Is at least intermittent 7
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other j c P2'
lf;� 19 or,2erennialff �� 30* 4-
Ephemeral i0erQfi�teverenni-'
Q-4 Nam&:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =-LULSL
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
-I", Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
<aLD
3
-2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
3
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
6
2
3
-5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
W
-6. Depositional bars or benches
0
(6 1-)
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
0
2
3
-8. Headcuts
0
1
0
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
*perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 36 of manual.
11. Second or greater order channel
Na = 0
Yes = 3
. artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions In manual
B. Hvdrolociv (Subtotal = (0
12. Presence of Basellow
0
1
2
-13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
3
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
3
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
6
3
1.5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table?
No = 0 2
Yes = 3
C. Bioloov (Subtotal = � v4`� 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
1
0
20- Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
-22. Fish
C2�
0.5
1
1.5
-23. Crayfish
0
(6 1-)
1 1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
1
1.6
25, Algae
0
0.5
I 1
1.5
26. Weiland plants in streambed
FACVV
OBL= 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 36 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

Date, 1-7 1 /1
Project/Site, CkzkMk
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent Pj
Stream Determination
Other S03
ff �: 19 or perennial if 30* _L4
Ephemeral Intermitten
e.g. Quad Name.'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
la, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
Ca�)
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalwag
0
1
0.
3
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
<=3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
6. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
1.5
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
0.5
Grade control
0
0.5
1
-9.
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1 -11
­_ CIL V
11. Second or greater order channel
No=O
(Yes = 3)
. artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions In manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal= R � S )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
(2)
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
Leaf litter
1,6
1
0.
0
-14,
16. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
Organic debris lines or plies
0
0,5
1
1.6
-16,
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = G7 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
-19.
Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
_T
2
3
-20.
Aquatic Mollusks
0
2
3
-21.
22. Fish
0
0.
1
1.5
Crayfish
0
0.
1
1,5
-23.
Amphibians
0
Q6.5)
1
1.5
-24,
Algae
0
0.5
M
1,5
-25.
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW f05.
OBL = 1.6- -Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be Identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
-Notes:
Sketch:

16N _ ffi ,
T �
Date: /7
Absent
Project/sIte: J6%,
-&i?
Latitude;
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
\A A k 4 C' kN'
1
Evaluator: Ug> (L
3
County:
Longitude,
Total Points,
Stream is at least intenniffent
L4
2
Stream Determination '0'
'c r
Outer sc P�
ff a:,19 or perennial if > 30* G
0.5
Ephemeral Intermitten Pe ennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = Z lei i
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
(-3)
3. In-channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
0.5
2
1,5
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
M
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
CD
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
1.5
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
0.
2
1.5
8. Headcuts
0
1
= 1.5 Other = 0
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
a
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
/Yes ='A
annictai oncnes are not rates; see aiscussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = (i I
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
CID
2
3
14, Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
2
1,5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1,5
17. Soil-based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Cy-es
U. IJlOIOQV (Subtotal = 'A, )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
rf)
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
2
3
22. Fish
0
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
t
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.
1
1.5
26. Welland plants in streambed
;,,bBL
FACW O.T& ,
= 1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

Easement Area
Reach Breaks
® Jurisdictional Wetlands
O Stream Classification Point
Project Streams
Intermittent Stream
Perennial Stream
•
I I
INS, 14 i
♦` I
m : t:,�;
�. L . : ♦� .
OL
i�
i
:rC �1
�1 W I L D L A ITT D S o 200 40o Feet
1.1
i
+ r
2010 Aerial Photography
ENGINEERING I I I
Jack Chavis Rd
Stream Classification Points
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Mitigation Plan
Neuse River Basin (03020201)
Person County, NC

Appendix 5 Resource Agency Correspondence

Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
July 21, 2011
Andrea Eckardt
Wildlands Engineering
1430 South Mint Street
Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
L y�
QUnra ���
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Claudia Brown, Acting Administrator
Re: Byrds Creek Mitigation Project, Person County, ER 11 -1409
Dear Ms. Eckardt:
Thank you for your letter of July 8, 2011, concerning the above project.
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
While we have no comment on the mitigation project as proposed, we ask that your archaeological contractor,
New South, contact Site Registrar Susan Myers (iusan.m@ncd, 919/807 -6556) to obtain a
permanent state site number for the will dam and complete a site form for it. Although it is within a section of
the project designated as preservation, we would like to record its presence for future reference and to add to
our knowledge of the area.
We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures.
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 - 807 -6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above - referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
623(Claudia Brown
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone /Fax: (919) 807 - 6570/807 -6599

Andrea Eckardt
From: Myers, Susan <susan.myers @ncdcr.gov>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 1:52 PM
To: Andrea Eckardt
Cc: Chris Espenshade
Subject: RE: Site form for mill, ER 11 -1409
Andrea,
Thanks for the map. And, thanks Chris, for the form. I rec'd it this morning. The site's number is 31 PR129 * *. Appreciate
both your help w/ this; figured we should get it on the map, into the database.
Susan
Susan Myers
Site Registrar and Staff Archaeologist
Office of State Archaeology
4619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -4619
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
This communication may not reflect or represent the views of the Department of Cultural Resources. E -mail
correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law "NCGS.Ch.132" and
may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official.
Please note my new e-mail address: susan.myersp_ncdcr.gov.
From: Andrea Eckardt [mailto:aeckardt @wildlandseng.com]
Sent: Monday, August 08, 20115:12 PM
To: Myers, Susan
Subject: RE: Site form for mill, ER 11 -1409
Susan -
Attached is a figure showing the location of the Mill. Let me know if you need a different scale.
Andrea
Andrea Spangler Eckardt
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
704 - 332 -7754 ext101
Please note my new email address: aeckardt @wildlandseng.com effective immediately.
From: Myers, Susan [mailto:susan.myers @ncdcr.gov]
Sent: Monday, August 08, 20113:46 PM
To: Andrea Eckardt
Subject: Site form for mill, ER 11 -1409
Andrea,
Thanks for your call. Attached is our site form. New South has a copy of this template `on file' too. I'll assign the site
number once I've rec'd your map, then you or Chris /Shawn can complete the site form and send to me (I imagine you'll
want to wait to have him complete the time period, etc. and evaluation parts). If a photo or two could be attached to the
form that'd be great. Thanks.

Susan
Susan Myers
Site Registrar and Staff Archaeologist
Office of State Archaeology
4619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -4619
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
This communication may not reflect or represent the views of the Department of Cultural Resources. E -mail
correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law "NCGS.Ch.132" and
may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official.
Please note my new e-mail address: susan.myersp_ncdcr.gov.

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
June 30, 2011
Dale Suiter
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636
Subject: Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Person County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Suiter,
The Byrds Creek Mitigation Site has been identified for the purpose of providing in -kind
mitigation for unavoidable stream channel impacts. Several sections of stream channels
throughout the site have been identified as significantly degraded as a result of past
agricultural activities, including cattle.
We have already obtained an updated species list for Person County from your web site
( http:// nc- es.fws.gov /es /couniyfr.html). The threatened or endangered species for this
county are: the Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red - cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Michaux's sumac
(Rhus michauxii), and smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata). We are requesting that
you please provide any known information for each species in the county. The USFWS
will be contacted if suitable habitat for any listed species is found or if we determine that
the project may affect one or more federally listed species or designated critical habitat.
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to
endangered species, migratory birds or other trust resources from the construction of a
stream restoration project on the subject properties. A USGS map (Figure 1) showing the
approximate property lines and area of potential ground disturbance is enclosed. Figure 1
was prepared from the Hurdle Mills and Caldwell, NC 7.5- Minute Topographic
Quadrangles.
If we have not heard from you in 30 days we will assume that our species list and site
determination are correct, that you do not have any comments regarding associated laws
and that you do not have any information relevant to this project at the current time.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203 , (P) 704 - 332 -7754 , (F) 704 - 332 -3306

We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to
contact us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance
associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Matt L. Jenkins, PWS
Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
Figure 1. USGS Topographic Map

Appendix 6 Existing Morphologic Survey Data

O
O
O
Cn
O
+
O
O
+
Cn
O
N
O
O
N
Cn
O
W
O
O
W
Cn
O
W
CA
CD
CA
CA
O
O
Cn
O
+
O
O
+
Cn
O
N
O
O
N
Cn
O
W
O
O
W
Cn
Cn W -�i
CA +
Cn Cb
CA CA
CA
�
cn
O
Cn
O
+
O
O
+
Cn
O
N
O
O
N
Cn
O
W
O
O
W
Cn
O
V it
O
Cn Cn
CA
CA
O
Cn
O
+
O
O
+
Cn
O
N
O
O
N
Cn
O
W
O
O
W
Cn
O
i
al v
O O
Cn
v
CA
O
CA
-rh�
CA
O
CA
O
O CA
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Cn
O
+
O
O
+
Cn
O
N
O
O
N
Cn
O
W
O
O
W
Cn
O
W
CA
CD
CA
CA
O
O
Cn
O
+
O
O
+
Cn
O
N
O
O
N
Cn
O
W
O
O
W
Cn
Cn W -�i
CA +
Cn Cb
CA CA
CA
�
cn
O
Cn
O
+
O
O
+
Cn
O
N
O
O
N
Cn
O
W
O
O
W
Cn
O
V it
O
Cn Cn
CA
CA
O
Cn
O
+
O
O
+
Cn
O
N
O
O
N
Cn
O
W
O
O
W
Cn
O
i
al v
O O
Cn
v
CA

PFBBT.F COT TNT ANAT.YSTS WORKSFIF.F.T
Project Name:
B rds Creek Mitigation Site
Data Collected By:
M , JK
Location:
Person County, NC
Data Collected On:
9/8/2011
job #:
005 -02128
Reach:
BC1
Date:
9/8/2011
Cross Section #:
Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Riffle Summary
Pool Summary
Reach Summary
Min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
BfT G� d I Silt/Cly
0.000
1 0.062
4
6
10
8.0
8
12
12
10
10
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
D100 -1
1
2.0
10
D99 -1
12
1
11
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
10
8
20
4
15
Medium
............3 .................: Coarse
0.250
0.5
0.500
1.0
15
19
25
3
40
22
30.0
38.0
40
78
50
6
70
76
40
22
55
77
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
1
6
10.0
88
2
78
6
83
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
88
78
83
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
88
78
83
Fine
4.0
5.7
88
78
83
Fine
5.7
8.0
1
1
2.0
90
78
1
84
Medium
8.0
11.3
90
78
84
Medium
11.3
16.0
1 1
1
2
2.0
92
2
80
2
86
Coarse
16.0
22.6
92
80
86
Coarse
22.6
32
92
80
86
Very Coarse
32
45
92
80
86
Very Coarse
45
64
92
80
86
Small
64
90
1
1
2
2.0
94
2
82
2
88
Small
90
128
2
1
3
4.0
98
2
84
3
91
Large
128
180
1
4
5
2.0
100
8
92
5
96
Lace
180
256
1
1
100
2
94
1
97
Small
256
362
1
1
100
2
96
1
98
Small
362
512
100
96
98
Medium
512
1024
100
96
98
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
96
98
igE>`tf7l Bedrock
2048
>2048
2
2
100
4
100
2
100
Totall
50
1 50
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
100
Largest Particle (mm):
Riffle
Channel materials (mm)
Pool
Channel materials
Cumulative
Channel materials
D16 =
0.29
D16 =
0.18
D16 =
0.25
D35 -
0.45
D35 -
0.31
D35 -
0.35
D50 =
0.60
D50 =
0.38
D50 =
0.46
D84 =
1.52
D84 =
128.00
D84 =
11.00
D95 =
98.28
D95 =
304.42
D95 =
168.14
D100 -1
180
D99 -1
>2048
D99 -1
>2048

Percent Cumulative [ %)
W 'J� G� �] W u O
O O O O O O O O O O O
O
O
N
CD
rt
n
p1
I'7"I
O
N
�
A
1
3
Cn
I
o
ly
O
Cn
C
O
IrD
i
1V
i
�Ao
O
0
O
C
C
O
I Cr
M
`�
F1.
V
O
C,
C,
W
CD
O
n

579
578
577
576
0
m 575
a�
w 574
573
572
571
0 5 10 15
Bankfull Dimensions
55.8
x- section area (ft.sq.)
23.0
width (ft)
2.4
mean depth (ft)
3.3
max depth (ft)
25.7
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.2
hyd radi (ft)
9.5
width -depth ratio
Bank-full
Flow
3.2 velocity (ft /s)
178.2 discharge rate (cfs)
0.38 Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height
longitudinal station - --
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 38.5
Channel Slope
percent slope
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n" 0.031
D'Arcy - Weisbach 'T 0.09
Riffle
20 25
Width
Flood Dimensions
30 35
Materials
V./ C I ILI C I III III ICI II IQLIU
3.3 low bank height (ft)
1.0 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0.035 Manning's roughness
0.11 D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric.
9.5 resistance factor u /u'
13.8 relative roughness
40 45 50
- -- D50 (mm)
53.67 D84 (mm)
13 threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
u.zi snear stress (iDisq.n.)
0.37 shear velocity (ft/s)
0.97 unit strm power (lb /ft /s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Rid
30.3 ,
32.78
-
-
--
-
-®
38.64 ,
42.94---
-
--

580
579
578
577
0 576
575
w
574
573
572
571
0 10
Bank-full Dimensions
62.6
x- section area (ft.sq.)
23.6
width (ft)
2.7
mean depth (ft)
3.6
max depth (ft)
26.5
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.4
hyd radi (ft)
8.9
width -depth ratio
Bank-full
Flow
3.6 velocity (ft /s)
227.5 discharge rate (cfs)
0.42 Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height - --
longitudinal station
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 47.7
Channel Slope
percent slope
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n" 0.015
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f' 0.02
Riffle
20
30 40
Width
Flood Dimensions
155.8
W flood prone area (ft)
6.6
entrenchment ratio
3.6
low bank height (ft)
1.0
low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0.033
Manning's roughness
0.09
D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric.
20.1
resistance factor u /u'
975.8
relative roughness
50 60
Materials
- -- D50 (mm)
0.83 D84 (mm)
14 threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
0.2 channel slope ( %)
0.29 shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
0.39 shear velocity (ft /s)
1.21 unit strm power (lb /ft /s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Rkf
-
-O�P38
�
■
■ _
_
■ _
■ _
■ _
■ _
■ _
■ _
_
_
_
_
-
-01
424.722
-
-01
425.357
425.696 ®�
427.196
-
-
-01
-01
427.767 ®
428.329
-
-01
428.085
-
-
-01
-01
427.873 ®
427.701 �
-
-01
427.218
-
-01
424.261
-
-01
423.082
-
-0
L4211.922

you
579
578
577
576
.s 575
574
W 573
572
571
570
569
0 5 10 15
Bankfull Dimensions
77.5
x- section area (ft.sq.)
27.0
width (ft)
2.9
mean depth (ft)
4.8
max depth (ft)
30.7
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.5
hyd radi (ft)
9.4
width -depth ratio
Bank-full
Flow
- -- velocity (ft /s)
- -- discharge rate (cfs)
- -- Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height
longitudinal station - --
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS - --
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 45.4
Channel Slope
percent slope oil= - --
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n" - --
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f' - --
Pool
20 25 30 35
Width
Flood Dimensions Materials
- -- cnuciwiuiicrn iauU
- -- low bank height (ft)
- -- low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
- -- Manning's roughness
- -- D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric.
- -- resistance factor u /u'
- -- relative roughness
Distance BS HI
(ft) (ft) (ft)
40 45 50
- -- D50 (mm)
- -- D84 (mm)
- -- threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
- -- snear stress (ioisq.n.)
- -- shear velocity (ft /s)
- -- unit strm power (lb /ft /s)
FS Elevation Omit Notes
(ft) (ft) o''°
-
-01
424.696
®�
-
-01
424.366
-
-01
426.187
-
-01
426.719
-
-01
428.838
-
-01
429.406
-
-01
429.994
.
-
-01
429.763
-
-01
428.728
-
-01
428.866
-
-01
428.423
-
-01
426.766
-
-01
426.284
-
-01
424.636
-
-01
424.203
-
-0�
424.168
MWIN M,

PEBBLE COT TNT ANAT.YSTS WORKSFIF.F.T
Project Name:
B rds Creek Mitigation Site
Data Collected By:
M , JK
Location:
Person County, NC
Data Collected On:
9/8/2011
job #:
005 -02128
Reach:
BC2
Date:
9/8/2011
Cross Section #:
Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Riffle Summary
Pool Summary
Reach Summary
m in
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
BfT G� d I Silt/Cly
0.000
1 0.062
12
14
26
24.5
24
28
28
26
26
Very fine
0.062
0.125
232.07
4
4
D99 -1
24
8
36
4
30
Fine
0.125
0.250
8
8
24
16
52
8
38
Medium
Coarse
0.250
0.5
0.500
1.0
6
6
10
4
16
10
12.2
12.2
37
49
20
8
72
80
16
10
55
65
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
8
2
10
16.3
65
4
84
10
75
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
65
84
75
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
65
84
75
Fine
4.0
5.7
65
84
75
Fine
5.7
8.0
65
84
75
Medium
8.0
11.3
65
84
75
Medium
11.3
16.0
1
1
2.0
67
84
1
76
Coarse
16.0
22.6
67
84
76
Coarse
22.6
32
67
84
76
Very Coarse
32
45
1
1
2.0
69
84
1
77
VerV Coarse
45
64
1
1
2.0
71
84
1
78
Small
64
90
1
3
4
2.0
73
6
90
4
82
Small
90
128
3
3
6.1
80
90
3
85
Large
128
180
2
3
5
4.1
84
6
96
5
90
Lace
180
256
7
7
14.3
98
96
7
97
Small
256
362
1
1
2.0
100
96
1
98
Small
362
512
100
96
98
Medium
512
1024
100
96
98
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
96
98
WE 00 Bedrock
2048
>2048
2
2
100
4
100
2
100
Totall
49
1 50
1 99
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
Largest Particle (mm):
Riffle
Channel materials (mm)
Pool
Channel materials
Cumulative
Channel materials
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 -
0.45
D35 -
0.11
D35 -
0.19
D50 =
1.04
D50 =
0.23
D50 =
0.41
D84 =
181.45
D84 =
64.00
D84 =
115.98
D95 =
237.99
D95 =
170.06
D95 =
232.07
D100 -1
362
D99 -1
>2048
D99 =
>2048

Percent Cumulative [ %)
�-' N W 'J� G� �] W u O
O O O O O O O O O O O
O
O
N
CD
rt
n
p1
i
O
N
i
t
i
A
t
��1
p1
~
C7
0
r�
y�
I
v
'
N o
�
w
�
iv
p N
d
va
�.
°-
o
a
w
0•
C,
0
W
O
n

pia
577
576
575
0
,a- 574
m
573
w
572
571
570
569
0 5 10 15
Bankfull Dimensions
58.4
x- section area (ft.sq.)
26.1
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (ft)
3.8
max depth (ft)
30.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.9
hyd radi (ft)
11.7
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
2.7 velocity (ft/s)
154.8 discharge rate (cfs)
0.34 Froude number
Cross Section
referencelD
instrument height
longitudinal station - --
Bankfull Stage
FS - --
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS --
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpal 143.7
Channel Slope
percent slope - --
Flow Resistance
Manning's"n" 0.038
D'Arcy - Weisbach 7' 0.13
Note:
E����
Riffle
20 25
Width
Flood Dimensions
30 35
Materials
3.8 low bank height (ft)
1.0 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0.033 Manning's roughness
0.10 D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric.
7.7 resistance factor u /u'
6.5 relative roughness
Distance BS HI
(ft) (ft) (ft)
40 45 50
- -- D50 (mm)
104.66 D84 (mm)
8 threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
- I I JI 1-1 ­1 GJ ki -L.I.I L.)
0.29 shear velocity (ft/s)
0.52 unit strm power (lb /ft/s)
FS Elevation
Omit Notes
(ft) (ft)
Rkf
573.897
0
573.737
.,
t.
J
J
J
J
0
573.897
0
573.737
0
573.448
0
573.443
0
573.258
0
571.664
0
1
571.129
0
570.879
0
571.124
0
571.56
0
571.536
0
570.863
0
570.368
0
569.966
0
569.625
0
569.634
0
569.524
0
569.456
0
569.479
0
569.709
0
571.81
0
573.106
0
573.339
0
573.576
0
573.632
0
573.123
0
573.442
0
572.921
t.
J
J
J
J

Cross Section
BC-2B
Riffle
578
577
576
575
574
0
m
573
w
572
571
570
569
568
0 5 10
Bankfull Dimensions
64.5 x- section area (ft.sq.)
19.0 width (ft)
3.4 mean depth (ft)
4.4 max depth (ft)
24.6 wetted parimeter (ft)
2.6 hyd radi (ft)
5.6 width -depth ratio
Bankfull Flow
3.0 velocity (ft/s)
195.1 discharge rate (cfs)
0.33 Froude number
15 20 25
Width
Flood Dimensions
230.6 W flood prone area (ft)
12.1 entrenchment ratio
4.4 low bank height (ft)
1.0 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0.035 Manning's roughness
0.10 D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric.
8.4 resistance factor u /u*
9.9 relative roughness
30 35 40
Materials
- -- D50 (mm)
104.66 D84 (mm)
11 threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
0.14 channel slope ( %)
0.23 shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
0.34 shear velocity (ft/s)
0.9 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height
longitudinal station - --
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS"---
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 37.6
Channel Slope
percent slope � - - --
Flow Resistance
Manning's 7T 0.037
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f' 0.11
Note:
Distance
(ft)
BS
(ft)
HI
(ft)
FS
(ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Omit
Notes
0
575.427
0
573.699
0
573.236
0
573.07
0
573
573
571.658
0
571.107
0
569.381
0
573
569.269
568.838
_
_
0
568.741
0
568.645
37.62
568.898
0
569.033
0
569.219
0.14
569.243
0
569.13
0
568.969
_
_
0.035
569.324
0.114973
-
571.378
0
572.034
0
572.531
0
572.627
0
572.703
0
572.984
0
573.162
0
573.317
0
573.688
_
0
573.904
0
573.914
0
574.092

Cross Section
BC-2C
Pool
578
577
576
575
574
--------- - - - - --
------- - - - ---
--
- - -- --
-- - - - - --
m 573
w 572
571
570
569
568
0 5 10 15
20 25 30 35
40 45 50
Width
Bank-full Dimensions
Flood Dimensions Materials
65.9 x- section area (ft.sq.)
- -- W flood prone area (ft)
- --
D50 (mm)
21.9 width (ft)
- -- entrenchment ratio
- --
D84 (mm)
3.0 mean depth (ft)
4.3 low bank height (ft)
- --
threshold grain size (mm):
3.9 max depth (ft)
1.1 low bank height ratio
25.1 wetted parimeter (ft)
2.6 hyd radi (ft)
7.3 width -depth ratio
Bank-full Flow
Flow Resistance Forces &
Power
- -- velocity (ft /s)
- -- Manning's roughness
- --
channel slope ( %)
- -- discharge rate (cfs)
- -- D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric.
- --
shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
- -- Froude number
- -- resistance factor u /u'
- --
shear velocity (ft /s)
- -- relative roughness
- --
unit strm power (lb /ft /s)
Distance
BS
HI
FS
Elevation Omit Notes
Cross Section
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft) W(f
575.841
reference ID
574.789
instrument height
574.591
longitudinal station
573.993
573.543
Bankfull Stage
573.457
FS
572.154
elevation
571.666
571.706
Low Bank Height
570.005
FS
569.159
elevation
569.178
569.296
Flood Prone Area
569.913
width fpa 44.4
570.279
570.738
Channel Slope
573.016
percent slope - --
573.502
573.641
Flow Resistance
573.633
Manning's "n" - --
573.592
D'Arcy - Weisbach 'T'
573.733
573.511

PEBBLE COUNT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Project Name:
B rds Creek Mitigation Site
Data Collected By:
M , JK
Location:
Person County, NC
Data Collected On:
9/8/2011
job #:
005 -02128
Reach:
BC3
Date:
9/8/2011
Cross Section #:
Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Riffle Summary
Pool Summary
Reach Summary
Min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
BfT G� d I Silt/Cly
0.000
1 0.062
7
13
20
14.0
14
26
26
20
20
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2048.00
1
1
D99 =
14
2
28
1
21
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
1
4
6.0
20
2
30
4
25
Medium
............3 ................. Coarse
0.250
0.5
0.500
1.0
6
1
8
1
14
2
12.0
2.0
32
34
16
2
46
48
14
2
39
41
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
1
3
4.0
38
2
50
3
44
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
38
50
44
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
38
50
44
Fine
4.0
5.7
2
2
4.0
42
50
2
46
Fine
5.7
8.0
1
1
42
2
52
1
47
Medium
8.0
11.3
2
2
4.0
46
52
2
49
Medium
11.3
16.0
1
1
46
1
52
49
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
2.0
48
52
1
50
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
48
2
54
1
51
Very Coarse
32
45
1
3
4
2.0
50
6
60
4
55
Very Coarse
45
64
3
3
50
6
66
3
58
Small
64
90
9
2
11
18.0
68
4
70
11
69
Small
90
128
8
5
13
16.0
84
10
80
13
82
Large
128
180
5
1
6
10.0
94
2
82
6
88
Lace
180
256
2
3
5
4.0
98
6
88
5
93
Small
256
362
1
1
2
2.0
100
2
90
2
95
Small
362
512
100
90
95
Medium
512
1024
100
90
95
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
90
95
igE>`tf7l Bedrock
2048
>2048
5
1 5
100
10
100
5
100
Totall
50
1 50
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
Largest Particle (mm):
Riffle
Channel materials (mm)
Pool
Channel materials
Cumulative
Channel materials
D16 =
0.16
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
1.19
D35 =
0.31
D35 =
0.41
D50 =
64.00
D50 =
5.60
D50 =
22.60
D84 =
128.00
D84 =
202.42
D84 =
143.40
D95 =
196.57
D95 =
2896.31
D95 =
2048.00
D100 =
362
D99 =
>2048
D99 =
>2048

Percent Cumulative [ %)
�--' N W 'J� G� �] W u O
O O O O O O O O O O O
O
O
N
CD
rt
n
p1
i
u
O
N
�
rrS-7
A
¢1
T
�
�
1
w
�
C7
0
r
F�
i
fll
F-
3
�•
�
p W
•
d
-0
o
o
(n
a
a
,
C)
0
W
CD
M
O
n

573
572
571
570
0
m 569
0
w 568
567
566
565
Riffle
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Width
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
54.7
x- section area (ft.sq.)
22.5
width (ft)
2.4
mean depth (ft)
3.4
max depth (ft)
25.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.2
hyd radi (ft)
9.3
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
2.9 velocity (ft/s)
157.4 discharge rate (cfs)
0.34 Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height
longitudinal station - --
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 37.9
Channel Slope
percent slope
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n" 0.046
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f' 0.19
Note:
0.0 enirencnmeni rauo
3.4 low bank height (ft)
1.0 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0.033 Manning's roughness
0.09 D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric.
6.5 resistance factor u /u'
4.1 relative roughness
- -- D50 (mm)
180 D84 (mm)
9 threshold grain size (mm;
Forces & Power
U. It) snear stress kioisq.n./
0.31 shear velocity (ft/s)
0.61 unit strm power (lb /ft/s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Rkf
569.997
569.842
569.574
569.221
568.869
568.562
567.888
567.375
567.015
566.485
566.158
565.961
565.903
565.832
565.758
565.53
565.782
566.221
565.957
566.047
566.446
566.601
567.853
568.442
568.843
568.947
569.057
569.329
570.164

572
571
570
0 569
568
w
567
566
565
0 10
Bankfull Dimensions
66.7
x- section area (ft.sq.)
35.9
width (ft)
1.9
mean depth (ft)
2.6
max depth (ft)
38.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.7
hyd radi (ft)
19.3
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
2.5
velocity (ft/s)
166.0
discharge rate (cfs)
0.33
Froude number
Cross Section
referenceID
instrument height - --
longitudinal station - --
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation
M.
Low Bank Height
FS --
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 53.4
Channel Slope
percent slope �
Flow Resistance
Manning's 7n" �0.044
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f' 0.18
Note:
Riffle
20 30
Width
Flood Dimensions
116.0
W flood prone area (ft)
3.2
entrenchment ratio
3.4
low bank height (ft)
1.3
low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0.033
Manning's roughness
0.10
D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric.
6.6
resistance factor u /u*
4.2
relative roughness
40 50
Materials
- -- D50 (mm)
135.48 D84 (mm)
8 threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
0.14 channel slope ( %)
0.15 shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
0.28 shear velocity (ft/s)
0.4 unit strm power (lb /ft/s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes
60

573
572
571
570
0 569
568
w
567
566
565
564
0 5 10
Bankfull Dimensions
70.9
x- section area (ft.sq.)
23.8
width (ft)
3.0
mean depth (ft)
3.5
max depth (ft)
27.5
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.6
hyd radi (ft)
8.0
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
- -- velocity (ft/s)
- -- discharge rate (cfs)
- -- Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height - --
longitudinal station - --
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS - --
elevation
Flood Prone Area
wicItFTp­ajjjj=42
Channel Slope
percent slope
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n" - --
D'Arcy - Weisbach 7' - --
Note:
Pool
15 20 25
Width
Flood Dimensions
- -- W flood prone area (ft)
- -- entrenchment ratio
- -- low bank height (ft)
- -- low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
- -- Manning's roughness
- -- D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric.
- -- resistance factor u /u'
- -- relative roughness
30 35 40 45
Materials
- -- D50 (mm)
- -- D84 (mm)
- -- threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
- -- channel slope ( %)
- -- shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
- -- shear velocity (ft /s)
- -- unit strm power (lb /ft /s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Rlrf

PEBBLE COUNT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Project Name:
B rds Creek Mitigation Site
Data Collected By:
M , JK
Location:
Person County, NC
Data Collected On:
9/8/2011
job #:
005 -02128
Reach:
BC4
Date:
9/8/2011
Cross Section #:
Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Riffle Summary
Pool Summary
Reach Summary
m in
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
BfT G� d I Silt/Cly
0.000
1 0.062
4
15
19
8.0
8
30
30
19
19
Very fine
0.062
0.125
123.09
3
3
D99 -1
8
6
36
3
22
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
1
4
6.0
14
2
38
4
26
Medium
Coarse
0.250
0.5
0.500
1.0
10
1
12
1
22
2
20.0
2.0
34
36
24
2
62
64
22
2
48
50
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
36
64
50
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
36
64
50
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
36
64
50
Fine
4.0
5.7
2
2
4.0
40
64
2
52
Fine
5.7
8.0
40
64
52
Medium
8.0
11.3
1
2
3
2.0
42
4
68
3
55
Medium
11.3
16.0
3
1
4
6.0
48
2
70
4
59
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
2
5
6.0
54
4
74
5
64
Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
4.0
58
74
2
66
Very Coarse
32
45
1
1
2
2.0
60
2
76
2
68
VerV Coarse
45
64
7
1
8
14.0
74
2
78
8
76
Small
64
90
4
7
11
8.0
82
14
92
11
87
Small
90
128
6
3
9
12.0
94
6
98
9
96
Large
128
180
1
1
94
2
100
1
97
Large
180
256
1
1
2.0
96
100
1
98
Small
256
362
96
100
98
Small
362
512
96
100
98
Medium
512
1024
96
100
98
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
96
100
98
WE 00 Bedrock
2048
>2048
2
2
4.00
100
100
2
100
Totall
50
1 50
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
Largest Particle (mm):
Riffle
Channel materials (mm)
Pool
Channel materials
Cumulative
Channel materials
D16 =
0.27
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 -
0.71
D35 -
0.11
D35 -
0.33
D50 =
17.95
D50 =
0.35
D50 =
4.00
D84 =
95.44
D84 =
74.07
D84 =
82.01
D95 =
214.66
D95 =
107.33
D95 =
123.09
D100 -1
>2048
D99 -1
180
D99 _
>2048

Percent Cumulative [ %)
cc Vr O
O O O O O O O O O O O
O
O
N
CD
rt
n
�
u
O
¢1
C
i
In r%a
1 V
;v
�
�
n
_
d
cn
a
�
-
°
o
M
0

570
569
568
567
°— 566
m
565
w
564
563
562
561
0 5 10
Bankfull Dimensions
60.9
x- section area (ft.sq.)
19.7
width (ft)
3.1
mean depth (ft)
3.7
max depth (ft)
24.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.5
hyd radi (ft)
6.4
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
3.4 velocity (fUs)
204.8 discharge rate (cfs)
0.37 Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height - --
longitudinal station - --
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 38.6
Channel Slope
percent slope
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n"
D'Arcy - Weisbach I"
Note:
Riffle
15 20 25
Width
Flood Dimensions
- -- W flood prone area (ft)
- -- entrenchment ratio
3.7 low bank height (ft)
1.0 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0.030 Manning's roughness
0.08 D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric
8.7 resistance factor u /u'
11.3 relative roughness
30 35 40 45
Materials
- -- D50 (mm)
83.42 D84 (mm)
10 threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
0.135 channel slope ( %)
0.21 shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
0.33 shear velocity (fUs)
0.87 unit strm power (lb /fUs)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Rlrf

Riffle
Z)iU
569
568
567
0 566
m 565
w 564
563
562
561
560
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
65.1
x- section area (ft.sq.)
21.2
width (ft)
3.1
mean depth (ft)
3.9
max depth (ft)
24.7
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.6
hyd radi (ft)
6.9
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
3.5 velocity (ft/s)
226.5 discharge rate (cfs)
0.38 Froude number
Cross Section
referencelD
instrument height
longitudinal station - --
Bankfull Stage
FS - --
elevation - --
Low Bank Height
FS --
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width f pal 135.5
Channel Slope
percent slope - --
F low Resistance
Manning's "n" r r
D'Arcy - Weisbach 7' - --
Note:
E����
o.o entrencnment ratio
3.9 low bank height (ft)
1.0 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0.030 Manning's roughness
0.08 D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric.
- -- resistance factor u /u'
- -- relative roughness
Distance BS HI
(ft) (ft) (ft)
- -- D50 (mm)
- -- D84 (mm)
11 threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
U.LL snear stress kioisq.tt./
0.34 shear velocity (fUs)
0.9 unit strm power (lb /fUs)
FS Elevation
Omit Notes
(ft) (ft)
Rkf
567.091
0
.,
..ti
40
0
567.091
0
566.877
0
566.388
0
565.825
0
565.302
564.798
564.798
0
1
564.421
0
562.4
0
561.768
564.798
561.471
0
561.492
0
561.122
35.49
561.001
0
560.923
0
560.932
0.135
561.008
0
561.196
0
561.281
0.03
561.459
0
561.763
0
562.011
0
563.174
0
563.985
0
564.398
0
565.113
0
565.408
0
566.158
0
i
566.139
..ti
40

570
569
568
567
566
0
m 565
w 564
563
562
561
560
Pool
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials
70.8
x- section area (ft.sq.)
26.0
width (ft)
2.7
mean depth (ft)
3.6
max depth (ft)
28.5
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.5
hyd radi (ft)
9.5
width -depth ratio
Bankfull
Flow
- -- velocity (ft/s)
- -- discharge rate (cfs)
- -- Froude number
Cross Section
referencelD
instrument height
longitudinal station - --
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa -
Channel Slope
percent slope - --
F low Resistance
Manning's "n" - --
D'Arcy - Weisbach 7' - --
Note:
- -- emrencnmem rauo
3.6 low bank height (ft)
1.0 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
- -- Manning's roughness
- -- D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric.
- -- resistance factor u /u'
- -- relative roughness
Distance BS HI
(ft) (ft) (ft)
40 45 50
- -- D50 (mm)
- -- D84 (mm)
- -- threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
- -- snear stress kioisq.n./
- -- shear velocity (ft/s)
- -- unit strm power (lb /ft/s)
FS Elevation Omit Notes
(ft) (ft) Rkf
1 —
i
L
J
A
J
566.384
565.904
565.619
565.36
564.538
563.828
563.455
563.005
562.768
562.297
562.09
561.773
561.421
561.359
561.381
561.351
561.36
561.387
561.627
562.025
562.996
562.975
563.454
564.239
564.985
0
565.357
0
565.695
0
565.82
0
566.2
1 —
i
L
J
A
J

O
O
O
+
Cn
O
j
+
O
O
j
+
O
N
O
O
N
Cn
O
W
+
O
O Cn
v
Cn
O
+
Cn
O
j
+
O
O
j
+
O
N
O
O
N
Cn
O
O +
00 W
O +
N
Cn Cn
O V
�I
0
■mu
Cn
V
Cn
O
+
Cn
O
+
O
O
+
Cn
O
N
O
O
C4
Emu
O
+
Cn
O
+
O
O
+
Cn
O
N
O
O
co O
O
v
O
Cn
v
Cn
CA
CA
CA
CA
V
OD
V
v
V
OD
V
Cn
O
v
O
Cn
-Ph.
Cn
O
O Cn
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
+
Cn
O
j
+
O
O
j
+
O
N
O
O
N
Cn
O
W
+
O
O Cn
v
Cn
O
+
Cn
O
j
+
O
O
j
+
O
N
O
O
N
Cn
O
O +
00 W
O +
N
Cn Cn
O V
�I
0
■mu
Cn
V
Cn
O
+
Cn
O
+
O
O
+
Cn
O
N
O
O
C4
Emu
O
+
Cn
O
+
O
O
+
Cn
O
N
O
O
co O
O
v
O
Cn
v
Cn

PEBBLE COT TNT ANAT.YSTS WORKSFIF.F.T
Project Name:
B rds Creek Mitigation Site
Data Collected By:
M , JK
Location:
Person County, NC
Data Collected On:
9/8/2011
job #:
005 -02128
Reach:
South Branch
Date:
9/8/2011
Cross Section #:
Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Riffle Summary
Pool Summary
Reach Summary
m in
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
BfT G� d I Silt /Cl.
0.000
1 0.062
6
40
46
12.0
12
80
80
46
46
Very fine
0.062
0.125
107.33
D100 -1
180
D99 -1
12
D99 -1
80
46
Fine
0.125
0.250
12
80
46
Medium
Coarse
0.250
0.5
0.500
1.0
2
1
1
2
2
4.0
2.0
16
18
2
80
82
2
2
48
50
s Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
1
5
8.0
26
2
84
5
55
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
26
84
55
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
26
84
55
Fine
4.0
5.7
2
2
4.0
30
84
2
57
Fine
5.7
8.0
2
2
4
4.0
34
4
88
4
61
Medium
8.0
11.3
9
2
11
18.0
52
4
92
11
72
Medium
11.3
16.0
4
1
5
8.0
60
2
94
5
77
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
1
3
4.0
64
2
96
3
80
Coarse
22.6
32
1
2
3
2.0
66
4
100
3
83
Very Coarse
32
45
1
1
2.0
68
100
1
84
Very Coarse
45
64
2
2
4.0
72
100
2
86
Small
64
90
6
6
12.0
84
100
6
92
Small
90
128
6
6
12.0
96
100
6
98
Large
128
180
2
2
4.0
100
100
2
100
Large
180
256
100
100
100
Small
256
362
100
100
100
Small
362
512
100
100
100
Medium
512
1024
100
100
100
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
100
100
WE 00 Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
100
100
Totall
50
1 50
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
Largest Particle (mm):
Riffle
Channel materials (mm)
Pool
Channel materials
Cumulative
Channel materials
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
8.14
D3 =
Silt/Clay
D3 =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
10.62
D50 =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
1.00
D84 =
90.00
D84 =
5.60
D84 =
45.00
D95 =
124.30
D95 =
19.02
D95 =
107.33
D100 -1
180
D99 -1
32
D99 -1
180

Percent Cumulative [ %)
cc Vr O
O O O O O O O O O O O
O
O
N
CD
rt
n
i
u
O
N
�
40
1
rrS-7
^v
A
i
T
�
�
zJ
�
iro
v
~
C1
•
� y 1
o
C
3
�.
O
Cn
C
O
Cr
M
`
3
AN
O�
z
N
O
CD O
M
Q
O
n

578
577
576
c
0
m 575
a�
w 574
573
572
0 2 4
Bankfull Dimensions
8.0
x- section area (ft.sq.)
7.9
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
10.3
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8
hyd radi (ft)
7.8
width -depth ratio
Bank-full
Flow
3.7 velocity (ft /s)
29.6 discharge rate (cfs)
0.74 Froude number
Cross Section
Riffle
6 8 10
Width
Flood Dimensions
reference ID
instrument height - --
longitudinal station - --
GQI I-M II VLQUO
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 18.7
Channel Slope
percent slope � - --
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n" 0.023
D'Arcy - Weisbach 'T 0.07
12 14 16 18 20
Materials
2.3 low bank height (ft)
1.0 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0.033
Manning's roughness
0.13
D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric.
11.1
resistance factor u /u'
24.6
relative roughness
- -- D50 (mm)
12.61 D84 (mm)
21 threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
U." blIUC11 bL[Ubb 11u /bq.IL.)
0.47 shear velocity (ft /s)
2.1 unit strm power (lb /ft /s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 'ilk,
-
-
-
-�
E
-
-
-
-®
r

578
577
576
575
0
m 574
a�
w 573
572
571
570
0 2
Bankfull Dimensions
Pool
4 6 8 10 12 14
Width
Flood Dimensions Materials
9.9
x- section area (ft.sq.)
7.2
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
9.6
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.0
hyd radi (ft)
5.2
width -depth ratio
Bank-full
Flow
- -- velocity (ft /s)
- -- discharge rate (cfs)
- -- Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height
longitudinal station - --
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 15.1
Channel Slope
percent slope
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n"
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f' - --
- -- cnuciwiuiicrn iauU
2.1 low bank height (ft)
1.0 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
- -- Manning's roughness
- -- D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric.
- -- resistance factor u /u'
- -- relative roughness
Distance BS HI
(ft) (ft) (ft)
- -- D50 (mm)
- -- D84 (mm)
- -- threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
- -- snear stress (ioisq.n.)
- -- shear velocity (ft /s)
- -- unit strm power (lb /ft /s)
FS Elevation Omit Notes
(ft) (ft) o1 -1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-01
-01
-01
-01
-01
-01
-01
-01
-0�
426.391
426.763
427.036
427.36
428.32
428.708
428.874
428.777
42j,"
-
-0�
4�
-
-
-01
-01
426.664
426.406
-
-01
426.906
16

Rio
575
574
0
573
a�
w
572
571
570
0 2
Bankfull Dimensions
Riffle
4 6 8
Width
Flood Dimensions
8.7
x- section area (ft.sq.)
7.4
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
10.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
6.2
width -depth ratio
Bank-full
Flow
3.9 velocity (ft /s)
34.1 discharge rate (cfs)
0.75 Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height
longitudinal station - --
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 13.9
Channel Slope
percent slope
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n"
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f'
iai cnuci IL, III iicrniauU
2.4 low bank height (ft)
1.0 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0.033 Manning's roughness
0.13 D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric.
- -- resistance factor u /u'
- -- relative roughness
10 12 14
Materials
Distance BS HI
(ft) (ft) (ft)
- -- D50 (mm)
- -- D84 (mm)
24 threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
U.40 snear stress (ioisq.n.)
0.50 shear velocity (ft /s)
2.6 unit strm power (lb /ft /s)
FS Elevation Omit Notes
(ft) (ft) o1 -1
-
-01
426.633
-
-01
426.636
-
-01
426.693
-
-01
426.792
-
-01
427.148
-
-01
427.422
-
-01
427.639
-
-01
428.809
8.39
-01
429.186
9.4
-01
429.18®.
-
-01
428.796
-
-01
427.638
-
-01
427.143
-
-01
426.647
-
-01
426.406
-
-0�
426.416
16

572.5
572
571.5
571
c
.970.5
m
570
w
569.5
569
568.5
568
Riffle
0 5 10
Width
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions
7.8
x- section area (ft.sq.)
8.1
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
9.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
8.4
width -depth ratio
Bank-full
Flow
- -- velocity (ft /s)
- -- discharge rate (cfs)
- -- Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height
longitudinal station - --
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 21.2
Channel Slope
percent slope oil= - --
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n" - --
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f' - --
15
- -- entrenchment ratio
2.2 low bank height (ft)
1.3 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
- -- Manning's roughness
- -- D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric.
- -- resistance factor u /u'
- -- relative roughness
I
Materials
- -- D50 (mm)
- -- D84 (mm)
- -- threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
- -- channel slope ( %)
- -- shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
- -- shear velocity (ft/s)
- -- unit strm power (lb /ft /s)
25
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) o''°
-
-01
429.323
-
-��
429.396
.
--
01429.189®.
-
-��
429.142®..
--
01429.698
-
-��
430.149
-
-01
430.307
-
-01
431.042
-
-01
431.287
-
-01
431.292
.®�.
-
-01
431.346
-
-01
431.069
-
-01
430.181
-
-01
428.718
-
-01
428.393
-0�
428.366

572
571.5
571
9570.5
570
w
569.5
569
568.5
0 5
Bankfull Dimensions
7.5
x- section area (ft.sq.)
10.0
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
10.5
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7
hyd radi (ft)
13.4
width -depth ratio
Bank-full
Flow
- -- velocity (ft /s)
- -- discharge rate (cfs)
- -- Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height
longitudinal station - --
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 27.3
Channel Slope
percent slope oil= - --
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n" - --
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f' - --
Riffle
10 15
Width
Flood Dimensions
- -- W flood prone area (ft)
- -- entrenchment ratio
2.0 low bank height (ft)
1.5 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
- -- Manning's roughness
- -- D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric.
- -- resistance factor u /u'
- -- relative roughness
20 25 30
Materials
- -- D50 (mm)
- -- D84 (mm)
- -- threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
- -- channel slope ( %)
- -- shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
- -- shear velocity (ft/s)
- -- unit strm power (lb /ft /s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) o''°
--
-
--
-
-��
-0
01429.111®..'
01429.214®..
429.132®...
`429.868
--
--
01430.209
0131.07
--
--
031.184
031.102
-
-
-®..
-01
430.973
430.732

PEBBLE COT TNT ANAT.YSTS WORKSFIF.F.T
Project Name:
B rds Creek Mitigation Site
Data Collected By:
M , JK
Location:
Person County, NC
Data Collected On:
9/8/2011
job #:
005 -02128
Reach:
Southeast Reach 1
Date:
9/8/2011
Cross Section #:
Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Riffle Summary
Pool Summary
Reach Summary
m in
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
BfT G� d I Silt/Cly
0.000
1 0.062
14
32
46
28.0
28
64
64
46
46
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
8
9
2.0
30
16
80
9
55
Fine
0.125
0.250
30
80
55
Medium
Coarse
0.250
0.5
0.500
1.0
1
3
4
2.0
32
32
6
86
86
4
59
59
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
32
86
59
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
32
86
59
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
32
86
59
Fine
4.0
5.7
2
2
4.0
36
86
2
61
Fine
5.7
8.0
2
2
4.0
40
86
2
63
Medium
8.0
11.3
3
2
5
6.0
46
4
90
5
68
Medium
11.3
16.0
5
2
7
10.0
56
4
94
7
75
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
2
6
8.0
64
4
98
6
81
Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
14.0
78
98
7
88
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
12.0
90
98
6
94
Very Coarse
45
64
2
1
3
4.0
94
2
100
3
97
Small
64
90
2
2
4.0
98
100
2
99
Small
90
128
98
100
99
Large
128
180
1
1
2.0
100
100
1
100
Lace
180
256
100
100
100
Small
256
362
100
100
100
Small
362
512
100
100
100
Medium
512
1024
100
100
100
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
100
100
WE 00 Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
100
100
Totall
50
1 50
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
Largest Particle (mm):
Riffle
Channel materials (mm)
Pool
Channel materials
Cumulative
Channel materials
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
5.15
D3 =
Silt/Clay
D3 =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
12.78
D50 =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
0.09
D84 =
37.95
D84 =
0.40
D84 =
26.23
D95 =
69.69
D95 =
17.44
D95 =
50.61
D100 -1
180
D99 -1
64
D99 -1
180

Percent Cumulative [ %)
�--' N W U� G� �] W u O
O O O O O O O O O O O
O
O
N
CD
rt
n
0)
�
u
O
�rS-7
N
�
A
�
Iy*
1
�
I
i
rD
(D
N
CO
�
i
1
n
m
co
3
N
N
10,
4+
�S
1"f
OO
C
3
00
C
Cr
a
F+ .
3
61
Fr .
O
N
O
O
�
Q
n

Cross Section
SE-1A
Riffle
586
585.5
585
584.5
584
0
cZ83.5
583
w
582.5
582
581.5
581
0 5 10
Bankfull Dimensions
6.2 x- section area (ft.sq.)
7.7 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
1.0 max depth (ft)
8.3 wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7 hyd radi (ft)
9.6 width -depth ratio
Bank-full Flow
2.8 velocity (ft /s)
17.5 discharge rate (cfs)
0.58 Froude number
15 20 25 30 35
Width
Flood Dimensions Materials
9.5 W flood prone area (ft) - -- D50 (mm)
1.2 entrenchment ratio 64 D84 (mm)
3.8 low bank height (ft) 13 threshold grain size (mm):
3.7 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance Forces & Power
0.033 Manning's roughness 0.565 channel slope ( %)
0.14 D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric. 0.26 shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
6.3 resistance factor u /u' 0.37 shear velocity (ft/s)
3.8 relative roughness 0.8 unit strm power (lb /ft /s)
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height - --
longitudinal station - --
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 9.5
Channel Slope
percent slope � - --
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n" 0.040
D'Arcy - Weisbach 'T 0.20
Distance
(ft)
BS
(ft)
HI
(ft)
FS
(ft)
Elevation Omit Notes
(ft) 'ilk,
585.481
585.424
585.264
584.102
583.59
582.461
6
581.516
581.517
581.441
581.494
582.205
583.321
583.574
585.249
585.502

581
580
579
0 578
577
w
576
575
574
0 5 10
Bankfull Dimensions
11.4
x- section area (ft.sq.)
11.8
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
12.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
12.1
width -depth ratio
Bank-full
Flow
- -- velocity (ft /s)
- -- discharge rate (cfs)
- -- Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height
longitudinal station - --
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 40.6
Channel Slope
percent slope
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n"
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f' - --
Pool
15 20 25 30
Width
Flood Dimensions
- -- W flood prone area (ft)
- -- entrenchment ratio
3.0 low bank height (ft)
1.9 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
- -- Manning's roughness
- -- D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric.
- -- resistance factor u /u'
- -- relative roughness
35 40 45
Materials
- -- D50 (mm)
- -- D84 (mm)
- -- threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
- -- channel slope ( %)
- -- shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
- -- shear velocity (ft /s)
- -- unit strm power (lb /ft /s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) o''°
-
-01
422.2
-
-01
422.149
-
-01
422.264
-
-01
422.272
-
-01
422.374
-
-01
422.966
-
-01
424.616
-
-01
426.121
-
-01
426.343
-
-01
426.33
-
-01
426.168
-
-01
424.126
-
-01
423.749
-
-01
422.906
-
-01
421.823
-
--
`421.639
-
--
,420.618

PFBBT.F COT TNT ANAT.YSTS WORKSFIF.F.T
Project Name:
B rds Creek Nlifigation Site
Data Collected By:
M , JK
Location:
Person County, NC
Data Collected On:
9/8/2011
job #:
005 -02128
Reach:
Southeast Reach 2
Date:
9/8/2011
Cross Section #:
Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Riffle Summary
Pool Summary
Reach Summary
Min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
BfTG� dI Silt/Cly
0.000
0.062
23
29
52
46.0
46
58
58
52
52
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
5
6
2.0
48
10
68
6
58
..............................: Fine
0.125
0.250
48
68
58
Medium
Coarse
0.250
0.5
0.500
1.0
1
2
3
2.0
50
50
4
72
72
3
61
61
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
2
3
2.0
52
4
76
3
64
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
52
76
64
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
4
1
5
8.0
60
2
78
5
69
Fine
4.0
5.7
2
2
4.0
64
78
2
71
Fine
5.7
8.0
1
1
2
2.0
66
2
80
2
73
Medium
8.0
11.3
1
2
3
2.0
68
4
84
3
76
Medium
11.3
16.0
1
68
84
76
Coarse
16.0
22.6
68
84
76
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
2.0
70
84
1
77
Very Coarse
32
45
3
3
6.0
76
84
3
80
Very Coarse
45
64
5
5
10.0
86
84
5
85
Small
64
90
4
4
8.0
94
84
4
89
Small
90
128
1
1
94
2
86
1
90
Large
128
180
1
1
2.0
96
86
1
91
Large
180
256
96
86
91
Small
256
362
1
1
2.0
98
86
1
92
Small
362
512
98
86
92
Medium
512
1024
98
86
92
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
98
86
92
igE>`tf7l Bedrock
2048
>2048
1
7
8
2.00
100
14
100
8
100
Totall
50
1 50
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
Largest Particle (mm):
Riffle
Channel materials (mm)
Pool
Channel materials
Cumulative
Channel materials
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D16 =
0.02
D35 =
Silt/Clay
D3 =
Silt/Clay
D3 =
0.04
D50 =
1.00
D50 =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
0.05
D84 =
59.65
D84 =
90.00
D84 =
33.20
D95 =
151.79
D95 =
3197.78
D95 =
79.60
D100 -1
>2048
D99 -1
>2048
D99 -1
362

Percent Cumulative [ %)
� N w -p- v, C', w I'D o
0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 o O
0
0
N
rt
n
I'7"I
O
n
m
v
C
3
w
�•
CD
i
�.
0
LU
0
I
'
CD
M
O
n

576
575
574
0
573
a�
w
572
571
570
0 5
Bankfull Dimensions
9.8
x- section area (ft.sq.)
7.2
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
9.0
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.1
hyd radi (ft)
5.3
width -depth ratio
Bank-full
Flow
- -- velocity (ft /s)
- -- discharge rate (cfs)
- -- Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height
longitudinal station - --
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 23.5
Channel Slope
percent slope
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n"
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f' - --
Pool
10 15 20
Width
Flood Dimensions
- -- W flood prone area (ft)
- -- entrenchment ratio
3.0 low bank height (ft)
1.5 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
- -- Manning's roughness
- -- D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric.
- -- resistance factor u /u'
- -- relative roughness
25 30
Materials
- -- D50 (mm)
- -- D84 (mm)
- -- threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
- -- channel slope ( %)
- -- shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
- -- shear velocity (ft /s)
- -- unit strm power (lb /ft /s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) o''°
-
-01
426.297
-
-��
426.347
-
-01
426.966 ®�
-01
426.601
10.70
-01
427.221
-01
428.606
-
-01
428.69
-
-01
428.874
-
-01
429.166
-
-01
428.844
-
-01
428.971
-
-01
427.764
-
-01
426.769
-
-01
426.171
-
-01
426.716
--
0`424.667
-
--
1424.324

Riffle
576
575.5
575
574.5
C 574
73.5
w 573
572.5
572
571.5
571
0
5 10
Materials
15 20
- --
D50 (mm)
47.27
Width
Bankfull
Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
8.9
x- section area (ft.sq.)
12.9
W flood prone area (ft)
8.1
width (ft)
1.6
entrenchment ratio
1.1
mean depth (ft)
2.8
low bank height (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
2.1
low bank height ratio
9.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
-01
1.0
hyd radi (ft)
-01
7.3
width -depth ratio
-01
Bank-full
Flow
Flow Resistance
2.9
velocity (ft /s)
0.045
Manning's roughness
25.6
discharge rate (cfs)
0.24
D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric.
0.52
Froude number
7.7
resistance factor u /u'
428.467
7.1
relative roughness
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height
longitudinal station - --
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 12.9
Channel Slope
percent slope
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n" 0.034
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f' 0.14
Distance BS HI
(ft) (ft) (ft)
25
30 35
Materials
424.406
- --
D50 (mm)
47.27
D84 (mm)
23
threshold grain size (mm):
Forces &
Power
0.8
channel slope ( %)
0.48
shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
0.50
shear velocity (ft/s)
1.58
unit strm power (lb /ft /s)
FS Elevation Omit Notes
(ft) (ft) o1 -1
-
-01
424.406
-
-01
424.32
-
-01
424.667
-
-01
426.142
-
-01
426.486
-
-01
427.036
-
-01
427.37
-
-01
428.418
-
-01
428.487
-
-01
428.61
-
-01
428.716
-
-01
428.671
-
-01
428.666
-
-01
428.467
-
-01
427.181
-
-0�
426.666
-
--
426.16
-
--
426.874
-
--
X426.676
-
--
,426.632

572
571.5
571
570.5
0
m 570
a�
469.5
569
568.5
568
0 5 10
Bankfull Dimensions
9.4
x- section area (ft.sq.)
7.4
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
8.8
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.1
hyd radi (ft)
5.8
width -depth ratio
Bank-full
Flow
3.4 velocity (ft /s)
32.0 discharge rate (cfs)
0.58 Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height
longitudinal station - --
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation -
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 39.8
Channel Slope
percent slope
Flow Resistance
Manning's'n'
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f'
Riffle
15
20 25 30
Materials
Width
Flood Dimensions
- --
W flood prone area (ft)
- --
entrenchment ratio
2.7
low bank height (ft)
1.7
low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0.050
Manning's roughness
0.28
D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric.
- --
resistance factor u /u'
- --
relative roughness
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) o''°
--
35 40 45
Materials
- --
D50 (mm)
- --
D84 (mm)
39
threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
1.2
channel slope ( %)
0.80
shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
0.64
shear velocity (ft /s)
3.3
unit strm power (lb /ft /s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) o''°
--
01428.676
--
01428.698
--
Ord29.678
-
-��
430.093
-
-01
430.741
-
-01
431.669
-
-01
431.669
-
-��
431.693
-
-01
431.682
-
-01
431.606
-
-��
429.812®..
-
-01
429.248
--
OL28.964
®�
-
-
®i429

574
573
572
0 571
570
w
569
568
567
0 5
Bankfull Dimensions
Pool
10 15 20
Width
Flood Dimensions
20.3
x- section area (ft.sq.)
14.4
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
2.0
max depth (ft)
16.9
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.2
hyd radi (ft)
10.3
width -depth ratio
Bank-full
Flow
- -- velocity (ft /s)
- -- discharge rate (cfs)
- -- Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height
longitudinal station - --
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation -
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 35.7
Channel Slope
percent slope - --
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n" - --
D'Arcy - Weisbach 'T - --
- -- cnuciwiuiicrn iauU
1.4 low bank height (ft)
0.7 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
- -- Manning's roughness
- -- D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric.
- -- resistance factor u /u'
- -- relative roughness
25 30 35
Materials
Distance BS HI
(ft) (ft) (ft)
- -- D50 (mm)
- -- D84 (mm)
- -- threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
- -- snear stress (ioisq.n.)
- -- shear velocity (ft /s)
- -- unit strm power (lb /ft /s)
FS Elevation Omit Notes
(ft) (ft) oi,a
-
-
--
--
428.698
428.676
-
-
--
--
4*.034
432.066
-
-
-
--
--
--
431.988
431.819
430.036
��
--
--
430.696
429.322®..
--
429.14®..
40

PEBBLE COUNT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Project Name:
B rds Creek Mitigation Site
Data Collected By:
M , JK
Location:
Person County, NC
Data Collected On:
9/8/2011
job #:
005 -02128
Reach:
West Branch
Date:
9/8/2011
Cross Section #:
Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Riffle Summary
Pool Summary
Reach Summary
m in
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
BfT G� d I Silt/Cly
0.000
1 0.062
6
6
12
12.0
12
12
12
12
12
Very fine
0.062
0.125
128.00
7
7
D99 -1
12
14
26
7
19
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
4.0
16
26
2
21
Medium
Coarse
0.250
0.5
0.500
1.0
5
12
4
17
4
10.0
26
26
24
8
50
58
17
4
38
42
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
26
4
62
2
44
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
26
62
44
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
2.0
28
62
1
45
Fine
4.0
5.7
1
1
2.0
30
62
1
46
Fine
5.7
8.0
1
2
3
2.0
32
4
66
3
49
Medium
8.0
11.3
1
3
4
2.0
34
6
72
4
53
Medium
11.3
16.0
2
1
3
4.0
38
2
74
3
56
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
4
7
6.0
44
8
82
7
63
Coarse
22.6
32
4
3
7
8.0
52
6
88
7
70
Very Coarse
32
45
4
4
8.0
60
88
4
74
VerV Coarse
45
64
6
6
12.0
72
88
6
80
Small
64
90
6
1
7
12.0
84
2
90
7
87
Small
90
128
5
3
8
10.0
94
6
96
8
95
Large
128
180
2
2
4
4.0
98
4
100
4
99
Large
180
256
1
1
2.0
100
100
1
100
Small
256
362
100
100
100
Small
362
512
100
100
100
Medium
512
1024
100
100
100
Large /Very Large
1024
2048
100
100
100
WE 00 Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
100
100
Totall
50
1 50
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
1 100
Largest Particle (mm):
Riffle
Channel materials (mm)
Pool
Channel materials
Cumulative
Channel materials
D16 =
0.25
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 -
12.08
D35 -
0.32
D35 -
0.44
D50 =
29.34
D50 =
0.50
D50 =
8.66
D84 =
90.00
D84 =
25.38
D84 =
77.77
D95 =
139.39
D95 =
120.70
D95 =
128.00
D100 -1
256
D99 -1
180
D99 -1
256

Percent Cumulative [ %)
CD CA C O
O O O O O O O O O O O
O
O
N
CD
rt
n
i
�
u
O
N
�
I
rrS-7
A
Cn
LL
va
_
o
Cn
e
Cr
Cr
M(D
w
0
C)
0
°o
M
co
CD
M
O
n

Cross Section
WB-1A
Riffle
582.5
582
581.5
--- - - - - -- - --
----- --------------------
-------- ----------------------
581
.580.5
m
580
°
-79.5
579
578.5
578
577.5
0 5 10
Bankfull Dimensions
15.0 x- section area (ft.sq.)
9.5 width (ft)
1.6 mean depth (ft)
1.9 max depth (ft)
11.5 wetted parimeter (ft)
1.3 hyd radi (ft)
6.1 width -depth ratio
Bank-full Flow
4.2 velocity (ft /s)
62.6 discharge rate (cfs)
0.65 Froude number
15 20 25 30 35
Width
Flood Dimensions Materials
23.3 W flood prone area (ft) - -- D50 (mm)
2.4 entrenchment ratio 128 D84 (mm)
3.6 low bank height (ft) 47 threshold grain size (mm):
1.9 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance Forces & Power
0.046 Manning's roughness 1.18 channel slope ( %)
0.23 D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric. 0.96 shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
6.0 resistance factor u /u' 0.70 shear velocity (ft/s)
3.7 relative roughness 4.8 unit strm power (lb /ft /s)
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height
longitudinal station - --
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 23.3
Channel Slope
percent slope - --
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n" - 0.046
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f' 0.22
Distance
(ft)
BS
(ft)
HI
(ft)
FS
(ft)
Elevation Omit Notes
(ft) AiIr`
582.188
582.107
581.719
580.029
578.284
578.14
6
578.224
578.133
578.248
578.452
578.551
579.691
580.473
581.136
581.422
581.767
582.094

583
582
581
580
0 579
m
578
w
577
576
575
574
Pool
0 5 10
Width
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions
31.5
x- section area (ft.sq.)
12.4
width (ft)
2.5
mean depth (ft)
4.3
max depth (ft)
16.5
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.9
hyd radi (ft)
4.9
width -depth ratio
Bank-full
Flow
- -- velocity (ft /s)
- -- discharge rate (cfs)
- -- Froude number
Cross Section
reference ID
instrument height
longitudinal station - --
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 23.2
Channel Slope
percent slope
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n"
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f' - --
15
- -- entrenchment ratio
4.3 low bank height (ft)
1.0 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
- -- Manning's roughness
- -- D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric.
- -- resistance factor u /u'
- -- relative roughness
20
Materials
- -- D50 (mm)
- -- D84 (mm)
- -- threshold grain size (mm):
Forces & Power
- -- channel slope ( %)
- -- shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
- -- shear velocity (ft /s)
- -- unit strm power (lb /ft /s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) o''°
-
-01
419.088
-
-01
418.881
-
-01
419.717
-
-01
422.047
-
-01
424.894
-
-01
424.768
-
-01
424.703
-
-01
424.164
-
-01
423.678
-
-01
423.024
-
-01
422.176
-
-01
421.763
-
-01
421.064
-
-01
420.601
-
-01
420.302
-
-
-�
420.169
-
-
-�
419.916
25

581
580
579
578
0
577
w
576
575
574
0 5
Bankfull Dimensions
13.7
x- section area (ft.sq.)
11.3
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
13.6
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.0
hyd radi (ft)
9.4
width -depth ratio
Bank-full
Flow
3.8 velocity (ft /s)
52.1 discharge rate (cfs)
0.67 Froude number
Cross Section
Riffle
10
15 20
Materials
Width
Flood Dimensions
D50 (mm)
19.3
W flood prone area (ft)
1.7
entrenchment ratio
4.1
low bank height (ft)
1.9
low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
0.043
Manning's roughness
0.21
D'Arcy- Weisbach Eric.
5.6
resistance factor u /u'
2.9
relative roughness
reference ID
instrument height
longitudinal station - --
Bankfull Stage
FS
elevation
Low Bank Height
FS
elevation
Flood Prone Area
width fpa 19.3
Channel Slope
percent slope
Flow Resistance
Manning's "n" 0.046
D'Arcy - Weisbach "f' 0.25
25
30 35
Materials
420.184
- --
D50 (mm)
128
D84 (mm)
36
threshold grain size (mm):
Forces &
Power
1.18
channel slope ( %)
0.74
shear stress (lb /sq.ft.)
0.62
shear velocity (ft/s)
3.4
unit strm power (lb /ft /s)
Distance BS HI FS Elevation Omit Notes
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) o''°
-
-01
420.184
-
-01
420.26
-
-01
420.206
-
-01
420.662
-
-01
421.9
-
-01
422.661
-
-01
422.831
-
-01
422.983
-
-01
423.418
-
-01
423.982®x.
-
-01
424.909
-
-01
424.736
-
-01
424.966
-
-01
424.868
-
-01
422.626
-
-0�
421.799®
-
--
420.868
-
--
420.638
-
--
420.436

Appendix 7 Floodplain Requirements Checklist

r
Ecosystem ��
x,1.1 .t11t'C',111e1i.t
PROGRAM
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase
of the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator
with three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. Edward Curtis), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit
(attn. John Gerber) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project:
Byrds Creek Mitigation Project
Name if stream or feature:
Byrds Creek and Un -named Tributaries
County:
Person
Name of river basin:
Neuse
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality /county:
Person County
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:
FIRM Panel 9980
Community No.: 370346
Map Number: Not Mapped
Effective Map Date: Not Applicable
Consultant name:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Jeff Keaton, PE
Phone number:
919- 851 -9986
Address:
5605 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27607
AppendiN 7- FENIA Floodplain Checklist Page 1 of

Design Information
Provide a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a
reference orthophotograph at a scale of I" = 500 ".
Wildlands Engineering is designing a stream and N,etland restoj•ation project to proWde
stream and iretland initigation units (,UfUs and WAdUs).for the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Nogi aln. A DFIRNI is not mailable for the panel containing llle entire project
areas as there are no mapped streams or special flood hazard areas within the panel boundary
No studies ot- modeling exist for any of the project streams.
Example
Reach
Length
Priority
Byi-ds C2•eek Reach BCI
637
Enhancement II
Byrds Creek Reach BC2
1630
Enhancement I
By)-(Is Creek Reach BC3
1402
Priority One Restoration
Byrds Creek Reach BC4
787
Enhancement H Restoration
South Branch Reach SBI
971
Priority One Restol ation
Southeast Branch Reach SE
792
Priority One Restoration
Southeast Branch Reach SE, 2
713
Enhancement I/ Priority One
Restoration
Nest Branch Reach PVB1
589
Enhancement II
Floodplain biforniation
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
r" Yes ( No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
1 Redelineation
F Detailed Study
1— Limited Detail Study
F Approximate Study
r- Don't know
Appendix 7- FEMA Floodplain Checklist Page 2 of 4

List flood zone designation:
Check if applies:
F AE Zone
t Floodway
Non- Encroachment
None
F A Zone
r Local Setbacks Required
t: No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet:
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway /non-
encroachmentlsetbacks?
r Yes f' No
Land Acquisition (Check)
I— State owned (fee simple)
T— Conservation easn-rmt (Design Bid Build)
I- Conservation Easement (Frill Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state - owned, then all requirements should be addressed to
the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (attn: Herbert Neily,
(919) 807 -4101)
Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
(: Yes r No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP (attn: Edward Curtis, (919) 715 -8000 x369)
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Paula Murphy
Phone Number: 336.597.1750
Appendix 7- F'EMA Floodplain Checklist Page 3 of 4

Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer/applicant following verification with the LFPA
Iv No Action
f-° No Rise
F Letter of Map Revision
r- Conditional Letter of Map Revision
F Other Requirements
List other requirements:
Comments:
Name: Jeff Keaton, PE Signature:
Title: Senior Water Resources Engineer Date:
Appendix 7- FFMA Floodplain Checklist Page 4 of 4
1 ^t�6— rz