20030426 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20030523 (14)

¦
U y OF RAz
y
City of Raleigh
Kyle Drive/Beaverdam Creek
Stream Restoration Plan
May 23, 2003
0

r
City of Raleigh
? Kyle Drive/Beaverdam Creek
? Stream Restoration Plan

I

t
Prepared by:
Dewberry
Dewberry & Davis, Inc.
5505 Creedmoor Road - Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27612
[phone]
www.dewberry.com
1

I

L',

Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Project History .......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Approach ..................................................................................................... . 1
1.3 Presentation of Materials ......................................................................................... . 1
1.4 General Site Description .......................................................................................... . 2
1.5 General Reference Site Description ........................................................................ . 2
2 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION .................................................................................. 3
2.1 General Description ................................................................................................. . 3
2.2 Detailed Description ................................................................................................ . 3
2.2.1 Stream Impacts #1 and #2 ................................................................................ 3
2.2.2 Stream Impact #3 .............................................................................................. 4
3 PROJECT DESIGN .............................................................................................................. 5
3.1 General Design Objectives ....................................................................................... 5
3.2 Stream Impact #1 Design ......................................................................................... 5
3.2.1 Morphological Table ......................................................................................... 5
3.2.2 Stream Impact #1 Structures ............................................................................. 6
3.3 Stream Impact #2 Design .......................................................................................... 7
3.4 Stream Impact #3 Design .......................................................................................... 7
4 POST CONSTRUCTION MONITORING ................................................................................ 9
4.1 Monitoring Setup ...................................................................................................... 9
4.2 Monitoring Procedure ............................................................................................... 9
4.2.1 Interim Assessments ......................................................................................... 9
4.2.2 Annual Monitoring ........................................................................................... 9
4.3 Monitoring Schedule .............................................................................................. 10
4.4 Monitoring Success ................................................................................................ 10
ii
Dewberry
r
1
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Stream Impact Lengths 2
Table 2.1 Stream Impact #1 and #2 Watershed Soil Types 3
Table 2.2 Stream Impact #3 Watershed Soil Types 4
Table 3.1 Stream Impact #1 Morphological Table 6
Table 3.2 Stream Impact #3 Morphological Table 8
List of Exhibits
Exhibit Stream Restoration Location Map
Exhibit Stream Restoration Site Map
Exhibit Stream Restoration Watershed Map
List of Plan Sheets
Sheet 1 Wetland Restoration Plan Sheet 1
Sheet 2 Wetland Restoration Plan Sheet 2
Sheet 3 Wetland Restoration Plan Sheet 3
Sheet 4 Wetland Restoration Plan Sheet 4
Sheet 5 Stream Restoration Plan Sheet 5
Sheet 6 Stream Restoration Plan Sheet 6
Sheet 7 Stream Restoration Plan Sheet 7
Sheet 8 Stream Restoration Plan Sheet 8
iii Dewberry

Introduction

1.1 Project History
The City of Raleigh Public Utilities has a proactive program for minimizing possible discharges of
raw sanitary sewage to surface waters, in accordance with EPA and DWQ regulations. As part of this
program, a two-person crew is solely responsible for monitoring sanitary sewer outfalls. This crew
identified washouts which exposed the sanitary sewer main along the Beaverdam Creek Sewer Line
near Kyle Drive. The washouts appeared to be active and, by all indications, would continue over
time. This PVC sewer line was not designed to be exposed to sunlight so emergency repairs were
initiated to cover and protect the exposed sections of the sanitary sewer line. This action was
necessary to prevent potentially large quantities of raw sewage from entering Beaverdam Creek which
directly flows into the Neuse River. As part of this emergency repair, a permanent access road was
constructed to expedite entry of equipment for future repairs.
Regrettably, the construction of the permanent access road has had unfortunate impacts on the
wetlands, streams and riparian buffers in the area. On September 11, 2002, the City of Raleigh
received a Notice of Violation (NOV) from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for
impacts to streams, wetlands and buffers along Beaverdam Creek off of Kyle Drive in Raleigh, North
Carolina. This NOV required the response to six (6) primary issues. On October 10, 2002, the City of
Raleigh responded to all six (6) items contained in the NOV letter. The response letter outlined the
general steps to be taken for a restoration plan which would include the restoration of the impacted
streams.
Subsequently, a permit application was prepared and submitted to the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality and to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) to obtain approval to
conduct remediation and activities. Through the review process of this permit application, DWQ and
the ACOE have requested a complete restoration plan for the impacted streams. This document, along
with its relevant attachments, provides the plan required to obtain approval for the restoration of the
impacted streams.
1.2 Project Approach
This stream restoration plan has been developed due to recent mechanical impacts to streams along an
existing sewer line easement. These impacts will be removed utilizing natural channel design
techniques where possible. Full natural channel design was not also possible due to concerns over
protection of the existing sanitary sewer line. However, an attempt was made to provide a full natural
channel design in all cases.
1.3 Presentation of Materials
The information presented herein, is generally organized in the order the work was completed. This
' report is organized in the following order: a discussion of the project site's watershed, a discussion of
the project design and a discussion of the proposed monitoring plan.
' 1 Dewberry

1

1.4 General Site Description
The restoration area is located within the City of Raleigh, North Carolina just southeast of Kyle Drive
as indicated on the Stream Restoration Location Map in the Exhibits section of this document. Three
different segments of stream were identified as being impacted. This restoration plan addresses
restoration issues related to all three sections. Throughout this document, these three sections will be
referred to as Stream Impact #1 (SI#1), Stream Impact #2 (SI#2) and Stream Impact #3 (SI#3) and are
indicated on the Stream Restoration Site Map in the Exhibits section of this document. The three
impact lengths are shown in Table 1.1 below.
Table 1.1 - Stream Impact Lengths
Stream Impact Area Length of Impact Feet
SI#1 190
SI#2 40
SI#3 290
SI#1 and SI#2 are impacts to an unnamed tributary of Beaverdam Creek and SI#3 is an impact on
Beaverdam Creek.
1 1.5 General Reference Site Description

t

t

t
The area around each impact area was investigated to determine the off-site quality of the unimpacted
portions of the streams. These portions of the stream were found to be stable and in good condition.
Due to the dramatic changes in the watershed, it was determined that these off-site areas would be a
good reference as they have the same watershed changes acting upon them. Therefore, a stream reach
below SI#1 and SI#2 was chosen as the reference for those areas and will be referred to as Reference
Reach 1 (RI) and a stream reach directly below SI#3 was chosen as a reference for SI#3 and will be
referred to as Reference Reach 2 (R2) and is shown on the Stream Restoration Site Map in the
Exhibits section of this document.
2 Dewberry

t

t

t
t

2 Watershed Characterization
2.1 General Description
The stream restoration areas are located in the Neuse River Basin within DWQ's subbasin 03-04-02
and the USGS 14-digit hydrologic unit 03020201070120. All three impact locations are either on
Beaverdam Creek or one of its unnamed tributaries. Beaverdam Creek drains directly into the Neuse
River approximately 9,000 feet from the impact area. Beaverdam Creek is listed by DWQ as Class C
NSW and is fully supporting.
2.2 Detailed Description
This stream restoration plan consists of three stream impact areas. Stream Impacts #1 and #2 are along
an Unnamed Tributary to Beaverdam Creek and Stream Impact #3 is along Beaverdam Creek. The
watersheds to be discussed in this section are shown on the Stream Restoration Watershed Map in the
Exhibits section of this report.
2.2.1 Stream Impacts #1 and #2
Stream Impacts #1 and #2 are located in very close proximity to each other. These two impact areas
were investigated to determine there relationships to each other. Through this investigation, it was
found that two approximately equally sized unnamed tributaries to Beaverdam Creek confluence
within the Stream Impact #1 area. These two unnamed tributaries will be referred to as UT-A and UT-
B. UT-A drains 244 acres from the south toward the north and UT-B drains 187 acres from the west
toward the east until the two intersect and flow to the northeast. From the investigation, it appears that
SI#2 is actually a small offshoot of floodplain flow from UT-B and possibly from Beaverdam Creek
and is not a unique stream. Therefore, the watersheds for SI#1 and SI#2 are closely related to each
other with the large majority of flow going through SI#1.
The total watershed draining to this area is 431 acres. The watershed is approximately 85% built-out
into residential developments with lot sizes averaging around 0.2 acres. Residential development is
currently taking place on the adjacent upstream property. The recent nature of this development is
causing unknown changes to the stream and will continue to cause changes as the development
continues. These dynamic conditions make the restoration effort difficult and must be accounted for in
the restoration design. Additional sediment loading has already been noted at SI#1.
The watershed is made up of 12 soil types as indicated in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Stream Impact #I and #2 Watershed Soil Types
Soil Name Acres % of Total
A lin Sand Loam 59.615 13.83%
Cecil Sand Loam 4.972 1.15%
Cecil Clay Loam 2.154 0.50%
Gullied Land 19.05 4.42%
Louisburg Loam Sand 84.18 19.53%
Louisburg-Wedowee Complex 56.385 13.08%
Dewberry

Made Land 5.408 1.25%
Mantachie 5.779 1.34%
Wake 119.406 27.70%
Wedowee 55.827 12.95%
Wehadkee and Bibb 17.103 3.97%
Wilkes Stony Soil 0.563 0.13%
The watershed is dominated by Appling, Louisburg, Wake and Wedowee soils. The Appling,
Louisburg and Wedowee soils are very similar with deep well drained loamy sand or sandy loam. The
Wake soil is also well drained but is extremely shallow to bedrock. Through development, the
naturally high infiltration in this watershed is being reduced due to impervious cover and compaction.
Based on City of Raleigh 2' GIS contour data, the watershedelevations range from 360 to 220 feet
MSL. Slopes in the watershed range from 2% to 10%.
2.2.2 Stream Impact #3

t
t

Stream Impact #3 is located along Beaverdam Creek. The total watershed size is 1,082 acres. The
unnamed tributary from SI#1 enters Beaverdam Creek at SI#3 and contributes approximately 40% of
the total watershed size. The watershed is approximately 65% built-out into mostly residential
developments with lot sizes averaging around 0.5 acres. Development is expected to continue at a fast
pace with some previously developed land being put into higher density uses.
The watershed is made up of 14 soil types as indicated in Table 2.2
Table 2.2: Stream Impact #3 Watershed Soil Types
Soil Name Acres % of Total
A lin Sand Loam 204.028 18.85%
Cecil Sand Loam 6.135 0.57%
Cecil Clay Loam 4.245 0.39%
Durham Loam Sand 0.059 0.01%
Gullied Land 22.17 2.05%
Louisburg Loam Sand 164.589 15.21%
Louisburg-Wedowee Complex 123.246 11.39%
Made Land 5.408 0.50%
Mantachie 13.069 1.21%
Wake 189.01 17.47%
Wedowee 269.78 24.93%
Wehadkee and Bibb 65.144 6.02%
Wilkes Stony Soil 0.563 0.05%
Worsham 11.424 1.06%
As with impact areas 1 and 2, the watershed is dominated by Appling, Louisburg, Wake and
Wedowee soils. The largest difference in this watershed is that the Wake soil is approximately 10%
less than in the SI#1 and SI#2 watershed.
Based on City of Raleigh 2' GIS contour data, the watershed elevations range from 360 to 215 feet
MSL. Slopes in the watershed range from 2% to 10%.
1 4 Dewberry

3 Project Design
3.1 General Design Objectives
The restoration of the streams as previously described requires an approach that balances natural
channel design with protection of the existing sanitary sewer. In fact, the impacts were caused only
out of a need to protect the sanitary sewer line from an unstable stream. A Rosgen approach was
utilized to provide a natural channel design. To accomplish this task, two reference sites were selected
near the impact sites. These impact and reference sites were surveyed and assessed so that stream
morphological tables could be prepared. After this data was prepared, a natural channel design was
developed for the impacted stream reaches. This design was then modified based on site constraints
and foreseeable threats to the existing sanitary sewer.
1

[i

3.2 Stream Impact #1 Design
Many changes have and are taking place to SI#1. The channel has been realigned and rip-rapped, and
a road crossing with triple culverts was recently constructed just upstream of the impact area. Just
below SI#1, the stream still appears in relatively good condition. SI#1 is actually made up of two
streams which confluence within the impact area. As discussed in the Watershed Characterization
section, these two streams have been named UT-A and UT-B and are shown on the Stream
Restoration Watershed Map in the Exhibit section of this document. The majority of the stream
impacts were to UT-A as well as the confluence section downstream of UT-A and UT-B. UT-13 was
only impacted for approximately 15' before the confluence with UT-A. UT-13 is currently the only
portion of SI#1 that crosses the sanitary sewer line. The remainder of SI#1 does not cross the sanitary
sewer line.
The new upstream triple culverts were surveyed during the course of the on-site assessment
procedure. It was found that the culverts and the existing channel at SI#1 do not properly align
themselves. It was determined that a realignment of the channel would be prudent. After considering
all of the constraints as well as the reference data, it was determined that a priority 1 restoration could
be conducted on the UT-A and confluence portions of the stream at SI#1.
3.2.1 Morphological Table
Since a full design was determined to be feasible within SI#1, a complete stream morphological table
was developed for Reference Reach 1 (Rl), the existing Stream Impact #1 (SI#1) and the proposed
design reach and is shown in Table 3.1 below.
1 5 10 Dewberry
1
Table 3.1: Stream Impact #1 Morphological Table

Dimension Parameter Units Reference
Reach1 Stream Impact
#1 Proposed
Reach Name
Stream Type E5 C5 E5
Drainage Area mi 0.6734375 0.38125 0.38125
Min Max Min Max
Bankfull X-Sec. Area, ABKF ft 12.765 15.542 21.3 25.9 19.5
Bankfull Width, WBKF ft 7.42 7.58 19.6 21 13
Bankfull Mean Depth, DBKF ft 1.72 2.05 1.09 1.23 1.5
Width/De th, WBKF/DBKF 4.31 3.7 18 17 8.7
Bankfull Max Depth, DMAX ft 2.232 2.886 3 3.3 1.5
DMAX/DBKF 1.3 1.408 2.75 2.68 1
W. Flood Prone Area, WFPA ft 740 740 50 50 40
Entrenchment, WFPAMBKF 5.4 5.3 2.5 2.4 3
Bank Height Ratio, BHR 1 1.1 1
Pattern Parameter Units Min Max Min Max Min Max
Meander Length, LM ft 47.42 74.73 NA NA
Lm. Ratio, LmMBKF -6.4 ~10 NA NA
Radius of Curvature, Rc ft 15 90 30 90
RC Ratio, R./ Y Y BKF 2 12 1.53 4.3
Belt Width, WBLT ft 10 15 NA NA
BW Ratio, WBLTMBKF 1.3 2 NA NA
Profile Parameter Units Min Max Min Max Min Max
Pool Spacing, L,, ft 62.2 85.2
P.S. Ratio, L s/WBKF 8.4 11.2
Pool Width, W ft 10.98 12.34
P.W. Ratio, W BKF 1.48 1.63
Pool Depth, D ft 3.354 4.225
P.D. Ratio, D DBKF 1.95 2.06
Valle Slope, Sva, 0.00553 0.0029
Channel Slope, Sch 0.0067 0.0098
Sinuosity, K 1.048 1.052
3.2.2 Stream Impact #1 Structures
Many watershed changes are acting upon Stream Impact #1 including out of alignment culverts. The
riparian area adjacent to the stream will be disturbed as existing rock fill will be removed and replaced
with fresh topsoil. These issues make it necessary to protect the stream as well as the sanitary sewer
by the placement of structures in the stream. The stream now has very large triple culverts conveying
UT-A just upstream of the site. The water flowing through the culverts must be centered back into the
appropriately aligned and dimensioned channel. This will be accomplished through a stilling pool
directly below the culvert outlets. Cross vanes will be installed along UT-A, UT-13 and the combined
stream to ensure bed and bank stability. In particular, a cross vane will be installed in UT-B just
downstream of the sanitary sewer crossing to ensure protection of the line. These structures will also
1 6 Dewberry

recenter the flow and direct the flow off-site with an appropriate approach angle as derived from the

' reference site.
These structures along with the natural pattern and profile should ensure a stable priority 1 stream

' restoration.
3.3 Stream Impact #2 Design

1

1

1

As described in the Watershed Section of this document, SI#2 appears to be a small floodplain flow
feature. The current channel is approximately two feet wide and is most likely intermittent. SI#2 is
only 40 feet in total length, but it is important to keep stable as it crosses over the existing sanitary
sewer line. It was determined that a full natural channel design was not feasible for this short reach.
Instead, a design that provides natural habitat in the channel while also serving to protect the sanitary
sewer was developed. The design calls for the removal of the existing rock fill along the channel and
the replacement with suitable fill material for growing riparian vegetation. The channel will be lined
with coir fabric and the banks and riparian area will be replanted according to the wetland restoration
plan previously submitted for review. One cross vane will be installed just downstream of the sanitary
sewer crossing to act as grade control to prevent a headcut reaching the sanitary sewer line. Final
grading will also include natural microtopographic relief at the upstream end of SI#2 to ensure proper
flow entrainment across the vane.
3.4 Stream Impact #3 Design
It appears the impacts to Stream Impact #3 were limited to the placement of rip-rap for bank
stabilization. Stream Impact #3 presented a number of constraints. First, the sanitary sewer line is just
below the bed of the stream at the crossing. Also, the sanitary sewer line runs within 5 feet of the
stream channel for approximately 200 feet. The current easement boundary runs down the centerline
of the channel for most of the impact length. This portion of stream has already exposed portions of
the sewer line and continues to threaten the safety of the line even though rip-rap has been installed.
Even though many constraints exist, a reference site (R2) just below the impact area was identified
and surveyed. A morphological table was developed for R2 and for SI#3 and is detailed in Table 3.2.
It was found that the cross-section of the existing channel in SI#3 is very similar to the reference
reach. The pattern of R2 indicates very small radius of curvature numbers. Other than the crossing of
the sanitary sewer line, SI#3 is nearly straight. The stream is pinned in between the existing sanitary
sewer line and the easement and no options for realignment of the channel exists. Therefore, it is our
professional opinion that additional measures need to be installed in and along the stream channel to
better direct the flow and protect the banks on a long term basis. Therefore, the final design for this
impact area will involve the removal of approximately one foot of fill in the riparian buffer and the
planting of the vegetation as specified in the wetland restoration plan previously submitted. The
existing rip-rap along the banks will remain, but any rip-rap in the bed of the stream will be removed
to allow for a natural bottom for aquatic habitat. Additional rock will be added on the curves entering
and exiting the section of SI#3 that crosses the sanitary sewer and where loss of bank is currently
occurring. A cross vane will be installed just downstream of the sanitary sewer crossing to provide
grade control to prevent downcutting to the sanitary sewer line. Since the rip-rap was placed on only
one side of the channel, cross vanes were also placed along the reach to ensure the flow was
recentered as to not cut into the unprotected bank. A final vane was placed to ensure an appropriate
flow angle into the downstream undisturbed reach. These efforts will provide additional in-stream
1 7 11 Dewberry

habitat and long term protection of the existing sanitary sewer line which should help prevent a sewer
break in this area.

1
Table 3.2- Stream Tmnact #3 Momhological Table
Dimension Parameter Units Reference
Reach 2 Stream Impact
#3 'Proposed
Reach Name
Stream Type E5 E5
Drainage Area mi
Min Max Min Max
Bankfull X-Sec. Area, ABKF 28.6 38.6 23.1 37.1
Bankfull Width, WBKF ft 12.24 14.86 11 15.1
Bankfull Mean Depth, DBKF ft 2.3 2.6 2.1 2.46
Width/De th, WBKF/DBKF 5.2 5.7 5.23 9.8
Bankfull Max Depth, DMAX ft 3.5 3.9 2.87 4.21
DMAx/DBKF 1.5 1.5 1.37 1.71
W. Flood Prone Area, WFPA ft 60 100 100 100
Entrenchment, WFPAMBKF 4.9 6.7 6.6 9.1
Bank Height Ratio, BHR 1 1.13
Pattern Parameter Units Min Max Min Max Min Max
Meander Length, LM ft 39.6 64.3 NA NA
Lm. Ratio, Lm/WBKF 3.2 4.3 NA NA
Radius of Curvature, Rc ft 19 46 70 70
RC Ratio, RG Y Y BKF 1.55 3.1 4.6 6.6
Belt Width, WBLT ft 20 34 NA NA
BW Ratio, WBLT/VVBKF 1.63 2.29 NA NA
Profile Parameter Units Min Max Min Max Min Max
Pool Spacing, L, ft 43 67 43 190
P.S. Ratio, L ./WBKF 3.51 4.51 3.9 12.6
Pool Width, W ft 26.3 40.6 25 34
P.W. Ratio, W BKF 2.15 2.7 2.27 2.25 Aw
Pool Depth, D ft 3.6 3.8 3.34 4.7
P.D. Ratio, D DBKF 1.54 1.45 1.59 1.91
Valle Slope, Sva, 0.00 345 0.0019*
Channel Slope, Sch 0.00183 0.0088
Sinuosity, K 1.225 1.033
*Increased upstream elevation due to fill.
1 8 16 Dewberry

4 Post Construction Monitoring
Following the completion of construction, a series of steps will be undertaken to document the success of
the restoration project. The steps to be taken will include monitoring setup, site checks and detailed
1 annual monitoring.
' 4.1 Monitoring Setup
Permanent monitoring cross-sections will be established in the stream restoration areas following
1 construction completion. These areas will be established to document the stability of the stream and will
be surveyed following construction and during each annual monitoring visit. The stream will be
monitored by the establishment of a permanent cross-section on Sl#1 and S1#3.
4.2 Monitoring Procedure
After setup is complete, scheduled site visits will be made to document the progress of the restoration
project. Two types of site visits will occur. The first type will be interim assessment visits and the other
type will be annual monitoring visits.
' 4.2.1 Interim Assessments
[I

t
1

fl
1

The interim assessment visit will entail traversing the length of the project in order to determine if
remedial actions are required. Photographs and notes of specific issues of concern will be made. Any
issues which might threaten the success of the project will be documented and corrective actions will be
taken.
4.2.2 Annual Monitoring
The annual monitoring visit will involve a quantitative analysis of the stream cross-sections as well as a
detailed qualitative analysis of overall stream stability and vegetation success. The permanent cross-
sections will be re-surveyed. A table comparing the post-construction cross-section survey and the annual
monitoring survey will be produced for each cross-section to document the stability of the stream channel.
During the annual monitoring, the three planted zones of vegetation will be assessed. The vegetation will
be assessed in each zone to determine the overall percent cover. Any areas of poor plant survival or
stressed vegetation will be noted on a map.
A report of the findings will be produced in an annual monitoring report.
¦ 9 Dewberry

4.3 Monitoring Schedule
A general schedule will be followed to implement the above steps for monitoring. The monitoring setup
' will be conducted one to two months after construction is finished. Assuming construction ends in late
summer to early fall of 2003, the interim assessments will occur in the spring of 2004 and 2005. The
annual monitoring will occur in the early fall of 2004, 2005 and 2006.
' 4.4 Monitoring Success

fl

t

This stream restoration plan has been developed as a direct result of recent human induced impacts to the
stream. Many changes to the watershed are also occurring. Therefore, some changes to the stream channel
should be anticipated over time. In fact, SI#1 is directly downstream from a new road crossing with triple
culverts and curb outlets draining outside the buffer. These impacts have occurred in the last few months
and the restoration site is directly downstream. Permanent cross-sections will be marked and surveyed,
but dynamic adjustments in the stream should be anticipated. Therefore, stream success will be realized
when the banks are shown to be stable after three years.
The wetland and buffer areas are surrounded by existing wetlands and thus an excellent seed source of
diverse vegetation is available. Once appropriate soil and hydrology is reestablished, a diverse cover of
wetland plants is anticipated. The introduced species are primarily to ensure diversity. Therefore,
vegetation success will be realized for each zone when the vegetation surveys show a total percent cover
of 85% of volunteer and introduced species.
10 Dewberry

11

EXHIBITS
11
? Kyle Dr/Beaverdam Creek
i Stream Restoration Location Map
,f
? j
i
?%, IN ;
I-P Wrea
E

N
500 0 500 1000 Feet
1" =1000'

Ll
C
?O
1
C/1
?U
;No
a?
a?
IQ
i?

I.I.S. le
a?
U
rd
c?
a?
GQ
0
H
? w
0
O
N
II
v
? o
0
?' z
t
Kyle Drive/Beaverdam Creek
Stream Restoration Watershed Map
Total Watershed Size
1082 Acres
tT?

ter,,

}
a w. fi
Stream Impact #3

k
Su atgr l
?
cres
y ?+
Stream Impacts
a t ,
t 4 ' 1 #1 and #2
l
ifi t S?

0.25 0 0.25 Miles
1 0.25 mi
,6WO,
?Irov, Dewberry

s y
5
f r s::
?c
j 'l f
? _
? ?
?
JT.

W

Y ? ry
*JE},h ? r 7?i?? -
¢¢
p???s } ? era' t
f
4 4 ??

?}y I

?T m S

1

t

i

{
`

Dewberry $r#??vis _Inc.
.,
y
5
505?r?ee odd , r
,
Rale?g 2642

Coax r 8119923
r
Goof
•••.
r y