The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20091328 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20091130r b'�w ,+5,�` �„{,��'"6 �, 'k � �•��, ,�'�#.ax -f` " i�"«s?�.,.,.t e�"".^� 4 ��}+,�"`ml�� S'� .+»G#� ry � i�`*. .. ',.a" }�° K ,fir t t at k f "41 1o�3'i A,.,, 4 `• ihF rr,r ^. "•.. "7'a..,s <"e .:# s '� Y*f f..`,7 All q not Liyge T F d� x. krt` .P' ./ i }y„ S Y .yet ✓r 4m�` k,i'> . -} r i S'�. ��t'� .d (�, j c`*. t�;� ` 1y Cf w s, 7n X3 Y� r err 2f 3i s� j 1'f CQj d .ex.lt F -r• +!r � -7� t..t- <e�? -" �k �"� '� 'iw�r ,!'+- r sG Y .3. R = i r t,. ,`� t l "�-� F+•J;. '01 .r ti c tar T r:s `* I ';r- R� a '� ^ 3t - iS t` r .. kr," I" 3} "'r .."` ivy`.? /, °'' y r"Spry •v sL f n,M ,g r'y a �'^ 3 "•i+r r+t. V^ i � jl fh 4 ft eY (}` '� i � �i � i�'ti .7 x i ' °��'"' tt'1 ia�url t!* °'� � r � �� +� � 'y rr�•, 4 � .4, !� f r 'al � 'k`✓ r �'-r' .e. a. f� i �s(r� yr* � � s. ,r �' U" f� r�st..� � fC �z'�''• -" P`'E IA10,03 M .�,, �,�C� �� OM"�`:„' Prepared by: Florence & Hutcheson CONSULTING ENGINEL'RS Florence & Hutcheson, Inc. 5121 Kingdom Way, Suite 100 Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 919.851.6066 919.851.6846 (fax) R. Kevin Williams, PE, PLS, CPESC, CPSWQ Project Engineer /Manager Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The UT to the Lumber River Site (Site) is located approximately two (2) miles southeast of Pembroke in Robeson County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The properties included in this proposal span east of State Road (SR) 1003 (Chicken Road) and south from SR 1339 (Deep Branch Road) to US 74 Highway along the Lumber River. The Site is located in the United States Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit and Targeted Local Watershed 03040203030010 (North Carolina Division of Water Quality Subbasin 03- 07 -51) of the Lumber River Basin and will service the USGS 8 -digit Cataloging Unit 03040203. The Site was identified to assist the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) in meeting its stream and wetland mitigation goals. This document details planned stream mitigation activities at the Site. A 67.2 -acre conservation easement will be placed on the Site to incorporate all mitigation activities. The Site contains approximately 13,392 existing feet of jurisdictional stream in the form of an unnamed tributary to the Lumber River (UT) and the Lumber River, as well as associated floodplains and upland slopes. The contributing watershed to the Lumber River is characterized primarily by forest /wetland (69 percent of the watershed area), cultivated cropland (28 percent), pasture /managed herbaceous (4 percent), urban areas (1 percent) and surface water (1 percent) (NCDWQ 2003). The contributing watershed to the UT to the Lumber River is characterized primarily by cropland (65 percent of the total area), forest land (15 percent), low - density residential development ( 15 percent) and impervious surfaces (5 percent). The primary goals of this stream restoration project focus on: 1. Improving water quality, 2. Providing /enhancing flood attenuation, 3. Restoring aquatic and riparian habitat and function, 4. Restore and enhance habitat connectivity with adjacent pristine habitats, 5. Assisting the EEP with meeting its stated goals of improving water quality and habitat as documented within the Lumber River /Bear Swamp Watershed Management Plan for the Targeted 03040203030010 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit, 6. Assisting the State of North Carolina initiatives along the Lumber River for conservation. These goals will be accomplished through the following objectives: 1. Restore the existing UT to a more natural, sand bed channel able to transport its sediment /organic debris and flow without aggrading or degrading; 2. Enhancing the capacity of the Site to mitigate flood flows by excavating a floodplain and connecting flood flows to existing ponds on -site (that will be retrofitted as stormwater wetlands) that will add water storage within the Site limits; Florence & Hutcheson Pagc ; CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN 3. Enhancing in stream habitat by creating an undulating bedform (shallows /deeps) using meander geometry to maintain deeps, and by placing woody structures in the channel that provide shading, natural food sources, and protective areas for propagation; 4. Reducing sedimentation and nutrient inputs through the reestablishment of a native riparian buffer that will average 95 feet from the top bank of bank of the UT. Additionally, the reestablishment of the buffer will remove approximately 15.0 acres of currently active agricultural production that is adjacent to the existing UT. 5. Reduce sedimentation and nutrient inputs by transforming existing ponds within the valley of the UT to stormwater wetlands that will collect flow from the UT and drainage ditches, which will filter many of the contributing pollutants; 6. Reduce nutrient inputs by creating three stormwater retention areas (BMPs) along three contributing drainage ditches entering the Site. These retention areas will be placed specifically for sediment and nutrient reduction. 7. It is fully anticipated that excavated floodplain areas within the site will quickly revert to wetlands due to a shallow groundwater table and existing hydric soils. The proposed planting plan is comprised of hydrophytic vegetation and it is anticipated that volunteer species from the floodplain of the Lumber River may also populate the Site. These wetlands are expected to enhance the Site's function to retain and absorb nutrients while also providing a diversity of aquatic, semi - aquatic and upland habitats. 8. Enhancing the entire ecosystem by reestablishing a large habitat corridor between the agricultural fields on -site and the well developed Lumber River floodplain. The restored corridor will replace the existing agricultural fields with native species that are similar to the Reference Forest Ecosystem (studied on -site) which is comparable to a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp — Blackwater Subtype (Schafale and Weakley 1990); 9. Preserve and protect 4,123 linear feet and associated floodplain (29.1 acres) along both sides of the Lumber River from future development and logging by placing a conservation easement that averages nearly 340 feet in width. An additional 3,489 feet of the Lumber River and its associated floodplain (6.7 acres) will be included with the easement on the left (eastern) bank (this portion of the Lumber River and floodplain cannot be used for mitigation credits because the landowners on the southern side of this reach were not interested in participating); 10. Preserving large portions of the Lumber River and its associated floodplain will assist the State in its stated efforts through the Lumber River State Park and its associated designation of the Lumber River as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River to protect the River and adjoining lands. Preserve and protect both sides of the UT by placing a conservation easement that exceeds required standards (will average approximately 75 feet from the top of each bank); The Lumber River /Bear Swamp Watershed Management Plan (Plan) was completed by the EEP in February of 2006 (EEP 2006). The watersheds investigated are both targeted local watersheds by the EEP. The proposed Site is located within the watershed studied on the Lumber River (14- Florence & Hutcheson Pagc ii CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN digit Hydrologic Unit 03040203030010), which is also a Targeted Local Watershed. The report concluded that the primary factors contributing to functional degradation within the UT's watershed include: • Lack of riparian buffers; • Fragmentation and loss of terrestrial habitat diversity by clearing and drainage activities; • Increasing impervious surface area through residential /commercial uses; • Loss of in- stream habitat as a result of channelization. Furthermore, the Plan specifically stated that the three most common degradational conditions within the watershed can be directly attributed to channelization, sedimentation, and a narrow riparian zone. The objectives listed in the Plan that will address functional degradation within the watershed include the following: • Improve water quality where it is degraded by pollutant inputs; • Improve terrestrial habitat diversity; • Improve terrestrial habitat connectivity; • Reduce impacts of present and future impervious surfaces; • Improve in- stream habitat. The practices listed for the objectives include the following: • Riparian buffer restoration; • Sediment reduction BMPs; • Nutrient reduction BMPs; • Stormwater BMPs; • Stream Restoration; • Wetland restoration; • Land use ordinances. It should be noted that the Site was a priority site specifically identified in the Plan to achieve the proposed objectives. The following lists how the project will utilize specific practices /objectives to satisfy the Plan's goals. • Riparian Buffer Restoration: The project will restore riparian buffers through revegetation of buffer zones with native riparian and wetland species along the UT. • Sediment Reduction BMPs: Sediment entering the site will be retained by the placement of three stormwater retention areas on the contributing drainage ditch flowing from off - site. • Nutrient Reduction BMPs: Nutrient reduction will be achieved by excavating a floodplain that will store and absorb nutrients, the use of the three retention BMPs, retrofitting two ponds within the site boundaries to act as stormwater wetlands that will It Florence & Hutcheson Page iii CONSUUHNG ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN collect flow from the UT at approximately the half bankfull discharge stage, and restoring a native riparian buffer through active agricultural fields that will average nearly 95 feet from the top of both banks of the UT. • Stormwater BMPs: Stormwater BMPs will be constructed along the three ditches entering the site and two existing ponds on -site will be retrofitted to act as stormwater wetlands. • Stream Restoration: The UT will be restored to a more natural channel that will exhibit a stable meandering pattern that will convey its discharge and sediment with aggrading or degrading. Additionally, the restored channel will exhibit bed features such as deeps and shallows that are not currently exhibited which will enhance aquatic habitat. • Wetland Restoration: It is anticipated that excavated floodplain areas within the site will revert to wetlands once construction is completed due to a shallow groundwater table, existing hydric soils, and because hydrophytic vegetation will be planted as part of the Site's planting plan. Project mitigation efforts will result in the following: • Restore 4,285 linear feet of Site streams. • Enhancement II of 463 linear feet of Site streams. • Preservation of 6,300 linear feet of Site streams, with a conservation easement spanning a minimum of 50 feet from both left and right banks • Preservation of 3,489 linear feet of the Lumber River on the left bank only. (This portion of preservation will NOT be included in mitigation credits). • Plant 15.0 acres of floodplain, stream bank, and upland slope buffers. • Impact approximately zero (0) acres of existing wetlands during construction activities. This document is consistent with the requirements of the 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). Specifically the document addresses the following requirements of the federal rule: • (2) Objectives. A description of the resource type(s) and amount(s) that will be provided, the method of compensation (i.e., restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation), and the manner in which the resource functions of the compensatory mitigation project will address the needs of the watershed, ecoregion, physiographic province, or other geographic area of interest. • (3) Site selection. A description of the factors considered during the site selection process. This should include consideration of watershed needs, onsite alternatives where applicable, and the practicability of accomplishing ecologically self - sustaining aquatic resource restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation at the compensatory mitigation project site. (See § 332.3(d).) Florence & Hutcheson Pagc iv ...................... .......... .. ............. ........ .... .... ....... .....I .................. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN • (4) Site protection instrument. A description of the legal arrangements and instrument, including site ownership, that will be used to ensure the long -term protection of the compensatory mitigation project site (see § 332.7(a)). • (5) Baseline information. A description of the ecological characteristics of the proposed compensatory mitigation project site and, in the case of an application for a DA permit, the impact site. This may include descriptions of historic and existing plant communities, historic and existing hydrology, soil conditions, a map showing the locations of the impact and mitigation site(s) or the geographic coordinates for those site(s), and other site characteristics appropriate to the type of resource proposed as compensation. The baseline information should also include a delineation of waters of the United States on the proposed compensatory mitigation project site. A prospective permittee planning to secure credits from an approved mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program only needs to provide baseline information about the impact site, not the mitigation bank or in -lieu fee project site. • (6) Determination of credits. A description of the number of credits to be provided, including a brief explanation of the rationale for this determination. (See § 332.3(f).) • (7) Mitigation work plan. Detailed written specifications and work descriptions for the compensatory mitigation project, including, but not limited to, the geographic boundaries of the project; construction methods, timing, and sequence; source(s) of water, including connections to existing waters and uplands; methods for establishing the desired plant community; plans to control invasive plant species; the proposed grading plan, including elevations and slopes of the substrate; soil management; and erosion control measures. For stream compensatory mitigation projects, the mitigation work plan may also include other relevant information, such as plan form geometry, channel form (e.g. typical channel cross - sections), watershed size, design discharge, and riparian area plantings. • (8) Maintenance plan. A description and schedule of maintenance requirements to ensure the continued viability of the resource once initial construction is completed. • (9) Performance standards. Ecologically -based standards that will be used to determine whether the compensatory mitigation project is achieving its objectives. (See § 332.5.) • (10) Monitoring requirements. A description of parameters to be monitored in order to determine if the compensatory mitigation project is on track to meet performance standards and if adaptive management is needed. A schedule for monitoring and reporting on monitoring results to the district engineer must be included. (See § 332.6.) • (11) Long -term management plan. A description of how the compensatory mitigation project will be managed after performance standards have been achieved to ensure the long -term sustainability of the resource, including long -term financing mechanisms and the party responsible for long -term management. (See § 332.7(d).) • (12) Adaptive management plan. A management strategy to address unforeseen changes in site conditions or other components of the compensatory mitigation project, including the party or parties responsible for implementing adaptive management measures. The adaptive management plan will guide decisions for revising compensatory mitigation It Florence & Hutcheson Pace v CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN plans and implementing measures to address both foreseeable and unforeseen circumstances that adversely affect compensatory mitigation success. (See § 332.7(c).) • (13) Financial assurances. A description of financial assurances that will be provided and how they are sufficient to ensure a high level of confidence that the compensatory mitigation project will be successfully completed, in accordance with its performance standards (see § 332.3(n))." This document represents a detailed restoration plan summarizing activities proposed for the Site. The plan includes 1) descriptions of existing conditions; 2) reference stream, wetland, and forest studies; 3) restoration plans; and 4) monitoring and success criteria. Upon approval of this plan by the EEP, engineering construction plans will be prepared and activities implemented as outlined. Proposed restoration activities may be modified during the design stage to address constraints such as sediment - erosion control measures, drainage needs (floodway constraints), or other design considerations. It Florence & Hutcheson page vi CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................. ..............................I 1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION .................. ............................... 1 1.1 DIRECTIONS TO PROJECT SITE ................................................................ ............................... 1 1.2 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE AND NCDWQ RIVER BASIN DESIGNATION ...................... 1 1.3 PROJECT COMPONENTS, RESTORATION TYPE, AND APPROACH .............. ............................... 1 1.4 PROJECT HISTORY .................................................................................. ............................... 3 2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION ............................................ ............................... 5 2.1 DRAINAGE AREA .................................................................................... ............................... 5 2.2 SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATION /WATER QUALITY ............................ ............................... 5 2.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS .................................................. ............................... 6 2.4 HISTORICAL LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS ............................ ............................... 7 2.5 WATERSHED PLANNING ......................................................................... ............................... 8 2.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................ ............................... 12 2.8 POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS .................................................................... ............................... 12 2.8.1 Property Ownership and Boundary ........................................... ............................... 12 2.8.2 Project Access ........................................................................... ............................... 12 2.8.3 Utilities ...................................................................................... ............................... 12 2.8.4 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass ..................................................... ............................... 13 3.0 PROJECT SITE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS) ............... .............................14 3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY ........................................................... ............................... 14 3.2 CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION .................................................................. ............................... 15 3.3 VALLEY CLASSIFICATION ..................................................................... ............................... 15 3.4 DISCHARGE .......................................................................................... ............................... 16 3.5 CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY ..................................................................... ............................... 16 3.6 CHANNEL EVOLUTION .......................................................................... ............................... 18 3.7 CHANNEL STABILITY ASSESSMENT ...................................................... ............................... 18 3.8 BANKFULL VERIFICATION .................................................................... ............................... 20 3.9 VEGETATION ........................................................................................ ............................... 21 4.0 REFERENCE STREAMS .................................................................... ............................... 22 4.1 UT TO LUMBER RIVER WOODED REACH .............................................. ............................... 22 4.1.1 Watershed Characterization ...................................................... ............................... 22 4.1.2 Channel Classification .............................................................. ............................... 22 4.1.3 Discharge .................................................................................. ............................... 22 4.1.4 Channel Morphology 22 4.1.5 Channel Stability Assessment ................................................... ............................... 22 4.1.6 Bankfull Verification ................................................................ ............................... 23 ENFlorence & Hutcheson Page vii CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN 4.1.7 Vegetation Community Types .................................................. ............................... 23 4.2 UT TO IRONHILL BRANCH .................................................................... ............................... 23 4.2.1 Watershed Characterization ...................................................... ............................... 23 4.2.2 Channel Classification 23 4.2.3 Discharge .................................................................................. ............................... 23 . . 4.2.4 Channel Morphology ................................................................ ............................... 23 4.2.5 Channel Stability Assessment ................................................... ............................... 24 4.2.6 Bankfull Verification ................................................................ ............................... 24 4.2.7 Vegetation Community Types .................................................. ............................... 24 5.0 SITE WETLANDS ............................................................................... ............................... 25 5.1 EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS ................................................ ............................... 25 5.2 HYDROLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION .................................................. ............................... 25 5.3 SOIL CHARACTERIZATION .................................................................... ............................... 25 5.3.1 Taxonomic Classification .......................................................... ............................... 25 5.3.2 Profile Description .................................................................... ............................... 26 5.4 PLANT COMMUNITY CHARACTERIZATION ............................................ ............................... 26 6.0 REFERENCE FOREST ECOSYSTEM ............................................. ............................... 27 7.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN ......................................... ............................... 28 7.1 STREAM DESIGN ................................................................................... ............................... 28 7.1 RESTORATION SITE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ....................................... ............................... 29 7.2.1 Designed Channel Classification .............................................. ............................... 31 7.2.2 Target Wetland Communities /Buffer Communities ................. ............................... 31 7.3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS ........................................................ ............................... 31 7.3.1 Methodology ............................................................................. ............................... 33 7.3.2 Calculations and Discussion ..................................................... ............................... 33 ' 7.4 HEC -RAS ANALYSIS ........................................................................... ............................... 33 7.4.1 Bankfull Discharge Analysis .................................................... ............................... 33 7.4.2 No -Rise ..................................................................................... ............................... 33 r 7.4.3 Hydrologic Trespass ................................................................. ............................... 34 7.5 STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES .................................. ............................... 34 7.6 HYDROLOGICAL MODIFICATIONS WETLAND RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT) ........... 34 7.7 SOIL RESTORATION .............................................................................. ............................... 34 7.7.1 Topsoil Stockpiling ................................................................... ............................... 35 7.7.2 Flood lain Soil Scarification 35 7.8 NATURAL PLANT COMMUNITY RESTORATION ..................................... ............................... 35 7.8.1 Planting Plan ............................................................................. ............................... 35 7.8.2 Nuisance Species Management ................................................. ............................... 36 8.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ............................................................ ............................... 38 8.1 STREAMS ................................................................................................ .............................38 8.1.1 Stream Success Criteria ............................................................. ............................... 38 9 Florence & Hutcheson page viii CoNSULTINc, ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN 8.1.2 Stream Dimension ..................................................................... ............................... 38 8.1.3 Stream Pattern and Profile ........................................................ ............................... 39 8.1.4 Substrate ...................................................................................... .............................39 Table 4. 8.1.5 Sediment Transport ................................................................... ............................... 39 8.1.6 Hydraulics ................................................................................. ............................... 39 8.1.7 Stream Contingency .................................................................. ............................... 39 8.2 VEGETATION ........................................................................................ ............................... 40 8.2.1 Vegetation Success Criteria ...................................................... ............................... 40 8.2.2 Vegetation Contingency ............................................................ ............................... 41 8.3 SCHEDULING AND REPORTING ............................................................. ............................... 41 9.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................ .............................42 TABLES Table 1. Project Components ....................................................................... ............................... 2 Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History ....................................... ............................... 3 Table 3. Project Contacts Table .................................................................. ............................... 3 Table 4. Project Attributes Table ................................................................ ............................... 4 Table 5. USDA Mapping Units within the Site .......................................... ............................... 6 Table 6. Land Use of Watersheds ................................................................ ............................... 8 Table 7. Federally Protected Species for Robeson County ..................... ............................... 10 Table 8. Morphological Characteristics of UT Lumber River and Reference ..................... 17 Table 9. Site Stream Discharges and Areas .............................................. ............................... 20 Table 10. Reference Forest Ecosystem ...................................................... ............................... 27 Table11. Planting Plan ............................................................................... ............................... 36 Florence & Hutcheson Page ix CONSULTING ENGINEM Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN APPENDICES Appendix 1. Project Site Photographs Appendix 2. Project Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms Appendix 3. Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms Appendix 4. Reference Site Photographs Appendix 5. Reference Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms Appendix 6. HEC -RAS Analysis Appendix 7. Categorical Exclusion Form Appendix 8. EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist Appendix 9. Existing Conditions Cross Sections and Profiles FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Watershed Map (USGS Topo) Figure 3. Watershed Map (LIDAR Topo) Figure 4. Soil Survey Map Figure 5. UT Ironhill Branch Reference Site Vicinity Map Figure 6. UT Ironhill Branch Reference Site Watershed Map Figure 7. UT Ironhill Branch Reference Site Soil Survey Map Figure 8. UT to the Lumber River Creek Reference Site Vicinity Map Figure 9. UT to the Lumber River Creek Reference Site Watershed Map Figure 10. UT to the Lumber River Creek Reference Site Soil Survey Map DESIGN SHEETS Sheets IA-1C. Existing Conditions Sheets 2A -3C. Proposed Conditions Sheet 3A -3B. Longitudinal Profile Sheet 4. Planting Plan Florence & Hutcheson Page x CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN 1.0 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION The UT to the Lumber River Stream Mitigation Site (Site) is located approximately two (2) miles southeast of Pembroke in Robeson County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The properties included in this proposal span east of State Road (SR) 1003 (Chicken Road) and south from SR 1339 (Deep Branch Road) to US 74 Highway along the Lumber River. This document details planned stream mitigation activities at the Site. A 67.2 -acre conservation easement will be placed on the Site to incorporate all restoration activities. 1.1 Directions to Project Site Directions to the Site: • From Interstate 40 take exit 328A (towards Fayetteville /Benson) onto Interstate 95 South • From Interstate 95 take exit 17 (towards Pembroke) onto US- 711/72. Remain on US 711 at US 711 and US 72 Split. • Go approximately 7.4 miles west towards Pembroke after exiting I -95. • Turn left onto SR 1003 (Chicken Road). Go for approximately 1.1 miles to the intersection of Chicken Road and SR 1339 (Deep Branch Road). • Turn right onto Deep Branch Road. Go for approximately 0.2 miles and turn left onto dirt road that takes you through the Site to the UT. 1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designation The Site is located in the United States Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit and Targeted Local Watershed 03040203030010 (North Carolina Division of Water Quality Subbasin 03- 07 -51) of the Lumber River Basin and will service the USGS 8 -digit Cataloging Unit 03040203. The Site was identified to assist the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) in meeting its stream and wetland mitigation goals. 1.3 Project Components, Restoration Type, and Approach Proposed Site mitigation activities include the construction of a stable stream channel on the UT to Lumber River (UT) resulting in 4,285 linear feet of stream restoration, planting of a riparian buffer adjacent to the UT that will result in 463 linear feet of stream enhancement (Level II), and preserving 4,123 linear feet and both banks of currently stable stream channels of the UT and Lumber River. Additionally, 3,489 linear feet of the left bank and floodplain of the Lumber River will be preserved, however this footage will not be used for mitigation since adjacent (opposite bank) landowners were not willing to place their land in a conservation easement. ]A I Florence & Hutcheson Page 1 ................................... ........I...................... ...........11.....1........1... EMCONSULTINC ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN Table 1. Proiect Components Restoration Q c U c Segment/ Reach r : c ,�, o. X10 `u Comment ID w .a a 'a Q Ca .a ran Q 10+00— Restore pattern, dimension, profile, R PII 4,285 53 +45 17.2 and riparian buffer. E 10+00— Plant a native vegetated riparian UT Lumber River 5,958 1I Plantings 463 14 +63 1.9 buffer through agricultural fields. 10+00— Place a permanent conservation P Easement 2,177 31 +77 12.2 easement over lands in preservation areas. Place a permanent conservation Lumber River 4,123 P Easement 4,123 10+00— 35.9 easement over lands in preservation 50 +87 areas. Component Summations Restoration Level Stream (LF) Buffer AC Restoration 4,285 17.2 Enhancement 1 Enhancement 11 463 1.9 Preservation 6,300 48.1 Totals 11,022 67.2 Florence & Hutcheson page 2 In _ ................ ............................................ . .................. .I .... .............. CONSULTING ENGINELRS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN 1.4 Project History Completed project activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and background information are summarized in Tables 2 through 4. Table 2_ Proiect Activitv and Renorting History Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Deliver Restoration Plan September 2009 October 2009 Final Design — Construction Plans Company Information/Address POC name and phone Seed Mix Sources Construction Nursery Stock Suppliers Company and contact phone Temporary S &E Mix Applied to Entire Project Area Firm Information/address Stream Monitoring POC Permanent Seed Mix Applied to Entire Project Area Vegetation Monitoring POC POC name and phone Containerized and B &B plantings for Entire Project Area POC name and phone Mitigation Plan/As -built Year 0 Monitoring-Baseline) Year I Monitoring Year 2 Monitoring Structural maintenance (bench expansion, vane, etc.) Year 3 Monitorin Supplemental planting of containerized material Year 4 Monitoring Table 3. Proiect Contacts Table Designer Primary project design POC Florence & Hutcheson, Inc. 5121 Kingdom Way, Suite 100 Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 Kevin Williams (919) 851 -6066 Construction Contractor Construction Contractor POC Company Infonnation/Address POC name and phone Planting Contractor Planting Contractor POC Company Information/Address POC name and phone Seeding Contractor Seeding Contractor POC Company Information/Address POC name and phone Seed Mix Sources Company and contact phone Nursery Stock Suppliers Company and contact phone Monitoring Performers Firm Information/address Stream Monitoring POC POC name and phone Vegetation Monitoring POC POC name and phone Wetland Monitoring POC POC name and phone Florence & Hutcheson Page 3 . . ............................................................. ............................... CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN Table 4. Proiect Attributes Table Project County Robeson County, North Carolina Physiographic Region Southeastern Plains Ecore ion Southeastern Flood plains and Low Terraces Project River Basin Lumber USGS HUC for Project 14 digit) 03040203030010 NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project 03 -07 -51 Within extent of EEP Watershed Plan? Yes — Lumber River /Bear Swamp Watershed Management Plan 2006 WRC Class (Warm, Cool, Cold ) Warm % of project easement fenced or demarcated 0% Currently / 100% Post Construction (Demarcated with signs/posts) Beaver activity observed during design phase? I Yes Restoration Component Attributes UT Lumber River Lumber River Drainage Area 0.42 sq mi (At End of Restoration Reach) 432 sq mi Stream Order (USGS to o) I" Multiple Order Restored Length feet 4,285 0.0 Perennial (P) or Intermittent (I) P P Watershed Type Primarily rural w/ some urban Primarily Rural Watershed impervious cover —5% _1% NCDWQ AU /Index number 14-(7) 14-(7) NCDWQ Classification WS -IV, B, Sw, HQW WS -IV, B, Sw, HQW 303d listed? No No Upstream of a 303d listed No No Reasons for 303d listed segment Total acreage of easement 67.2 ac Total vegetated acreage of easement 52.5 ac Total planted restoration acreage 15.0 ac Ros en Classification of preexisting G5 /1`5 E5 Ros en Classification of As -built Valley type VIII X Valley sloe 0.23% 0.07% Cowardin classification Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp Coastal Plain Small Stream Swam Trout waters designation Species of concern, endangered etc. In County: RCW, Michaux's Sumac In County: RCW, Michaux's Sumac Dominant Soil Series Bibb/Rains Bibb Florence & Hutcheson Page 4 _ ..... . .......................................................... ............................... C0NSULTINc, ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN 2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION 2.1 Drainage Area Onsite elevations are moderate with a high of 160 feet in the upper extents of the Site and a low of 145 feet on the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) (Pembroke, North Carolina USGS 7.5- minute topographic quadrangle). Drainage areas for site streams are listed in Table 4 (Project Attributes Table) and Figures 2 and 3. • Lumber River: 432 sq mi (276,480 ac) • UT Lumber (Entering Site): 0.35 sq mi (227 ac) • UT Lumber (at convergence with Lumber River): 0.77 sq mi (490 ac) 2.2 Surface Water Classification/Water Quality The Lumber River within the Site (Stream Index Number /Assessment Unit Number 14 - (7)) is classified as a WS -IV, B, Sw, HQW within the project boundaries (NCDWQ 2009). A classification of WS -IV signifies waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing purposes where a WS -I, II or III classification is not feasible. These waters are also protected for Class C uses. WS -IV waters are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds or Protected Areas. A classification of B signifies waters protected for all Class C uses in addition to primary recreation. Primary recreational activities include swimming, skin diving, water skiing, and similar uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an organized manner or on a frequent basis. A classification of Sw signifies supplemental classification intended to recognize those waters which have low velocities and other natural characteristics which are different from adjacent streams. A classification of HQW signifies Supplemental classification intended to protect waters which are rated excellent based on biological and physical /chemical characteristics through Division monitoring or special studies, primary nursery areas designated by the Marine Fisheries Commission, and other functional nursery areas designated by the Marine Fisheries Commission. The following waters are HQW by definition: • WS -I, • WS -II, • SA (commercial shell fishing), • ORW, • primary nursery areas (PNA) designated by the Marine Fisheries Commission, and • Waters for which the DWQ has received a petition for reclassification to either WS -I or WS -II. Neither the Lumber River nor the UT are on the North Carolina Impaired (303(d)) list. However, Mill Branch (Stream Index Number /Assessment Unit Number # 14 - 6) is on the Draft 2008 303 (d) list. Mill Branch enters the Lumber River — two miles upstream of the Site. Mill Branch's watershed is directly adjacent to the Lumber River. Mill Branch is a direct tributary to the Lumber River. According to the 2003 Lumber River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, all Florence & Hutcheson Page 5 .......................... ............................... ............. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN waters in the Lumber River Basin are considered "impaired" for fish consumption due to elevated mercury levels. The 2003 Lumber River Basinwide Water Quality Plan shows the Lumber River as having a Use Support Rating of Supporting within the Site. The UT has a Use Support Rating of "Not Rated ". 2.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils The Site is located in the Black Creek Formation, which is characterized by black to gray interbedded sands, clays and marls in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province (NCDOCD 1958). Lands within the floodplain of the Lumber River are located within the Atlantic Southern Loam Plains Ecoregion. All other lands within the Site are located within the Southeastern Floodplains and Low terraces Ecoregion. Elevations within the project area range from 160 feet above mean sea level where the UT enters the Site to 145 feet above mean sea level at the downstream end of the proposed restoration. The Site is located within the Bibb and Rains sandy loam map units. The Bibb map unit consists of nearly level, poorly drained soils on the flood plains of natural drainage ways, with a surface layer of sandy loam, loamy sand, or loam. The Rains sandy loam map unit consists of nearly level, poorly drained soils on broad low plains located in the lowest part of the landscape (USDA 1978). Soils mapped within the Site in the Soil Survey of Robeson County, North Carolina are depicted in Figure 4 and described in the table below (USDA 1978). Table 5. USDA Maunine Units within the Site Soil Series Hydric Status Family Description These soils consist of nearly level, poorly drained Bibb Hydric A Typic Fluvaquents soils on floodplains. These soils formed in recent alluvium on the flood plains or natural drainage ways. Johns sandy These soils consist of nearly level, moderately well loam Hydric B Aquic Hapludults drained or somewhat poorly drained soils on stream terraces. Lakeland Typic These soils consist of nearly level to gently sloping, sand Nonhydric Quartzipsamments excessively drained soils on uplands and stream terraces. This soil is on 0 to 6 percent slopes. Nearly level to sloping, well- drained soils on Wagram Nonhydric Arenie paleaudults uplands. Is on plains next to drainage ways and on loamy sand broad, smooth ridges or between nearly level soils and soils on drainage ways or bays. Norfolk These soils are on gentle side slopes between nearly loamy sand Nonhydric Typic Paludults level soils and soils on drainage ways or bays. This soil is on 2 to 6 percent slopes. Rains sandy Hydric A Typic Paleaquults These are nearly level, poorly drained soils on broad, loam low plains and is in the lowest part of the landscape. It Florence & Hutcheson Page 6 CONSULTING, ENGINE•M Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN 2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends The Site contains the Lumber River and an Unnamed Tributary to the Lumber River. The Site is located within the 03040203030010 14 -digti Hydrologic Unit, which is also an EEP Targeted Hydrologic Unit for Cataloging Unit 03040203 of the Lumber River Basin. The Lumber River has a watershed drainage area of approximately 432 square miles at its convergence with Chicken Road. The UT has a watershed drainage area of approximately 0.35 square miles (227 acres) as it enters the Site and a watershed drainage area of approximately 0.77 square miles (490 acres) at its confluence with the Lumber River (Figure 2 and 3). The contributing watershed to the Lumber River is characterized primarily by forest /wetland (69 percent of the total area), cultivated cropland (28 percent), pasture /managed herbaceous (4 percent), urban areas (1 percent) and surface water (1 percent) (NCDWQ 2003). The contributing watershed to the UT to the Lumber River is characterized primarily by cropland (65 percent of the total area), forest land (15 percent), low - density residential development (15 percent) and impervious surfaces (5 percent). The UT's and immediately surrounding watersheds are experiencing substantial growth from residential and commercial development associated with the town of Pembroke. Recently numerous businesses have been built in the watershed north of the Site and a large scale trailer manufacturing plant was built adjacent to the Site. The landowners of Pates Feed and Livestock sold the land to the manufacturing plant and have been in discussions with other buyers for the property that the Site is located. Due to the growth of Pembroke towards the Lumber River and the landowners speaking with businesses about purchasing property that the Site is located on, it is expected that the UT's watershed will experience even more dramatic changes within the near future. Land south of the Lumber River (off right bank) on the Lowery Property that is part of the Site has recently been subdivided and a residential community has been established. Florence & Hutcheson page 7 ............... ...................... . ........................... ... I ......... .................... . CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN Table 6. Land Use of Watersheds Land Use of Lumber River Watershed Land Use Acres Percentage Forest/Wetland 190,771 69 Cultivated Cropland 77,414 28 Pasture/Managed Herbaceous 8,295 < 4 Urban Areas -- < 1 Water -- < 1 Total 276,480 100 Land Use of UT to the Lumber River Watershed Land Use Acres Percentage Cropland 319 65 Forest Land 73 15 Low-density Residential Development 73 15 Impervious Surfaces 25 5 Total 490 100 2.5 Watershed Planning The Lumber River /Bear Swamp Watershed Management Plan (Plan) was completed by the EEP in February of 2006. The watersheds investigated are both targeted local watersheds by the EEP. The proposed Site is located within the watershed studied on the Lumber River (14 -digit Hydrologic Unit 03040203030010), which is also a Targeted Local Watershed. From the report there were some conclusions made that addressed the causes of habitat and water quality degradation. The report concluded that the primary factors contributing to functional degradation within the UT's watershed include: • Lack of riparian buffers; • Fragmentation and loss of terrestrial habitat diversity by clearing and drainage activities; • Increasing impervious surface area through residential/commercial uses; • Loss of in- stream habitat as a result of channelization. Furthermore, the Plan specifically stated that the three most common degradational conditions within the watershed can be directly attributed to channelization, sedimentation, and a narrow riparian zone. The objectives listed in the Plan that will address functional degradation within the watershed include the following: • Improve water quality where it is degraded by pollutant inputs; • Improve terrestrial habitat diversity; • Improve terrestrial habitat connectivity; • Reduce impacts of present and future impervious surfaces; It Florence & Hutcheson Page 8 CoNSULTINc ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN • Improve in- stream habitat. The practices listed for the objectives include the following: • Riparian buffer restoration; • Sediment reduction BMPs; • Nutrient reduction BMPs; • Stormwater BMPs; • Stream Restoration; • Wetland restoration; • Land use ordinances. It should be noted that the Site was a priority site specifically identified in the Plan to achieve the proposed objectives. The following lists how the project will utilize specific practices /objectives to satisfy the Plan's goals. • Riparian Buffer Restoration: The project will restore riparian buffers through revegetation of buffer zones with native riparian and wetland species along the UT. • Sediment Reduction BMPs: Sediment entering the site will be retained by the placement of three stormwater retention areas on the contributing drainage ditch flowing from off - site. • Nutrient Reduction BMPs: Nutrient reduction will be achieved by excavating a floodplain that will store and absorb nutrients, the use of the three retention BMPs, retrofitting two ponds within the site boundaries to act as stormwater wetlands that will collect flow from the UT at approximately the half bankfull discharge stage, and restoring a native riparian buffer through active agricultural fields that will average nearly 95 feet - from the top of both banks of the UT. • Stormwater BMPs: Stormwater BMPs will be constructed along the three ditches entering the site and two existing ponds on -site will be retrofitted to act as stormwater wetlands. • Stream Restoration: The UT will be restored to a more natural channel that will exhibit a stable meandering pattern that will convey its discharge and sediment with aggrading or degrading. Additionally, the restored channel will exhibit bed features such as deeps and shallows that are not currently exhibited which will enhance aquatic habitat. • Wetland Restoration: It is anticipated that excavated floodplain areas within the site will revert to wetlands once construction is completed due to a shallow groundwater table, existing hydric soils, and because hydrophytic vegetation will be planted as part of the Site's planting plan. EM F ..... lorence . . .. . .. .. & Hutcheson .. . .. . .. . . page 9 _ .......................................... ....................... CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 LIT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN 2.6 Protected Species Species with a Federal classification of Endangered or Threatened are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term "Endangered species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range," and the term "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). Based on the most recently updated county -by- county database of federally listed species in North Carolina as posted by the USFWS at http: / /nc- es.fws.gov /es /countyfr.html ( USFWS 2009), three federally protected species are listed for Robeson County. The following table lists the federally protected species and indicates if potential habitat exists within the Site for each. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) records were reviewed on July 30, 2009 and no known documents of federally listed species occur in or within one mile of the Site. Table 7. Federally Protected Species for Robeson Countv *Endangered = a taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range "; Threatened = a taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range "; Threatened (due to Similarity of Appearance) = a species that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation. Picoides borealis (Red- cockaded woodpecker) Endangered Family: Picidae Primary nest sites for red - cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs) include open pine stands greater than 60 years of age with little or no mid -story development. Foraging habitat is comprised of open pine or pine /mixed hardwood stands 30 years of age or older. This small woodpecker (7.0 to 8.5 inches long) has a black head, prominent white cheek patches, and a black- and -white barred back. Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see. Primary habitat consists of mature to over - mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly (Pinus taeda), long -leaf (P. palustris), slash (P. elliottii), and pond (P. serotina) pines. Nest cavities are constructed in the heartwood of living pines, generally older than 70 years that have been infected with red -heart disease. Nest cavity trees tend to occur in clusters, which are referred to as colonies. The woodpecker drills Florence & Hutcheson Page 10 _ .................................... ... ...................... .......I ............. .................... CONSULTING ENGINEERS L Habitat Biological Common Name Scientific Name Status * Present Within Site Conclusion Vertebrates American alligator Alligator mississi pp iensis T (S/A) Yes N/A Red - cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E No No Effect Vascular Plants Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E Yes No Effect *Endangered = a taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range "; Threatened = a taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range "; Threatened (due to Similarity of Appearance) = a species that is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation. Picoides borealis (Red- cockaded woodpecker) Endangered Family: Picidae Primary nest sites for red - cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs) include open pine stands greater than 60 years of age with little or no mid -story development. Foraging habitat is comprised of open pine or pine /mixed hardwood stands 30 years of age or older. This small woodpecker (7.0 to 8.5 inches long) has a black head, prominent white cheek patches, and a black- and -white barred back. Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the eye, but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see. Primary habitat consists of mature to over - mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly (Pinus taeda), long -leaf (P. palustris), slash (P. elliottii), and pond (P. serotina) pines. Nest cavities are constructed in the heartwood of living pines, generally older than 70 years that have been infected with red -heart disease. Nest cavity trees tend to occur in clusters, which are referred to as colonies. The woodpecker drills Florence & Hutcheson Page 10 _ .................................... ... ...................... .......I ............. .................... CONSULTING ENGINEERS L Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN holes into the bark around the cavity entrance, resulting in a shiny, resinous buildup around the entrance that allows for easy detection of active nest trees. Pine flatwoods or pine- dominated savannas which have been maintained by frequent natural or prescribed fires serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker. Development of a thick understory may result in abandonment of cavity trees. Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT Habitat for red - cockaded woodpeckers includes mature, open pine stands 30 years (foraging habitat) and 60 years (nesting habitat) in age, or older. The Site area is comprised entirely of disturbed shrub /scrub and cropland communities and contains no habitat for this species. No known occurrences are documented by the NHP within or near the Site. Rhus michauxii ( Michaux's Sumac) Endangered Family: Anacardiaceae Primary habitat for Michaux's sumac includes open woods or disturbed areas in association with sandy, rocky or basic soils. Most known populations of Michaux's sumac in North Carolina occur along roadsides. Michaux's sumac (one to three feet tall) is a rhizomatous, densely hairy shrub with compound, evenly serrated, oblong leaflets. Most plants are unisexual with flowers that are small, greenish yellow to white, and borne in dense, erect clusters which bloom from June to July. The red fruit is produced through the months of August to October. It is a shade intolerant species and depends on some type of disturbance, historically from natural fires or localized wildlife grazing. Michaux's sumac bears some resemblance to winged sumac (Rhus copallinum) and poison sumac (Toxicodendron vernix), but can be distinguished by its lack of wings on the leaf stem and distinctly hairy leaves. The species has a low reproductive capacity, and few of the remaining populations have both male and female plants. The resulting low genetic diversity is the reason for the species' endangered status. Fire suppression and habitat destruction due to residential and industrial development have reduced the number of known, extant populations to 36, 31 of which are documented within the following North Carolina counties: Richmond, Hoke, Moore, Scotland, Franklin, Davie, Robeson, and Wake. Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT Habitat for Michaux's sumac includes sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils, or in open areas produced by some disturbance. The Site does contain habitat for Michaux's sumac in the form of disturbed forest edges and open agricultural fields. A field survey conducted in July of 2009 revealed no occurrences within the Site. No known occurrences are documented by the NHP within or near the Site. Florence & Hutcheson page 11 It ............................................................... ............................... CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN Designated Critical Habitat No designated critical habitat is documented to occur within Robeson County. 2.7 Cultural Resources Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for compliance with Section 106 (36 CFR Part 800) comments were received concerning the Site from the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO). No documented archaeological sites or structures of historical or architectural importance occur within the Site. See the approved Categorical Exclusion document for more information concerning cultural resources. 2.8 Potential Constraints The site currently has one culverted crossing along the UT. During restoration the crossing will be enhanced by placing a new culvert that is sized properly to maintain flow integrity. The recorded deed will dictate that the road leading to this crossing will be used as access to the Site for the holder of the easement. There are no other known constraints on the Site. 2.8.1 Property Ownership and Boundary The Site contains nine parcels that have two owners. The following list property ownership of each parcel: • Mr. Joseph A. Lowery (NC Parcel ID 1415 -01- 016 -20, 1415 -01- 016 -21, 1415- 01 -016- 22, 1415 -01- 016 -24, 1415 -01- 016 -25, 1415 -01- 016 -27, 1415 -01 -016). • Pates Feed and Livestock (NC Parcel ID 1416 -02 -013) A perpetual conservation easement and recordable map of the easement boundary will be signed by the owners and recorded in Robeson County prior to construction activities. 2.8.2 Project Access The Site is situated southwest of Deep Branch Road between Chicken Road and Candy Park Road. One access point to the Site will be designated: an existing soil road off of Deep Branch Road towards the Lumber River and UT to the Lumber River. A transportation plan, including the location of access routes and staging areas will be designed to minimize Site disturbance to the maximum extent feasible. The number of transportation access points into the floodplain will be maximized to avoid traversing long distances through the Site interior. 2.8.3 Utilities No utilities are located within or directly adjacent to the proposed construction areas within the project. Florence & Hutcheson page 12 CONSULTING ENGINE MS P�� Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN 2.8.4 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass The HEC -RAS analysis indicates that the restoration design will result in a no -rise in the 100 - year floodplain water surface elevations outside of the project area. The results of this analysis affirm that hydrologic trespass to adjacent properties will not occur. A more detailed discussion and HEC -RAS analysis can be found in section 7.4 and Appendix 6. Florence & Hutcheson page 13 ............................... ............................... .... .............. 11,.... CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN 3.0 PROJECT SITE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS) The Site contains two (2) jurisdictional stream channels (the UT to Lumber River and the Lumber River) that were studied for potential mitigation opportunities. The location of these channels and their reaches are depicted on Sheets I through 1C. Conformity with Stream Guidance The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the DWQ developed a draft document titled "Information Regarding Stream Restoration" on April 4, 2007 which is to help guide compensatory mitigation providers in evaluating and planning stream mitigation projects. The objective of the document is to ensure that potential mitigation sites have streams that occur naturally, rather than streams that may have been ditched and intercepted groundwater causing intermittent or perennial flow. The primary tools used to assess if channels support natural drainage ways in the Coastal Plain include sufficient natural slope (drainage ways /valleys), drainage area (typically greater than 100 acres), and soils in the drainage way with higher organic content than surrounding (upland) soils. The UT's valley and natural watershed extends not only through the Site, but also well upstream (west) of the Site (Figures 2 and 3). This determination was made after reviewing elevations and contours obtained from the USGS Pembroke, North Carolina 7.5- minute topographic quadrangle (USGS 1982), Robeson County LIDAR data, and a Digital Terrain Model that was prepared for the site using conventional surveying methods. These data confirmed that a natural drainage way /valley is present on -site for the UT to flow down. Additionally, the UT has a supporting drainage area greater than 100 acres (approximately 227 ac entering the Site). Also, the UT displays distinct linear soil boundaries within its valley through the Site that contain a much higher organic soils content than adjacent upland soils (soils entering the Site are Rains and quickly transitioning to Bibb soils). This data should be sufficient evidence that the UT supports a natural stream within the Site boundaries. 3.1 Existing Conditions Survey A visual and photographic assessment of the Lumber River was conducted using a boat to view the River within the Site bounds. Rosgen Level II surveys were not obtained on the Lumber River because it is a stable climax system that has experienced little to no physical degradation or human alteration. A Rosgen Level II stream survey was conducted along the UT. The approximate location of the survey is shown on Sheet IA. The survey included conducting a longitudinal profile, cross - sectional survey, measurement of plan form variables, determination of sediment size distributions, photographic logs, vegetation surveys, and general visual assessments of existing channel and watershed conditions. F . lorence . . . . . .. .. & Hutcheson .. . . . . . . ... Page 14 ................................................. ....................... CoNSULTINr ENGINEIiRS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN 3.2 Channel Classification It should be noted that only the channel proposed to be restored/enhanced (the UT) was surveyed for channel classification purposes. A Rosgen Level II survey was not performed on the Lumber River, however the Lumber River was visually assessed using a boat to travel the entire length of the River on the Site. Lumber River The Lumber River is a climax river at the end of its successional endpoint that is characterized by a well developed, sinuous plan form and sand bed substrate. Although no cross - sectional information was collected for the Lumber River, evidence suggests that it can be classified as a stable E5 type channel. UT Lumber River — Channelized Reach The UT has been channelized, straightened and substantially enlarged to drain adjacent and upstream agricultural fields. Existing debris in the channel and relic beaver dams have created backwater throughout the channel. These factors have led to a channel that is aggrading with detritus with no discernable bankfull indicators. Because of this, it is difficult to accurately classify the channel in Rosgen's channel classification system. The channel could be classified as a G type channel based off of the existing conditions cross - section (relatively low entrenchment ratio of 1.53 and low width -to -depth ratio of 9.24). However, G type channels typically display degradation of channel banks and channel invert due to an overabundance of stream power and sheer stress, neither of which are evident in the existing channel. The existing channel is an aggrading channel, partially due to channel over widening due to anthropogenic influences and partially due to debris in the channel blocking natural flows. The closest relative channel type would be an F type channel due to the existing conditions of an entrenched channel (entrenchment ratio is 1.53) and aggrading conditions which are typical of F type channels. UT Lumber River - Wooded Reach A large portion of the UT that flows through the wooded section of the Site is currently in a stable state downstream of the large beaver dams. Channel surveys revealed a channel that could be classified as an E5 type stream with a moderately low width -to -depth ratio of 11.2 and entrenchment ratio of 10.55. 3.3 Valley Classification The Lumber River is situated in a very broad valley with gentle slopes and an extensive floodplain that would be considered a Valley Type X. The UT to the Lumber River is situated in a somewhat broad valley with gentle slopes that can be classified as a Valley Type VIII. Florence & Hutcheson page 15 It _ .................................................................... ............................... . CONSULTINc, ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN Topographic information obtained from a surveyor, LIDAR data, and the USGS survey all depict a natural drainage way through the site (Figures 2 and 3 ). The drainage way clearly begins approximately 3,500 linear feet to the west of the site and drains through low residential housing and agricultural fields. USDA soils (see section 2.3 for more details) are linear in conjunction with the topographic information that depicts the drainage way. Additionally, the primary soil through the UT's drainage way is Bibb soils which are primarily found "on the floodplains of natural drainage ways" (USDA 1978). 3.4 Discharge Determined bankfull discharges for the channels to be restored are as follows (see section 3.8 for further details on bankfull discharge determination): UT Lumber River — Channelized Reach Upstream: 5.0 cfs UT Lumber River — Channelized Reach Downstream: 7.0 cfs It should be noted that accurate bankfull discharge information could not be discerned from the UT through the Channelized Reach due to aggrading conditions in the channel and the lack of bankfull indicators. Discharge information was determined by surveying a stable section of the UT in the Wooded Reach and correlating that with the Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Rural North Carolina Coastal Plain Streams (regional curve) (Doll et al. 2006). 3.5 Channel Morphology Morphological characteristics of the Site streams were collected during a Rosgen Level II survey. The Morphological Characteristics Tables, shown below, include a summary of existing dimension, profile, and pattern data for the Site streams and references. It should be noted that existing conditions information obtained from the Channelized Reach of UT display no bankfull features or natural meander geometry. Bankfull widths and depths in this reach were estimated without confidence in the exact bankf ill elevation. Bends in the existing 7channel were placed there by the landowners years ago to ensure that the channelized and straightened stream would flow down the fall line of the valley, and should not be considered remnant natural meanders. Florence & Hutcheson page 16 It _ .................. ..................... ................. .... .................... I................. CON5ULTINC ENGINEBkS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN Table 8. Morphological Characteristics of UT Lumber River and Reference Morphological Characteristics of UT Lumber River and Reference Restoration Plan UT Lumber River Stream Mitigation She Reach UT Lumbr River Channalized Reach Couny. Robeson County, NC Design by: CLS Checked by: RVSfRKW ITEM Exist Condidions Reference Reach Reference Reach Proposed Conditions Proposed Conditions LOCATION UT Lumber River - Channelized Reach UT to Ironhlll Branch UT Lumber River - Wooded Reach UT Lumber River - Channeltzed Reach upstream UT Lumber River - Channaitzed Reach Downstream STREAM TYPE G•F/5 E5 E5 E5 E5 DRAINAGE AREA. At - Sq MI 192 At - 0.30 Sq MI 1030 At - 1 61 Sq MI 403 At - 0 63 Sq MI 131 At . 0.21 S MI 256 At - 0 40 Sq MI BANKFULL DISCHARGE, cis 6.0 cis 117 cis 9.1 cis 5.0 th 7 0 cis BANKFULL X- SECTION AREA (Arcs). f11 8 16 112 9.76 fl' 8 03 111 4.9 Ilr 6.2 11' BANKFULL MEAN VELOCITY, fps 0 74 fps 1020 fps 1.13 fps 1.0 s 1.1 fps BANKFULL WIDTH (Wmr). It 8.7 11 10.3 11 9.5 11 78 11 8.8 11 BANKFULL MEAN DEPTH (d_).11 0.94 n 0.95 11 085 11 0.74 it 0 83 11 OTHIDEPTH RATIO (W,ddru) 9.2 10.8 11.2 105 10.5 BANKFULL MAX DEPTH (d_),11 1.77 n 1.58 n 1.42 n 1 it 11 115 8 BANK HEIGHT RATIO 294 1.00 106 100 1 00 TYPICAL BANK HEIGHT ABOVE BANKFULL 5.20 11 1.58 11 1 50 11 1 11 n 1 25 11 WIDTH Flood -Prone Area (W roe)• 11 13.311 290.0 11 100.0 11 25.00 n 27,00 n ENTRENCHMENT RATIO (ER) 1.53 28.21 10.55 3.2 3.1 MEANDER LENGTH (Lm). If Stream has been chennelized and straightened through the vatly, displaying no natural meander pattern 42.7211 38. 38 ft 23.3 -77.511 26.3.87.511 RATIO OF Lm TO Wr,s 41- 70 40-40 3 0- 10.0 30 - 10 0 RADIUS OF CURVATURE. ft td 1 3 - 2 f n 2.0 7. 0.8- Ion 1.0 155 - 20 - 23.3 11 30 17.5 - 2.0 - 26 3 n 3.0 RATIO OF Rc TO Wr u BELT WIDTH, n 30 00 - 59.0011 16.00- 19.0011 155 - 46.5 11 17.5 - 52 5 0 MEANDER WIDTH RATIO 2.92 - 5.7411 169. 2 00 n 20 -6.0 2.0 .60 SINUOSITY (K) 100 1.32 1.30 125 1 26 ALLEY SLOPE. Ml 0 0023 11M' 0.0026 11111 0.0028 Ml 0 0023 Ml 0 0023 11m AVERAGE SLOPE (S). 11/11 00023 11Al 0.0020 11111 0.0028 Mt 00015 f1m 0.0014 RM RIFFLE SLOPE, RM 00000 fl/Il 0.0043 11111 00013 hill 0.0020 11/11 0 0019 rim RATIO OF RIFFLE SLOPE TO AVERAGE SLOPE 0.0 2.1 0.5 14 14 POOL SLOPE, 1111 00000 full 0.0001 1141 00000 MI 0.0000 f1m 0.0000 11111 RATIO OF POOL SLOPE TO AVERAGE SLOPE 001 001 0.0 00 0.0 MAX POOL DEPTH. It 2 02 In 1.78 it 1.50 n 148 11 1.67 n RATIO OF POOL DEPTH TO AVERAGE BANKFULL DEPTH 2.1 1.9 1.8 20 2.0 POOL WIDTH, fl Pool cross- secllon not completed because discrete pools are not discernable due to ag conditions and an channel cOnQd Oackwater from block es. 16.1 it 5 0 11 8 53 ,fl 9.63 11 RATIO OF POOL WIDTH TO BANKFULL WIDTH 1.6 05 1.10 1 10 POOL TO POOL SPACING. n 111.0-111 5 OD a 37 20 - 105.75 n 26.18 - 54 06 11 155 . 46 5 n 210 • 534 n RATIO OF POOL TO POOL SPACING TO BANKFULL WIDTH 1 13 23 -113.23 3.62- 10.29 276-1670 2 0 - 6 0 24 -16-1 'Valley Slope. and Sinuosity were taken from topographical data obtained on the entire site for existing conditions (I.e data was not taken along reach lengths) " Average Slope was taken along a reach length for existing conditions. Florence & Hutcheson Page 17 .......................................... ............................... CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County; North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN 3.6 Channel Evolution Lumber River The Lumber River is at its climatic endpoint in the successional stages of channel evolution. The Lumber River's current Rosgen classification is an E5 and it does not appear that it will evolve any further in the near future. UT Lumber River UT Lumber River — Channelized Reach The UT is in an aggrading state due to blockages in the channel coupled with altered (enlarged channel) conditions. It is expected that in its current state the UT's successional trend will progress in a manner similar to the following (assumed geological trend without human interference): F-->B--->E It is expected that the existing channel that displays F type channel attributes would stabilize into a B type channel with a small bench/sloped floodplain. Eventually the channel would scour a level floodplain at a much lower elevation than the terrace (relic floodplain) that is currently found on -site. UT Lumber River — Wooded Reach The UT through the wooded reach is a stable E type channel at its climatic endpoint and would not be expected to evolve into a different channel type in the near future. 3.7 Channel Stability Assessment Lumber River The Lumber River has not been altered by man and is very stable through the Site. The bed form displays stable riffles (shallows) and pools (deeps) that are characteristic of stable rivers. Adjacent to the River is a wide floodplain that is located at the bankfull discharge elevation. The floodplain contains numerous meander scrolls that provide flood storage and are pristine habitat for amphibious and aquatic species. The majority of the floodplain is dominated by a Cypress — Gum Swamp with mature trees through the majority of the Site. There are portions of the Site that were harvested (appears to be some selective harvesting and some clear cutting) years ago (approximately 20 — 25 years), but the majority of the floodplain displays mature Cypress — Gum Swamp vegetation. UT to Lumber River UT to the Lumber River — Channelized Reach The UT enters the Site as a second order stream as depicted on the Pembroke, NC Quadrangle (USGS 1982). The UT (Channelized Reach) flows generally west to east through agricultural fields for approximately 3,800 linear feet. The channel then enters an area that has historically Florence & Hutcheson Page 18 ................................................................. ............................... CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN been impacted by large beaver dams creating backwater throughout the UT's floodplain. This section of the channel is approximately 1,223 linear feet in length. The UT has been detrimentally impacted in the past due to channelization and deepening. Evidence of channelization includes the fact that the channel follows the fall line of the valley through the large majority of the Site with no natural meander geometry, the channel is overly deep, and conversations with the landowner has revealed the UT was channelized and relocated many years ago. An assessment of the channel's cross - section and profile through channelized areas revealed that the channel has been dug to a depth of over 5.2 feet from the top of the lowest bank. The estimated bankfull depth is 1.77 feet. The channel alterations have deepened the channel to the point that bankfull flows are approximately 3.43 feet below the existing top of bank (i.e. bank height ratio equals approximately 2.94), which does not allow bankfull flows to access its historical floodplain. Additionally, the HEC -RAS analysis of the existing conditions has determined that the 100 year storm event is contained within the existing banks throughout the agricultural field. This is further evidence that the channel has been substantially enlargend. The existing channel's substrate through channelized areas is comprised of sticks, leaves, algae, and other debris such as bottles, tires, and other man -made trash that has washed in from residential areas immediately upstream of the Site. The natural channel bed substrate should be comprised of sand (see description of the Wooded Reach below), but the backwater effects of beaver dams within the channel have reduced the channel's capacity and competency to move the debris and sediment that are entering the system, rendering an aggrading system. It appears that beaver activity has ceased or slowed dramatically recently because no fresh cuttings were observed within the Site. The buildup of detritus and trash in the channel is detrimental to substrate habitat. As stated above, the natural substrate should be sand. Benthic communities that thrive in the Coastal Plain require detritus to survive however their habitat is dominated by dynamic sand substrates that display deeps (pools) and shallows (dunes /ripples). Because the substrate of the channel has filled with detritus the potential for pool formation has also diminished as evidence by little to no bed form variability (planar surface) in the channel profile. These factors have combined to reduce the ability of the channel to produce a diversity of aquatic habitats and species composition. Two ponds were previously constructed in -line with the UT and have historically been used for irrigation purposes on adjacent agricultural fields. Cross - sectional information that was collected on the ponds reveals that the ponds are over nine (9) feet deep from the top of existing ground. Concrete block structures have been placed at the outlet end of the ponds across the UT to ensure that water is stored within the ponds. The ponds are both approximately 280 feet in length. Florence & Hutcheson page 19 In _ ............. .. ................... . .............. ........... . .............. ... ...I............... CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN A series of large beaver dams are located approximately 1,400 linear feet downstream of the agricultural fields. The backwater areas essentially act as a large pond. The dams have created backwater upslope through wooded sections of the site and portions of the downstream end of the agricultural fields. A large number of mature trees in the floodplain of the UT have died due to saturation. Note: It should be noted that the beaver dams on -site were removed in late September 2009. The landowner contracted with the County to remove the dams, which drained the inundated areas upstream of the ponds. Water quality within the UT appears to be in poor condition as evidenced by algal blooms and thickets of duckweed. Agricultural fields adjacent to the UT, residential communities upstream of the Site and numerous paved roads in the watershed appear to load pollutants into the UT such as nitrogen, phosphorous, oils and other chemicals detrimental to water quality and aquatic habitat. Three main ditches enter the UT within the Site that drain agricultural fields and paved roads. These ditches convey stormwater water runoff into the UT without any filtration. UT to the Lumber River — Wooded Reach The unaltered section of the UT is located immediately downstream of the large beaver dam complex within the wooded section of the Site. The unaltered section of the channel is a stable E type channel with a sand substrate and flows for approximately 935 feet until its convergence with the Lumber River. This Reach displays a sinuous meander geometry, which is typical of streams in this physical setting. It appears that this section of the UT has not been altered in the past. The Wooded Reach is typical of a naturally stable low slope Coastal Plain sand bed system and resembles how the UT may have appeared in the Channelized Reach prior to manipulation. For this reason the Wooded Reach was surveyed and used as a reference reach in the restoration design of the UT's channel. 3.8 Bankfull Verification Bankfull indicators were identified along all studied reaches during field inspections. Existing conditions surveys were conducted which included surveying representative riffle cross - sections, representative hydraulic ( bankfull) slope, and determining an existing Manning's n coefficient for the surveyed reaches. The surveyed data and calculated Manning's n coefficient were correlated with identified bankfull indicators to estimate bankfull cross - sectional area and velocity, and consequently bankfull discharge. The estimated bankfull cross - sectional area and discharge were compared with a calculated bankfull cross - sectional area and discharge using the published regional curve. Table 9. Site Stream Discharges and Areas Florence & Hutcheson page 20 ................ .................. .... ............ .. ................. I............................ CONSULTING ENGINEERS Discharge BKF (cfs) Area BKF (sq ft) Coastal am Site Conditions Coastal am Conditions Curve Site Curve UT Lumber River — Wooded Reach 11.9 1 9.1 10.7 8.0 Florence & Hutcheson page 20 ................ .................. .... ............ .. ................. I............................ CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN Discernable bankfull indicators were not observed in the UT within the Channelized Reach due to channel aggradation and backwater from channel obstructions. Because of this, bankfull discharge could not be accurately estimated from survey data collected on the Channelized Reach. However, the UT morphs back into a natural, stable E type system (Wooded Reach) immediately downstream of the Channelized Reach. Survey data collected on the Wooded Reach was correlated with the regional curve to estimate design discharges for the Channelized Reach through the agricultural fields (data shown in section 3.4 Discharge). Data from the Wooded Reach indicates that on -site conditions likely fall slightly below the regional curve for bankfull discharge and bankfull cross - sectional area. However, data collected from the site conditions does correlate closely with the regional curve. 3.9 Vegetation Lands adjacent to the Lumber River'and lands adjacent to the UT within the Wood Reach can be described as a Cypress — Gum Swamp ( Blckkwater Subtype) (Schafle and Weakley 1990). The existing buffer extends out hundreds of feet in most areas and is dominated by bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black willow (Salix nigra), spice bush (Lindera benzoin), lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), water oak (Quercus nigra), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), American elm (Ulmus Americana), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and red maple (Acer rubrum). Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) is scattered throughout the floodplain, but is only a dominant species in areas that have showed an open canopy. Lands adjacent to the UT are dominated by rotational row cropping. A sparse and sporadic one tree buffer is found along the banks of the UT. The banks of the UT are regularly maintained and display the following vegetation: Chinaberry (Melia azedarach), black cherry (Prunus serotina), red maple, water oak (Quercus nigra), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), hickory (Carya glabra), and black willow (Salix nigra). Underbrush includes Chinese privet, blackberry (Rubus argutus), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantean), sea myrtle (Baccharis halimifolia), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and smilax (Smilax bona -nox). Nuisance and invasive species such as China berry, Chinese privet and blackberry are the dominate species throughout much of the existing buffer. Invasive and nuisance plants are found throughout the UT, particularly along the channel bank in the agricultural fields. Invasive /nuisance species sometimes dominate all vegetation in the sparse one tree buffer along the channel banks. The most dominant invasive /nuisance species are Chinaberry, blackberry, Chinese privet, sea myrtle, and Japanese honeysuckle. Florence & Hutcheson page 21 ............................................................. ............................... CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN 4.0 REFERENCE STREAMS Two reference streams (UT to Lumber River — Wooded Reach and UT to Ironhill Branch) were used to assist in establishing project design parameters. Both channels are located in similar settings (low slope, somewhat broad valley stream systems within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province) as the proposed restored reach of the UT. The UT to Lumber River — Wooded Reach is immediately downstream of the proposed restored reach of the UT within the Site Boundaries. It is believed that the UT to Lumber River — Wooded Reach gives strong credence to restoring the UT to Lumber River — Channelized Reach because it is the same stream channel, only located immediately downstream of anthropogenic adjustments to the channel. The UT to Lumber River — Wooded Reach is a very stable sand bed channel with a wooded floodplain that appears to have been left unaltered historically. The UT to Ironhill Branch displays many of the same characteristics of the UT to Lumber River, specifically sharing an almost identical valley slope. 4.1 UT to Lumber River Wooded Reach 4.1.1 Watershed Characterization UT to Lumber River — Wooded Reach watershed is dominated by agriculture with scattered areas of woodlands and low density residential housing. 4.1.2 Channel Classification The UT to Lumber River — Wooded Reach is classified as an E5 type channel. The E descriptor is designated because the channel displays a width to depth ratio of 11.2 and entrenchment ratio of 10.55 which would indicate that the channel falls squarely within E type channel parameters. The channel's substrate is dominated by sand which is indicated by the 5 descriptor. 4.1.3 Discharge The bankfull discharge for UT to Lumber River — Wooded Reach within the reference reach survey section was determined to be 9.1 cfs. 4.1.4 Channel Morphology Channel cross - sections and stream profiles were measured for each of the three reference reaches. The Morphological Characteristics Table (Table 8) includes a summary of dimension, profile, and pattern data for each reference reach to assist with the establishment of reconstruction parameters. The channels are characterized by a channel substrate dominated by sand -sized particles. 4.1.5 Channel Stability Assessment A visual assessment accompanied by a morphological assessment using data collected during a Rosgen Level II survey was used to determine channel stability. These data, which can be found in Table 8, confirmed that the channel fell within acceptable ranges for a stable reference channel. Fl . orence . . .. . .. & Hutcheson .. . . . . . .. page 22 ............. ......................... ................................ CONSULTING ENGINEEHS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN Major components for stability include determining if the channel is conveying its discharge and sediment load without aggrading or degrading. Evidence that a channel does not fit this criteria includes, bank degradation, channel incision, channel widening, channel aggradation, sediment loading within and/or outside of the channel banks, channel armoring, and generally speaking no vegetation on the channel's banks. The UT to Lumber River — Wooded Reach did not display any of the above evidence of an unstable channel. 4.1.6 Bankfull Verification Onsite data was compared with the regional curve to verify the bankfull discharge. The bankfull discharge on the UT at the point of the survey is estimated to be 9.1 cubic cfs from data collected during an on -site survey. The regional curve estimates the bankfull discharge to be 11.9 cfs. Although the site's estimated discharge of 9.1 cfs falls below the curve it is still within a level of confidence, especially considering the fact that the bankfull state is at the top of bank of the UT. 4.1.7 Vegetation Community Types Lands adjacent to the UT Lumber River — Wooded Reach can be described as a Cypress — Gum Swamp (Blackwater Subtype). The existing buffer extends out hundreds of feet in most areas and is dominated by bald cypress, swamp tupelo, green ash, black willow, spice bush, lizard's tail, water oak, laurel oak, swamp chestnut oak, American elm, sweetgum and red maple. 4.2 UT to Ironhill Branch 4.2.1 Watershed Characterization The UT to Ironhill Branch watershed is dominated by agricultural practices (approximately 65 percent of the watershed) and mature forest (approximately 30 percent of watershed). The remainder of the watershed is comprised of residential housing (approximately 5 percent of the watershed). 4.2.2 Channel Classification The UT to Ironhill Branch is classified as an E5 type channel. The E descriptor is designated because the channel displays a width to depth ratio of 10.8 and entrenchment ratio of 28.21 which would indicate that the channel falls squarely within E type channel parameters. The channel's substrate is dominated by sand which is indicated by the 5 descriptor. 4.2.3 Discharge The bankfull discharge for the UT to Ironhill Branch within the reference reach survey section was determined to be 11.7 cfs. 4.2.4 Channel Morphology Channel cross - sections and stream profiles were measured for each of the three reference reaches. The Morphological Characteristics Table (Table 8) includes a summary of dimension, profile, and pattern data for each reference reach to assist with the establishment of Florence & Hutcheson page 23 ............................................................... ............................... CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN reconstruction parameters. The channels are characterized by a channel substrate dominated by sand -sized particles. 4.2.5 Channel Stability Assessment A visual assessment accompanied by a morphological assessment using data collected during a Rosgen Level II survey was used to determine channel stability. These data, which can be found in Table 8, confirmed that the channel fell within acceptable ranges for a stable reference channel. Major components for stability include determining if the channel is conveying its discharge and sediment load without aggrading or degrading. Evidence that a channel does not fit this criteria includes, bank degradation, channel incision, channel widening, channel aggradation, sediment loading within and/or outside of the channel banks, channel armoring, and generally speaking no vegetation on the channel's banks. The UT to Ironhill Branch did not display any of the above evidence of an unstable channel. 4.2.6 Bankfull Verification Onsite data was compared with the regional curve to verify the bankfull discharge. The bankfull discharge on UT to Ironhill Branch at the point of the survey is estimated to be 11.7 cubic feet per second from data collected during an on -site survey. The regional curve estimates the bankfull discharge to be 23 cubic feet per second, which is considerably higher than the estimated discharge within the studied reach. However, the bankfull stage is very close to top of bank which gives credence to 11.7 cubic feet per seconds as the accurate bankfull discharge. 4.2.7 Vegetation Community Types The UT to Ironhill Branch is surrounded by a mature (50 years or older) vegetated floodplain. The vegetated floodplain extends a minimum of 100 feet from both the left and right banks throughout the study area. Dominant vegetation within the floodplain includes giant cane (Arundinaria gigantean), red maple, sweet gum, red bay (Persea borbonia), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), Chinese privet, yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), greenbrier, Amerian holly (Ilex opaca), and doghobble (Leucothoe fontanesiana). ENFlorence & Hutcheson page 24 _. .......................... ............................... I...... _.....I..................... CONSULTINC ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN 5.0 SITE WETLANDS 5.1 Existing Jurisdictional Wetlands Jurisdictional wetlands within the Site were delineated in the field following guidelines set forth in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and located using GPS technology with reported submeter accuracy on September 14, 2009 (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Wetlands and open waters are depicted on Sheets IA and 113. Wetlands are defined by the presence of three criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of wetland hydrology during the growing season (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Open water systems and wetlands receive similar treatment and consideration with respect to Section 404 review. Four wetlands are present within the Site area surrounding construction. Routine Wetland Determination data forms are included in Appendix 2. Additionally, many acres of wetlands are located along preservation reaches of the UT (mainly in the Wooded Reach) and the Lumber River. These wetlands are outside of the potential limits of disturbance and are not part of the scope of this project to survey. 5.2 Hydrological Characterization The four wetlands surrounding construction activities are all adjacent to the existing channel of the UT. These wetlands are continually disturbed through agricultural practices. Hydrology is primarily fed by runoff from adjacent agricultural fields that does not reach the UT. The adjacent UT has been channelized and deepened to drain adjacent lands (what would have been wetlands), so it is suspected that groundwater elevations in these wetlands has been substantially lowered due to the deepening of the UT. It is not anticipated that restoration activities within the UT will effect hydrology within the existing wetlands because the proposed invert of the UT will be raised slightly through the landscape, higher than the existing invert elevation of the UT. Additionally, the proposed restoration activities will not fill or modify topography surrounding the existing wetlands, therefore water storage from overland flow will not decreased within the wetlands. 5.3 Soil Characterization On the ground investigations of the soils were conducted on September 14, 2009 by Ryan Smith of Florence & Hutcheson. Most soils within the Site boundaries adjacent to the UT in agricultural fields appeared to resemble soil units described in the Soil Survey of Robeson County (USDA 1978). 5.3.1 Taxonomic Classification The two soil units identified in the Soil Survey of Robeson County are adjacent to the UT in agricultural fields where the delineated wetlands are located are: Rains: fine- loamy, siliceous, thermic; Typic Paleaquults (Ultisols) Bibb: Coarse - loamy, siliceous, acid, thermic; Typic Fluvaquents (Entisols) Flo . rence . . .. .. ... & Hutcheson . . . . . ....... Page 25 ........................................... .................... . CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN 5.3.2 Profile Description A typical soil profile for Rains soils within the Site (at edge of UT and agricultural fields): • 0 -8 inches: 10YR 3/1 sandy clay loam with oxidized rhizospheres • 8 -16 inches: 10 YR 2/1 sandy loam with oxidized rhizospheres o Mottles few /distinct A typical soil profile for Bibb soils within the Site (at edge of UT and agricultural fields): • 0 -12 inches: IOYR 2/1 sandy loam with oxidized rhizospheres • 12 -16 inches: 10 YR 3/1 sandy with oxidized rhizospheres 5.4 Plant Community Characterization Existing vegetation within the wetlands delineated adjacent to the UT within agricultural fields is dominated by common rush (Juncus effuses), bullrush (Scirpus sp.), black willow, and knotweed (Polygonum sp.). Florence & Hutcheson Page ge 26 CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN 6.0 REFERENCE FOREST ECOSYSTEM A Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) is a forested area on which to model restoration efforts at the Site in relation to soils and vegetation. RFEs should be ecologically stable climax communities and should be a representative model of the Site forested ecosystem as it likely existed prior to human disturbances. Data describing plant community composition and structure should be collected at the RFEs and subsequently applied as reference data in an attempt to emulate a natural climax community. The RFE for this project is located throughout preservation areas within the Site. The RFE supports plant community and landform characteristics that restoration efforts will attempt to emulate. Tree and shrub species identified within the reference forest and outlined in Table 14 will be used, in addition to other relevant species in appropriate Schafale and Weakley (1990) community descriptions. Table 10. Reference Forest Ecosystem Cypress-Gum Swam Canopy Species Understory Species Red maple Acer rubrum Red bay Persea alustris Swamp tupelo N ssa bi ora Sweet bay (Magnolia vir iniana Tulip poplar Liriodendron tuli i era) American elm (Ulmus americana) Swamp chestnut oak uercus michauxii American holly Ilex o aca Green ash (Fraxinus enns lvanica ) Black willow (Salix ni ra Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Sweet um Li uidambar st raci ua Laurel oak ( uercus lauri olia ) Horse sugar (S m locus tinctoria) Willow oak uercus hellos Water oak uercus ni ra Bald cypress Taxodium distichum Water hickory (Ca rya a uatica. Florence & Hutcheson page 27 ............................................................... ............................... CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN 7.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN 7.1 Stream Design Sheets 2A through 2C and Sheet 3A and 3B depict the proposed mitigation actions. UT to Lumber River — Restoration Restoring a stable, more natural pattern, profile, dimension and forested riparian buffer on the UT is proposed from the upstream beginning point of the Site to a point approximately 190 feet downstream of the existing crossing. The proposed action will produce 4,285 feet of restored stream footage and 12.8 acres of restored riparian buffer through existing agricultural fields. The channel will be restored as a Priority II type restoration where a bankfull bench will be excavated at the bankfull discharge elevation. All efforts were expended to raise the channel invert through the valley to bring the bankfull discharge up to existing ground. However, the beginning elevation of the UT at the upstream beginning point of the Site is controlled by a culvert under Hazel Road immediately upstream of the Site. The culvert is set so low in the landscape that the proposed channel cannot be raised enough to allow bankfull flows onto the historic floodplain. The designed channel's location has been placed in the low point of the valley throughout the Site. On -site topographical data in conjunction with infrared photography indicates that the existing channel had been modified and moved mostly towards the left side of the valley. Consequently, the majority of the proposed channel has been placed off of the left (western) bank of the existing channel. Restoring a more natural dimension, pattern and profile will create ripple and pool variability and promote inputs such as sediments, detritus and other debris to be flushed through the system without settling out and aggrading the channel as seen in its current state. Additionally, this will allow for the channel to naturally revert back to a sand bed system, such as seen in the downstream, unaltered sections of the UT. A stable sand bed system will promote native benthic and other aquatic species to recolonize the UT and increase its ecological worth. Mature trees along the existing channel will remain in -place where possible to allow for channel shading, terrestrial habitat, and a natural seed source. Invasives /exotics such as Chinaberry will be eradicated from the Site. Trees that are to be removed will be placed into the design channel as rootwads, log sills and cover logs. Rootwads, log sills and cover logs will serve to enhance aquatic habitat by introducing woody materials to the channel for foraging while also providing shading for cover and propagation, water temperature regulation, and pool scour for invert variability. The existing channel crossing (24 inch pipe) will be replaced with a new crossing that adequately conveys channel flows. The existing conditions HEC -RAS model indicates that the existing pipe ]A Florence & Hutcheson page 28 ................................................................ ............................... CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN in the crossing backs water up for almost 600 feet upstream, indicating that it is not adequately conveying the bankfull flow. The proposed design replaces the existing 24 inch pipe with a 48 inch pipe and two 24 inch pipes in the floodplain. This will ensure that the bankfull discharge is conveyed through the crossing and larger than bankfull events are conveyed through the floodplain by the floodplain culverts. A riparian buffer will be planted along both banks of the UT through the proposed easement area in the restored reach of channel. Currently agricultural fields abut the channel and there is little to no riparian buffer. The proposed easement maintains a distance of a minimum of 50 feet from the proposed channel's top of bank. On average however the easement spans almost 85 feet from the proposed channel's top of bank for an average total easement width of approximately 177 feet. This planted riparian buffer will establish a wildlife corridor through a currently dissected landscape. The buffer will allow cover and foraging habitat for terrestrial biota and fauna and safe passage to the mature floodplain of the Lumber River. The buffer will also act as a filter strip to remove nutrients flowing from adjacent agricultural fields. UT to Lumber River — Enhancement II The UT flows through agricultural fields for an additional 463 feet downstream of the end of the restoration reach. The proposed action for this section of the UT is to plant a riparian buffer with native vegetation off both the left and right banks. This buffer will remove approximately 1.8 acres of existing agricultural fields and reestablish a native vegetated buffer. The buffer will expand out to the limits of the proposed conservation easement, and will remove this acreage from agricultural production. This portion of the UT is surrounded by wetlands off of the right bank. Vegetation within the wetland is dominated by bull rush, common sedge, knotweed and some black willow, however there are no hardwood trees or other mast producing vegetation. The left bank has virtually no vegetated buffer because row crops approach the channel bank. As described above, a native riparian buffer will filter nutrients from adjacent agricultural fields and provide a wildlife corridor that will connect to the Lumber River floodplain. UT to Lumber River and the Lumber River— Preservation Portions of the UT within the Wooded Reach and the entire Lumber River within the Site will be preserved. These portions of the Site are stable stream systems that do not show much if any channel degradation or aggradation. Additionally, for the most part, these portions of the Site currently display mature vegetated riparian buffers off of each bank. 7.1 Restoration Site Goals and Objectives The primary goals of this stream restoration project focus on improving water quality, providing /enhancing flood attenuation, restoring aquatic and riparian habitat, restoring and enhancing habitat connectivity with adjacent pristine habitats, assisting the EEP with meeting its stated goals of improving water quality and habitat documented in the Lumber River /Bear Swamp Watershed Management Plan for the Targeted 03040203030010 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit, assisting the State of North Carolina's initiatives along the Lumber River for conservation. These goals will be accomplished through the following objectives: Florence & Hutcheson Page 29 ................................................. ............................... CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN I Restore the existing UT to a more natural, sand bed channel able to transport its sediment /organic debris and flow without aggrading or degrading; 2 Enhancing the capacity of the Site to mitigate flood flows by excavating a floodplain and connecting flood flows to existing ponds on -site (that will be retrofitted as stormwater wetlands) that will add water storage within the Site limits; 3 Enhancing in stream habitat by creating an undulating bedform (shallows /deeps) using meander geometry to maintain deeps, and by placing woody structures in the channel that provide shading, natural food sources, and protective areas for propagation; 4 Reducing sedimentation and nutrient inputs through the reestablishment of a native riparian buffer that will average 95 feet from the top bank of bank of the UT. Additionally, the reestablishment of the buffer will remove approximately 15.0 acres of currently active agricultural production that is adjacent to the existing UT. 5 Reduce sedimentation and nutrient inputs by transforming existing ponds within the valley of the UT to stormwater wetlands that will collect flow from the UT and drainage ditches, which will filter many of the contributing pollutants; 6 Reduce nutrient inputs by creating three stormwater retention areas (BMPs) along three contributing drainage ditches entering the Site. These retention areas will be placed specifically for sediment and nutrient reduction. 7 It is fully anticipated that excavated floodplain areas within the site will quickly revert to wetlands due to a shallow groundwater table and existing hydric soils. The proposed planting plan is comprised of hydrophytic vegetation and it is anticipated that volunteer species from the floodplain of the Lumber River may also populate the Site. These wetlands are expected to enhance the Site's function to retain and absorb nutrients while also providing a diversity of aquatic, semi - aquatic and upland habitats. 8 Enhancing the entire ecosystem by reestablishing a large habitat corridor between the agricultural fields on -site and the well developed Lumber River floodplain. The restored corridor will replace the existing agricultural fields with native species that are similar to the Reference Forest Ecosystem (studied on -site) which is comparable to a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp — Blackwater Subtype (Schafale and Weakley 1990); 9 Preserve and protect 4,123 linear feet and associated floodplain (29.1 acres) along both sides of the Lumber River from future development and logging by placing a conservation easement that averages nearly 340 feet in width. An additional 3,489 feet of the Lumber River and its associated floodplain (6.7 acres) will be included with the easement on the left (eastern) bank (this portion of the Lumber River and floodplain cannot be used for mitigation credits because the landowners on the southern side of this reach were not interested in participating); 10 reserving large portions of the Lumber River and its associated floodplain will assist the State in its stated efforts through the Lumber River State Park and its associated designation of the Lumber River as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River to Flor . ence . .. . &Hutcheson . . . . . . . page 30 ....................................................................... CONS ULTINc. ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN protect the River and adjoining lands. Preserve and protect both sides of the UT by placing a conservation easement that exceeds required standards (will average approximately 75 feet from the top of each bank); Restoring site streams will result in zero (0) acres of impacts to existing wetlands. 7.2.1 Designed Channel Classification The UT was designed using Natural Channel Design principals. The Morphological Characteristics Tables detail channel classification and variables used to classify the design channels. UT Lumber River The UT is designed as E5 type stream channel with width -to -depth ratios of 10.5. The channel type is consistent with the reference stream's channel type. One reference stream was the UT to Ironhill Branch and the other reference was the downstream, stable portion of the UT to Lumber River. 7.2.2 Target Wetland Communities /Buffer Communities There are two target buffer communities (Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp and Streamside Assemblage). These communities are consistent with reference communities that were found within the site boundaries. 7.3 Sediment Transport Analysis One of the primary goals of this project is to construct a stable channel on UT that will transport its sediment and flow such that, over time, the stream system neither aggrades nor degrades. This stability is achieved when the sediment input to the design reach equals the sediment output. One of the primary functions of determining the capacity of the channel to transport its sediment load is stream power. Below is a discussion of both sediment concentration and stream power and their relation to stability in the design. Sediment Concentration The Engelund- Hansen function was used to analyze sediment transport capacity through the designed channels on -site. The basic principal of the Engelund- Hansen function is to determine if sediment input to the design stream equals the sediment output from the design stream. If sediment input equals or is adequately close to sediment output then the channel is considered a stable channel in equilibrium. Below is the Enguland- Hansen function: Florence & Hutcheson page 31 . . .............. ................. I ... ............ ........... ............... CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN g = 0.535 Dv2 S3/2 V Q / d where; g = sediment discharge (lbs /s) D = water depth (ft) S = channel slope (ft /ft) V = average velocity (ft /s) Q = discharge (cubic ft /s) d = median particle diameter of stream bed material (ft) Stable reference reaches, on on -site and one at an off -site location had to be used for sediment input calculations since the existing stream reach on the UT is unstable. The reference reaches used (UT to Lumber River - Wooded Reach and the UT to Ironhill Branch) each had the same stream type and a similar valley and bankfull slope as the restored reaches of the UT, which allow for accurate comparisons. A stable reference reach can be used because the sediment input is in balance with sediment output over geologic time. In most cases, the bankfull discharge of a reference reach is different from that of the design reach so, instead of using sediment discharge (lbs /s) for the comparison, sediment concentration (lbs /ft3.) is used in the analysis because the function of discharge is set equal per cubic foot (ft) . Below is the equation for sediment concentration: SC = g/Q where; SC = sediment concentration (lbs /ft) g = sediment discharge (lbs /s) Q = discharge (ft3 /s) The sediment concentration input and output for UT to Lumber River — Wooded Reach is in equilibrium (because it is a stable reach) and is calculated to be 0.08 lbs /ft3. Similarly, the sediment concentration input and output for UT to Ironhill Branch is in equilibrium (because it is a stable reach) and is calculated to be 0.061bs /ft3. The sediment output for the proposed designs of the UT Channelized Reach — Upstream and the UT Channelized Reach — Downstream are both 0.03 lbs /ft3. The design sediment concentration is very similar to those of the stable reference reach, therefore the design channel is considered stable and in equilibrium. Florence & Hutcheson page 32 ............................................................ ............................... CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN 7.3.1 Methodology See section 7.3 Sediment Transport Analysis for a discussion of methodologies. 7.3.2 Calculations and Discussion See section 7.3 Sediment Transport Analysis for a summary of calculations and a discussion of results. 7.4 HEC -RAS Analysis Given that the project involves modifications to a stream channel, it is important to analyze the effect of these changes on flood elevations. Floodwater elevations were analyzed using HEC - RAS. HEC -RAS is a software package designed to perform one - dimensional, steady flow, analysis of water surface profiles for a network of natural and constructed channels. HEC -RAS uses two equations, energy and/or momentum, depending upon the water surface profile. The model is based on the energy equation. The energy losses are evaluated by friction (Manning's equation) and contraction/expansion (coefficient multiplied by the change in velocity head). The momentum equation is used in situations where the water surface profile rapidly varies, such as hydraulic jumps and stream junctions. Backwater analysis was performed for the existing and proposed conditions for both bankfull and 100 -year discharges. In addition to steady flow data, geometric data is also required to run HEC -RAS. Geometric data consists of establishing the connectivity of the river system, which includes cross - section data, reach lengths, energy loss coefficients (friction losses, contraction, and expansion losses), and stream junction information. 7.4.1 Bankfull Discharge Analysis Hydrologic Engineering Center's River Analysis System (HEC -RAS Version 3.1.3, see Section 7.4) was used to evaluate how the discharge of the restored channel flows within the proposed channel geometry. This evaluation verifies that the proposed plan, dimension, and profile would adequately convey the discharge at the bankfull stage; the point where water begins to overflow onto the floodplain. Bankfull discharge estimates were determined using on -site conditions and using the regional curve. This is discussed further in Section 3.8. 7.4.2 No -Rise A HEC -RAS analysis has been prepared and completed on existing and proposed conditions of the project channel(s). The resulting data output has been analyzed to determine if the design channel is adequately conveying its bankfull discharge, and to determine if a rise, fall, or no -rise in water surface elevations during the 100 -year flood event has occurred. Florence & Hutcheson page 33 It - ................................................... ............................... CONSULTING ENGINL S Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN The analysis indicates the proposed channel geometry will not increase the 100 -year flood elevations upstream of the project area. Results are located within the HEC-RAS Summary Table in Appendix 6. 7.4.3 Hydrologic Trespass Hydrologic trespass includes any issue which may affect hydrology outside of the property boundaries on which the Site is located. These issues were reviewed for this project. All on -site modifications should not affect offsite hydrology. 7.5 Stormwater Best Management Practices One of the primary long term goals of this project is to enhance water quality within the UT and within the overall Lumber River water body. To accomplish this goal, groundwater and stormwater must be treated prior to entering the Lumber River. Three ditches and two ponds on- site will be utilized for BMP's to filter pollutants and sediments prior to entering the Lumber River. Three ditches enter the UT, each draining agricultural fields, low residential housing developments, and impervious state roads located off -site. A stormwater detention BMP will be constructed on each ditch within the Site boundaries. The BMP's will have littoral shelves that will serve as shallow vegetated zones then transition to deeper holding areas in the center of the BMP. These BMP's are expected to function as a detention area that will attenuate flows, settle sediments, and remove pollutants such as nutrients, oils, trash, and other chemicals imported from off -site disturbances. The two exiting ponds that are currently in -line with the UT will remain in their current location, while the UT will be routed around the ponds. However, the proposed plan is to create an inlet channel from the UT to each pond that will carry stormwater flows that are less than the bankfull discharge. An outlet channel will be installed at the downstream end of the pond to allow floodwaters back into the UT after it has been routed through the ponds. The ponds themselves will serve as stormwater wetland BMPs and should encourage the reduction of incoming pollutants from stormwater runoff. The goal is to maintain tree cover around the ponds while creating a shallow shelf around the pond and planting wetland species that may serve to uptake pollutants. The ponds will not only serve as a place of flood flow attenuation but may also act as a habitat enhancement area which will allow refuge for terrestrial species while also providing aquatic and sei- aquatic habitat to various fauna and flora. 7.6 Hydrological Modifications (Wetland Restoration and Enhancement) Wetland restoration and enhancement are not requirements of the proposed Site's work plan and therefore are not detailed herein. 7.7 Soil Restoration Soils will be amended after excavation activities and during the seeding /planting portions of the project to ensure proper soil stability and nutrient availability for proposed plants and seed. Florence & Hutcheson page 34 .............................................................. ............................... CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN 7.7.1 Topsoil Stockpiling Soil grading will occur during stream restoration activities. Topsoils may be stockpiled during construction activities and will be spread on the soil surface once critical subgrade has been established. The replaced topsoil will serve as a viable growing medium for community restoration, and will provide nutrients and aid in the survival of planted species. 7.7.2 Floodplain Soil Scarification Microtopography and differential drainage rates within localized floodplain areas represent important components of floodplain functions. Reference forests in the region exhibit complex surface microtopography. Efforts to advance the development of characteristic surface microtopography will be implemented; in areas where soil surfaces have been compacted, ripping or scarification will be performed. After construction, the soil surface is expected to exhibit complex microtopography, with up to one foot in vertical asymmetry. Subsequently, plant community restoration will be initiated. 7.8 Natural Plant Community Restoration Restoration of floodplain forest and stream -side habitat allows for development and expansion of characteristic species across the landscape. Ecotonal changes between community types contribute to diversity and provide secondary benefits, such as enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for mammals, birds, amphibians, and other wildlife. Reference Forest Ecosystem (RFE) data, onsite observations, and community descriptions from Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990) were used to develop the primary plant community associations that will be promoted during community restoration activities. Stream -side trees and shrubs include species with high value for sediment stabilization, rapid growth rate, and the ability to withstand hydraulic forces associated with bankfull flow and overbank flood events. Stream -side trees and shrubs will be planted along the channel side slopes throughout restored and enhanced areas (Stream -side Assemblage). Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp is the goal for the remainder of the Site (Sheet4). The following planting plan is the blueprint for community restoration. 7.8.1 Planting Plan The purpose of a planting plan is to reestablish vegetative community patterns across the landscape. The plan consists of 1) acquisition of available plant species, 2) implementation of proposed Site preparation, and 3) planting of selected species. Species selected for planting will be dependent upon availability of local seedling sources. Bare - root seedlings of tree species will be planted within specified map areas at a density of approximately 680 stems per acre on 8 -foot centers. Shrub species in the stream -side assemblage will be planted at a density of 2,720 stems per acre on 4 -foot centers. Table 11 Florence & Hutcheson page 35 . . ......... . ................ ........... .. ............. .......I............................... CoNSULTINc. ENGINLERS I- I Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN depicts the total number of stems and species distribution within each vegetation association. Planting is expected to be performed between December 1 and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during the dormant period and set root during the spring season. Approximately 10,209 bare -root seedlings and 2,015 live stakes will be planted during restoration. Table 11. Planting Plan Coastal Plan Small Steam Snaonp Ames to be Planted 15.00 Species Common Name Max Spacing Ft Unit Type* Size** Stratum Indiv. Spacing % of Total # of Stems Ibs per Aare Total Ibs Taxodium dstichum Bald Cypress 8 R 2 -3' Canopy 8 10 1021 ssa bylora Swarnp Tupelo 8 R 2 -3' Subcanopy 8 15 1531 Fra%imapewLsWvwuca Green Ash 8 R 2 -3' Shrub 8 10 1021 Ulmus americans American Elm 8 R 2 -3' Canoov 8 10 1021 uercus ALcm a Swarrip Chestnut Oak 8 1 R 2-31 Shrub 8 10 1021 uercus n' ra Water Oak 8 R 2 -3' Shrub 8 10 1021 ercus phellos Willow Oak 8 R 2 -3' Canopy 8 15 1531 Quercus laurifolia Laurel Oak 8 R 2-3- Shrub 8 10 1021 Quercus lyres vercup 8 1 R 2 -3' Canopy 8 1021 Total 10209 Permanent ores Carex vul inoidea Fox sedge S Herb 15 30 15 And, on rani Big bluestem S Herb 20 30 20 Elymus vir aum Virginia wildrye S Herb 15 30 15 Pamcum vi edam Switch grass S Herb 20 30 20 JUWus effiisus Soft rush S Herb 20 30 20 Dich mthehum clandestinum Deetrongue S Herb 10 30 10 Total 100 100 SlreamsldeAssemblage Ames to be Planted 0.74 Species Common Name Max Spacing (Ft ) Unit Type* Size** Stratum Indiv. Spacing (Ft ) % of Total # of stems Ibs per Aare Total lbs Cormcsamomum Silky dogwood 4 L 2' Subcanopy 4 33 665 Smnbucuscanadensis Elderberry 4 L 2' Shrub 4 33 665 Sala nigra Black willo 4 L 2' Subcanopy 4 34 685 Total 100 2015 Permanent Seeding Ames 0.74 Carex vul uwulea Fox sedge S Herb 15 30 3 Andy on geradi Big bluestem S Herb 15 30 3 Elymusv aian Virginia wil e S Herb 15 30 3 Pmucum vir sum Switch ass S Herb 15 30 3 Juncos a us Soft rush S Herb 20 30 4 Dichmilielium clandestinum Deetron e S Herb 20 30 4 Total 100 20 • Unit Type choices inlcude Transplant (T), Lives stake (L), Ball and Burlap (B), Pot (P), Tubling (T), Bare Root (R), Mechanically Planted (M), and Seed (S) ** Size units may vary, but must be stated 7.8.2 Nuisance Species Management Beavers, nonnative floral species, and other potential nuisance species will be monitored over the course of the five -year monitoring period. Noxious species will be identified and controlled so that none become dominant or alter the desired community structure of the Site. If noxious plants are identified as a problem within the Site, a species - specific control plan will be completed for approval by EEP prior to implementation. All nuisance /invasives will be eradicated during construction activities through the restoration and enhancement reaches. However, it is anticipated that some of these species will recolonize Florence & Hutcheson Page 36 IN ................................................................ ............................... . CONSUI.TING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN some sections of the Site which will require management. Through coordination with EEP during the five -year monitoring period F &H, where necessary, will remove, treat, or otherwise manage undesirable plant or animal species, including physical removal, use of herbicides, live trapping, confining wires, or nets. Florence & Hutcheson page 37 It . _ ................................................................ ............................... CONSULTING ENGINEL'RS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN 8.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA Monitoring of restoration efforts will be performed until success criteria are fulfilled. Monitoring is proposed for the stream channel, wetland hydrology, and vegetation. In general, the restoration success criteria, and required remediation actions, are based on the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE et al. 2003). 8.1 Streams The restored stream reaches are proposed to be monitored for geometric activity. Annual fall monitoring will include development of channel cross - sections on riffles and pools and a water surface profile of the channel. The data will be presented in graphic and tabular format. Data to be presented will include 1) cross - sectional area, 2) bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4) maximum depth, 5) width -to -depth ratio, 6) meander wavelength, 7) belt - width, 8) water surface slope, and 9) sinuosity. The stream will subsequently be classified according to stream geometry and substrate (Rosgen 1996). Significant changes in channel morphology will be tracked and reported by comparing data in each successive monitoring year. A photographic record that will include preconstruction and postconstruction pictures has been initiated with current Site photographs (Appendix 1). 8.1.1 Stream Success Criteria Success criteria for stream restoration will include 1) successful classification of the reach as a functioning stream system (Rosgen 1996) and 2) channel variables indicative of a stable stream system. A longitudinal profile will be completed on 3,000 linear feet along the restored section of the UT to Lumber River to collect invert, surface water and bankfull elevation data. Additionally, because the restored portion of the UT to Lumber River is narrow (8.8 feet wide) permanent cross - sections will be spaced approximately every 30 bankfull widths for a total of 17 cross - sections (approximately half riffles and half pools). Permanent photo stations will be established at each permanent cross - section. These data will be utilized to determine the success in restoring stream channel stability. Specifically, the width -to -depth ratio and bank- height ratios should be indicative of a stable or moderately unstable channel with minimal changes in cross - sectional area, channel width, and/or bank erosion along the monitoring reach. In addition, channel abandonment and/or shoot cutoffs must not occur and sinuosity values must remain relatively constant. Visual assessment of in- stream structures will be conducted to determine if failure has occurred. Failure of a structure may be indicated by collapse of the structure, undermining of the structure, abandonment of the channel around the structure, and/or stream flow beneath the structure. 8.1.2 Stream Dimension General maintenance of a stable cross - section and hydrologic access to the floodplain features over the course of the monitoring period will generally represent success in dimensional stability. Some changes in dimension (such as lowering of bankfull width) should be expected. Key Florence & Hutcheson page 38 ........................................................... ............................... CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN parameters such as cross - sectional area and the channel's width to depth ratio should ; demonstrate modes overall change. Riffle sections should generally maintain a Bank Height ration approaching 1.0, with some variation in this ration naturally occurring. Pool sections naturally adjust based on recent flows and time between flows, therefore more leeway on pool section geometry is expected. 8.1.3 Stream Pattern and Profile The profile should not demonstrate significant trends towards degradation or aggradation over a significant portion of a reach. Additionally, bed form variables should remain noticeably intact and consistent with original design parameters that were based off of reference conditions. Pattern features should show little adjustment over the standard 5 year monitoring period. 8.1.4 Substrate Sampling of the substrate distribution will not be completed because the restored section of the UT to Lumber River is composed of a sand/silt substrate. Coarsening of the substrate is not i anticipated. 8.1.5 Sediment Transport There should be an absence of any significant trend in the aggradational or depositional potential of the channel. 8.1.6 Hydraulics A minimum of two bankfull events must be documented within the standard 5 year monitoring period. The two bankfull events shall occur within separate years. 8.1.7 Stream Contingency In the event that stream success criteria are not fulfilled, a mechanism for contingency will be implemented. Stream contingency may include, but may not be limited to 1) structure repair and/or installation; 2) repair of dimension, pattern, and/or profile variables; and 3) bank stabilization. The method of contingency is expected to be dependent upon stream variables that are not in compliance with success criteria. Primary concerns, which may jeopardize stream success include 1) structure failure, 2) headcut migration through the Site, and/or 3) bank erosion. Structure Failure In the event that structures are compromised the affected structure will be repaired, maintained, or replaced. Once the structure is repaired or replaced, it must function to stabilize adjacent stream banks and/or maintain grade control within the channel. Structures which remain intact, but exhibit flow around, beneath, or through the header /footer will be repaired by excavating a trench on the upstream side of the structure and reinstalling filter fabric in front of the pilings. Structures which have been compromised, resulting in shifting or collapse of header /footer, will be removed and replaced with a structure suitable for Site flows. 9 Florence & Hutcheson page 39 . . ............................................. ............................... CoNSULTMc, ENGINEERS l Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN Headcut Migration Through the Site In the event that a headcut occurs within the Site (identified visually or through measurements [i.e. bank- height ratios exceeding 1.4]), provisions for impeding headcut migration and repairing damage caused by the headcut will be implemented. Headcut migration may be impeded through the installation of in- stream grade control structures (boulder sill, rip -rap sill, rock cross vane, and/or log cross -vane weir) and/or restoring stream geometry variables until channel stability is achieved. Channel repairs to stream geometry may include channel backfill with coarse material and stabilizing the material with erosion control matting, vegetative transplants, and/or willow stakes. Rank Frncinn In the event that severe bank erosion occurs within the Site, resulting in elevated width -to -depth ratios, contingency measures to reduce bank erosion and width -to -depth ratio will be implemented. Bank erosion contingency measures may include the installation of log -vane weirs and/or other bank stabilization measures. If the resultant bank erosion induces shoot cutoffs or channel abandonment, a channel may be excavated which will reduce shear stress to stable values. 8.2 Vegetation Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation will monitor plant survival and species diversity. After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will be performed to verify planting methods and to determine initial species composition and density. Supplemental planting and additional modifications will be implemented, if necessary. A photographic record of plant growth should be included in each annual monitoring report. During the first year, vegetation will receive a cursory, visual evaluation on a periodic basis to ascertain the degree of overtopping of planted elements by nuisance species. Subsequently, quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed as outlined in the CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 (Lee et al. 2006) in September of the first monitoring year and annually between June 1 and September 30 for the remainder of the monitoring period until vegetation success criteria are achieved. During quantitative vegetation sampling in early fall of the first year, sample plots (10 meters by 10 meters) will be randomly placed within the restored buffer on -site; however, best professional judgment may be necessary to establish vegetative monitoring plots upon completion of construction activities. The amount of vegetation plots to be determined will be calculated using the CVS protocol based on the final acreage of vegetation plantings. In each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored include species composition and species density. 8.2.1 Vegetation Success Criteria Success criteria have been established to verify that the vegetation component supports community elements necessary for forest development. Success criteria are dependent upon the Florence & Hutcheson Page 40 ................................................................. ............................... CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN density and growth of characteristic forest species. An average density of 320 stems per acre of planted stems must be surviving in the first three monitoring years. Subsequently, 290 planted stems per acre must be surviving in year 4 and 260 planted stems per acre in year 5. 8.2.2 Vegetation Contingency If vegetation success criteria are not achieved based on average density calculations from combined plots over the entire restoration area, supplemental planting may be performed with tree species approved by regulatory agencies. Supplemental planting will be performed as needed until achievement of vegetation success criteria. 8.3 Scheduling and Reporting The first year monitoring report will be submitted at the end of December after Site implementation. Monitoring will continue for five years or until agreed upon success criteria are achieved, with a report submitted by the end of December for each monitoring year. Florence & Hutcheson page 41 _ .................... ...... _ ........ .... ..................... .......I........... . CONSULTING ENGIN'E'ERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN 9.0 REFERENCES Doll, B.A., A.D. Dobbins, J. Spooner, D.R. Clinton, and D.A. Bidelspach. 2006. Hydraulic Geometery Relationships for Rural North Carolina Coastal Plain Streams. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y -87 -1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Griffith, G.E. 2002. Ecoregions of North and South Carolina. Reston Virginia. U.S. Geological Society (map scale 1:1,500,000). North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2003. 2003 Lumber River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (online). Available: http: / /h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide /lumber river basinwide plan sept2003.htm [September 21, 20091 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. North Carolina Ecosystem System Enhancement Program (EEP). 2006. Lumber River Technical Watershed Assessment Watershed Management Plan (Lumber River Watershed Hydrologic Unit 03040203030010, Bear Swamp Watershed Hydrologic Unit 03040203050010, Robeson County, North Carolina.) (online). Available http: / /www.nceep.net /services /lwps /Bear Swamp /Lumber River Watershed Management Pla n.pdf (September 2009). North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2008. Draft North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2008 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). Public Review (online). Available: http : / /h2o.enr.state.nc.us /tmdI/ documents/ Draft2008303dList- ForWebsite.pdf [September 2009]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, �+ North Carolina. Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1183 pp. Rosgen D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado. Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Florence & Hutcheson page 42 ..................................................... ............................... CONSULTING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN Parks and Recreation, North Ccarolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina. ' United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. State of North Carolina. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District, Regulator Division and North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2007. DRAFT Information Regarding Stream Restoration with Emphasis on the Coastal Plain, Version 2. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (online). Available: http: / /www.usace.army.mil /cecw /pages /reef supp.aspx (September 2009). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1978. Soil Survey of Robeson County, North Carolina. United State Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Unit Map - 1974. State of North Carolina. United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1982. Pembroke . Pembroke Quadrangle, North Carolina — Robeson County, 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic). United States Geological Survey. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Threatened and Endangered Species of North Carolina (online). Available: http://nc-es.fws.jzov/es/countyfr.html Weakley, Alan S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas (online). Available: http: / /www. herbarium .unc.edu /WeakleysFIora.pdf [February 1, 2008]. University of North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Florence & Hutcheson page 43 It . . ........ .... ............ ........-........................................... CONSUL'T'ING ENGINEERS Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN FIGURES Florence & Hutcheson Figures CONSULTING ENGINEERS Robeson County North Carolina PROPOSED 0 2000 4000 I SITE FEET _ 1566 1584 1516 1515 1561 1540 1351 � 160 \ ( 1566 1669 1569 72 o / 1563 - 167 1568 � 1570 134 557 / a PEMB KE /i15- 56 1 1564 1571 � 1339 -) 555 / j' 1569 1 J �� 1 1 03 :�- .r'�•�,� -- -, ,r.� -i � � //1583 � � J / LU06ER L615// 1607 1567 - / 1553 1003 15 *9 9 /1616 1553 / 1339 % 1678/ /k.% 1666 1003 711 1158 � ` -' 1676 J I PkOPOSED 1339 /SITE 1157 1552 1197 1003 i� 1551 SWMVLLC Vicinity Map UT to the Lumber River responsible natural resource management Stream Restoration Plan Robeson County, North Carolina Florence & Hutcheson, Inc. /� 1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS Date' X09 Figure: 1 9 5111 KINGDOM WAY, SUITE 100 RALEIGH, N.C. 27607 g (919) 851 -6066 •ice _ iti l i� r� e 11 r 1 l � •t• • / � \•• ,_� ` ty�* • •MSS • �� .f– a• !r/ dj�c7 - . , --� y a. • � v i / 4 — A Q• - • 1'r pis • �� dz 0. +� I • � • Ate" - a — _- 6f {• . n • � jJ it •. o . AAy • ; ` t; ,� ^� I dts . •� � �s; . LEGEND Watershed Area Entering Site (0.35 Sq Miles ) Watershed Area At Lumber River (0.77 Sq Miles) Proposed Site SWMV----- responsible natural resource management Florence & Hutcheson, Inc. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 5121 KINGDOM WAY, SUITE 100 RALEIGH, N.C. 27607 (919) 851 -6066 Robeson Coun North Carolin 0 1000 200( I�I�I�I�I FEET Watershed Map USGS Topo UT to the Lumber River Stream Restoration Plan Robeson County, North Carolina Date: 909 Figure: 2 �j 3 ME N �I Robeson Coun LEGEND North Carolin Watershed Area Entering Site (0.35 Sq Miles ) Watershed Area At Lumber River (0.77 Sq Miles) Proposed Site 0 1000 200( swmtl " responsible natural resource management Florence & Hutcheson, Inc. ......................................... C.............................ONSULTIN.................. ............................... G ENGINEERS IN 5121 KINGDOM WAY, SUITE 100 RALEIGH, N.C. 27607 (919) 851 -6066 FEET Watershed Map Lid" Topo UT to the Lumber River Stream Restoration Site Robeson County, North Carolina Date: 9/09 Figure: 3 0 1000 2000 FEET y�Jl►�1� responsible natural resource management Florence & Hutcheson, inc. .. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 5121 KINGDOM WAY, SUITE 100 RALEIGH, N.C. 27607 (919) 851 -6066 Soil Survey Map UT to the Lumber River Stream Restoration Plan Robeson County, North Carolina Date: 9/09 Figure: 4 LEGEND Symbol Name Symbol Name BB Bibb Ra Rains Jo Johns WaB - Wagram LAB Lakeland Proposed Site NoB - Norfolk Soil Survey Map UT to the Lumber River Stream Restoration Plan Robeson County, North Carolina Date: 9/09 Figure: 4 Columbus County North Carolina 0 2000 4000 FEET 1006 , New Life REFERENCE SITE 1189 1128 1130 tl 31 soa i 1127 1129 1132 1131 � - - - -� - 1195 - 1197 \ G 1126 C _ � %�, SwMV , responsible natural resource management El . Florence & Hutcheson, Inc. ............... CONSULTING ENGINEERS 5121 KINGDOM WAY, SUITS I00 RALEIGH, N.C. 27607 (919) 851 -6066 1005 1131 1119 904 1006 1005 1134 1132 1134 1133 UT Ironhill Branch Reference Site Vicinity Map UT to the Lumber River Stream Restoration Plan Robeson County, North Carolina Date: 9/09 Figure: 5 �! r / {� /\ �n , ^"�.. tQ _.�-� �Clf1► r,- r -jam -'1 V �(' /• UV q '" \�� j �.��;.�'��_� 9 1. _f !l^� 1 \\ � '1c JJ• /! Cr J� �s 0 1250 2500 I I1I1I I 1 1 FFFF Reference Site LEGEND Columbus County Watershed North orth Carolina Project Area UT Ironhill Branch SwMV _ Reference Site Watershed Map responsible natural resource management UT to the Lumber River Stream Restoration Plan Robeson County, North Carolina Florence 6w Hutcheson, Inc. Date: X09 Figure: 6 ............... _.... ......................_. . CONSULTING ENGINEERS IN 5121 KINGDOM WAY, SUITS 100 RALEIGH, N.C. 27607 (919) 851 -6066 0 500 1000 FEET /11 SwMV responsible natural resource management Florence & Hutcheson, Inc. ..... ..... ........._...................................................... ............................... CONSULTING ENGINEERS 5121 KINGDOM WAY, SUITE 100 RALEIGH, N.C. 27607 (919) 851 -6066 LEGEND Symbol Name Ml[ - Muckalee Project Area UT Ironhill Branch Reference Site Soil Survey Map UT to the Lumber River Stream Restoration Plan Robeson County, North Carolina Date: 09/119 Figure: 7 Robeson County North Carolina REFERENCE 2°°° 40I SITE FFKr 1566 1584 1516 415 1561 � 1540 � � � 1351 16 1566 ` 1669 O 1569 72 � 15 1568 \ f I 1673 \/ 1570 �.� 1340 711 557 / a i PEMB KE 1 5 5 - 1556 l / 1564 ` 1571 1339 555 '1569 83 1673 1 03 15 J _ LUMBER 1 `Z 1815 1607 1567 `'- 1553 1003 15 13 9 1616 1553 1339 1678 ., 7 X666 (' 1003 711 1158 ` 1676 74 1339 1157 1197 1552 � �-- i, -'PjL I ' 1003 155 UT to the Lumber SwMV River Wooded Reach is Reference Site Vicinity Map responsible natural resource management UT to the Lumber River Stream Restoration Plan Florence & Hutcheson, Inc. Robeson County, North Carolina CONSULTING ENGINEERS 5121 KINGDOM WAY, SUITE 100 RALEIGH, N.C. 27607 Date: "9 Figure: 8 (919) 851 -6066 i H . / ''" � � \ � 111 ��% `K —' • _ ` SF - 9gJ , H9 • o / ` ! • • _ �_ S4 t Pi // 160 O .•,y \� �� X1003 S41 pit . .r. _ — s 16 r �► i. 4 Isj 0 1000 2000 I l l l l l l l FEET LEGEND Watershed Area At Lumber River (0.61 Sq Miles) Project Area SwMV responsible natural resource management Florence & Hutcheson, Inc. CONSULTING ENGINEERS S121 KINGDOM WAY, SUITS 100 RALEIGH, N.C. 27607 (919) 8SI -6066 M. Y:a r"��iv�l as 4 Robeson County North Carolina UT to the Lumber River Wooded Reach Reference Site Watershed Map UT to the Lumber River Stream Restoration Plan Robeson County, North Carolina Date: 9/09 Figure: 9 0 500 1000 FEET ON TJ i TJ LITA k, VA responsible natural resource management Florence & Hutcheson, Inc. .... 11.11. . CONSULTING ENGINEERS 5121 KINGDOM WAY, SUITE 100 RALEIGH, N.C. 27607 (919) 851 -6066 r A i� NoB B Y.NoA. .. 3. ^F f LEGEND Symbol Name BB Bibb Project Area UT to the Lumber River Wooded Reach Reference Site Soil Survey Map UT to the Lumber River Stream Restoration Plan Robeson County, North Carolina Date: 9/09 1 Figure: 10 Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber- River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN DESIGN SHEETS stFlorence & Hutcheson Dcsitrn Sheets ..................................................................... ............................... b mlCONSULTING ENGINEERS • . I I I I I I I f ► - I I I • I I III (\ 1\ ' \\ l\ \\ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ It / ! /\�� \I�\` / / /%� � � _ f r 1 1 1 \\ ♦ `\ I 1 1 I /// \ \ \ \ \\ \\ I \ \ l 11 i % i II j ! I r r I l 11 'I co it \: \� 11 it i \, \\ • . ` � ' i I� i i ; % Il I /ill , I\ � 1 I � I 1 1 I// / I c /r / // I I I I I \ \\ \ \ \\\`\ \\� ♦ /h Z �.y, \� / ^ . �// \ :RV III / /// 1 `� \ \ \ \7 \ 1 I I I ( l I I✓ \�fll / /d/ / I 1 /J / ` \� \ \\ 1 11 1 I i I I �fi� i6 �� /li \\ §11 /. \ \ \\\��\�l I I r� /1t�� I I / 1 __ \ LLJ LLJ co / / \ \ \ �. JI UZ \ 1 I \� Irk-- �►i,(� \ _ \ _ 1 / CD % %�h/ /I do • 11f /II `I/ 4w JIM• I II I Uio - � /� IV1��, � ,A1111, `� , � //i __��.` - V /' • _ v- vvvvav, � J • vV�v�,` t (� ,�� \�� • I / 1\ 1 v v0 W v Ix Q \ \ \ \ \ \ /-• m \ \\ N IX M Z W \ \ Y/ \\ \� I W ) LW LLJ LU W �_� // I j IIII `` i / / / / / /11111 � \\ � - -- � I � ,✓C '' '' /� ��- - -' �� -_ ~ ! �` -� 111 \Jl /Ij/ I1 II / 10 OI \ � ,1 n \ \�` \ `\ \ � —\ �/ � I ! I /Iii / - ' . ✓" /% �__._. _ \\ ` -- -___,� �\ \` \ � /; l � t t l l ltl\ \ \\I \1\\I 11 Jam/ / \l� 1 � � \ \ \ � �� *�.."� \ 1 /// / � Vii, ,\ - -: /^� -_�^ 1 ✓'�-__ ^ r /' i \ \1 \(,111` \ \ \ \ \\ /v 1 lltlttivvvvv1 I l\ \ \ -� \ • -'\ +-__� IIII I' / \ � \` \ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\\ \N IJy - \\ \ \ \ \\ fit Nk / • � r ; I IW / \ �\ \ " \ G / \ J - W LU LU NN ATM i _ \ ' t ! r ! l \ I I I i' _ • �\ • I I f l I 1 \ 1 1 /\ 1 • 1 • \ \I \ 11 jl 11\ 11 1\ \ \ \\ \ \ \� - —�, \ • /�I 1 I �\ �\ \\ ��V A I • • Z1 W / 1 I J vv /r vv \\ 1 I t 1 IV // �i r � 1 I / I I 1 / i:�• '/ f �t \ t / `�`�� %iii / /i/ •\ 4 \\ 1 / X11 \IllilliiJ r/ /�i \ \ 1 / / I II �� r,\ �� \\ I I I I \ I +� .mil Wit I1 ._ 1 //I n I�1 / 1 •�- r l!/ / -��n I ( l v /r lilll'1 /,,''� \1`\\II II 27, 0/ LU �,� �v V � � I\ 111 �� / /�� /. 1 � 1 / �• --'�� ^�/ \ � I� �� II �1V \��i� ' / 11 ( \\ I I \ i -��i R'I WD / t m I 1 �W W OC D Z fy o ' } j \` \III � N C) LU v / J \ / \\ \ �x \ \ �\ Z Z �W W / \ \ \� �� . �� LJT 1— jI + Z IZ Z Z S W 2 W U m U CA �N� ./111 r \I �11111r11 1 \ \I _� III 11 � (I I IIII I , 1 1111 I ��. �III� III \III \ vlV1VI �- \\V \II I \ 1 \ \Na\ I 11j1i'1 \ \\\\ d I � 1 r1 / 1 _ i' / l�8wn � - IIII r.1 i Ili\ i ■■ IVv \v / I I '■ \i, / ■■ \1\ I I Ij i I �� - ■■ I\ / 1 X11 t I I �\ ' ■ I 1 LLJ r��;- I \ W Z LLJ co -- z F \ , l 1 ` \\ --� \�� .J1 ! \ \III \ \\ \k \ � t4 • O , -/ \ I I O �1 7-// / IIIIAVAVVA I W �I ` =' I III %.J1 / j / / /i�lll j C) V ! "' ) !IIII III ` I / i' /i��\ - x.1111(11 / / C�\ I I /// % 1/0 f f � \\V� -- \ III I/ 11 I / I ► O \\ \J I II II I // / � O \ (\ A )/ V / A / /', V v W I LLJ V I 1 A \V1Av r `\ \V / I I I `�+:.- \ / rVA V /�, / i VAVA /%. � i ��VAVA l I vv ` v'�vv \ 1 I ` A 1 I /� -v 1 % � j � � ��VVV\ ` 2' � � � �;��VAVAIAVAA M - \` -- \\ \ Ill\ 1 y'r' 1_ - - -\� --_ -� J\ �- W m \ \\ \`\ / ` \ \ \ \\\ 1 \ \ \ ��.►� 1 / // / �i'' \\ -� /^� - -` 1 1 1 ✓�- /11 L \ \\ 111 \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ z \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \1 \\ z F-- Q W '!� 1 __� W Q "- 1111 \ \\ \ - - \� \\ \ 1 i j11 \\ Q � F-- < S c \ Co a 1\0\\ \\\\ ^ I1,�T. a• ` \- � �\ ` / ^ \ \�- / � -_- III _ / \ \ \�I�� \ \, \•' \\ \ —� \ i � `— �— \r 1,11/_ - -� �� \�` � \ \\ \ \ \� \\ \\ I \ \ \ \ \�� \ ''.\ `\ -'\\ ^ ^�`\ \�' \\ 1111/ \ \ .- .�.•. �0 of W Z of Er W Lu W C:) \ \ \ \ P Q \\ \ A/J ui-o U)/ ME (1) 1 h, I Id \ T� t I / / � c � I i I i r / I / I\ I I / 1 1 / 1 � - / 1 I / I � \ /'� w �z �0 wQ m Dw+ J ✓O 0 W z Q� W d I > � I I / I 1 / / I f "Web l - -- \ \ \I � I N 1 p III /I 1 r \ � i \ to AV98 13nlb � 1 I I AI Al I I I \ I 1 � \ \ I \ I I I I i I ,alp / / / r !T!I1 w C7 0 W cc w %i 0 c c C c C c c C z Ln cn CS Ln CV) CS - - - - - - - - - - - -T:i t J- t _T_ _T_ r+ + - J_ iT ITi +: z -it r I T 10 o cn z 4 —'!1-41-1- -1T_ -1 —it`4 t !+ --P t F_ F1 Ti -T- I -- TI- f 4 4, �' P T_l Ah - ---- L4 I` f T 0 ---- --- 7 T F F I -,I, i- T I t T -1 1-1-FTI I I Lo C14 T* - C14 14- R f },_r 4 1_� - �11_� M! I _ IT �1 4, 0 is ' -'.I:r Tr q 411 J-1 it- T -PT 4, :PT, tit, T T --- J- --- it A 411 E C14 Lai 7 '14 �T 41 T 11 T__ TIP -1 t F TF I fl, T jull 7711 F 41- PFIR 1L cv) :z + 7-1 TF - - - -F -- - 4; _i� Ta tit i L + uj =L - C-4 01 T 141, :Fj ti 4: + _i:�[ JU _F F: :p 41, T, -jt it tFl A - i-TI #-1- T 4:111 i T + U_ : tI- Rtt -1 IT- Go T_ 7, T + - ±_l_ t-:41-AIN M L TITI T - = Uri 1:4- F T 7. TF + 4 +17 r --- T 7 + -__r T' + -4- L Tit _r -11 -1 _U 4 tHt �j_ I# + 4- -4 - co T It Lo F r+M L IT: 114 _4 11 1-4g- I FlIkk 44- _H +L TTIMLI'Ma 3- HIM 4 +L 44+ VIV J TH T_17 -I- Z t t Vid T q �Tll -LA-4 + T 41P. r M ME 4 47+ 4V 4L TTF TEET q- 4+k FlIc fR_ 0 W T'T I 4_1 T ....... . . . . . . . T -1-: 7 T T $1 4- ill, T r -7.- IL" 4 4� tl� T +4 - 4--"1 11 t 4 -T- T T i4 _4 1- Tti_ dT VI-I U r-.r- 7 -Tt 1V :I�R' -vr-: M T 3 ------ TF T + A 74 1-44� -T- 1+ LYU m 7 A __T1_Q1_ 1 # 4441 V: 41 4- 44 M-1- + :IT-1" 14-1-1-41 44-4 T -IJILt ttEt + 1T�[ fl4 4 1 __41 #k_._ 4 -4 1�_ L1±1- ; H-1 EPT fill +i Ji 'T I IF Tl_ + H 775 T RE _r It MORON$ MV 144-: V it a IRM" T I{- _�71' - llI flik 1 a 4 11 0 c c Ic Ln Cs F,O()?/ /11 rr II r ICI I d z z - °z G Z 0 o: J r I ' 01 00 Ln lingo ULM 11.1 2.11'ml +H4 M ME11111MIMMEN -1 r� T 11MMEN, MINIM �W- loll I _1 i- I I_ I il+� �4 + -1 k_4_1 I H I I+ + +H I- T"Mil- -1-t Itit MINION W -41t IU! + #F -14jr�-J+j- t!-t 1-1-it f - - t I PRIOR Fm� MR T + t I- F -- _ #-- -__ -- -- WI i T T t all: + - Jj t TIL' 1 -1 ---- ijll +1 -IT + - ff# y #J fill --- T, T__I: 11-dill _1 1-111 - ------ _' ---- -- --I! it- -1 _H+ t--I-l-; J+ A - Rif - 14 - _T #1 - --------- T t IL ZT, ----- -+- + ----- 11-H Fl- H - V - - t W H- d ---- I ---- t - I t 4 OF- T -I- 11 V It !t �?L t F ill I F I F t ------ L L T 4- 41 EF iL # Ji± - '0 4_ fF # IT _14 "All -T r T :R_+ 771- HU 0 M - _T: _TT i fl I - J± #$ + HVITM K OT U if _79 7 ........ Tt� F:E1 t F 441 H 1 #4_ r Z' #4 _W_Q Li F J-L _H+ - �F ------ -- - --- tilt* T -,-1- F- J- LILL -1 74f - N+_ I - J0 W U I F 1-1-1- -I Hl� U '11tr I -!H+11 �41Z R-1 - I ---- I IT ill III I L-1-.1 1 T4 Owl - a J. t: --- ------ - IS TP4 +111 I+ t TI4 Z U-1 I 11 fi# - F , L-I IT I I _M Til WHIM I t -It T T- -4 --- -- -- - - -------- q:j: -- trb Ell- 00 Ln H_ m ITHT: - E 4 �T _-_ -,-=F�-± _T IT _4T- -H-W-ldd 1 L _ TT 1-14 # Cn T, ti# 4-L 4 T i :F1 TTI -i qx Ui T -4- T + LL TIT -F :F - P-IT-71 T-T T 31- NIF IF r-F N 01 loop bl: _' Cl) lingo ULM 11.1 2.11'ml M ME11111MIMMEN 11MMEN, MINIM loll I MINION mw IM PRIOR Fm� MR H_ m ITHT: - E 4 �T _-_ -,-=F�-± _T IT _4T- -H-W-ldd 1 L _ TT 1-14 # Cn T, ti# 4-L 4 T i :F1 TTI -i qx Ui T -4- T + LL TIT -F :F - P-IT-71 T-T T 31- NIF IF r-F N 01 loop bl: _' Cl) "d "A 6007./1 I /II lingo ULM 11.1 2.11'ml M ME11111MIMMEN MINIM MINION "d "A 6007./1 I /II C U V o A �' � . 'w w N � A; � d Uri rn v� •� To a m � 0 � c 0 r N ♦ G ♦ ♦ O ♦ oA ♦♦ ,a ♦ i ♦i ♦i♦ ♦ ♦i ♦i ♦i ♦i ♦ ♦ ♦i ♦i ®� Oi ♦i ♦i ♦i ♦i ♦�i ♦i ♦i ♦i Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN APPENDIX 1 PROJECT SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Florence & Hutcheson Appendix CONSULTING ENGINEERS UT to the Lumber River Channelized Reach Looking upstream at enlarged channel Little Vegetation on banks Backwater from beaver dam Looking upstream at inline pond Duckweed in UT Enlargened channel due to channelization One tree -wide vegetated buffer on banks Looking downstream on culvert Little riparian buffer between channel and fields • 7.'? r • . ' 1 R Straightened Channel Lumber River Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN APPENDIX 2 PROJECT SITE USACE ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS Florence & Hutcheson Appendix ...................................... ............................... . CONSULTING ENGINEERS WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Project/Site: LIT to the Lumber River Stream Mitigation Site City /County: Pembroke /Robeson Sampling Date: 10/2/2009 Applicant/Owner: Florence & Hutcheson State: NC Sampling Point: Wetland 1 Investigator(s) RVS Section, Township, Range: Pembroke Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none)- Concave Slope ( %): 0.15 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T Lat. 34.6484458N Long: 79.1810049W Datum: NAD27 Soil Map Unit Name: BB " Bibb soils NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No X (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Yes Soil No or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes X No Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No 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 X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (136) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) EL ❑ Surface Water (Al) ✓Q Water- Stained Leaves (139) ❑ ❑ High Water Table (A2) a Aquatic Fauna (613) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) ❑ Saturation (A3) Q Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U) ❑ Moss Trim Lines (1316) Q Water Marks (131) Q Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2) 0 Sediment Deposits (132) ✓a Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) E Crayfish Burrows (C8) ❑ Drift Deposits (133) ❑ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) E Algal Mat or Crust (134) Ll Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) EL Position (D2) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) Q Thin Muck Surface (C7) II_-_-LI Shallow Aquitard (D3) 0 Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) a Other (Explain in Remarks) IL FAC- Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): -- Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: - Climatic /hydrological conditions are not typical for this time of year: the Site is experiencing a moderate drought (D1) according to data from NCDENR Division of Water Resources. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) 1 Salix nigra (black willow) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Herb Stratum (Plot size- 30' radius ) 1 Carex sp. (sedge) 2 Juncus effuses (common rush) 3 Scirpus sp. (bull rush) 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: "" ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sampling Point: Wetland 1 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 4 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species 10 x 1 = 10 10 Yes OBL FACW species 90 x 2 = 180 FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 100 (A) 190 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 1 9 10 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: = Total Cover ❑ Dominance Test is >50% ❑Prevalence Index is < -3.0' ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, -- = Total Cover approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). 30 Yes FACW 30 Yes FACW+ Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less 30 Yes FACW than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height. Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m) in height. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height. 90 = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation " = Total Cover Present? Yes X No Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below). -A 30' radius plot was used for Wetland 1. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: Wetland 1 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 Loc Texture Remarks 0 -12 10YR 2/1 100 sandy loam oxidized rhizospheres 12 -16 10YR 3/1 100 sandy loam oxidized rhizospheres 'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, CS= Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) V IGleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) ✓ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) ❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) ❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T) Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1536) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T, U) Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151) Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present, Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D) Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Project/Site: UT to the Lumber River Stream Mitigation Site City /County: Pembroke /Robeson Sampling Date: 10/2/2009 Applicant/Owner: Florence & Hutcheson State: INC Sampling Point: Wetland 2 Investigator(s): RVS Section, Township, Range: Pembroke Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope ( %): 0.15 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T Lat: 34.6510362N Long: 79.1827148W Datum: NAD27 Soil Map Unit Name: BB - Bibb soils NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No X (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Yes Soil No or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes X No Are Vegetation No , Soil No or Hydrology No 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 X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) 12 ❑ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) a Surface Water (Al) a Water- Stained Leaves (69) Q High Water Table (A2) a Aquatic Fauna (B13) ❑ Drainage Patterns (B10) a Saturation (A3) a Marl Deposits (615) (LRR U) ❑ Moss Trim Lines (B16) a Water Marks (131) a Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2) a Sediment Deposits (B2) ✓a Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) a Crayfish Burrows (C8) a Drift Deposits (B3) Q Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) E Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (64) a Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) El Geomorphic Position (D2) E Iron Deposits (65) aI Thin Muck Surface (C7) a Shallow Aquitard (D3) 7) __L Other (Explain in Remarks) El Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B 1 I__L FAC- Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): -- Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): -- Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): -- Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: - Climatic /hydrological conditions are not typical for this time of year: the Site is experiencing a moderate drought (D1) according to data from NCDENR Division of Water Resources. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Interim Version VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Sapling Stratum (Plot size: -- ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Shrub Stratum (Plot size. ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 7. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 39'x13' ) 1 Fescuta sp (fescue) 2 Ipomoea sp. (morning glory) 3 Polygonum sp. (knotweed) 4 Scirpus sp. (bull rush) 5 Typha sp. (cattail) 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: "" ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Sampling Point: Wetland 2 Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 1 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: - = Total Cover OBL species 11 x 1 = 11 FACW species 65 x 2 = 130 FAC species 12 x 3 = 36 FACU species 12 x 4 = 48 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 100 (A) 225 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 25 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: -- =Total Cover In/ Dominance Test is >50% ❑✓ Prevalence Index is s3.0' ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) - = Total Cover 12 FAC 12 FACU 50 Yes FACW 15 FACW 11 OBL VV = Total Cover = Total Cover Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below). -Ali of Wetland 2 (507 sq. ft.) was used as a sample plot. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height. Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m) in height. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: Wetland 2 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' Loc Texture Remarks 0 -12 10YR 2/1 100 sandy loam oxidized rhizospheres 12 -16 10YR 3/1 100 sandy oxidized rhizospheres 'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, CS= Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': Histosol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Stratified Layers (A5) Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type Depth (inches): Remarks: Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) ❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR 0) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR 0) ❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T) Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1538) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T, U) Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151) Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T) Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 153C, 153D) Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Project/Site: LIT to the Lumber River Stream Mitigation Site City /County: Pembroke /Robeson Sampling Date: 10/2/2009 Applicant/Owner: Florence & Hutcheson State: NC Sampling Point: Wetland 3 Investigator(s): RVS Section, Township, Range: Pembroke Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope ( %): 0.15 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T Lat: 34.6549044N Long: 79.1850504W Datum: NAD27 Soil Map Unit Name: Ra - Rains sandy loam NWI classification. Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No X (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Yes Soil No or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes X No Are Vegetation No , Soil No or Hydrology No 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 X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (136) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) E Surface Water (Al) ✓Q Water - Stained Leaves (139) ❑ a High Water Table (A2) EL Aquatic Fauna (1313) ❑_ Drainage Patterns (610) Q Saturation (A3) a Marl Deposits (615) (LRR U) ❑_ Moss Trim Lines (616) Q Water Marks (131) Q Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) ❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2) El Sediment Deposits (132) ✓Q Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Crayfish Burrows (C8) a Drift Deposits (133) a Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) 0 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (134) a Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) El Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (135) Q Thin Muck Surface (C7) a Shallow Aquitard (D3) �] Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) I__L FAC- Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): -- Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): - Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: - Climatic /hydrological conditions are not typical for this time of year: the Site is experiencing a moderate drought (D1) according to data from NCDENR Division of Water Resources. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Interim Version VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size. ) 1. Ab % 2. Number of Dominant Species 3. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A) 4. Total Number of Dominant 5. Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 6. Percent of Dominant Species 7. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 833 (A/B) Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 62'x29' ) 1 Acer rubrum (red maple) 17 2 Salix nigra (black willow) 16 3. 4. OBL species 31 x 1 = 31 5. FACW species 34 x 2 = 68 6 FAC species 17 x 3 = 51 7. FACU species 18 x 4 = 72 Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 62'x29' ) 1 Rubus argutus (blackberry) 33 18 2. Column Totals: 100 (A) 222 (B) 3. _ 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ❑✓ Dominance Test is >50% 6. ❑✓ Prevalence Index is < -3.0' 7. ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) Herb Stratum (Plot size: 62'x29' ) 1 Juncus effuses (common rush) _ 18 18 2 Scirpus sp (bull rush) 16 3 Typha sp (cattail) 15 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: -- 1. _ 49 ) 2. 3. 4. 5. Sampling Point: Wetland 3 solute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 833 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: = Total Cover OBL species 31 x 1 = 31 Yes FAC FACW species 34 x 2 = 68 Yes OBL FAC species 17 x 3 = 51 FACU species 18 x 4 = 72 UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 Column Totals: 100 (A) 222 (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.22 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: = Total Cover ❑✓ Dominance Test is >50% Yes FACU+ ❑✓ Prevalence Index is < -3.0' ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) = Total Cover Yes FACW+ Yes FACW = Total Cover = Total Cover -All of Wetland 3 (1,798 sq. ft.) was used as a sample plot. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH. Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m) in height. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version P SOIL Sampling Point: Wetland 3 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' Loc Texture Remarks 0 -6 10YR 3/1 95 5YR 5/6 5 RM M sandy clay loam oxidized rhizospheres 6 -8 10YR 2/1 95 5YR 5/6 5 RM M sandy loam oxidized rhizospheres 'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, CS= Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: L_1 Histosol (Al) ❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) ❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR 0) ❑ Histic Epipedon (A2) D Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (171) (LRR 0) ❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T) H Stratified Layers (A5) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B) 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (177) Red Parent Material (TF2) Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) Q Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T, U) H1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ ❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) ❑ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S) ❑ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B) Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A) HSandy Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C9 153D) Q Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Project/Site: LIT to the Lumber River Stream Mitigation Site City /County: Pembroke /Robeson Sampling Date: 10/2/2009 Applicant/Owner: Florence & Hutcheson State: NC Sampling Point: Wetland 4 Investigator(s): RVS Section, Township, Range Pembroke Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.)- Floodplain Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope ( %): 0.15 Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T Lat: 34.649689N Long: 79.1817139W Datum: NAD27 Soil Map Unit Name: BB - Bibb soils NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No X (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Yes Soil No or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No _ Are Vegetation No , Soil No or Hydrology No 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 X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Soil Cracks (136) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) E Q Surface Water (Al) ✓❑ Water- Stained Leaves (139) ❑ a High Water Table (A2) ❑ Aquatic Fauna (B13) ❑ Drainage Patterns (1310) El Saturation (A3) a Marl Deposits (615) (LRR U) ❑ Moss Trim Lines (616) El Water Marks (131) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ❑ Dry- Season Water Table (C2) El Sediment Deposits (62) ✓a Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) E Crayfish Burrows (C8) a Drift Deposits (133) al Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) E Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (134) II_-_-LI Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) EL Geomorphic Position (D2) ❑ Iron Deposits (135) II_-_-LI Thin Muck Surface (C7) Q Shallow Aquitard (D3) ❑ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) u Other (Explain in Remarks) Q FAC- Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): -- Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: - Climatic /hydrological conditions are not typical for this time of year: the Site is experiencing a moderate drought (D1) according to data from NCDENR Division of Water Resources. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Interim Version VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: Wetland 4 Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below). -All of Wetland 4 (3,480 sq. ft.) was used as a sample plot. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % 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 (PJ6) 6. Prevalence Index worksheet: 7 = Total Cover Total % Cover of: Multiply by: Sapling Stratum (Plot size: ' ) OBL species 13 x 1 = 13 1. FACW species 72 x 2 = 144 2. FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 3. FACU species 15 x 4 = 60 4. UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 5. Column Totals: 100 (A) 217 (B) 6. Prevalence Index = B/A = 2 17 7. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: '- =Total Cover Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) ✓❑ Dominance Test is >50% 1. ✓❑ Prevalence Index is 53.0' ❑ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 2 3. 4 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 5. 6. Definitions of Vegetation Strata: 7. Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, = Total Cover approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 120'x29' ) (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH). 1 Carex sp. (sedge) 16 FACW 2 Juncus effuses (common rush) 16 FACW+ Sapling -Woody plants, excluding woody vines, approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less 3 Ipomoea sp. (morning glory) 15 FACU than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH. 4. Polygonum sp (knotweed) 40 Yes FACW Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines, T has cattail 5, yP P. (cattail) 13 OBL approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height. 6' Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, including 7. herbaceous vines, regardless of size. Includes woody 8 plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3 ft (1 m) in height. 9. 10. Woody vine - All woody vines, regardless of height. 11. 12. 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation = Total Cover Present? Yes X No Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below). -All of Wetland 4 (3,480 sq. ft.) was used as a sample plot. US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point- Wetland 4 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 Loc Texture Remarks 0 -12 10YR 2/1 100 sandy loam oxidized rhizospheres 12 -16 10YR 3/1 100 sandy oxidized rhizospheres 'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, CS= Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': (Al) ❑ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) ❑ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O) ❑Histosol Histic Epipedon (A2) ❑ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) ❑ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S) ❑ Black Histic (A3) ❑ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) ❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B) ❑ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ❑ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T) ❑Stratified Layers (A5) ❑ Depleted Matrix (F3) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) ❑ Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 1538) ❑ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) ❑ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2) ❑ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) ❑ Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) (LRR T, U) cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) ❑ Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks) ❑1 Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ❑ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151) ❑ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) ❑ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and ❑ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) II_-_-lI Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present, ❑ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) I__l Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ❑ Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 1508) Sandy Redox (S5) ❑ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A) Stripped Matrix (S6) ❑ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U) Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Interim Version Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN APPENDIX 3 PROJECT SITE NCDWQ STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORMS Florence & Hutcheson Appendix .................................................... ............................... . CONSULTING ENGINEERS North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 Date: 71/7/D$ Project: U7- A, -tAe L,,LA( P,';,,�.atitude: 3Y-0 38 r Syr 2' Evaluator: V Site: U Ti Longitude: 7� o d • _5728' Total Points: Other ;� /, ,�/ Stream is at least intermittent 37S County: e.g. Quad Name: 1rcl � (4 /I Z if a 19 or perennial if 2: 30 A. Geomorphology Subtotal = %S ) F Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 0 2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3 3. In- channel structure: riffle -pool sequence 0 1 2 3 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 cij 2 3 5. Active /relic floodplain 0 1 2 1.5 6. Depositional bars or benches (V 1 2 3 7. Braided channel GD 1 1 2 3 8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 0 2 3 9 a Natural levees 60 1 2 3 10. Headcuts 0 1 2 11. Grade controls Q 0.5 1 1.5 12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1 13. Second or greater order channel on existin USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. No = 0 Cfe s = 3 " Man -made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual R I-Ivrirnlnnv /Si ihtntni = A.S 1 14. Groundwater flow /discharge 0 1 2 0 15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or Water in channel - da or growing season 0 1 2 0 16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 1.5 17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1 1.5 18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1. r Rinlnnv (Suhtntal = /A < 1 20 . Fibrous roots in channel Q 2 1 0 21 b. Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0 22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5 23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3 24. Fish 0 0.5 1 25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1.5 26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 <ja> 1 1.5 27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 (TI 1 2 3 28. Iron oxidizing bacteria /fungus. CV 1 0.5 1 1 1 1.5 29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; BL = SAV = 2.0; Other = 0 " Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetiano plants. Sketch: Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 Date: 7//7/a-6 Project: UT 6 -ke L�( �� Latitude: 31 6 3g' g;7& "'f Evaluator: 7-V- Site: L, '100-r Longitude: o(° !d� 51-97 w Total Points: Other Stream is at least intermittent County: t if 2 19 or perennial if z 30 S3 tY -6so �1 e.g. Quad Name: A. Geomorphology Subtotal = Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 0 2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 0 3. In- channel structure: riffle -pool sequence 0 1 2 1. 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 1.5 5. Active /relic floodplain 0 1 2 1.5 6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 co 7. Braided channel M 1 2 3 8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 m 9' Natural levees 0 1 2 10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 11. Grade controls 0.5 1 1.5 12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 .5 13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes = 3 ° Man -made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual R Hvdrnlnnv (Suhtntal = /Z 1 14. Groundwater flow /discharge 0 1 2 0 15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or Water in channel - dry or growing season 0 1 2 0 16. Leaflitter 1. 1 0.5 0 17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1. 18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 es _=1.5 C. Bioloav (Subtotal = /2•!5 ) 20 . Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0 21 . Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0 22. Crayfish 0 0.5 Q 1.5 23. Bivalves 0 1 (S) 3 24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1. 25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5 27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3 28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1 1.5 29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0 Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants. Sketch: Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN APPENDIX 4 REFERENCE SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Florence & Hutcheson Appendix ........................................................... ............................... CONSULTINI, ENGINL'ERi Reference Site: UT to Ironhill Branch Bankfull flow at beginning of reach Looking upstream during bankfull flow UT Ironhill meandering pattern UT Ironhill meandering pattern Root system stabilizing banks End of UT Ironhill Profile M C r tic r Y F 4f S'b I t T—W ly- t Y.; . i, # Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN APPENDIX 5 REFERENCE SITE NCDWQ STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORMS Florence & Hutcheson Appendix .................................................................. ............................... CONSULTING ENGINEERS North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 Date: Project: V U,*, Yer. Latitude: O v 3$' gs72" Evaluator: Site: Longitude: o Total Points: Stream is at least intermittent 33, 5 County: Other if ;t 19 or perennial if 2: 30 � e.g. Quad Name: m 6M A. Geomorphology Subtotal = oCj ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3 2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 1.5 3. In- channel structure: riffle -pool sequence 0 1 (2) 3 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 1.5 5. Active /relic floodplain 0 1 2 1.5 6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 (2) 3 7. Braided channel 1 2 3 8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 1 3 9 a Natural levees (0j 1 2 3 10. Headcuts 1 2 3 11. Grade controls 0 1 1.5 12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. No = 0 Man -made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal= 9S 1 14. Groundwater flow /discharge (0-D I 1 1 2 3 15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 I o 2 T 3 16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 1.5 17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1.5 18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 es = 1 C. Bioloav (Subtotal = / ) 20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0 21 b . Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0 22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 23. Bivalves 0 2 3 24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5 25. Amphibians 0 1 1.5 26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0. 1 1.5 27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3 28. Iron oxidizing bacteria /fungus. 0.5 1 1.5 29 °. Wetland plants in streambed FAC =70-.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; er = 0 - Items 2u and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants. Sketch: Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) NCDWO Stream Classification Form S500 Project Name. Ironhill Branch River Basin: Lumber County: Columbus Evaluators: R. Smith N. Daly, K. McKeithan DWQ Project Number: N/A Nearest Named Stream: tronhill Branch Latitude- 34 107'33.18" Signature: Date. 2/20/03 USGS QUAD: Tabor City East Longitude: 78 °48'55.13 "W Location/Directions: UT to Ironhill Branch located West of SR 1131 *PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man -made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man -made ditch and not a modified natural stream —this rating system should not be used* Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line) I. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1) Is There A Riffle -Pool Sequence? 0 1 2 3 2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed 5) Is There An Active (Or Relic) ( *NOTE: If Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score =0 *) 10) Is A 2'd Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated On Topo Map And/Or In Field) Present? Yes =3 No =O PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 21I II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1) Is There A Groundwater Flow /Discharee Present? 0 1 2 3 PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS: N Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line) 3) Does Topography Indicate A Natural Drainage Way? 0 .5 1 1.5 SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 2.5 II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaf litter 4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 ll 1.5 Last Known Rain? ( *NOTE. If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #S Below *) 5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 jl 1.5 SECONDAR Y HYDROLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS: 8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? N/A SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL (* NOTE- If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 T 75 .5 0 0 As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAV Present *). SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS: 6:5 TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary)= 4545 5(lf Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent) Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN APPENDIX 6 HEGRAS ANALYSIS Florence & Hutcheson Appendix ........... ............................... ... ...I ........ .... ..... ............. CONSULTING ENGINEERS UT TO THE LUMBER HEC -RAS ANALYSIS River Station I Storm Event Discharge cfs Existing WSEL ft Proposed WSEL ft Backwater ft Upstream End of Proj ect 5344 BKF 5 153.48 153.67 0.19 5344 100 YR 48 155.36 155.11 -0.25 5257.76 BKF 5 153.31 153.52 0.21 5257.76 100 YR 48 155.31 154.97 -0.34 5245.52 BKF 5 153.23 153.51 0.28 5245.52 100 YR 48 155.27 154.96 -0.31 5233.29 BKF 5 153.49 5233.29 100 YR 48 154.95 5207.81 BKF 5 153.44 5207.81 100 YR 48 154.93 5186.84 BKF 5 153.42 5186.84 100 YR 48 154.89 5165.88 BKF 5 153.18 153.38 0.20 5165.88 100 YR 48 155.24 154.87 -0.37 5163.46 BKF 5 153.38 5163.46 100 YR 48 154.87 5142.38 BKF 5 153.15 153.36 0.21 5142.381 100 YR 48 155.22 154.84 -0.38 5121.31 BKF 5 153.33 5121.31 100 YR 48 154.82 5111.54 BKF 5 153.12 153.31 0.19 5111.54 100 YR 48 155.20 154.82 -0.38 5091.18 BKF 5 153.29 5091.18 100 YR 48 154.78 5070.83 BKF 5 153.26 5070.83 100 YR 48 154.76 5047.89 BKF 5 153.09 153.21 0.12 5047.89 100 YR 48 155.17 154.74 -0.43 5029.68 BKF 5 153.09 153.2 0.11 5029.68 100 YR 48 155.16 154.71 -0.45 5011.48 BKF 5 153.17 5011.48 100 YR 48 154.69 UT TO THE LUMBER HEC -RAS ANALYSIS River Station Storm Event Discharge cfs Existing WSEL ft Proposed WSEL ft Backwater ft 5002.45 BKF 5 153.08 153.15 0.07 5002.45 100 YR 48 155.14 154.68 -0.46 4983.25 BKF 5 153.14 4983.25 100 YR 48 154.66 4964.05 BKF 5 153.05 153.11 0.06 4964.05 100 YR 48 155.12 154.65 -0.47 4940.67 BKF 5 153.06 4940.67 100 YR 48 154.63 4924.72 BKF 5 153.05 4924.72 100 YR 48 154.6 4908.77 BKF 5 152.94 153.02 0.08 4908.77 100 YR 48 155.09 154.58 -0.51 4890.07 BKF 5 152.99 4890.07 100 YR 48 154.56 4884.62 BKF 5 152.99 4884.62 100 YR 48 154.56 4879.18 BKF 5 152.85 152.97 0.12 4879.18 100 YR 48 155.07 154.56 -0.51 4868.75 BKF 5 152.95 4868.75 100 YR 48 154.55 4848.7 BKF 5 152.79 152.94 0.15 4848.7 100 YR 48 155.06 154.52 -0.54 4828.65 BKF 5 152.9 4828.65 100 YR 48 154.51 4793.15 BKF 5 152.83 4793.15 100 YR 48 154.48 4775.83 BKF 5 152.63 152.82 0.19 4775.831 100 YR 48 155.02 154.46 -0.56 4758.52 BKF 5 152.60 152.79 0.19 4758.52 100 YR 48 155.02 154.44 -0.58 4757.74 BKF 5 152.79 4757.741 100 YR 1 48 154.44 UT TO THE LUMBER HEC -RAS ANALYSIS River Station Storm Event Discharge cfs Existing WSEL ft Proposed WSEL ft Backwater ft 4741.12 BKF 5 152.58 152.78 0.20 4741.12 100 YR 48 155.01 154.43 -0.58 4724.5 BKF 5 152.75 4724.5 100 YR 48 154.41 4723.61 BKF 5 152.74 4723.61 100 YR 48 154.41 4709.05 BKF 5 152.54 152.74 0.20 4709.05 100 YR 48 154.99 154.4 -0.59 4694.5 BKF 5 152.52 152.71 0.19 4694.5 100 YR 48 154.98 154.38 -0.60 4681.14 BKF 5 152.69 4681.14 100 YR 48 154.37 4673.84 BKF 5 152.68 4673.84 100 YR 48 154.38 4666.55 BKF 5 152.67 4666.55 100 YR 48 154.38 4660.25 BKF 5 152.48 152.65 0.17 4660.25 100 YR 48 154.96 154.38 -0.58 4650.81 BKF 5 152.47 152.63 0.16 4650.81 100 YR 48 154.95 154.38 -0.57 4629 BKF 5 152.44 152.62 0.18 4629 100 YR 48 154.94 154.34 -0.60 4607.2 BKF 5 152.43 152.58 0.15 4607.2 100 YR j 48 154.92 154.34 -0.58 4583.76 BKF 5 152.54 4583.76 100 YR 48 154.33 4573.65 BKF 5 152.54 4573.65 100 YR 48 154.32 4563.55 BKF 5 152.42 152.51 0.09 4563.55 100 YR 48 154.90 154.29 -0.61 4538.3 BKF 5 152.41 152.47 0.06 4538.3 100 YR 48 154.89 154.27 -0.62 UT TO THE LUMBER HEC -RAS ANALYSIS River Station Storm Event Discharge cfs Existing WSEL ft Proposed WSEL ft Backwater ft 4525.05 BKF 5 152.46 4525.05 100 YR 48 154.27 4511.81 BKF 5 152.43 4511.81 100 YR 48 154.27 4501.82 BKF 5 152.40 152.42 0.02 4501.82 100 YR 48 154.87 154.26 -0.61 4497.55 BKF 5 152.42 4497.55 100 YR 48 154.26 4493.28 BKF 5 152.4 4493.28 100 YR 48 154.25 4481.77 BKF 5 152.40 152.38 -0.02 4481.77 100 YR 48 154.86 154.24 -0.62 4468.83 BKF 5 152.38 4468.83 100 YR 48 154.23 4455.9 BKF 5 152.35 4455.9 100 YR 48 154.22 4449.07 BKF 5 152.39 152.33 -0.06 4449.07 100 YR 48 154.85 154.21 -0.64 4432.28 BKF 5 152.32 4432.28 100 YR 48 154.2 4415.49 BKF 5 152.29 4415.49 100 YR 48 154.2 4403.66 BKF 5 152.39 152.27 -0.12 4403.66 100 YR 48 154.84 154.2 -0.64 4386.9 BKF 5 152.26 4386.9 100 YR 48 154.18 4370.15 BKF 5 152.38 152.23 -0.15 4370.15 100 YR 48 154.83 154.17 -0.66 4327.62 BKF 5 152.37 152.15 -0.22 4327.62 100 YR 48 154.81 154.14 -0.67 4310.56 BKF 5 152.14 4310.561 100 YR 48 154.14 UT TO THE LUMBER HEC -RAS ANALYSIS River Station Storm Event Discharge cfs Existing WSEL ft Proposed WSEL ft Backwater ft 4293.5 BKF 5 152.36 152.11 -0.25 4293.5 100 YR 48 154.79 154.13 -0.66 4291.44 BKF 5 152.36 152.11 -0.25 4291.44 100 YR 48 154.79 154.13 -0.66 4278.5 BKF 5 152.1 4278.5 100 YR 48 154.12 4265.57 BKF 5 152.08 4265.57 100 YR 48 154.11 4243.11 BKF 5 152.29 152.04 -0.25 4243.11 100 YR 48 154.76 154.1 -0.66 4235.16 BKF 5 152.03 4235.16 100 YR 48 154.1 4227.22 BKF 5 152.01 4227.22 100 YR 48 154.1 4210.01 BKF 5 152.13 151.98 -0.15 4210.01 100 YR 48 154.74 154.09 -0.65 4190.96 BKF 5 151.97 4190.961 100 YR 48 154.08 4171.98 4171.98 4146.85 4146.85 4130.41 4130.41 4113.97 4113.97 4100.98 4100.98 4088.69 4088.69 4076.4 4076.4 BKF 100 YR BKF 100 YR BKF 100 YR BKF 100 YR BKF 100 YR BKF 100 YR BKF 100 YR 5 48 7 93 7 93 7 93 7 93 7 93 7 93 151.95 154.07 152.06 151.9 -0.16 154.65 154.01 -0.64 151.89 153.97 151.86 153.93 152.04 151.84 -0.20 154.60 153.92 -0.68 152.04 151.83 -0.21 154.59 153.93 -0.66 151.81 153.94 UT TO THE LUMBER HEC -RAS ANALYSIS River Station Storm Event Discharge cfs Existing WSEL ft Proposed WSEL ft Backwater ft 4060.74 BKF 7 152.03 151.78 -0.25 4060.74 100 YR 93 154.57 153.92 -0.65 4043.46 BKF 7 152.03 151.77 -0.26 4043.46 100 YR 93 154.56 153.86 -0.70 4026.18 BKF 7 151.74 4026.18 100 YR 93 153.8 4009.19 BKF 7 151.7 4009.19 100 YR 93 153.77 3992.94 BKF 7 152.01 151.7 -0.31 3992.94 100 YR 93 154.47 153.78 -0.69 3976.69 BKF 7 151.67 3976.69 100 YR 93 153.78 3959.29 BKF 7 151.63 3959.29 100 YR 93 153.78 3947.79 BKF 7 151.93 151.63 -0.30 3947.79 100 YR 93 154.32 153.78 -0.54 3936.29 BKF 7 151.91 151.61 -0.30 3936.29 100 YR 93 154.27 153.71 -0.56 3915.79 BKF 7 151.88 151.57 -0.31 3915.79 100 YR 93 154.18 153.66 -0.52 3901.35 BKF 7 151.56 3901.35 100 YR 93 153.63 3886.92 BKF 7 151.85 151.53 -0.32 3886.92 100 YR 93 153.99 153.59 -0.40 3869.4 BKF 7 151.84 151.5 -0.34 3869.4 100 YR 93 153.87 153.56 7.31 3853.31 BKF 7 151.49 3853.31 100 YR 93 153.61 3819.7 BKF 7 151.44 3819.7 100 YR 93 153.57 3803.42 BKF 7 151.44 3803.42 100 YR 93 153.52 UT TO THE LUMBER HEC -RAS ANALYSIS River Station Storm Event Discharge cfs Existing WSEL ft Proposed WSEL ft Backwater ft 3787.14 BKF 7 151.41 3787.14 100 YR 93 153.47 3775.77 BKF 7 151.38 3775.77 100 YR 93 153.46 3764.08 BKF 7 151.84 151.38 -0.46 3764.08 100 YR 93 153.94 153.48 -0.46 3752.39 BKF 7 151.35 3752.39 100 YR 93 153.47 3744.44 BKF 7 151.34 3744.44 100 YR 93 153.45 3726.43 BKF 7 151.84 151.33 -0.51 3726.43 100 YR 93 153.94 153.41 -0.53 3708.42 BKF 7 151.3 3708.42 100 YR 93 153.37 3687.85 BKF 7 151.84 151.27 -0.57 3687.85 100 YR 93 153.94 153.34 -0.60 3678.22 BKF 7 151.26 3678.22 100 YR 93 153.33 3668.6 BKF 7 151.24 3668.6 100 YR 93 153.3 3651.02 BKF 7 151.84 151.21 -0.63 3651.02 100 YR 93 153.93 153.29 -0.64 3641.38 BKF 7 151.21 3641.38 100 YR 93 153.3 3631.75 BKF 7 151.19 3631.75 100 YR 93 153.3 3609.17 BKF 7 151.84 151.14 -0.70 3609.17 100 YR 93 153.93 153.27 -0.66 3585.25 BKF 7 151.13 3585.25 100 YR 93 153.21 3561.33 1 BKF 7 151.1 3561.331 100 YR 93 153.21 UT TO THE LUMBER HEC -RAS ANALYSIS River Station Storm Event Discharge cfs Existing WSEL ft Proposed WSEL ft Backwater ft 3536.8 BKF 7 151.84 151.05 -0.79 3536.8 100 YR 93 153.93 153.18 -0.75 3526.71 BKF 7 151.05 3526.71 100 YR 93 153.16 3516.63 BKF 7 151.03 3516.63 100 YR 93 153.12 3487.42 BKF 7 151.84 150.98 -0.86 3487.42 100 YR 93 153.92 153.08 -0.84 3476.86 BKF 7 151.84 150.98 -0.86 3476.86 100 YR 93 153.92 153.07 -0.85 3466.3 BKF 7 150.96 3466.3 100 YR 93 153.06 3441.59 BKF 7 151.83 150.91 -0.92 3441.59 100 YR 93 153.83 153.02 -0.81 3424.19 BKF 7 151.81 150.9 -0.91 3424.19 100 YR 93 153.79 153 -0.79 3406.8 BKF 7 150.87 3406.8 100 YR 93 152.98 3395.51 BKF 7 150.85 3395.51 100 YR 93 152.97 3383.16 BKF 7 151.74 150.85 -0.89 3383.16 100 YR 93 153.68 152.95 -0.73 3370.81 BKF 7 150.82 3370.81 100 YR 93 152.91 3366.53 BKF 7 150.81 3366.53 100 YR 93 152.9 3353.68 BKF 7 151.61 150.81 -0.80 3353.68 100 YR 93 153.58 152.92 -0.66 3340.83 BKF 7 150.79 3340.83 100 YR 93 152.93 3307.26 1 BKF 7 150.73 3307.261 100 YR 93 152.92 UT TO THE LUMBER HEC -RAS ANALYSIS River Station Storm Event Discharge cfs Existing WSEL ft Proposed WSEL ft Backwater ft 3299.81 BKF 7 150.73 3299.81 100 YR 93 152.91 3292.36 BKF 7 150.71 3292.36 100 YR 93 152.89 3283.67 BKF 7 151.24 150.7 -0.54 3283.67 100 YR 93 153.33 152.84 -0.49 3279.34 BKF 7 150.7 3279.34 100 YR 93 152.84 3275.02 BKF 7 150.69 3275.02 100 YR 93 152.83 3259.35 BKF 7 150.66 3259.35 100 YR 93 152.8 3248.79 BKF 7 150.66 3248.79 100 YR 93 152.79 3238.24 BKF 7 150.52 150.64 0.12 3238.24 100 YR 93 153.20 152.78 -0.42 3194.62 BKF 7 150.48 150.56 0.08 3194.62 100 YR 93 153.16 152.72 -0.44 3176.07 BKF 7 150.55 3176.07 100 YR 93 152.7 3157.52 BKF 7 150.46 150.52 0.06 3157.52 100 YR 93 153.13 152.69 -0.44 3122.2 BKF 7 150.46 3122.2 100 YR 93 152.64 3103.32 BKF 7 150.43 150.45 0.02 3103.32 100 YR 93 153.10 152.61 -0.49 3084.38 BKF 7 150.41 3084.38 100 YR 93 152.58 3080.92 BKF 7 150.42 150.41 -0.01 3080.92 100 YR 93 153.09 152.57 -0.52 3071.76 BKF 7 150.41 3071.76 100 YR 93 152.57 3062.61 BKF 7 150.39 3062.61 100 YR 93 152.54 UT TO THE LUMBER HEC -RAS ANALYSIS River Station Storm Event Discharge cfs Existing WSEL ft Proposed WSEL ft Backwater ft 3041.33 BKF 7 150.35 3041.33 100 YR 93 152.51 3026.66 BKF 7 150.33 150.34 0.01 3026.66 100 YR 93 153.05 152.51 -0.54 3012 BKF 7 150.31 3012 100 YR 93 152.52 2989.04 BKF 7 150.27 2989.04 100 YR 93 152.51 2974.92 BKF 7 150.31 150.27 -0.04 2974.92 100 YR 93 153.01 152.47 -0.54 2960.8 BKF 7 150.24 2960.8 100 YR 93 152.43 2946.38 BKF 7 150.22 2946.38 100 YR 93 152.42 2941.91 BKF 7 150.22 2941.91 100 YR 93 152.42 2937.44 BKF 7 150.30 150.2 -0.10 2937.44 100 YR 93 152.97 152.42 -0.55 2921.53 BKF 7 150.17 2921.53 100 YR 93 152.39 2903.15 BKF 7 150.16 2903.15 100 YR 93 152.36 2884.85 BKF 7 150.29 150.13 -0.16 2884.85 100 YR 93 152.92 152.34 -0.58 2863.72 BKF 7 150.09 2863.72 100 YR 93 152.31 2848.75 BKF 7 150.29 150.09 -0.20 2848.75 100 YR 93 152.87 152.3 -0.57 2834.18 BKF 7 150.06 2834.18 100 YR 93 152.28 2824.2 BKF 7 150.04 2824.2 100 YR 93 152.27 2821.25 BKF 7 150.05 2821.251 100 YR 93 152.28 UT TO THE LUMBER HEC -RAS ANALYSIS River Station Storm Event Discharge cfs Existing WSEL ft Proposed WSEL ft Backwater ft 2818.31 BKF 7 150.04 2818.31 100 YR 93 152.28 2799.93 BKF 7 150.26 150 -0.26 2799.93 100 YR 93 152.77 152.25 -0.52 2781.45 BKF 7 149.99 2781.45 100 YR 93 152.22 2762.97 BKF 7 149.96 2762.97 100 YR 93 152.2 2750.7 BKF 7 149.94 2750.7 100 YR 93 152.2 2744.19 BKF 7 149.94 2744.19 100 YR 93 152.21 2737.75 BKF 7 149.92 2737.75 100 YR 93 152.21 2729 BKF 7 150.15 149.9 -0.25 2729 100 YR 93 152.56 152.2 -0.36 2705.56 BKF 7 149.88 2705.56 100 YR 93 152.15 2682.12 BKF 7 149.85 2682.12 100 YR 93 152.13 2672.99 BKF 7 149.83 2672.99 100 YR 93 152.11 2660.15 BKF 7 150.05 149.82 -0.23 2660.15 100 YR 93 152.42 152.1 -0.32 2647.32 BKF 7 149.8 2647.321 100 YR 93 152.08 2614.87 BKF 7 149.74 2614.87 100 YR 93 152.06 2598.26 BKF 7 149.73 2598.26 100 YR 93 152.03 2581.65 BKF 7 149.92 149.7 -0.22 2581.65 100 YR 93 152.22 152.02 -0.20 2553.921 BKF 7 149.65 2553.921 100 YR 93 151.99 UT TO THE LUMBER HEC -RAS ANALYSIS River Station Storm Event Discharge cfs Existing WSEL ft Proposed WSEL ft Backwater ft 2538.11 BKF 7 149.77 149.65 -0.12 2538.11 100 YR 93 152.09 151.98 -0.11 2522.3 BKF 7 149.61 2522.3 100 YR 93 151.96 2517.49 BKF 7 149.6 2517.49 100 YR 93 151.95 2497.96 BKF 7 149.63 149.59 -0.04 2497.96 100 YR 93 151.97 151.94 -0.03 2478.44 BKF 7 149.56 2478.44 100 YR 93 151.93 2466.06 BKF 7 149.54 2466.06 100 YR 93 151.92 2457.08 BKF 7 149.49 149.54 0.05 2457.08 100 YR 93 151.84 151.91 0.07 2448.1 BKF 7 149.52 2448.1 100 YR 93 151.88 2435.22 BKF 7 149.49 2435.22 100 YR 93 151.86 2424.55 BKF 7 149.39 149.49 0.10 2424.55 100 YR 93 151.72 151.86 0.14 2413.89 BKF 7 149.47 2413.89 100 YR 93 151.85 2402.43 BKF 7 149.44 2402.43 100 YR 93 151.84 2386.77 BKF 7 149.21 149.44 0.23 2386.77 100 YR 93 151.65 151.83 0.18 2371.11 BKF 7 149.41 2371.11 100 YR 93 151.81 2331.9 BKF 7 149.34 2331.9 100 YR 93 151.78 2316.29 BKF 7 149.22 149.34 0.12 2316.29 100 YR 93 151.65 151.76 0.11 2300.69 BKF 7 149.31 2300.69 100 YR 93 151.75 UT TO THE LUMBER HEC -RAS ANALYSIS River Station Storm Event Discharge cfs Existing WSEL ft Proposed WSEL ft Backwater ft 2279.58 BKF 7 149.27 2279.58 100 YR 93 151.73 2268.33 BKF 7 149.27 2268.33 100 YR 93 151.71 2257.09 BKF 7 149.24 2257.09 100 YR 93 151.7 2250.09 BKF 7 149.23 2250.09 100 YR 93 151.69 2238.8 BKF 7 149.23 2238.8 100 YR 93 151.69 2227.52 BKF 7 149.2 2227.52 100 YR 93 151.67 2215.75 BKF 7 149.22 149.18 -0.04 2215.75 100 YR 93 151.64 151.66 0.02 2198.47 BKF 7 149.17 2198.47 100 YR 93 151.65 2181.19 BKF 7 149.14 2181.19 100 YR 93 151.65 2166.68 BKF 7 149.11 2166.68 100 YR 93 151.63 2157.59 BKF 7 149.11 2157.59 100 YR 93 151.62 2148.5 BKF 7 149.09 2148.5 100 YR 93 151.6 2134.4 BKF 7 149.06 2134.4 100 YR 93 151.59 2123.99 BKF 7 149.06 2123.99 100 YR 93 151.59 2113.58 BKF 7 149.04 2113.58 100 YR 93 151.58 2099.78 BKF 7 149.01 2099.78 100 YR 93 151.58 2087.47 BKF 7 149.22 149.01 -0.21 2087.47 100 YR 93 151.64 151.56 -0.08 UT TO THE LUMBER HEC -RAS ANALYSIS River Station Storm Event Discharge cfs Existing WSEL ft Proposed WSEL ft Backwater ft 2075.16 BKF 7 148.98 2075.16 100 YR 93 151.55 2071.35 BKF 7 148.97 2071.35 100 YR 93 151.54 2051.83 BKF 7 148.96 2051.83 100 YR 93 151.53 2032.35 BKF 7 148.93 2032.35 100 YR 93 151.54 2003.75 BKF 7 149.22 148.87 -0.35 2003.75 100 YR 93 151.63 151.5 -0.13 1987.38 BKF 7 148.86 1987.38 100 YR 93 151.48 1971.01 BKF 7 148.83 1971.01 100 YR 93 151.47 1962.71 BKF 7 148.82 1962.71 100 YR 93 151.46 1951.59 BKF 7 149.07 148.81 -0.26 1951.59 100 YR 93 151.56 151.46 -0.10 1940.46 BKF 7 148.79 1940.46 100 YR 93 151.44 1931.52 BKF 7 148.77 1931.52 100 YR 93 151.43 1915.51 BKF 7 148.76 1915.51 100 YR 93 151.43 1899.51 BKF 7 148.73 1899.51 100 YR 93 151.43 1889.12 BKF 7 148.71 1889.12 100 YR 93 151.43 1874.41 BKF 7 149.15 148.7 -0.45 1874.41 100 YR 93 151.52 151.41 -0.11 1859.7 BKF 7 148.67 1859.7 100 YR 93 151.38 1839.32 BKF 7 149.15 148.63 -0.52 1839.32 100 YR 93 151.49 151.37 -0.12 UT TO THE LUMBER HEC -RAS ANALYSIS River Station Storm Event Discharge cfs Existing WSEL ft Proposed WSEL ft Backwater ft 1826.65 BKF 7 148.63 1826.65 100 YR 93 151.37 1813.99 BKF 7 148.6 1813.99 100 YR 93 151.36 1802.71 BKF 7 149.15 148.58 -0.57 1802.71 100 YR 93 151.47 151.36 -0.11 1787.27 BKF 7 148.57 1787.27 100 YR 93 151.34 1771.84 BKF 7 148.54 1771.84 100 YR 93 151.33 1763.17 BKF 7 149.15 148.52 -0.63 1763.17 100 YR 93 151.45 151.34 -0.11 1748.76 BKF 7 148.51 1748.76 100 YR 93 151.34 1719.05 BKF 7 148.5 1719.05 100 YR 93 151.34 1704.39 BKF 7 148.47 1704.39 100 YR 93 151.32 1689.17 BKF 7 148.44 1689.17 100 YR 93 151.3 1676.74 BKF 7 149.14 148.44 -0.70 1676.74 100 YR 93 151.41 151.29 -0.12 1664.32 BKF 7 148.41 1664.32 100 YR 93 151.29 1652.3 BKF 7 148.39 1652.3 100 YR 93 151.28 1647.25 BKF 7 148.39 1647.25 100 YR 93 151.28 1642.21 BKF 7 148.38 1642.21 100 YR 93 151.28 1625.04 BKF 7 149.13 148.34 -0.79 1625.04 100 YR 93 151.39 151.28 -0.11 1607.76 BKF 7 148.34 1607.76 100 YR 93 151.25 UT TO THE LUMBER HEC -RAS ANALYSIS River Station Storm Event Discharge cfs Existing WSEL ft Proposed WSEL ft Backwater ft 1590.48 BKF 7 148.31 1590.48 100 YR 93 151.23 1577.9 BKF 7 149.12 148.28 -0.84 1577.9 100 YR 93 151.38 151.23 -0.15 1566.27 BKF 7 148.28 1566.27 100 YR 93 151.22 1554.65 BKF 7 148.25 1554.65 100 YR 93 151.22 1545.28 BKF 7 149.12 148.23 -0.89 1545.28 100 YR 93 151.36 151.21 -0.15 1529.64 BKF 7 149.12 148.23 -0.89 1529.64 100 YR 93 151.36 151.21 -0.15 1514.01 BKF 7 148.2 1514.01 100 YR 93 151.22 1508.51 BKF 7 148.19 1508.51 100 YR 93 151.22 1499.13 BKF 7 148.19 1499.13 100 YR 93 151.22 1489.76 BKF 7 148.16 1489.76 100 YR 93 151.22 1478.34 BKF 7 149.11 148.14 -0.97 1478.34 100 YR 93 151.34 151.22 -0.12 1462.44 BKF 7 148.13 1462.44 100 YR 93 151.21 1446.55 BKF 7 148.1 1446.55 100 YR 93 151.19 1436.09 BKF 7 148.08 1436.09 100 YR 93 151.18 1420.38 BKF 7 149.11 148.08 -1.03 1420.38 100 YR 93 151.33 151.18 -0.15 1404.68 BKF 7 148.05 1404.68 100 YR 93 151.19 1380.51 BKF 7 148.01 1380.51 100 YR 93 151.19 UT TO THE LUMBER HEC -RAS ANALYSIS River Station Storm Event Discharge cfs Existing WSEL ft Proposed WSEL ft Backwater ft 1370.08 BKF 7 148 1370.08 100 YR 93 151.19 1359.67 BKF 7 149.10 147.98 -1.12 1359.67 100 YR 93 151.32 151.17 -0.15 1339.05 BKF 7 147.94 1339.05 100 YR 93 151.16 1326.59 BKF 7 147.94 1326.59 100 YR 93 151.16 1314.14 BKF 7 149.10 147.92 -1.18 1314.14 100 YR 93 151.30 151.15 -0.15 1273.72 BKF 7 147.85 1273.72 100 YR 93 151.13 1268.77 BKF 7 147.86 1268.77 100 YR 93 151.13 1263.83 BKF 7 149.10 147.84 -1.26 1263.83 100 YR 93 151.30 151.12 -0.18 1218 Culvert 1172.21 BKF 7 147.39 147.77 0.38 1172.21 100 YR 93 149.67 149.84 0.17 1163.12 BKF 7 147.77 1163.12 100 YR 93 149.84 1154.04 BKF 7 147.75 1154.04 100 YR 93 149.82 1126.41 BKF 7 147.32 147.72 0.40 1126.41 100 YR 93 149.58 149.78 0.20 1121.49 BKF 7 147.72 1121.49 100 YR 93 149.77 1116.57 BKF 7 147.71 1116.57 100 YR 93 149.76 1075.58 BKF 7 147.25 147.66 0.41 1075.58 100 YR 93 149.49 149.72 0.23 1066.54 BKF 7 147.66 1066.541 100 YR 1 93 149.71 UT TO THE LUMBER HEC -RAS ANALYSIS River Station Storm Event Discharge cfs Existing WSEL ft Proposed WSEL ft Backwater ft 1057.5 BKF 7 147.65 1057.5 100 YR 93 149.7 1000.98 BKF 7 147.14 147.57 0.43 1000.98 100 YR 93 149.38 149.6 0.22 Downstream End of Project Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN APPENDIX 7 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FORM Florence & Hutcheson Appendix .......................................................... ............................... CONSULTING ENGINE.ERS Appendix A 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. Project Part 1: General Information Project Name: UT to the Lumber River Site - Stream Restoration, Enhancement, and Preservation County Name: Robeson EEP Number: Contract # 002027 Project $ onsor: Florence & Hutcheson Project Contact Name: Kevin Williams, PE, PLS, CPESC, CPSWO Project Contact Address: 5121 Kingdom Way, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27607 Project Contact E -mail: kwilliamsQOohut.com EEP Project Mana er: Guy Pearce Project Description The UT Lumber River Stream Mitigation Site (Site) is located approximately two (2) miles southeast of Pembroke in Robeson County, North Carolina and is located to the United States Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit and Targeted Local Watershed 03040203030010 (North Carolina Division of Water Quality Subbasin 03- 07 -51) of the Lumber River Basin and will service the USGS 8 -digit Cataloging Unit 03040203. The Site was identified to assist the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) in meeting its stream and wetland mitigation goals. The Site will restore approximately 3.500 linear feet of channelized unnamed tributary to the Lumber River. The Site is currently in row -crop agricultural production. For Official Use Only Reviewed By: Date EEP Project Manager Conditional Approved By: Date For Division Administrator FHWA ❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues Final Approval By: Z 5' �. Date or Division Administrator FHWA 6 Version 1.4, 8/18/05 Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN APPENDIX 8 EEP FLOODPLAIN REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST Florence & Hutcheson Appendix .... .......... ..... 1111.... .................... .......... .-.1.11..1........... CONSULTING ENGINEERS r� A 5 Stem ' Il 1 , a Ul �, Cl .1.1 'l It VROOWAM 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: UT to Lumber River Stream Restoration Name of stream or feature: UT to Lumber River County: Robeson Name of river basin: Lumber Is project urban or rural? Rural Name of Jurisdictional municipality/county: Robeson County DFIRM panel number for entire site: 3710934200) Consultant name: Florence & Hutcheson, Inc. Phone number: (919) 851 -6066 Address: 5121 Kingdom Way, Suite 100 Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 E.EP_Floodplain_CheckIist Page I of 4 Design Information The UT Lumber River Stream Mitigation Site (Site) is located approximately two (2) miles southeast of Pembroke in Robeson County, North Carolina. The properties included in this proposal span east of State Road (SR) 1003 (Chicken Road) and south from SR 1339 (Deep Branch Road) to US 74 Highway along the Lumber River. The primary goals of the project are to restore, enhance and preserve stream channels as outlined below: Reach Restoration I Enhancement Preservation UT to Lumber River 4295 463 2177 Lumber River 4087 TOTALS 4295 463 6264 Floodplain Information Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)? C Yes r' No If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined: r Redelineation r Detailed Study F- Limited Detail Study f- Approximate Study r Don't know List flood zone designation: Restoration site in Zone X. Preservation site in Zone A.E. Check if applies: W AE Zone r Floodway r Non - Encroachment r None r- Zone Local Setbacks Required No Local Setbacks Required If local setbacks are required, list how many feet: EEP_ Ioodplain_CheckIisi Page 2 of 4 Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway /non- encroachment/setbacks? C Yes r No Land Acquisition (Check) F State owned (fee simple) r Conservation easment (Design Bid Build) r Conservation Easement (Full 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: Jeff Britt Phone Number: (910)671 -3474 Floodplain Requirements This section to be filled by designer /applicant following verification with the LFPA W, No Action F No Rise F Letter of Map Revision r Conditional Letter of Map Revision F Other Requirements List other requirements: Discussions with the Robeson County Flood Plain Administrator, Jeff Britt (910 -671 -3434) on October 6`h, 2008 revealed that the only requirement is to submit a package with a map showing the proposed project and it's relation with the detailed flood mapping. We informed Jeff Britt that the project construction is located outside of the mapped floodplain and the construction will occur within Zone X. We are to submit a project map (with FIRM) showing proposed project. We should also include the HEC -RAS and Hydraulic Trespass sections of the restoration plan for his files. EEP_Floodplain_Checklist Page 3 of 4 Comments: Name: Chris Smith, PE Signature: Title: Design Engineer Date: EEP_Floodplain_ChcckIist Page 4 of 4 Contract No. 002027 UT to the Lumber River Site Robeson County, North Carolina RESTORATION PLAN APPENDIX 9 EXISTING CONDITIONS CROSS SECTIONS AND PROFILES Florence & Hutcheson Pp A endix ................................................................. ............................... CONSULTING ENGINL'L'RS 93 92 91 90 c °- 89 W 88 87 86 85 UTLR Channelized Reach Profile -+-- Existing Ground Line Water Elevation -r Bankfull 0 50 100 150 200 250 Station (ft.) 300 350 400 450 500 J UTLR Channelized Reach Profile Station (ft.) lChannel Elev. (ft.) I Water Elev. (ft.) Bonkfull Elev. (ft.) Top of Bank Elev. (ft.) 0 87.7 91.6 92.42 113 87.35 91.75 144 88.35 91.8 92.4 180 87.75 91.65 215 86.4 91.8 247 89.49 91.79 92.38 250 91.55 91.76 255 89.82 90.64 270 87.69 90.64 330 86.58 90.57 91.2 341 87.54 90.64 385 86.98 90.62 445 186.32 190.52 192.08 472 186.25 190.6 191.37 X W N a V OC J H 7 Y C m co v c J C 7 O i (7 1)LO x l,J f d M N .-1 O am 00 1- lD rn am m rn rn 00 00 00 00 (':y) U013en813 � v a v w I� N O v m Ol O M N O cc X c O o av o Ln N -1 m lD r� r-1 M Ln 06 06 0 Ln -` \� c O C3 z Y Y u c v c a c a N_ •C1 m m w >; C o lD I un CT -I �H O v M r-1 N 00 t_ W W O lD lz� N lD 00 lD lD 00 lD 00 00 U N N N O o0 00 lD GO 01 O O r1 ri ri w Ql Ql Ql Ql OO OO OO OO 00 M Ql Ql Ol I Ql J O O a L!l V rj N W rl N M l0 I- c1 L O lD W Ol rl —I e--I N N N N N N M Ln M Q1 I� N O i-1 Ol O M O cc c O o av o Ln N -1 m lD r� r-1 M Ln 06 06 0 Ln -` \� c O C3 z Y Y u c v c a c a c m m w 97 96.5 96 c ° 95.5 v LL' 95 94.5 94 0 UTLR Wooded Reach Profile +Existing Ground Line --i*- Ba n kf u I I -O -Top of Bank 20 40 60 80 100 120 Station (ft.) 140 160 UTLR Wooded Reach Profile Station (ft.) I Channel Elev. (ft.) I Water Elev. (ft.) IBankfull Elev. (ft.) I Top of Bank Elev. (ft.) 0 94.77 96.61 10 94.94 96.5 96 20 94.83 96.12 96.74 30 94.67 95.92 40 94.16 196.34 95.17 51 94.46 96.45 60 94.36 96.38 96.33 70 94.64 96.23 96.56 75 94.26 96.33 96.41 82 94.59 196.38 96.34 87 95.95 96.3 92 94.69 96.44 101 94.49 96.04 96.21 109 94.51 95.95 95.92 117 94.32 95.95 95.98 129 94.38 96.01 96.13 136 94.27 96.09 95.79 142 94.37 96.06 150 94.56 95.62 95.5 P"I LA r V) N X W O `SJ0 Y. J 9 Y C m OJ C J C 3 dO .0 N X W f r, Ln lD U') Ln Ln 'T cn .6 m Ln rn rn rn rn rn (•:4) uOl;eA813 Ll1 Q � Q LL h Ln 0 LL. Y m 00 IH LL. Y m N U O + cr N Q Q1 o O z Qai O X N 00 v m N � nj N Ql c-1 L(1 lO N �. cc C a c O a 00 01 Ln j r" lD r-I Lf1 N Lf1 y > LD '-D v zt 00 :1, r- r- lD lD =J lD lD lD Ln, V 4 cr Uf lD lD O W Ql Cn Dl Dl Ol Ql Ol Ql C) IC), O 3 J t O O m Lfl 00 m r, o Ln 0 00 IH I'D e-i O + cr N Q Q1 o O z Qai O N 00 m N � nj N Ql c-1 L(1 lO N �. cc C a c Q t j � U O c � m m W Ln F, Q F N v a o UL Y m 00 Li- Y m N � O rl N n X lD r-I i I d � r-I L I O_ N v a ui m o lD N N d ,O cr- V CO v �6 �6 ui v 4 Sri = O V rn rn rn rn rn rn p r- a C) Q1 v C Z 0 -, J O � i+ a Qj X C3 _o C co A' 7 W 0 Ol r- co W Ql lD 06 O Uf Q X W J c% 0 Ln �o r 00 ,� N 41 cc o a c v rn 6 rn � m rn n v rn L- Q _ �c 01 m Ol Y 3 U C (':4) U01jeA813 c c a m a m c w Ln F, Q F N v a o UL Y m Li- Y m U X d O_ v a ui m o lD N N d V "a v �6 �6 ui v 4 Sri tD �6 O w rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn O 3 cr -, 0 c% 0 Ln �o r 00 ,� Qi 0 r V M O O J 3 m T v c J C 7 O C7 CLO c x w I N lD W iD -It N Ln W �D T Ql m m m m Ol Q1 Ol (•:y) uoi;ena13 rn Q v � LZ N 4 LL Y m LL Y m _ F- N r-1 N O O a V Z v O v 0 00 C O x t rz IzT O N C 1 00 Ur v N � cc -co C3 v � O s �Y Y U c a c o +J Co I m I W lD IIl Lll r-I L11 N V1 � -a v 'w Li U i ui 4 v Sri Ln o am I rn 1 rn am I rn rn I rn 0 J 41 O 0 f� a � � V) O N m I� c1 .--J rl Ln 00 N 4 Ln N r-1 O O a cc Z v O v 0 00 C O x t rz IzT O N C 1 00 Ur N � cc -co C3 v � Q s �Y Y U c a c o 1� c Co I m I W Q1 H v � O LL Y LL Y v v O1 CT) N v r� v N X O r-I O p `ti F- Y aj M N lD 00 r-1 C m V M O Lfl T W N n 'G v X l6 of 4 4 tD tD O Q v 01 M Q1 I Ql I Ol 1 0-) O 00 a Qj o x r3 s 3 J a � " a D GJ `° N-i � m C: C lD N rI O N L(1 Q L!1 f, p x ri N W O 4 00 .--i r1 r-i 3 li N �. cc O a v c a, I� Ln lD L�1 L!1 Ln v Q Ol Ql Ql Y U C v (•:}) u01;ena13 o a M a Co c W Q1 H v � O LL Y LL Y N X O O p aj M N lD 00 r-1 IZT W M O Lfl T W N C? 'G v l6 l6 of 4 4 tD tD O W d1 01 M Q1 I Ql I Ol 1 0-) O 3 J a., F- D O I- L(1 Q L!1 f, ri N v1 O 4 00 .--i r1 r-i