The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20120747 Ver 1_401 Application_20130213o stem E a ement PROGRAM February 5, 2013 Ian McMillan, 401 Coordinator Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands Unit 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1650 20 130 12 T Re: Permit Application- Devil's Racetrack Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project, Johnston County (EEP Full Delivery Project) Dear Mr. McMillan Attached for your review are two sets of copies of 401/404 permit application package and mitigation plans for Devil's Racetrack stream and wetland mitigation project in Johnston County. A memo for the permit application fee is also included in the package. Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this project (919- 707 - 8319). f Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely Lin Xu Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package (2 originals) I. Final Mitigation Plan (2 originals) FEB 0 7 2013 Permit Application Fee Memo CD containing all electronic files r� -_wa '� P.StL%Y LK,�• ... ��... Y`D C?" .Sta& t A North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699 -1652 / 919 -715 -0476 / www.nceep.net r Iltm- -41;J El0 S em age ment PROGRAM February 5, 2013 Ian McMillan, 401 Coordinator Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands Unit 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1650 Re: Permit Application- Devil's Racetrack Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project, Johnston County (EEP Full Delivery Project) Dear Mr. McMillan Attached for your review are two sets of copies of 401/404 permit application package and mitigation plans for Devil's Racetrack stream and wetland mitigation project in Johnston County. A memo for the permit application fee is also included in the package. Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this project (919- 707 - 8319). Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely Lin Xu Attachment: 404/401 Permit Application Package (2 originals) Final Mitigation Plan (2 originals) Permit Application Fee Memo CD containing all electronic files TPt D Prom 0" St�� C N19 NE R North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 / 919 -115 -0476 / www.nceep.net r NP- _4;J L11 "KI, ement stem R'R4GM&M MEMORANDUM: TO: Cindy Perry FROM: Lin Xu SUBJECT: Payment of Permit Fee 401 Permit Application DATE: February 5, 2013 The Ecosystem Enhancement Program is implementing a mitigation project for Devil's Racetrack Site in Johnston County. The activities associated with this restoration project involve stream and wetland restoration related temporary stream and wetland impact. To conduct these activities the EEP must submit a Pre - construction Notification (PCN) Form to the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for review and approval. The DWQ assesses a fee of $570.00 for this review. Please transfer $570.00 from Fund # 2984, Account # 535120 to DWQ as payment for this review. If you have any questions concerning this matter I can be reached at 919- 707 -8319. Thanks for your assistance. cc: Ian McMillan, 401 Coordinator, DWQ kfftDf�f.G ... E .. PYateetr,�r� otty State, N� ENR North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 1 919 -115 -0476 1 www.nceep.net o�aF, \NArF�ROG 0 lqii� � Office Use Only: Corps action ID no. DWQ project no. Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008 Page 1 of 11 PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form A. Applicant Information 1. Processing 1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps: ®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit 1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: No. 27 or General Permit (GP) number: 1 c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ❑ Yes ® No 1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply): ® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit ❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization 1 e. Is this notification solely for the record because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401 Certification: ❑ Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit: ❑ Yes ® No 1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program. ❑ Yes ® No 1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h below. ❑ Yes ® No 1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ❑ Yes ® No 2. Project Information 2a. Name of project: Devils Racetrack Stream & Wetland Mitigation Site 2b. County: Johnston 2c. Nearest municipality / town: Smithfield, NC 2d. Subdivision name: N/A 2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no: 3. Owner Information 3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Nell Howell Revocable Trust 3b. Deed Book and Page No. DB4221/PN 419 -433; Plat Book 78 /PN 71 -74 3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if applicable): NCDENR - North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program Contact: Jeff Jurek 3d. Street address: 217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000A 3e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27603 3f. Telephone no.: 919 - 707 -8976 3g. Fax no.: 919 - 715 -0710 3h. Email address: Jeff.Jurek @ncdenr.gov Page 1 of 11 PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version 4. Applicant Information (if different from owner) 4a. Applicant is: ❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify: 4b. Name: Jeff Jurek 4c. Business name (if applicable): Ecosystem Enhancement Program 4d. Street address: 217 W. Jones St 4e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27603 4f. Telephone no.: 919 - 715 -8291 4g. Fax no.: 919 - 715 -2001 4h. Email address: Jeff.Jurek @ncdenr.gov 5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable) 5a. Name: John Hutton 5b. Business name (if applicable): Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 5c. Street address: 5605 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 122 5d. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27607 5e. Telephone no.: 919- 851 -9986 5f. Fax no.: 919 - 851 -9987 5g. Email address: jhutton @wildlandseng.com Page 2 of 11 B. Project Information and Prior Project History 1. Property Identification 1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): PIN# 168100 -48 -4293; 168100 -28 -6055 1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 35.449347° N Longitude: 78.380579° W 1c. Property size: Final protected easement acreage will be 100.01 Acres 2. Surface Waters 2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Neuse River proposed project: 2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: Class WS -V; NSW 2c. River basin: Neuse 03020201 3. Project Description 3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application: The project area is located within a rural watershed of Johnston County, NC. Devils Racetrack Creek and its unnamed tributaries exhibit severe ditching and straightening from past agricultural activities. The properties are active row crop fields with adjacent silviculture tracts with impacts from heavy vegetation management. 3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: The project site includes one jurisdictional open water area, approximately 0.9 acre in size. 3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: Approximately 14,402 linear feet of perennial channel and approximately 800 linear feet of intermittent channel within the project area. 3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project: The primary goal for the project is to reclaim the natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain and stream channel within Devils Racetrack Creek and its unnamed tributaries through enhancement and restoration activities. Wetland hydrology will be restored and terrestrial riparian habitat will be improved through native vegetation plantings. 3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Grading and planting bank slopes with native riparian species, excavation of new channel and floodplain, excavation of riffle and pool bedform features and installation of in- stream structures. A trackhoe will be used for in- stream work. 4. Jurisdictional Determinations 4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property / ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown project (including all prior phases) in the past? Comments: 4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type El Preliminary ®Final of determination was made? 4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency /Consultant Company: Name (if known): Matt L. Jenkins, PWS — Wildlands Eng. Other: 4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation. A Request for Jurisdictional Determination was approved by Thomas Brown of the USACE on June 13, 2012. A copy of the approved Jurisdictional Determination is included in Appendix 4 (Action Id. SAW- 2012 - 00810) 5. Project History 5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown this project (including all prior phases) in the past? 5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions. 6. Future Project Plans 6a. Is this a phased project? ❑ Yes ® No 6b. If yes, explain. Page 3 of 11 PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version C. Proposed Impacts Inventory 1. Impacts Summary 1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply): ❑ Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers ® Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction 2. Wetland Impacts If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted. 2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f. Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction number — Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ — non -404, other) (acres) Temporary T AA ❑ P FIT ❑ Yes ❑ Corps ❑ No ❑ DWQ BB ❑ P ❑ T ❑ Yes ❑ Corps ❑ No ❑ DWQ 2g. Total wetland impacts 2h. Comments: 3. Stream Impacts If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this question for all stream sites impacted. 3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g. Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ — non -404, width (linear Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet) S1 ❑ P ®T Restoration Devils Racetrack ® PER ® Corps 5 -10 9,820 Creek ❑ INT ® DWQ S2 ❑ P ®T Restoration Southwest Branch ® PER ❑ INT ® Corps ® DWQ 3 -4 851 S2 ❑ P ®T Enhancement I Southwest Branch ® PER ❑ INT ® Corps ® DWQ 3 -4 75 S2 ❑ P ®T Enhancement II Southwest Branch ❑ PER ® INT ® Corps ® DWQ 3 -4 154 S3 ❑ P ®T Restoration Middle Branch ® PER ❑ INT ® Corps ® DWQ 2 1,326 S4 ❑ P ®T Restoration Southeast Branch ® PER ❑ INT ® Corps ® DWQ 3 -6 2,176 S4 ❑ P ® T Restoration Southeast Branch ❑ PER ® INT ® Corps ® DWQ 3 -6 800 3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 15,202 3i. Comments: Impacts to on -site streams include temporary enhancement and restoration activities and will result in a net gain of 2,690 linear feet of perennial stream channel and 53 linear feet of intermittent stream channel for a total of 18,745 linear feet. Page 4 of 11 4. Open Water Impacts If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below. 4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e. Open water Name of waterbody impact number — (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres) Permanent (P) or Temporary T 01 ®P ❑ T Pond A Draining — allow for stream & Pond 0.9 wetland restoration 02 ❑P ❑T 03 ❑P ❑T 4f. Total open water impacts 0.9 4g. Comments: Pond A will be drained and a wetland feature will be constructed in the area that is now the pond. Stream restoration credit of 410 LF will be generated by this feature as it is an alternative preferred by the Interagency Review Team (IRT) to designing a stream channel through the pond bottom. 5. Pond or Lake Construction If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below. 5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e. Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres) number of pond Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded P1 P2 5f. Total 5g. Comments: 5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no: 5i. Expected pond surface area (acres): 5j. Size of pond watershed (acres): 5k. Method of construction: Page 5 of 11 6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ) If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form. 6a. ❑ Neuse El Tar-Pamlico El Other: Project is in which protected basin? ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman 6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g. Buffer impact number — Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet) Temporary T impact required? 131 ❑P ❑T ❑Yes ❑ No B2 ❑ P ❑ T ❑ Yes ❑ No B3 ❑P ❑T ❑Yes ❑ No 6h. Total buffer impacts 6i. Comments: Page 6 of 11 D. Impact Justification and Mitigation 1. Avoidance and Minimization 1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project. The project constitutes a positive impact, enhancing and restoring stream function and habitat by improving bed features in the streams and establishing flood storage. Wetland habitat will also be enhanced and restored through improved hydrologic function and vegetation. Biodegradable coir fiber matting and native vegetation will be used to stabilize the newly graded banks throughout the project. lb. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques. Construction practices will follow guidelines from the NC Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. 2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State 2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ❑ Yes ® No 2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ❑ DWQ ❑ Corps 2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this project? ❑ Mitigation bank Payment to in -lieu fee program ❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation 3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank 3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: 3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity 3c. Comments: 4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program 4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached. ❑ Yes 4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet 4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold 4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet 4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres 4f. Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres 4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres 4h. Comments: 5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan 5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan. Page 7 of 11 PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version 6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ 6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires buffer mitigation? ❑ Yes ® No 6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the amount of mitigation required. Zone 6c. Reason for impact 6d. Total impact (square feet) Multiplier 6e. Required mitigation (square feet) Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba) Zone 2 1.5 6f. Total buffer mitigation required: 6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank, permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund). 6h. Comments: Page 8of11 E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ) 1. Diffuse Flow Plan 1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ❑ Yes ® No within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules? 1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why. ❑ Yes ❑ No Comments: 2. Stormwater Management Plan 2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 0% 2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ❑ Yes ® No 2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: This project involves the restoration and enhancement of on -site jurisdictional stream channels and wetlands, no increase in impervious cover will result from the construction of this project. 2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan: ❑ Certified Local Government 2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ❑ DWQ Stormwater Program ❑ DWQ 401 Unit 3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review 3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? ❑ Phase II 3b. Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs ❑ NSW ❑ USMP apply (check all that apply): ❑ Water Supply Watershed ❑ Other: 3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ❑ Yes ❑ No attached? 4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review ❑ Coastal counties ❑ HQW 4a. Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply ❑ ORW (check all that apply): ❑ Session Law 2006 -246 ❑ Other: 4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ❑ Yes ❑ No attached? 5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review 5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ❑ Yes ❑ No 5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ❑ Yes ❑ No Page 9 of 11 PCN Form —Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version F. Supplementary Information 1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement) 1a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the ® Yes ❑ No use of public (federal /state) land? 1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ® Yes ❑ No (North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)? 1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearing House? (if so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval ® Yes ❑ No letter.) Comments: The approved Categorical Exclusion is attached in Appendix 10. 2. Violations (DWQ Requirement) 2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ❑ Yes ® No or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)? 2b. Is this an after - the -fact permit application? ❑ Yes ® No 2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s): 3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement) 3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ❑ Yes ® No additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? 3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description. This is a stream and wetland restoration and enhancement project and will not cause an increase in development nor will it negatively impact downstream water quality. 4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement) 4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility. Page 10 of 11 PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version 5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement) 5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ❑ Yes ® No habitat? 5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ® Yes ❑ No impacts? ® Raleigh 5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. ❑ Asheville 5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical Habitat? Utilized the NC Natural Heritage Program's element occurrence GIS data layer as well as contact the USFWS Raleigh office for any additional information on the presence of endangered or protected species or critical habitat (Appendix 10). Wildlands Engineering also performed pedestrian surveys of the site on January 8, 2011 and February 23, 2012. 6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement) 6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ❑ Yes ® No 6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat? Contacted NC Wildlife Resource Commission (see enclosed letter in Appendix 10). 7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement) 7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ❑ Yes ® No status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in North Carolina history and archaeology)? 7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources? The NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted regarding the presence historic properties or cultural resources within the project area. SHPO conducted a review of the area and "are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project ". (see enclosed letter, Appendix 10). 8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement) 8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain? ® Yes ❑ No 8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: The downstream end of Devil's Racetrack Creek is located within the floodway and flood fringe of the Neuse River. The Neuse River is mapped as FEMA Zone AE and no mapped cross - sections from the Neuse River exist within the project work area. No net fill is proposed in the mapped section of Neuse River floodplain. A detailed grading plan and evaluation of the proposed effects on hydrology will be submitted for approval by the Johnston County floodplain administrator. 8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FIRM Panel 1680 Jeff Jurek DENR, NCEEP Date p- cant/Agent's Signature Applicant/Agent's Printed Name (Agent's signat /ivpid o nly if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.) Page 11 of 11 Y os stem f�. - - PROGRAM September 2, 2011 Andrea Eckardt — Project Contact Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 Charlotte, North Carolina 28203 Subject: Categorical Exclusion Form for Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Neuse River Basin — CU# 03020201 Johnston County, North Carolina Contract No. 003989 Dear Mrs. Eckardt: Attached please find the approved Categorical Exclusion Form for the subject full delivery project. I have approved your invoice, in the amount of $436,001.65 (5% of contract) for completion of the Task 1 deliverable. Please include the original form in your Mitigation Plan. If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me at any time. I can be reached at (919) 715 -5838, or email me at Jessica.Kemp @ncdenr.gov. Sincerely, / Jessica Kemp t�3 I EEP Project Manager cc: file pmstor4 ... E ,.. rot ,t' OW .St- � ''�'A NCDENR North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 / 919 -115 -0416 / www.nceep.net Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement Program Projects Version 1.4 Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the environmental document. -�- • • • Pro ect Name: Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Count Name: Johnston County EEP Number: Contract Number 003989, RFP 16-003624 7: Project S on Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Project Contact Name: Andrea Eckardt Prole ct Contact Address: 1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203 Project Contact E -mail: aeckardt @wildlandseng.com EEP Pro "ect Man y, er: Jessica Kemp Project Description The Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site is a stream and wetland mitigation project located in eastern Johnston County, NC, immediately west of the Town of Four Oaks. The project is located on five unnamed tributaries to the Neuse River. The project will provide stream and wetland mitigation units to NCEEP in the Neuse River Basin (03020201). The mitigation project involves a For Official Use Only Reviewed By: Dat4 EP Project anager Conditional Approved By: For Division Administrator Date FHWA ❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues Final Approval By: C Jon r Administrator Date FHWA AUG 2 3 2011 NC ECOSYSTEM - _.. Devil's'Racetrack Mitipration Site Z) Johnston County, NCB f r North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program V IC111IL'y iviLalp N.t to &9Il ( D BEFORE YOU DIGI CALL 1 -800 -632 -4949 N.C. ONE —CALL CENTER IT'S THE LAWI PROGRAM 60% PLANS February 1, 2013 ISSUED FOR REVIEW t Sheet Index Title Sffacct 0.1 Project Overview 0.2 -0.3 General Notes and Symbols 0.4 Typical Sections 1.1 -1.5 Plan and Profile 2.1 -2.55 Supplemental Grading Overview 3.1 Supplemental mall Grath ng 3.2 -3.10 Wetland Overview 4.1 Wetland Boundaries 4.2 -4.5 Planting Notes & Vegetation Tables 5.0 Planting Overview 5.1 -5.2 Planting 5.3 -5.9 Erosion & Sediment Control (Not Included) Detains 7.1-7.5 Project Directory Owner. Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1652 Main Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 Jeff JJunu ek 919- 715-1157 D ENR Contract lam. 003989 I Q b � _ w '7 0 ®�� '0 b N eQ r� e Q ° M 8 0 b �7 d Id Id ,d Begin Construction Devil's Racetrack Creek (west) STA 0 +00 350 27'01.58" N 780 23' 18.08" W /1d Id G 2.2 2.1 n 2.54 2.53 Southwest Branch`' Reach Break STA 506 +50 Southwest Branch Reach Break STA 502 +07 r �I I 2.51 Southwest Branch - ,d Reach Break STA 501+31 ,a ^a/ Begin Construction Southwest Branch STA 500 +00 350 26'52.59" N 780 23' 11.83" W I >d Begin Construction North Branch STA 400 +00 350 27' 10.81" N 780 22'48.23" W J a 2.24 C p� Id Id Id Id -Id Id Id Id ld Id P� �eKN e Devil's Racetrack Creek (west) g �e��I,1 .01 2.3 2.55 joo j 8C 2.52 � )y v \r I >d I \ i �d U e .4a C 2.4 2.6 2.5 o`I 2.36 2.35 C.p J} Devil's Racetrack (west) Reach Break STA 42 +45 U C\ C- / 2.37 2.7 / 2.34 Middle Branch 2.33 \ Reach Break STA 214 +70 2.32 \ �' �J \ 2.46 2.8 2.47 PI- 'WI rt� P� - 2.27 ,d n \ 9 2.28 \ J 2.45 /so- 2.30 2.43 6, .44 Southeast Branch Begin Construction r Middle Branch STA 204 +10 2.29 350 26'54.13" N 780 23'03.59" W 2.41 2 \ 2.39 E At 2.38 A Reach Break STA 322 +75 2.42 / a� b / Southeast Branch Reach Break STA 315 +59 /Begin Construction Southeast Branch STA 300 +00 350 26'46.27" N 780 23'03.84" W 0' 150' 300' 450' (HORIZONTAL) 2.12 N \ 1d \°n �a Q b n Z �. �w aZU��w� I b eb 0 eQ � ® b b �ti� iH ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN 125 120 115 110 48 +50 O 'to Q� C z� U ' i 49 +00 INorth Branch ... See Sheet 2.28 49 +50 50 +00 50 +50 51 +00 I 3 Proposed 6'X 6'Ccncrete — / / Box Culverts • Remove Existing 36" RCP Proposed Pipe Invert '1'_(�, �• � Elevations = 114.25' \�--- - - - - -- 125 Q b U�b Iti _ w i 120 _ Proposed Road Top of Grade 115 r. 110 51 +50 52 +00 52 +5052 +58 Note: Channel area where proposed bankfull elevation is above existing ground will be graded according to typical section sheet 1.1. ��iil '11j111 I I 1111111111 Ja 1''11 1111111111 � CF III 11111114 U \ C11- \ 1111 111 1111111111 � 111111 111111114 I F\ �Ij11 i�11114 c Idl 11 111111y + �II 1 1119 Ise `II 11119 I I I Q 11 1 119 r N 1 1� II I 1 i1 11 1 1 �� 111 11y Z 11 1 I I 1 1 J 1 Proposed Pipe Invert 1 1 I I = Elevations 114.2' r�y1 I \\\�\ i 1111I11j ,111 II ice.. �•�• � � /ter X11 X1111 \1 (D lli^ m r II� 111 � 1 � CD End Construction 11i1 Devil's Racetrack Creek (west) - 52 +11 I II I 1 \ II 111111 III1I I _ - -_ Fill Existing stream to 11 II II 1� 11 - -_ Elevation of Floodplain II III 111 I I — II 111 II1I1 %11 I III q 111111 P m ¢ In 11 F w In w W w ~ J w a �� F — °— w > —F w rn w w w —� ¢ w —F rn — w ¢ —F w rn —c w F' rn w— u w > w �� > ° —N F w —¢ In i -� w 'n w -¢ n v - + 'n w¢ w n -N ¢ F w w w o —O Lu w 0 —`+ > w —¢ w > w 0 w N F w w ; F w w I ; F rn N w 11 w 0 om w w c F rn o ¢ M 'n N F In F 0 ¢ 0 w w w In rn 7z Proposed Bankfull \ STA = 51 +91.3 ELEV = 114.14 STA = 49 +95.8 ELEV = 114.65 Existing Ground \ \ STA = 51 +87.0 ELEV = 114.15 Proposed Grade \ O 'to Q� C z� U ' i 49 +00 INorth Branch ... See Sheet 2.28 49 +50 50 +00 50 +50 51 +00 I 3 Proposed 6'X 6'Ccncrete — / / Box Culverts • Remove Existing 36" RCP Proposed Pipe Invert '1'_(�, �• � Elevations = 114.25' \�--- - - - - -- 125 Q b U�b Iti _ w i 120 _ Proposed Road Top of Grade 115 r. 110 51 +50 52 +00 52 +5052 +58 Note: Channel area where proposed bankfull elevation is above existing ground will be graded according to typical section sheet 1.1. ��iil '11j111 I I 1111111111 Ja 1''11 1111111111 � CF III 11111114 U \ C11- \ 1111 111 1111111111 � 111111 111111114 I F\ �Ij11 i�11114 c Idl 11 111111y + �II 1 1119 Ise `II 11119 I I I Q 11 1 119 r N 1 1� II I 1 i1 11 1 1 �� 111 11y Z 11 1 I I 1 1 J 1 Proposed Pipe Invert 1 1 I I = Elevations 114.2' r�y1 I \\\�\ i 1111I11j ,111 II ice.. �•�• � � 0' 2' 4' 6' (VERTICAL) 0' 20' 40' 60' (HORIZONTAL) I U 13 b � b � e� M U i� a 4 y e E w re v v � v � � Q AIM � d e� E1 r ^ ®1 1� e� b b WIN rs /ter X11 X1111 \1 (D lli^ m r II� 111 � 1 � CD End Construction 11i1 Devil's Racetrack Creek (west) - 52 +11 I II I 1 \ II 111111 III1I I _ - -_ Fill Existing stream to 11 II II 1� 11 - -_ Elevation of Floodplain II III 111 I I — II 111 II1I1 %11 I III q 111111 P 0' 2' 4' 6' (VERTICAL) 0' 20' 40' 60' (HORIZONTAL) I U 13 b � b � e� M U i� a 4 y e E w re v v � v � � Q AIM � d e� E1 r ^ ®1 1� e� b b WIN rs 12(l 115 110 107 52 +58 Existing Ground �w� w <w 0 w �w �� w Lwow =w �w �w �w �� w — �� w �� w �� w � ��w <w �w �� w <w �w0w <w �� w �� w �w �� w �� w <w �w <w �w �� w _— I\ . ............ .. ..... 1. I .. _.. _.... .. _.... _ ... .... .... .... _ .. _.. ._...._. .. ...._ ... .. — I \ I I I \ \ I 1 \ I Proposed Grade Proposed Bankfull o w w 53 +00 53 +50 54 +00 54 +50 55 +00 Remove Existing 36" RCP Begin Construction — Devil's Racetrack Creek (east) \ 52 +59 Proposed Pipe Invert _ Elevations = 114.2' -- \�\ \ \\\� \ 9s A \ - -- \ 2 �`� 3 Proposed \ - \ \ 6' X 3' Concrete Culverts End Construction Devil's Racetrack Creek 52 +11 n. 55 +50 56 +00 56 +50 \ Fill Existing Stream to Elevation of Flaadplain 57 +00 Q b 120 �w� w 115 110 107 57 +30 0' 2' 4' 6' (VERTICAL) 0' 20' 40' 60' (HORIZONTAL) - - - -- — _ _ — — —� - - -- __ i 100 . / _---------- - - - - -- _ -- — -- =_ =___ VJ ----------O---- n9 Did Path ld U evv mym �L b e4 e� b e� IN 4, �J rzi a E w � v�v�� 120 115 110 105 57 +30 57 +50 O I M t t\ I 58 +00 58 +50 59 +00 59 +50 60 +00 60 +50 61 +00 61 +50 62 +00 120 IrilO mn n® Z Iti _ w 115 110 05 62 +50 CF \ 0' 2' 4' 6' CE � (VERTICAL) CE CE CE CE 0' 20' 40' 60' CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE (HORIZONTAL) CE CE CE CE CV — ON I I \ / W ( �. ` ` - -- Fill Existing Stream to \ •.� � r I.• I- - - - -_— _--- - - - - -- — — — — Elevation of ood lai ' /// �— - -- - - -- - -- ---- - - - -_— -- - - -- — --- - - - - -- - - - - -- __------ - - - - -- Existing Dirt Path --- - --_-- // � I � / � I Grade Out Existing � I Berm Floodplain Elevation \ U evv mym �L e� e� E1 U b e� IN i 4, j ®��®t�� 0 a 4 y e E w � �www - <w <w M� <w mw <w m IN w� �� <w <w <w <w <w "w "w "w "w �w �w �w�w �w �w <w <w_ 0w <w 0w "w <w <w " w "w <w - <w w w 0w <w ¢w w �w w ,ww > ¢w 0w ;w Proposed Bankfull " " " 0 w \ \ / STA = 60 +23.3 II \ / Proposed Grade ELEV = 113.31 I \ / STA = 60 +27.2 I I / ELEV = 113.30 I Existing Ground STA = 60 +54.6 STA = 60 +57.5 J ELEV = 113.29 ELEV = 113.29 w > F " w F w " w 105 57 +30 57 +50 O I M t t\ I 58 +00 58 +50 59 +00 59 +50 60 +00 60 +50 61 +00 61 +50 62 +00 120 IrilO mn n® Z Iti _ w 115 110 05 62 +50 CF \ 0' 2' 4' 6' CE � (VERTICAL) CE CE CE CE 0' 20' 40' 60' CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE (HORIZONTAL) CE CE CE CE CV — ON I I \ / W ( �. ` ` - -- Fill Existing Stream to \ •.� � r I.• I- - - - -_— _--- - - - - -- — — — — Elevation of ood lai ' /// �— - -- - - -- - -- ---- - - - -_— -- - - -- — --- - - - - -- - - - - -- __------ - - - - -- Existing Dirt Path --- - --_-- // � I � / � I Grade Out Existing � I Berm Floodplain Elevation \ U evv mym �L e� e� E1 U b e� IN i 4, j ®��®t�� 0 a 4 y e E w � 125 120 115 110 62 +50 63 +00 63 +50 64 +00 64 +50 65 +00 65 +50 66 +00 66 +50 67 +00 — CV ' CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE\ CE — = - -CE CE CE CE /�E IGrade ��' I ='' -- -- -- FloodplainElevation _ _ \— —_ -- _ — _ \ '/ IElevation Fill Existing Stream to of Floodplain 30 30 LO iOO __ - - -- _' Grade Out Existing Berm Floodplain Elevation 'i t ♦. ♦. Existing Ground + `° Fw f7 W > J w w w + ¢ F 0 — M + M ¢ w F 0 w 11 w w 11 w w + M ¢ w F 0 w + m ¢ F 0 F w w w �� + w o", w — F f7 M w w + m M ¢ w w ¢ w m w —ii ¢ w- w w m ii w- ¢ w w ¢ w ii > ~ w F fn w /ii ii w /' ~ w F fn F ii F fn ii F fn M w w m ¢ w ii w w ¢ w ii w w — w ii ~ 0 w - ... -- _. .. _.... _ ... .... .... _..�. .. _. -- - -- - - -- Proposed Grade Proposed Bankfull 110 62 +50 63 +00 63 +50 64 +00 64 +50 65 +00 65 +50 66 +00 66 +50 67 +00 — CV ' CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE\ CE — = - -CE CE CE CE /�E IGrade ��' I ='' -- -- -- FloodplainElevation _ _ \— —_ -- _ — _ \ '/ IElevation Fill Existing Stream to of Floodplain 30 30 LO iOO __ - - -- _' Grade Out Existing Berm Floodplain Elevation 'i t ♦. ♦. ♦ / Existing Dirt Path ' /• ' \ \ \ .. _. 1 ' ' � t � I I — 3C�3C�3C�30 �3 -- 3C 3C I 30 30 3C , 30 125 b IrilO mn n® Iti _ w 120 115 10 67 +50 0' 2' 4' 6' (VERTICAL) 0' 20' 40' 60' (HORIZONTAL) evv mym �L e� e� IN i 0 C, E w � b 30 30 � I I — 3C�3C�3C�30 �3 -- 3C 3C I 30 30 3C , 30 125 b IrilO mn n® Iti _ w 120 115 10 67 +50 0' 2' 4' 6' (VERTICAL) 0' 20' 40' 60' (HORIZONTAL) evv mym �L e� e� IN i 0 C, E w � b 120 115 110 W \ w \ ¢ w w ti woo co ¢ w > > 0 fn w `w- w`° ry w ¢ W fn w rv¢ W w � ¢ w ~ 1L � U - w -¢ w - w� J Q F f7 w > ¢ F > w - >_^ w Ln > w Existing Ground E � v ° ii + - w " ¢ N -ii w w o w ¢ ¢ w w- ¢ m " w F '� N > ¢ +- w N —¢ W _ w- w ¢ F w-0 w w N -o w -0-1 �- �_� ¢ w 0 F // \\ 47 ii - + > �� w¢ w -< o - / \\ - w w V) V) m - -- w - w -- / w i \ _ Proposed Bankfull Proposed Grade ¢ w > n w F w w 105 67 +50 68 +00 68 +50 69 +00 69 +50 70 +00 70 +50 71 +00 71 +50 72 +00 U 120 b b Zss Q O _ 9 aZU�F�V. 115 110 05 72 +20 2' 4' 6' Grade Out Existing (VERTICAL) - -,�- C € - - - -- /i��E n -_ -�_\ Berm Floodplain Elevation ` --- - - - - -- - - —4 -�€ CE ( \� 0' 20' 40' 60' - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - -- - _ - CE CE - - -EE- CE (HORIZONTAL) _ -- -_ - -- - - - _ __ - �___ - -_ - _-- - - - - -- \\ 1 II \ \CE — CE — CE — CE — CE -- - - - - - -- I— -Pm —_- � Fill Existing Stream i CE T_ _ - _- - _ -- -_ _ -��_ -- — _ = - -_- - - - - =-- --- --= -- -� -- Elevation of Floodplain a y 1 - - - - -- _- ---- - - - - -- ----------------- O % 69x00 _ — _ I- Grade Out Existing • -• • _ - - _ - -� Berm Floodplain Elevation _ Z I \ + --- - - - - - J 2 j� Exsbng Dirt Path U I`c, r -� _ _ - Proposed Culvert n I� + 30 \ c ,-,UP J 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 i m m1 30 J U 1 U l _-_ N �LU 2 z �4 Q evv mym �L b e� e� IN 0>0 41 0 b i� ti Q .. d w � � U e / w � I E � v 120 115 - 110 105 72 +20 72 +50 73 +00 73 +50 74 +00 74 +50 75 +00 75 +50 76 +00 76 +50 120 1 b IrilG mn n® a Z U V 15 110 105 77 +00 CE I / / I ce � ce ce — — CE CE CE CE CE CE CE / CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE --- ______ — _ Fill Existing Stream to - -_— — — _ _ _ — —_ Elevation of Floodplain _ — ` Grade Out Existing Berm — Floodplain Elevation / co z _ _• • — '�•�T Grade Out Existing Berm LIJ J \ Floodplain Elevation — — — _ _ ` \ �� \_ \ \ \\ *� ,• ,•• / /��/ 11 �� / I Eidsting Dirt path 0, 2' 4' 6' (VERTICAL) 20' 40' 60' 3C (HORIZONTAL) i 0 0'4� V evv mym �L b � e� e� IN a C i� vo fn —fn w w ¢ w w ¢ 0 ¢ fn w >W w o s w ii ¢ w —¢ w ii > w F f7 w w o w_ —^ ¢ F f7 w \ ^ > F w 0 w ^ w -ii F V) ii ^ > ii F W f7 ii F > fn W w w F fn w w ¢ W w -- - - -._ w - -- w _ w ¢ '¢' w / > — w w / F \ \ / 0 w- - / — - — / \/ F V) / ................. _.. _.. _. _. .. _ .. .. .... . _ ..... .... _ .. ..... . _.. _. \ i / \ / Proposed Bankfull Proposed Grade Existing Ground F o F w w o _F w w w w = w w 72 +50 73 +00 73 +50 74 +00 74 +50 75 +00 75 +50 76 +00 76 +50 120 1 b IrilG mn n® a Z U V 15 110 105 77 +00 CE I / / I ce � ce ce — — CE CE CE CE CE CE CE / CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE --- ______ — _ Fill Existing Stream to - -_— — — _ _ _ — —_ Elevation of Floodplain _ — ` Grade Out Existing Berm — Floodplain Elevation / co z _ _• • — '�•�T Grade Out Existing Berm LIJ J \ Floodplain Elevation — — — _ _ ` \ �� \_ \ \ \\ *� ,• ,•• / /��/ 11 �� / I Eidsting Dirt path 0, 2' 4' 6' (VERTICAL) 20' 40' 60' 3C (HORIZONTAL) i 0 0'4� V evv mym �L b � e� e� IN a C i� vo 120 - 115 - 110 - 105 77 +00 \ G� 77 +50 ...... 78 +00 78 +50 7g +00 7g +50 80 +00 80 +50 81 +00 81 +50 CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE — CE I �CE CE 1 Grade Out Existing I i 14. Berm Floodplain Elevation I fir/ • - -_.... _. - - -- � ',,, __ _,,_ - -�� - - -- _.. , ..... ..... ___ 190,00 - - -_— _ — _ — — — — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ —_— _ — — _ _ .. _.. • _ - -�� lc t -- � Fill Existing Stream to Elevation of Floodplain Existing \ Grade Out / / I / Berm Floodplain Elevation Existing Dirt Path -- — — _ I — ----------------- _--- - - - -__ — I \ I 0' C I 9 120 QO mr - 115 - 110 05 81 +80 2' 4' 6' (VERTICAL) (HORIZONTAL) U vvbm �L e� IN i 0 a b Existing Ground F fn W w w w -O ¢ F fn N >- �� w ¢ F w fn N ~ > -f7 w w l lu w F �^ V) w fn �� -^ > ¢ w F w II_F > ¢ w F w -�� II_n w > ¢ w �� > ¢ w ¢ w w — w —n YI- > w w lr �� > ¢ w w w - °m �� w ¢ - °m �� > w¢ w -¢ ~ > V) w w w w o ¢ ¢ > ¢ > w w— h ¢ ii > w \ \ V) W -- - -_~ to w -- — — -- F V) l — — - — — —_ fn -- > w \ _ — — _ -- Proposed Bankfull .. ... .. ... _. _ .... _ ... _ .... .. _ .. .. .. .. .. ... .. — .. .. _.. _.. .. .... .. Proposed Grade \ G� 77 +50 ...... 78 +00 78 +50 7g +00 7g +50 80 +00 80 +50 81 +00 81 +50 CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE — CE I �CE CE 1 Grade Out Existing I i 14. Berm Floodplain Elevation I fir/ • - -_.... _. - - -- � ',,, __ _,,_ - -�� - - -- _.. , ..... ..... ___ 190,00 - - -_— _ — _ — — — — — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ _ —_— _ — — _ _ .. _.. • _ - -�� lc t -- � Fill Existing Stream to Elevation of Floodplain Existing \ Grade Out / / I / Berm Floodplain Elevation Existing Dirt Path -- — — _ I — ----------------- _--- - - - -__ — I \ I 0' C I 9 120 QO mr - 115 - 110 05 81 +80 2' 4' 6' (VERTICAL) (HORIZONTAL) U vvbm �L e� IN i 0 a b 120 115 110 105 81 +80 82 +00 82 +50 83 +00 83 +50 84 +00 CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE T— CE CE CE CE Fill Existing Stream to / Elevation of Floodplain co LU Grade Out Existing �• i —I ♦ _ �� iii—--- - - - -l\ Berm Floodplain Elevation 84 +50 85 +00 120 r4 U IrilO mn n® aZU�F�V. i 115 110 105 85 +50 86 +00 86 +50 87 +00 evv mym �L 2' 4' 6' ®� CE CE —L CE ��-- �E - - -- Existing Ground �� (� (HORIZONTAL) b I w ¢ F 0 w om w ¢ F fn w w w �� F o F fn w — F fn w F fn ... \ .. _.. • • F fn w ¢ w w ¢ '� w ¢ F w 0 w w w, w> F w —fn w �� o > �_F w fn — f > fn w -- fn > —� w fn > �-- w m ¢ ~ > w ¢ —~ �— > w w m ¢ - m ¢ - w m w¢ F- fn m¢ w¢ F- w fn / -- w w w w ¢ w w 1 1 I I �a w -- — —v —_ -- w -- w - -�' �— —_ w I 1... ..... r.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _ .. ..... . ....... _ 1 1 I 1 1 I I I Proposed Grade Proposed Bankfull 105 81 +80 82 +00 82 +50 83 +00 83 +50 84 +00 CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE T— CE CE CE CE Fill Existing Stream to / Elevation of Floodplain co LU Grade Out Existing �• i —I ♦ _ �� iii—--- - - - -l\ Berm Floodplain Elevation 84 +50 85 +00 120 r4 U IrilO mn n® aZU�F�V. i 115 110 � 3C l + 0c) W 1z I � I IU F— II I � I 3 3C —3C I I I ■E oc E� a Q tied 105 85 +50 86 +00 86 +50 87 +00 evv mym �L 2' 4' 6' ®� CE CE —L CE ��-- �E - - -- (VERTICAL) �� (� (HORIZONTAL) b ... \ .. _.. • • . 4� _ � 3C l + 0c) W 1z I � I IU F— II I � I 3 3C —3C I I I ■E oc E� a Q tied 120 115 110 105 87 +00 0' 2' 4' 6' (VERTICAL) 0' 20' 40' 60' (HORIZONTAL) 87 +50 88 +00 O� 88 +50 89 +00 i � U Proposed Culvert 89 +50 120 b IrilO mn n® Iti _ w 115 110 105 90 +00 90 +50 91 +00 91 +50 91 +90 CE CE -- _ -- _ - -- - - - - ,I — — Fill Existing Stream to Elevation of Flaadplain _ _ — — — — 111 g Did Path _ Grade Out Existing I p) Berm Flaadplain Elevation .. 0 +0D .. , �• ` � � I � _ X � .i. _.. - I .% ......... IU I I 3� I � 3C 3� I � 3C 3� I 14. � 30 3C i evv mym �L e� b � e� IN 1 g b i� E� E w � �ti "M8 Existing Ground u + > ¢ w w u ¢ w 0 w ii ¢ > w w ii > ¢ w w w —" > ¢ w fn w o u w > w w >— w w u w - IN =z' - w —i < F o ii > F fn w w m ii ¢ fn — �- w¢ F rn o u; o - w¢ w F w rn w -- w �, " o _a — -- -- r fn -- > F fn 11 w —a -- rn —e' " ¢ F rn o — —� — _— F ¢ F fn ¢ F fn w > w w > w w w ... . ..... .. .. ..... . .............. .... ... . ... . ..... . .............. ..... .... ..... ... . .... .. ......... .......... Proposed Ban kfull Proposed Grade 8 _+ F , o o-N m + � w, —F w w - w w w w - + + w ¢ w" w 11 ¢ �w 0' 2' 4' 6' (VERTICAL) 0' 20' 40' 60' (HORIZONTAL) 87 +50 88 +00 O� 88 +50 89 +00 i � U Proposed Culvert 89 +50 120 b IrilO mn n® Iti _ w 115 110 105 90 +00 90 +50 91 +00 91 +50 91 +90 CE CE -- _ -- _ - -- - - - - ,I — — Fill Existing Stream to Elevation of Flaadplain _ _ — — — — 111 g Did Path _ Grade Out Existing I p) Berm Flaadplain Elevation .. 0 +0D .. , �• ` � � I � _ X � .i. _.. - I .% ......... IU I I 3� I � 3C 3� I � 3C 3� I 14. � 30 3C i evv mym �L e� b � e� IN 1 g b i� E� E w � �ti "M8 120 115 110 105 91 +90 92 +00 92 +50 93 +00 93 +50 E CE CE CE CE CE CE Fill Existing Stream to IElevation of Floodplain 94 +00 w 94 +50 —_ -- — - — — ------ — Grade Out Existing — ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ —<--- -- _ _ — _ ^ ^� Berm Floodplain Elevation P J — �? ..... ..... — J 3C 3C 3C 31 3C 3C 3C 3C 95 +00 95 +50 96 +00 120 b IrilC m^ n® t Iti _ w 115 - 110 105 96 +50 0' 2' 4' 6' (VERTICAL) 0' 20' 40' 60' (HORIZONTAL) T-- _--------- - - - - -- \ 7 \� N sxoo � \,A \ � 1 I I \ \ \ \ 3C 30 3C 3C � \3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 30 3C \ i 4, j®��®�0� U rzi evv mym �L e� e� e� IN a a; b i� Existing Ground ¢ F fn -- w u — + N F fn w rn + m F fn u —¢ -- w > uo + >m �m +LLF > — w— �� m� w w u > —m w _¢ N o ii �� fn w J -- m u w — rn �_u w — m �_ii ¢ w 0 — u w w— u w w -- -- - - -- -- - - - -° u ¢ ° m a m �+ °' ii > - w o ,+n rn -- ¢ - o w m u u?� u o �^ w rn n w n > F 7 w0 u? ° m o ¢ n > F w -- o rn ¢ fn No rn ¢ F q c5 w — — -- -- �F -- F _ fn -- _ —_ __ — ii w w -- Proposed l ankfull Proposed Grade STA = 95 +42.4 ELEV = 110.64 STA = 95 +45.8 ELEV = 110.64 ¢ F > w w 105 91 +90 92 +00 92 +50 93 +00 93 +50 E CE CE CE CE CE CE Fill Existing Stream to IElevation of Floodplain 94 +00 w 94 +50 —_ -- — - — — ------ — Grade Out Existing — ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ —<--- -- _ _ — _ ^ ^� Berm Floodplain Elevation P J — �? ..... ..... — J 3C 3C 3C 31 3C 3C 3C 3C 95 +00 95 +50 96 +00 120 b IrilC m^ n® t Iti _ w 115 - 110 105 96 +50 0' 2' 4' 6' (VERTICAL) 0' 20' 40' 60' (HORIZONTAL) T-- _--------- - - - - -- \ 7 \� N sxoo � \,A \ � 1 I I \ \ \ \ 3C 30 3C 3C � \3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 30 3C \ i 4, j®��®�0� U rzi evv mym �L e� e� e� IN a a; b i� ,20 115' 110 105 96 +50 \. 1 97 +00 CE CE CE CE 97 +50 98 +00 98 +50 99 +00 99 +50 100 +00 CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE ------L' CE CE'i Fill Existing Stream to - — — Elevation of Floodplain Existing Dirt Path / — — _ 100 +50 101 +00 CE CE Z — — - — -- _ —'__— - - - -- -- _ 1 ' - - -�_\\ Grade Out Existing Berm Floodplain Elevation ` ,�'•i; \�• N1 r' Existing Ground L w o I ~ 0 -- ¢ w� w rn o -- J— �— rn —� > w w` ¢ w ¢ w .. uf— w -1.o w — w rn w '¢' —� o w ui o¢ > o >� °' u�i m �_� w _+ > —� w > u�i w o F w o F w w ° o F fn w ° F fn w _- F s ¢ o 0 w F fn 0 w _ -- - -- — — w w -- — > w— - — ii — -- w w — I w u�i w w u�i Proposed Bankfull — — Proposed Grade STA - 98+57.3 ELEV = 110.39 E EV =91810 36 STA = 99 +33.2 ELEV = 110.33 STA = 99 +41.4 ELEV = 110.82 STA = 98 +65.2 ELEV = 110.88 STA = 99 +07.8 ELEV = 110.85 STA = 100 +90.7 ELEV = 110.21 STA = 100 +99.0 ELEV = 110.69 Et 105 96 +50 \. 1 97 +00 CE CE CE CE 97 +50 98 +00 98 +50 99 +00 99 +50 100 +00 CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE ------L' CE CE'i Fill Existing Stream to - — — Elevation of Floodplain Existing Dirt Path / — — _ 100 +50 101 +00 CE CE Z — — - — -- _ —'__— - - - -- -- _ 1 ' - - -�_\\ Grade Out Existing Berm Floodplain Elevation ` ,�'•i; \�• N1 r' - 120 r4 U Q b QO a_ 9.a Iti _ w - 115 110 105 101 +40 0' 2' 4' 6' (VERTICAL) 0' 20' 40' 60' (HORIZONTAL) 99.00 CD + 1 \\ \\ \ STA 100 +99 End Devil's Racetrack (east) Reach 1 Begin Devil's Racetrack (east) Reach 2 IJ.I I Z I 1 I 14, 114 113. I �13C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C �� U vv� �L e� e� e� IN i 0, go b b a g � .. 9 E w � v � , 115 110 105 100 101 +40101 +50 102 +00 i STA 104 +11.7 End Devil's Racetrack (east) Reach 2 / Begin Devil's Racetrack (east) Reach 3 Grade Out Existing Berm Floodplain Elevation Fill Existing Stream to / Elevation of Floodplain 102 +50 U� 103 +00 103 +50 104 +00 104 +50 I-� b 115 �� _ aZU��V. 110 105 100 105 +00 C 0' 2' 4' 6' (VERTICAL) 0' 20' 40' 60' (HORIZONTAL) II li 111 '' Z e CD i evv mym �L b � e� IN M U 75 LF Q e A U1, M w 1 Existing Ground F F w° w ii �o ii � >u �¢ F >0 w w o co _ fn w 0 o 1 — -- � F wu w u > ry w -o — S - o_< ¢ o w F i- fn w u > ii u w 0 F ¢ w w ¢ "0 / fn \1 w ¢ w 1 • 0 n > w o 0 fn w 1I I �o' mw w w 17 1 ¢ wl w lo lo o ' 0 w ° °D _ I -o —o w _ 1 > " — _ I w n w i I Proposed Grade ` Proposed Bankfull — > s > w w w w STA = 104 +02.5 STA = 104 +11.7 ELEV = 105.41 ELEV = 106.00 102 +50 U� 103 +00 103 +50 104 +00 104 +50 I-� b 115 �� _ aZU��V. 110 105 100 105 +00 C 0' 2' 4' 6' (VERTICAL) 0' 20' 40' 60' (HORIZONTAL) II li 111 '' Z e CD i evv mym �L b � e� IN M U 75 LF Q e A U1, ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN 0' 10' 20' 30' (HORIZONTAL) I I / Install Headwater Wetland. ywr / See Detail 2 on Sheet 7.4. rr vI Z 1 `�� CE CE CE CE CE CF CE CE CE CV CE CE � 7 CE CE CE \ \ l l CE CE _ _ -- - - - - -- --------- _---- _— _— _-- _— _ —_ —_— _ - -_ - -- CF \ CB / CE CE / %�_��'�� -- -- -- -------- ---- -- ---- - - -___ ----- _---- _--- _— _-- _ —_ —_— - -- - -- _ -- - -- _ — �� C��/ jtuj /� %-- — —___ ___ -- ____---- -- - - - - -- ------ - -- -- ------- - - - - -- -- _------ - - "J \----- - - - - -- --------------------- - - - - -- I \� \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ ___ ------------- - - - - -- — _ - -__ ---------------------- - - - - -- — I - - - -__ ___ - - -___ _ - - - - -- __ - -_ __ - -__ (/ ------ - - - - -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — --------- - - - - -_ 33 Existing Fam Pond To Be Drained I I I \ --- I II / e� b e� IN rzi a a b / / I 1 / / I I / Install Headwater Wetland. ywr / See Detail 2 on Sheet 7.4. rr vI Z 1 `�� CE CE CE CE CE CF CE CE CE CV CE CE � 7 CE CE CE \ \ l l CE CE _ _ -- - - - - -- --------- _---- _— _— _-- _— _ —_ —_— _ - -_ - -- CF \ CB / CE CE / %�_��'�� -- -- -- -------- ---- -- ---- - - -___ ----- _---- _--- _— _-- _ —_ —_— - -- - -- _ -- - -- _ — �� C��/ jtuj /� %-- — —___ ___ -- ____---- -- - - - - -- ------ - -- -- ------- - - - - -- -- _------ - - "J \----- - - - - -- --------------------- - - - - -- I \� \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ ___ ------------- - - - - -- — _ - -__ ---------------------- - - - - -- — I - - - -__ ___ - - -___ _ - - - - -- __ - -_ __ - -__ (/ ------ - - - - -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — --------- - - - - -_ 33 Existing Fam Pond To Be Drained I I I \ --- I II / e� b e� IN rzi a a b / / I 1 / I / I / I I I / Install Headwater Wetland. ywr / See Detail 2 on Sheet 7.4. rr vI Z 1 `�� CE CE CE CE CE CF CE CE CE CV CE CE � 7 CE CE CE \ \ l l CE CE _ _ -- - - - - -- --------- _---- _— _— _-- _— _ —_ —_— _ - -_ - -- CF \ CB / CE CE / %�_��'�� -- -- -- -------- ---- -- ---- - - -___ ----- _---- _--- _— _-- _ —_ —_— - -- - -- _ -- - -- _ — �� C��/ jtuj /� %-- — —___ ___ -- ____---- -- - - - - -- ------ - -- -- ------- - - - - -- -- _------ - - "J \----- - - - - -- --------------------- - - - - -- I \� \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ ___ ------------- - - - - -- — _ - -__ ---------------------- - - - - -- — I - - - -__ ___ - - -___ _ - - - - -- __ - -_ __ - -__ (/ ------ - - - - -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — --------- - - - - -_ 33 Existing Fam Pond To Be Drained I I I \ --- I II / e� b e� IN rzi a a b Fill E Elev Cr_ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 1 xisting Stream to ation of Floodplain 1 1 2 — Begin Construction I \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ ' • . \ 1 O I'oo Middle Branch I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ 1 STA 204 +1 o ov (hI -- - - - - -- ---------------- - - - - -- = JJ �% �) i�� I I----------- - - - - -- - _ _ __ --- - - - - -- -------- I -- - -- - -- ---------- - - - - -- ___ - -_— ___----- -__--- ------- - -- ------ _-------- - - - - -= ___ -_— _----___------------_—__------ ------------------- Install Headwater Welland. See Detail 2 on Sheet 7.4. I / — 3� 3G 3 0 30 i ' / 3� 3� 33 30 3 30 3G - - - -� — 30 30 0 7-i�D rim 30 33 — 1 �i -- -- - -_ - -- — - -__ - - I \ I \ \ • t U az�� zU��w� i 4, �l�®�O Ot�� '0 �l e� zl N I& b (HORIZONTAL) — — -- _ - - — ---- - - - - -- - ------- \�\ \` - — -- — — — — — - - - - -- ------------------- ---------------- ------------ - - - - -- �� \ `. \ �� _ - -- - - - -_ -- - - - -- __ -- -- - — — ----- - — — — — - - - - -- S - - - -- _____ _ ----- ------------------ - - - - -- _ _ — 1 --------------------- - - - - -- - - - - -- ------------------------- -- — — — — — --------- - - - - -- - - - - -- ---------------- - - - - -- ---------- - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- - \ 1 1 1 11 11 11 I 1 I I I l _ CF— EE = -- C -- CE 7 qE �IICEIII CE CE II I �I, CE - --- -- - - - -- -------- - - - - -- -- C��— CE E CE ____ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ II 1 I, I - -= = - -6-- — — — ------------ - - - - -- — — — \\ \ \\ \ I U \ ___ ---- GE / / CE Existing Farm Pond To Be Drained \ \ I 1 1 I � -- _�- — \\ Existing Culvert C' —__- - - -- ---- - - - - - -- \\� \Remove Fill E Elev Cr_ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 1 xisting Stream to ation of Floodplain 1 1 2 — Begin Construction I \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ ' • . \ 1 O I'oo Middle Branch I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ 1 STA 204 +1 o ov (hI -- - - - - -- ---------------- - - - - -- = JJ �% �) i�� I I----------- - - - - -- - _ _ __ --- - - - - -- -------- I -- - -- - -- ---------- - - - - -- ___ - -_— ___----- -__--- ------- - -- ------ _-------- - - - - -= ___ -_— _----___------------_—__------ ------------------- Install Headwater Welland. See Detail 2 on Sheet 7.4. I / — 3� 3G 3 0 30 i ' / 3� 3� 33 30 3 30 3G - - - -� — 30 30 0 7-i�D rim 30 33 — 1 �i -- -- - -_ - -- — - -__ - - I \ I \ \ • t U az�� zU��w� i 4, �l�®�O Ot�� '0 �l e� zl N I& b 144 143 142 141 140 139 138 137 136 1 I I 204 +10 204 +50 \ \ \Remove Existing Culvert \ 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 11 1 \ I l 1 I l l 1 1 \\\ \l I Existing Ground j I F F o —11 No II w ,w w w 0 w ¢ w ry 1 n o I Proposed Bankfull / F 0 w ¢ w a n I 1 0 w F w w N u w I 1 — n m\ o 0 ¢ / w I ry n 1 ,> wm \ No I I 1 / II F w w� 0 w\ N> ¢ w N M ry n / F fn w w F w 0 w ¢ w w w co o > n 1 ¢ F 11 o w —_fn F ¢ w > —fn w F ¢ w ii ry n o n v°'i. �n w r�i o N M \0 w\ F w w F w — _ 0 w STA = 204 +21.3 —• _ ELEV = 138.90 STA = 204 +10.3 — _ ELEV = 140.50 ry F w w N '¢' 11 STA w M = 205 +77.7 o w w ELEV = 137.73 STA = 206 +05.7 Proposed Grade ¢ > w ELEV = 137.15 o w STA ELEV = 205 +89.3 = 137.48 o o F ry mw w > w o ~ w w w, 135 I I 204 +10 204 +50 \ \Remove Existing Culvert \ 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 11 1 \ I l 1 I l l 1 1 \\\ \l I j I I I Begin Construction Middle Branch I STA 204 +10 I I \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ I I I \ \ \ 1 \ \ 11 1 \ I l 1 I l l 1 1 \\\ \l I 205 +00 205 +50 206 +00 I I r t\ t l l l / / i •\ 1 1 1 \ Fill Existing Stream to \ \ 1 1 1 1 1 Elevation of Floo d plain 1 11 11 1\ \1 I 1 \ \ . \ , \ � 1, A\. 1 \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \\ Vvv vv vv vvvvvv A` \\ \\ \ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ \\ \\ \ I I I I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A A AV 1 ,1 \1 - -s 9 I 1 144 b 143 r4 U 142 ^ (7 .'U - �+ a a 2: �w� w 141 140 b� 139 138 137 136 135 206 +20 0 N 1 1 206100 1 I I \ 1 I \ 1 1 11 \ \ 1 1 1 \ 1 \ 1 \ \ 1 1 1 0' 1' 2' 3' (VERTICAL) 0' 10' 20' 30' (HORIZONTAL) U vv� �L b � I� IN b b i� et � Ati� ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN 152 151 150 149 148 147 146 145 144 143 500 +00 500 +50 501 +00 501 +50 502 +00 152 Gn � b 151 b � a Z � 150 Q C . U �- a Z U V 149 148 0 147 �J 146 145 144 43 502 +10 i 41 Cc - - - - -- - - - - - -- UT to Southwest Branch \ / I \ — _ — —' — _ \ ` _ \ I 1 STA 501 +31 End Southwest Branch Reach 1 I I Begin Southwest Branch Reach 2 I \\ �/ I i�\ c' / /,� �T�C jam\• ` \ _ — �Sp�j�_ —_j I Remove Existing Culvert ZE �/ ^ / / �/ lei/ i/� / l r � �/ / \\ \\ \\ \\ �� ,,:�_ — \• _.... �..,. ^.. :,�•� — _ IN W \ \ \ \ \ / �� \ \ \ \ STA 502 +07 End Southwest Branch Reach 2 / Begin Southwest Branch Reach 3 \ / ? J>u Begin Construction'\ \\ 1� III \ \ ` \ ' " "/ / ) \\ \\ '• � Southwest Branch � 11 �I \ \ \ I STA 500 +00 (VERTICAL) Note: Remove and treat Chinese privet and grade & stabilize stream banks from STA 500 +00 to STA 502 +10 as directed by engineer. �� \\\ \\ `�' \\ (HORIZONTAL) vvbm �L e� t� b e� M Izi U � a �Q Ln e E w e v � A e� 0 e� b WIN v Proposed Bankfull w co om ¢ w F w IF STA = 500 +00.0 150.03 w w STA = 500 +23.9 0 w ¢ ¢ '°n ELEV = 149.71 w w [EIEV= STA = 500 +41.7 w ¢ ° * v —' ' ... , ELEV = 149.48 0 w o 3 v — F 0 w —¢ w n w mm —... — ..... 0 > , _ —• — ... n w F w v w F w n — .. ... w ¢ w \ \ ` 0 w > F w w o o -- — -- w - - - -- -- __ ¢ w - - -\ ' ww w w o ° w 'n v S w '¢' ¢ w w > ii w \\ I I w F w w 'ri' Proposed Grade \\ Existing Ground o w / w / w 1 / o 1 w \� w \''n w o w 500 +50 501 +00 501 +50 502 +00 152 Gn � b 151 b � a Z � 150 Q C . U �- a Z U V 149 148 0 147 �J 146 145 144 43 502 +10 i 41 Cc - - - - -- - - - - - -- UT to Southwest Branch \ / I \ — _ — —' — _ \ ` _ \ I 1 STA 501 +31 End Southwest Branch Reach 1 I I Begin Southwest Branch Reach 2 I \\ �/ I i�\ c' / /,� �T�C jam\• ` \ _ — �Sp�j�_ —_j I Remove Existing Culvert ZE �/ ^ / / �/ lei/ i/� / l r � �/ / \\ \\ \\ \\ �� ,,:�_ — \• _.... �..,. ^.. :,�•� — _ IN W \ \ \ \ \ / �� \ \ \ \ STA 502 +07 End Southwest Branch Reach 2 / Begin Southwest Branch Reach 3 \ / ? J>u Begin Construction'\ \\ 1� III \ \ ` \ ' " "/ / ) \\ \\ '• � Southwest Branch � 11 �I \ \ \ I STA 500 +00 (VERTICAL) Note: Remove and treat Chinese privet and grade & stabilize stream banks from STA 500 +00 to STA 502 +10 as directed by engineer. �� \\\ \\ `�' \\ (HORIZONTAL) vvbm �L e� t� b e� M Izi U � a �Q Ln e E w e v � A e� 0 e� b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN 145 144 143 STA = 504 +34.f ELEV = 142.0E 142 141 140 139 138 137 136 504 +33 II / / M / 0 h/ CO 504 +50 1 / y/ /1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 I I �� \ wo w— 0 11 w —0 o W n j ~ w ¢ w �°n o �_ rn W w go o > 'r' ii °v Proposed Bankfull w w F w ¢ w N Existing Ground n w F n w ii ¢ 0w w o o _ n w F ¢ w 'n 1 n o n '+ _ w 0 w ii > ii o ii o n v w ud w ¢ w 0 w F w h M h co o M n lo fn w > ii �n o � n + ii co n o W —F fn w w ¢ w n ii 11 -- 0 wu i w F � _ 0 w w F 0 w o w ¢ w STA = 505 +52.4 w w ELEV = 139.52 ¢ o w w STA = 505 +44.4 ELEV = 139.68 w w w �° N > o STA = 505 +90.8 STA = 506 +27.2 ¢ w w ELEV = 138.78 STA = 506 +06.4 ELEV = 138.35 _ ELEV = 138.54 STA = 506 ELEV = 138.15 +58.4 w 11 w > ¢ w w Proposed Grade o w o w II / / M / 0 h/ CO 504 +50 1 / y/ /1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 505 +00 / / / / I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i / / 0 505 +50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 STA 506 +50 End Southwest Branch Reach 3�/ 1 Begin Southwest Branch Reach 4 / 1 / 1 / 1 �• i /xh� 1 / 1 / 1 1 / Vy / / 1 / 1 506 +00 145 ^ b 144 143 F-I O .=o_ 9.a 142 141 � 140 C� 139 138 137 136 506 +50 506 +59 / / / /Ol 0' 1' 2' 3' (VERTICAL) 0' 10' 20' 30' (HORIZONTAL) vv� �L e4 e� p� e� 4 e� e� IN rzi i� b b i� Ln a Q AU e� e� b e� W1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 505 +00 / / / / I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i / / 0 505 +50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 STA 506 +50 End Southwest Branch Reach 3�/ 1 Begin Southwest Branch Reach 4 / 1 / 1 / 1 �• i /xh� 1 / 1 / 1 1 / Vy / / 1 / 1 506 +00 145 ^ b 144 143 F-I O .=o_ 9.a 142 141 � 140 C� 139 138 137 136 506 +50 506 +59 / / / /Ol 0' 1' 2' 3' (VERTICAL) 0' 10' 20' 30' (HORIZONTAL) vv� �L e4 e� p� e� 4 e� e� IN rzi i� b b i� Ln a Q AU e� e� b e� W1 ,b ,b ,b WIN ,b ,b ,b WIN � iu T is ,b ,b w eQ Q b � _ w ®®� � c� rzi eb °7� 0 ,b e e� b W7 ld - ld �d w P P oHE \ �Ir T �1 t t t 1 1 ^N 1 .7rll LL' \N 1 p new qpaWl ►I 1■Yll N ■■ ■ -i:Cll N 1' 1 1 ■ �n un nl� Y7 IL /I -IL mm "m mm o 0 I I j MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 3.5 30' Q � _ w 2 b r—) 0 V b m � �zl PH m w w � i 1I1 Ll 2 r—) 0 V b E—I PH m N M W LU 2 U) w U) z J U Q 75 i �Illc tenor i NILL \ NILL L� - I \111, AiL �Ffffff�� 1 m MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 3.5 \ 1` m � \ - Ea�= €��d i � w - - = == - - - -- - - -- --- - =z = -- =_ — _____� __ — �U) m cl I U) P4 m A— AiL w MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 3.6 0' 30' 60' 90' (HORIZONTAL) Q Q ° M 8 e� e� e y e� �7 M M LU W 2 W W U) LU Z_ J U 75 MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 3.6 1 Z w eQ � _ w Al c� rzi °7� 0 0 e� �7 M M W LU 2 U) LU w U) LU Z J U Q 73 I /� Il I \ I , I \ II \ 1 \ I \ Il \ CE CF CE � Z Cam\ - - - - -- 0' 30' 60' 90' (HORIZONTAL) b E� w Q b �l W U�� _ w i rzi " 0 b �x�yx 'w d a; ON E1 e� e eH b kill lqt M W W 2 U) W W U) LU Z_ J U 75 M M W W 2 U) W LU U) LU Z_ J U 5� G 0' 30' 60' 90' (HORIZONTAL) e� 1 Z IN Q b U a W "�� _ w C, rzi °7� 0 eQ e 0 ,b �7 0' 30' 60' 90' (HORIZONTAL) D C7 2 r_ Z m U) m U) m CA) 00 Q b U a W "�� _ w c� b rzi IN 0 eQ � E w � � 8 e eH b �7 co W W 2 W W ZI U G ,,-z I 'k MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 3.10 E�CE Q0�n� q CE \� CE a ?� � y 0 'Vc 4k 30 0' 30' 60' 90' (HORIZONTAL) III IIII 0 o I�I � Q � I 'I�IIII iI I� 00 12, f — - - - - -- ----- _---- - - - - -- IIII II --- y� I / _ IIII II o � I '41 I I III I I I \ I II I� � II� I I Ijlll Ivll I IIII I l I III I II o 3� 3� IIII 3� 3� III 30 I e 30 3��3� 0 0' 30' 60' 90' (HORIZONTAL) Q b aW U-q � _ w c� rzi °7� 0 eQ � ° eH b �7 b D � C7 m U m m U m CA) 0 Q b aW U-q � _ w c� rzi °7� 0 eQ � ° eH b �7 D 2 r_ Z m U) m m m CA) 0' 30' 60' 90' (HORIZONTAL) I a a � a Q b aW U-q mow_ w ®® 0& c rzi a °7� 0 0 �7 b D � C7 m U m m U m CA) Q b aW U-q mow_ w ®® 0& c rzi a °7� 0 0 �7 r �a Q" PL PL ld ld Q�. Q� A� A� ld � \ >d iOl 0' 250' 500' 750' (HORIZONTAL) eb 1 Z e� eb e� w Q b � _ w c� rzi eb 0 10 eQ � e e� 0 e y b W7 0' 75' 150' 225' (HORIZONTAL) \\° /`�\ lPP / \ i / Fill Existing tream to 1 I \ }I I 1 / / / / Proposed Wetland g \ 1 FP o E/ - -\ / / / Elevation of Floodplain / 1 / Restoration Area 1111 / 111 DENSE TREES // � 1 11 I I .- � I � � � � / � r �1' � • 26x0 I I � // / I III o \ / off•' .:: •� � '� / � 2 I 1, '�, I I -\ \ - I I \� ' .°o . i l d?• ' 2s +ool. m I 1111 I I I o • ` � • • 1 • • • • +o .0 • • � g • / � � i' \ 22 +00 / m / A &I 0p m /lm m m m _ '�` / W \ // �j I / 1 f \ 11 I / +0 1 • �, 511 p I 1 I I 1 } x00 \ 0 'Y32 "'` i \ i' \ \ \ �� \r• / / // / Southwest Branch fill1 0 1 `� (w Devil's Racetrack Creek st) I III I_ I /IIIII 1 \\ \ / �=_/ / \\ \ \\ \ \\ 1 i / / / / 214 +0 - -I II IIII I I 1 - - -� i in / // I I� �jl� 1 0 II 11 • /// • • • • • • pg t• \\ • •ii /rn// / / /Iljjllj IG�! I i 212* -\ \III} I IIII \� Fill Existing Stream to • • \ / /�/ \ \`�_\ \ \\ \\ \� / I y a L Elevation of Floodplain � / / \\ \\ `- -- \\ I I o \ "I 'KIP Fill Existing Ditch to � \ \\ \ \ \ Middle Branch 11111 IIII 1 I \ \ et erg' \i' / Elevation of Floodplain \\ �\ R } N \ I 11111111 /I 111 -\ \\ s ' 4 ye� I 1 \ \ /IllIII \_ fll 111 jl _\ 111 � �J \ \� \ \�� -� - - -� �� - - - ��''� - � - - -�` `'-- _ -_�--' ,�''� -�`�- 111 I I I 1 • __ • �� / / rrf - -- ``_ ----- .� ) // / � _�\ - ` -- - - -- n // __ -` \\ 207+ �� 1111\1111 Ili I I I\ � i' - -- � \`I o W (,• / // /�/ /' / /�i -- `��___ __\\ �\ I I I I\ \ � G�1 \ ,• \ m\ r•\ � \ \ Z � IIIII fit \ I�1 _- . -- 1� I o / / / / / / / III III � ` /' -- - - -- NII \l \\ \IIIII f I II i \ -- �� /f_ i��__` \ 1 \ lr/ / /� / /// /// i' - - -_. \ \ \\\ \ I I I \ 1\ I I ��n \ \ .•�\ \\ \\ - �\ -DENSE TRE ES - / p Fill Existing Elevation of Floodplain - /}III I �' - // // c// \\ \ \ \\ \ /' -� ill I a �� / / / _�\ \ \1 \� �l / / \ \\ \ 1 // / /// /i / l - - - -- \ \ \ \ -- >f,/ /IIIII /I 1 \ �� / / \\ \\ \ \� a �/ / \ } \� /// / //' /� - - - -� \ \ - - I . TA � Existing Dirt Path (( 41 DENSE TREES U zz Qp�U� aZ�� ZU��w� ��7 01- 0� <0 V b � b °b b 4 �g� \\° /`�\ lPP / \ i / Fill Existing tream to 1 I \ }I I 1 / / / / Proposed Wetland g \ 1 FP o E/ - -\ / / / Elevation of Floodplain / 1 / Restoration Area 1111 / 111 DENSE TREES // � 1 11 I I .- � I � � � � / � r �1' � • 26x0 I I � // / I III o \ / off•' .:: •� � '� / � 2 I 1, '�, I I -\ \ - I I \� ' .°o . i l d?• ' 2s +ool. m I 1111 I I I o • ` � • • 1 • • • • +o .0 • • � g • / � � i' \ 22 +00 / m / A &I 0p m /lm m m m _ '�` / W \ // �j I / 1 f \ 11 I / +0 1 • �, 511 p I 1 I I 1 } x00 \ 0 'Y32 "'` i \ i' \ \ \ �� \r• / / // / Southwest Branch fill1 0 1 `� (w Devil's Racetrack Creek st) I III I_ I /IIIII 1 \\ \ / �=_/ / \\ \ \\ \ \\ 1 i / / / / 214 +0 - -I II IIII I I 1 - - -� i in / // I I� �jl� 1 0 II 11 • /// • • • • • • pg t• \\ • •ii /rn// / / /Iljjllj IG�! I i 212* -\ \III} I IIII \� Fill Existing Stream to • • \ / /�/ \ \`�_\ \ \\ \\ \� / I y a L Elevation of Floodplain � / / \\ \\ `- -- \\ I I o \ "I 'KIP Fill Existing Ditch to � \ \\ \ \ \ Middle Branch 11111 IIII 1 I \ \ et erg' \i' / Elevation of Floodplain \\ �\ R } N \ I 11111111 /I 111 -\ \\ s ' 4 ye� I 1 \ \ /IllIII \_ fll 111 jl _\ 111 � �J \ \� \ \�� -� - - -� �� - - - ��''� - � - - -�` `'-- _ -_�--' ,�''� -�`�- 111 I I I 1 • __ • �� / / rrf - -- ``_ ----- .� ) // / � _�\ - ` -- - - -- n // __ -` \\ 207+ �� 1111\1111 Ili I I I\ � i' - -- � \`I o W (,• / // /�/ /' / /�i -- `��___ __\\ �\ I I I I\ \ � G�1 \ ,• \ m\ r•\ � \ \ Z � IIIII fit \ I�1 _- . -- 1� I o / / / / / / / III III � ` /' -- - - -- NII \l \\ \IIIII f I II i \ -- �� /f_ i��__` \ 1 \ lr/ / /� / /// /// i' - - -_. \ \ \\\ \ I I I \ 1\ I I ��n \ \ .•�\ \\ \\ - �\ -DENSE TRE ES - / p Fill Existing Elevation of Floodplain - /}III I �' - // // c// \\ \ \ \\ \ /' -� ill I a �� / / / _�\ \ \1 \� �l / / \ \\ \ 1 // / /// /i / l - - - -- \ \ \ \ -- >f,/ /IIIII /I 1 \ �� / / \\ \\ \ \� a �/ / \ } \� /// / //' /� - - - -� \ \ - - I . TA � Existing Dirt Path (( 41 DENSE TREES U zz Qp�U� aZ�� ZU��w� ��7 01- 0� <0 V b � b °b b I a I a I a I a a I a I a I — ld r r I DENSE TREES i i i i , iii w W j ^a 2�(n LU w I I Z I CE J 2 / N Q I 8xo Middle BrancF I 1 Id Id P� �a I , i i DENSE TREES MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 4.4 I I � Fill Existing Stream to Elevation of Floodplain P1, -,�—D / P� P DENSEPLRE/� a \1, 1 \\ GE o 1 \ m \ 0' 75' 150' 225' (HORIZONTAL) U�b �az�� _ w i 0 V ,b e� e4 1 rzi b � e� IN ft' a E w re v e� E1 b WIN MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 4.3 217+ 216 +00 \ o Devil's Racetrack Creek (west) o0 Middle Branch \I I \ 1 +00 / JJ 7.0 \ '4 Fill Existing Ditch to Elevation of Floodplain / LU w m '^ 2 +0 x ti I � \ North Branch / 46 +01 i4 /i4 i4 i4 i4 i4 i 424 +00 00 1 o h / 4gx�o ko>P / 424 +18 / 3 328 +g2 z8 ,\ 2 \\ gg \ \ y w U) ui \ \� / \ Southeast Branch \ \ \ \ or Proposed Wetland \ % l% so — / Restoration Area / / 1 \ 75 \ \\ \ \ � G(G \1 DENSE TREE -- Existing Dirt Path - -- - - - - -- 313 +0 p\ \ 114 \ 1 I Fill Existing Stream to \ \Elevation ofFloodplain �\ 0' 75' 150' 225' (HORIZONTAL) Q b �ZU��wE ®® 0 �� P V brzi � b � e� IN Q et e� E1 r� k7 I DENSE TREE$ i ) Del s Q . A ld 0' 75' 150' 225' (HORIZONTAL) Q b Al � _ w c� ,b rzi IN Q Lr) e b �7 ,b ,b ,b WIN SHEET 5.3 ld ld ld ld ld ld ld ld ld ld ld J \ a ,\D A� A� I PPP \ d -ra \ �a\ SHEET 5.4 � N „a SHEET 5.5 a 1a � \ a I r i i i /��f9' ^a .WyWWWyWWWyW .W. p� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . W.W.W. W.W.W u. .W. W.W W WWW.yW.W.W.W.WU.W.W.y W CD �o- . ..W. .WWWyWyW . W .W.WyW. •WyWWWyWWWyWyWyWyWWWyWWWyWyWyW. . .WWWyWyW N\ . .W.W . .. .W . W . W . . .y. y.. . . WW.W.W.WWWy .W.WWWyW WWyWWWy . W . W . W . W . W . W . W . . . . . W . W . W . W . W . W . W . W . W . W • . W . W � � . . ............... �v SHEET 5.6 0' 150' 300' 450' (HORIZONTAL) i 011 <0 p b � I b ca e� b e� E� 0 eQ � e e� Lin b �d� m PH •, . ICI Mill �III�IIS_a: Kim —.11� IjII�IILIII_.I ��jj111L,r "•- eIL ®�li �� lil�" p 1 M = iii�ljlll�iii�lll��l�� OI` i I�I�Ip��.•% �I�®R ld ld J \ a ,\D A� A� I PPP \ d -ra \ �a\ SHEET 5.4 � N „a SHEET 5.5 a 1a � \ a I r i i i /��f9' ^a .WyWWWyWWWyW .W. p� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . W.W.W. W.W.W u. .W. W.W W WWW.yW.W.W.W.WU.W.W.y W CD �o- . ..W. .WWWyWyW . W .W.WyW. •WyWWWyWWWyWyWyWyWWWyWWWyWyWyW. . .WWWyWyW N\ . .W.W . .. .W . W . W . . .y. y.. . . WW.W.W.WWWy .W.WWWyW WWyWWWy . W . W . W . W . W . W . W . . . . . W . W . W . W . W . W . W . W . W . W • . W . W � � . . ............... �v SHEET 5.6 0' 150' 300' 450' (HORIZONTAL) i 011 <0 p b � I b ca e� b e� E� 0 eQ � e e� Lin b �d� m PH 7d 7d A� 7d � 7d 7d PL 0' 200' 400' 600' (HORIZONTAL) ,b ,b IN Q b A. � _ w + ®�� c� rzi b � e� eQ n �e 'w d 01 e� e eH b �7 0' 75' 150' 225' (HORIZONTAL) ld ld ld ld ld ld ld ld ld ld Id ld ld ld ld ld ld ld ld ld ld ld ID r — ld ld ld i i i i ass r 5g�gi m MATCH LINE — SEE SHEET 5.4 Q b u�b � _ w b � b e� 0 eQ � Lb b �ti� PH r >� I \ >d I �d 0' 75' 150' 225' \ (HORIZONTAL) r \ SHEET 5.3 \ AL \ AL \ AL \ AL „a „a „a �Z Im �U) m cn r myl �l VJ aZU��w� ®��®0 a� eb l b e� e� e y 0 L• d b b �� m PH Ia � Id Id Ilk a a \ I � r r J a I / P ^a J a I ^a P�- a Id ld ld ld S rage PL i i i i i Jy� i i M / Lo Ia/ \11 14/ 14/ q, W w ^ U _f w LU I P� I z U � G w IV IV IV N IV 14, 14/ IV N/ N 14, 14, 14/ IV N/ N/ N IV IV Nk y 0' 75' 150' 225' MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 5.6 `HORIZONTAL) � _ w i b � e� b b E1 0 b b �ti� PH MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 5.5 \c 3 \o \ \ V• a \ Z \ \ at a \ 0' 75' 150' 225' (HORIZONTAL) Q b Z�� aZU��w� ®t �� a� �l b � b e� Lo ,b 0 %�e ° eH �� m PH Lo UJ w v v \c 3 \o \ \ V• a \ Z \ \ at a \ 0' 75' 150' 225' (HORIZONTAL) Q b Z�� aZU��w� ®t �� a� �l b � b e� Lo ,b 0 %�e ° eH �� m PH ,b ,b ,b WIN V J W W �r V W �W V LU Z J U 75 I r I I r I U D n r Z m U) m U) m m 0' 75' 150' 225' (HORIZONTAL) vv� �L e� e� e� IN Q b Al awU��wE � _ w + ®� 0 C, e� Lo rzi a 00 Lne E w re v e� 0 e� b �7 00 Lid w w U) LU 'W V ) W Z 2 U Q 75 �a �a 1 1 r r i r r r W r c � I W Z ti 1 � I i A� A� A� A 0' 75' 150' 225' (HORIZONTAL) Q b aZU��w� l9L e� e� E� b e� IN rzi e� L1 eQ n �e 'w d e� 0 e� e eH b �7 evv mym �L e� e� e y p� e� e� e� IN zOm ®,an® Z U I �4PY CJ® fuel rzi ii w � QU v e� L� L� 01 e y b e� BURY INTO BANK 5' MIN. (TYP) � � l to BURY INTO BANK 5' MIN. (TYP) O — BANKFULL 2 BANKFULL THALWEG ° III — THALWEG ° FLOW TOP OF BANK M 12" DIAMETER OR FLOW TOP OF BANK 12" DIAMETER OR NORMAL WATER 12" DIAMETER OR GREATER (TYP) �� NORMAL WATER 12" DIAMETER OR GREATER (TYP) SURFACE GREATER (TYP) IIII I IIII SURFACE GREATER (TYP) _ II 5'MIN. P OIL �I II 5'MIN. P OIL (TYP) III III (TYP) NONWOVEN FILTER FABRIC OR C125BN NONWOVEN FILTER FABRIC OR C125BN — —III MATTING AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER MATTING AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER III — ]Profile View II — III— ]Profile View A °�' III I— A °�' NATURAL GROUND 1 12" THICK LAYER OF BRUSH a IIII O QZ �m IIII IIIIIIIIIII IIIII IIII —III. TOP OF BANK BURY INTO BANK 5' MIN. (TYP) I —I I 1= TOP OF BANK BURY INTO BANK 5' MIN. (TYP) P OL� P OIL FLO � FLOW W .4i III .4% � TOE OF SLOPE IIIII IIII - TOE OP E B —I III —II IIIIIIIII B Log ]Profile B ° -' IIIII — .II II IIIII ICI Log ]Profile B=B' ]Pl— View B ]Plman View B �1 Log and Roo ShaH®w Log and Roo ShaH®w With Brush 9.1 Not to Sc.le 9.1 Not to Scale OR 3" TO 6" DIAMETER WOODY A BRU DEBRIS WORKED INTO MATER BRUSH ¢ BURY INTO BANK 5' MIN. (TYP) O BANKFULL TOP OF BANK (TYP) 121" THICK LAYER OF BRUSH THALWEG ° FLOW TOP OF 12" DIAMETER OR HEAD OF SHALLOW �� MAL WATER 12" DIAMETER OR GREATER (TYP) TAIL OF SHALLOW FACE GREATER (TYP) GLIDE SHALLOW P OL POOL *BANK 5, SEE PROFILE 5' : 5' MIN. FOR LENGTH OF SHALLOW ]Pao;CnIle'� °'�! (TVP) B, BRUSH EXTENDS UPSTREAM 5' MIN. MATTING AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER HEAD OF SHALLOW Profile View ROOT WAD ELEVATION POINT A=N PER PROFILE SHALLOW RUN A' POOL g Z OF�O OIL FLOW m a w AJ OF Y 12" NOMINAL THICKNESS OF ti-► 2 F J z EQUAL PARTS CLASS I, A, & B BURY INTO BANK 5' MIN. (TYP) STONE. TOE OF SLOPE 3.' TO 6" DIAMETER WOODY (TYP) rn DEBRIS WORKED INTO BRUSH TAIL OF SHALLOW ELEVATION TOP OF BANK MATERIAL TOP OF BANK (TYP) POINT PER PROFILE x TOP OF BANK (TYP) FLW B " "LOG B T i OPTIONAL I2 15 m 2 %_4/ TOE PER ENGINEER ]PIlman View SLOPE I MW M POOL OPTIONAL 12 "- 15" LOG TOE PER ENGINEER Log ]Profile B=B' LL Sectio. B=B' ]Pl.. View B NOTE: THIS STRUCTURE IS ONLY USED IN REACH 2 OF DEVIL'S RACETRACK CREEK (EAST). Brush ShaH®w r4 Rock and Roo Riffle 9.1 Not to Sc.le 7.Il Not to Sr le evv mym �L e� e� e y p� e� e� e� IN zOm ®,an® Z U I �4PY CJ® fuel rzi ii w � QU v e� L� L� 01 e y b e� evv mym �L e� e� e y b IN m I �4PY L� v rzi F� ii 9 Q U e� L� e� b e� E� BACKFILL (ON -SITE NATIVE MATERIAL) HEADER LOG a a STREAMBED FOOTER LOG mO 6" TO 12" CLASS TOP OF BANK (TYP) A &B STONE O O y d w O NONWOVEN FILTER FABRIC OR C125BN CLASS II STONE B MATTING AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER r 3" MAX 1 EXTEND FILTER FABRIC ' q, 5' MIN. UPSTREAM 9 SectionA -A' MIXED CLASS A & B STONE INVERT ELEVATION �¢nman PvP, ec PER PROFILE TOP OF BANK (TYP) B CLASS II STONE A A' FLOW �� TOE OF SLOPE (TYP) TOE OF A SLOPE HEADER LOG SC UR FOOTER LOG TOE OF SLOPE (TYP) 6" TO 12" CLASS PO L CLASS II STONE A& B STONE Pr ®wl� B e B' TOP OF BANK (TYP) g� 3" MAX \ Pl.. Vi— EXCAVATE POOL PER PROFILE 5' MIN. NONWOVEN FILTER FABRIC S -tioan A=A! P6. VB NOTE: THIS STRUCTURE IS ONLY USED IN REACHES 2 & 3 OF DEVIL'S RACETRACK CREEK (EAST). Chunky Riffle (I)Log a ne 7.2 Not to S-Ile 7.2 Not to 6..Ile MATTING - BASE LOGS A lC(Pl K OFg� SOP / ALTERNATING COMPACTED SOIL AND BRUSHNVOODY DEBRIS LAYERS ROOT WAD S\ -OPEI OF DOE NOTES: FLOC 1. OVEREXCAVATE 3' OUTSIDE OF TOP OF BANK ( BANKFULL). .�.(P1 2. INSTALL BASE LOGS IN A CRISS CROSS PATTERN, DRIVING THEM INTO THE l° S OP0 EXISTING BANK A MINIMUM OF 2'. BASE LOGS SHALL BE 6 DIAMETER. OP 3. INSTALL A LAYER OF COMPACTED SOIL ON TOP OF THE BASE LOGS. LIGHTLY aQ DOE �l,�yFl A SPREAD COMPACTED SOIL TO FILL VOIDS BETWEEN BASE LOGS. AVOID F6� O HEAVY COMPACTION TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO THE BASE LOGS. Q> SOP 4. INSTALL A LAYER OF BRUSHNVOODY DEBRIS, WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF OQ OQ Pl.. View SMALL BRANCHES AND ROOTS COLLECTED ON -SITE. LIGHTLY COMPACT I-Q, BRUSHNVOODY DEBRIS LAYER. 5. BRUSH SHOULD BE ALIGNED SO STEMS ARE ROUGHLY PARALLEL AND IS COQ' Q INSTALLED POINTING SLIGHTLY UPSTREAM. 6. INSTALL EARTH BACKFILL OVER BRUSHNVOODY LAYER ACCORDING TO A' 3' TYPICAL SECTION DIMENSIONS. ROOT WAD INSTALLATION. 7. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING AND BANK STABILIZATION PER PLANS. 1. EXCAVATE A TRENCH A MINIMUM OF TWO BACKFILL TIMES THE WIDTH OF THE TRUNK AND DEEP Pl— Vnew ENOUGH SUCH THAT Y OF THE ROOTMASS EROSION CONTROL MATTING IS BELOW THE CHANNEL BOTTOM AND BRUSH AND WOOD DEBRIS TOP OF BANK BANKFULL THAT A FOOTER LOG CAN BE PLACED. Y -6" BERM COMPACTED SOIL 2. PLACE ROOT WAD IN TRENCH, BACKFILL, EROSION CONTROL MATTING AND COMPACT. MAX Y TO BRUSH AND WOOD DEBRIS . -, �„ s':'s!4 ;c;v: BANKFULL BENCH BANKFULL COMPACTED SOIL „: :� 1 TOE OF SLOPE 4,11 NONWOVEN FILTER FABRIC OR C125EIN MATTING AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER INSTALL ROOT WAD SUCH THAT 1/3 OF THE ROOT WAD 2 MASS IS BURIED BELOW THE CHANNEL BOTTOM (TYP) S -tioan A=A! BASE LOGS 4 " -6" DIAMETER S- tio.A=N Brush Toe Root Wad 3 7.2 Not to S-Ile 7.2 Not to S—le evv mym �L e� e� e y b IN m I �4PY L� v rzi F� ii 9 Q U e� L� e� b e� E� TO FLOW COMPACTED SITE MATERIP ]Pl— Vnew LOPE (TYP) SMALLER BRUSH SILL ELEVATION PER PROFILE LARGER BRUSH COMPACTED ON SITE MATERIAL POOL LENGTH PER PROFILE STREAMBED , ' FLOW POOL DEPTH PER PROFILE COIR FIBER MATTING EXTEND FILTER FABRIC 5' MIN. UPSTREAM (1) Brush Drop 9.3 N.t to S-k 0:1-0 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ ' ✓/� O� O � /i� O� O � %O� O � %O �Q� O� O � /i� O� O Vii\ O\ O\ i\ O\ iii jiipiipjii ji✓ ]Pl.. Vnew Cover Log 9.3 N., t. S-le TRANSPLANT/ BRUSH TOE ROOT WAD TRANSPLANT/ 100 - 150 ANGLE BRUSH TOE B C SILL ELEVATION _ PER PROFILE (TYP) A A' FLOW \ SCOUR POOL TOE OF SLOPE (TYP) \ 1/2 POOL VIA DTH B' C' TOP OF BANK (TYP) ]Pl.. View aLL O Y ~z TOP OF BANK F:TOE �OF W T SL OPE °4/ l,g ]P-Me B=B' X THAL"" ° NORMAL WATER FLOW TOP OF BANK SURFACE �� 12" DIAMETER OR GREATER (TYP) 5'MIN. (TYP) NONWOVEN FILTER FABRIC OR C125BN MATTING AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER ]P-Me Vnew A =A' zOm ®,an® � b ^ll O tea_ R.a HwU�F'W � I a� O Y A � TOP OF BANK FLOW OF SLOPE 2 -° / CJ� L,g ]P-Me C=C NOTES: 1. ROOTWAD SIDE OF LOG IS 0.2' LOWER THAN HIGH SIDE. 2. LOG IS TO BEAT GRADE IN CENTER OF CHANNEL. �1 COVER LOG FOOTERLOG BURIED 6" BELOW 1 MAX POOL DEPTH Section A -A' Cover Log 9.3 N., t. S-le TRANSPLANT/ BRUSH TOE ROOT WAD TRANSPLANT/ 100 - 150 ANGLE BRUSH TOE B C SILL ELEVATION _ PER PROFILE (TYP) A A' FLOW \ SCOUR POOL TOE OF SLOPE (TYP) \ 1/2 POOL VIA DTH B' C' TOP OF BANK (TYP) ]Pl.. View aLL O Y ~z TOP OF BANK F:TOE �OF W T SL OPE °4/ l,g ]P-Me B=B' X THAL"" ° NORMAL WATER FLOW TOP OF BANK SURFACE �� 12" DIAMETER OR GREATER (TYP) 5'MIN. (TYP) NONWOVEN FILTER FABRIC OR C125BN MATTING AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER ]P-Me Vnew A =A' zOm ®,an® � b ^ll O tea_ R.a HwU�F'W � I a� O Y A � TOP OF BANK FLOW OF SLOPE 2 -° / CJ� L,g ]P-Me C=C NOTES: 1. ROOTWAD SIDE OF LOG IS 0.2' LOWER THAN HIGH SIDE. 2. LOG IS TO BEAT GRADE IN CENTER OF CHANNEL. �1 Log With Root Wad 7.3 N.t to S—le 6 w � �Qu m � Double Log Drop 9.3 N.t to S—le e� FLOW SILL ELEVATION PER PROFILE 12 "- 15" DIAMETER LOG �J � B TOP OF BANK (TYP) BACKFILL POOL LENGTH PER PROFILE STREAMBED �y e—I-- SILL ELEVATION �� POOL DEPTH PER PROFILE PER PROFILE (TYP) TOE OF SLOPE (TYP) A . ' A. °a FLOW NONWOVEN FILTER FABRIC OR C125BN ROOT WAD MATTING AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER IY�V COMPACTED ON �-:� <x EXTEND FILTER FABRIC SITE MATERIAL 5' MIN. UPSTREAM ROOT WAD B' Plan View CHANNEL BOTTOM WIDTH ROOT WADS 12 "- 15" DIAMETER LOG EMBED LOG SILL ELEVATION 4' (MIN.) PER PROFILE (TYP) Log With Root Wad 7.3 N.t to S—le 6 w � �Qu m evv mym �L e� e� e y b IN zOm ®,an® Z U I 0 CJ® fuel L� v rzi m ll� -lip U e� L� 0 e� b E� WIN EXISTING GRADE 25' HEIGHT VARIES 4:1 SLOPE VARIES SLOPE VARIES 0 TO g:1 p TO 6'.1 T MIN. OVERLAP IN DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION 1, BACK OF BENCH E TO EXISTING WIDTH (T YP) PROPOSED GRADE AT MAT ENDS _5" ELEVATION = 140.5 VARIES KEY IN FILTER 3' -6' 12" CLASS A/B /57 STAKE (TYP) TOP OF BANK RIPRAP MIX FABRIC - TYPE II NON -WOVEN WtGROUND Sec¢no. A=A' FILTER FABRIC 6" 0.4" 3 q� / /vc BACK OF BENCH ELEVATION = 141.69 A MATCH TYPICAL SECTION AT STA: 0 +00 UPSTREAM WEIR DOWNSTREAM WEIR ELEVATION = 140.5 ELEVATION = 140.4 � ELEVATION = 140.4 PROPOSED STREAM TOE OF SLOPE ALIGNMENT AND TYPICAL ]PIlman Vnew T_ylryrtc�Il SrtmIlce 25' 6, B SECTION PER PLAN 12" CLASS A/B/ 57 �3A TC H PROPOSED BANKFULL 6 B EROSION CONTROL RIPRAP MIX DTH PER TYPICAL SECTION) q EXISTING MATTING (TYP) TOP OF BANK GRADE SECURE MATTING IN UPSTREAM WEIR DOWNSTREAM WEIR 6' DEEP TRENCH ELEVATION = 140.5 ELEVATION = 140.4 STAKE(TYP) ELEVATION = 140.4 PROPOSED GRADE 6' B' TOE OF SLOPE — 3' 2' 3' KEY IN FILTER FABRIC 1.5' �ecRnoan Vnew J 1 View / 12" CLASS A/B /57 RIPRAP MIX TYPE II NON -WOVEN FILTER FABRIC 12" CLASS A/B/57 �' Erosion � 1��nffn�° �ecRnoan ]L$�ll$' RIPRAP MIX �1 7l ®g'1L ®IDL ®IDL�7l ®ll 7.4 Not to Ile Headwater Wetland Detail 2 Z4 Not to S-Ile vvvvvvvv vvvvvvv FLOW 2 2 SILL ELEVATION PER PROFILE 12 "- 15" DIAMETER LOG BRANCH CUTTINGS (TYP)`/ 16 GAUGE GALVANIZED BACKFI LL POOL LENGTH PER PROFILE WIRE SECURED TO STAKES UPHILL UPHILL 10° - 15° ANGLE STREAMBED A = POOL DEPTH PER PROFILE TOP OF BANK (TYP) SILL ELEVATION tio'L - ry PER PROFILE (TYP) ';` NONWOVEN FILTER FABRIC ORGINEER TOE OF SLOPE (TYP) MATTING AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER - m FLOW '� EXTEND FILTER FABRIC SECURE WITH 24" 5' MIN. UPSTREAM LONG STAKES (TYP) 1Psoffle Vnew BACKFILL SecRnoan View TylryncmIl SP�Ilces SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 35 BRANCH CUTTINGS 16 GAUGE GALVANIZED q CHANNEL (1 PER SQUARE YARD WIRE SECURED TO STAKES INCH MAX. DIAMETER) Pl.. View BOTTOM WIDTH TOP OF BANK (TYP) FILL IN GAPS WITH TOP SOIL. NOTE: 0.2" 1. BOARD FOR STAKES SHALL BE 2" X ' IAA • •• ' AA �N� 12 "- 15" DIAMETER LOG 2 "X24 "OR 2 "X2 "X36 "AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. EMBED LOG SILL ELEVATION 2. ROOTED /LEAFED CONDITIONS OF 4' (MIN.) PER PROFILE (TYP) THE LIVING PLANT MATERIAL IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE AT THE TIME OF S- tio..A= X TO OF LOP (!) INSTALLATION. Angled Log Drop Structure Brush Mattress 9.4 TOR to Ile Z4 TOR to S—le evv mym �L e� e� e y b IN zOm ®,an® Z U I 0 CJ® fuel L� v rzi m ll� -lip U e� L� 0 e� b E� WIN TOE OF SLOPE TOP OF BANK 8' -8' SPACING FOR LIVE STAKES 3' -5' SPACING FOR JU NCUA PLUGS 2- 3 SPACING FOR LIVE STAKES ]Plan View e n.mrge Strewn Gs Devil's Racetrack (west & east) and North Branch 3' OUTSIDE TOP OF BANK �TOEF SLOPE 8' -8' SPACING FOR LIVE STAKES 3' -5 SPACING FOR JUNCUA PLUGS ]Plan View e S mmaH Strewn Gs Southwest Branch, Middle Branch and Southeast Branch BUFFER WIDTH VARIES REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR DIBBLE BAR PULL BACK ON THE HANDLE REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR SHOVEL, STRAIGHT DOWN SHOVEL, AND PUSH THE PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A SHOVEL, DOWN TO THE TO CLOSE THE BOTTOM OF BANKFULL INTO THE SOIL TO THE BLADE WITH A TRIANGULAR IN FRONT OF THE FULL DEPTH OF THE THE PLANTING HOLD. THEN UP THE OPENING WITH YOUR CROSS - SECTION, AND SHALL BE NOTES: SEEDLING AND PUSH THE BLADE. PUSH FORWARD TO CLOSE 12 INCHES LONG, 4 INCHES WIDE BLADE AND PULLBACK ON THE SEEDLING BACKUP TO BLADE HALFWAY INTO THE RESTORED AND 1 INCH THICK AT CENTER. 1 ALL SOILS WITHIN THE BUFFER THE HANDLE TO OPEN THE CORRECT PLANTING CH NNEL _ PLANTING AREA SHALL BE DISKED, AS REQUIRED, PRIOR TO PLANTING. THE PLANTING HOLE. (DO DEPTH (THE ROOT COLLAR THE HANDLE FORWARD TO 2. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE PROPERLY ROOT. NOT ROCK THE SHOVEL SHOULD BE 1 To 3INCHES HANDLED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION ROOTING PRUNING TO INSURE SURVIVAL. SPACING PER ALL ROOTS SHALL BE PRUNED CAUSES SOIL IN THE PLANTING PLAN SEEDLING IN PLACE. TO AN APPORIATE LENGTH TO PLANTING HOLE TO BE SEEDLING TO ALLOW THE Section Vnew PREVENT J- ROOTING. O %%I /� %� / / /� /-IY /'6i `o�`i /�`p�` // .�p�`p�`:�`p� %' 2;, i .; /i.��i.; /i.; /i.;p• / /;,i.; /i.< �:2/:��:/.2/:�/:�/.:/:2/:2��/:. r�/.2/:2/:�/::/:2/:2��,.:/:2/:< .:��:/.2/:�/:�/.:/:2/:2��,.2. , � /.2/:2/:�/::/:2/:2/:�/.:/:2.:�; .:��:/.2/:�/:�/::/:2/:2��,.2.� INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR PUSH THE DIBBLE, OR PULL BACK ON THE HANDLE REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR SHOVEL, STRAIGHT DOWN SHOVEL, AND PUSH THE SHOVEL, SEVERAL INCHES SHOVEL, DOWN TO THE TO CLOSE THE BOTTOM OF SHOVEL, AND CLOSE AND FIRM INTO THE SOIL TO THE SEEDLING ROOTS DEEP INTO IN FRONT OF THE FULL DEPTH OF THE THE PLANTING HOLD. THEN UP THE OPENING WITH YOUR FULL DEPTH OF THE THE PLANTING HOLE. PULL SEEDLING AND PUSH THE BLADE. PUSH FORWARD TO CLOSE HEEL. BE CAREFUL TO AVOID BLADE AND PULLBACK ON THE SEEDLING BACKUP TO BLADE HALFWAY INTO THE THE TOP, ELIMINATING AIR DAMAGING THE SEEDLING. THE HANDLE TO OPEN THE CORRECT PLANTING SOIL. TWIST AND PUSH POCKETS AROUND THE THE PLANTING HOLE. (DO DEPTH (THE ROOT COLLAR THE HANDLE FORWARD TO ROOT. NOT ROCK THE SHOVEL SHOULD BE 1 To 3INCHES CLOSE THE TOP OF THE BACK AND FORTH AS THIS BELOWTHE SOIL SU RFACE) SLIT TO HOLD THE CAUSES SOIL IN THE GENTLY SHAKE THE SEEDLING IN PLACE. PLANTING HOLE TO BE SEEDLING TO ALLOW THE COMPACTED, INHIBITING ROOTS TO STRAIGHTEN OUT. ROOT GROWTH. DO NOT TWIST OR SPIN THE SEEDLING OR LEAVE THE ROOTS J- ROOTED. JUNCUS PLUG (TYP) TOE OF SLOPE JUNCUS PLUG (TYP) TOE OF SLOPE (z)Bare Root Planting 7.5 oftoSc.e EROSION CONTROL MATTING LIVE STAKE (TYP) (SEE DETAIL) SEE PLAN VIEW FOR SPACING 6 r,,,,—,,,,,,,, Section Vie- e ]Large Strea nns Devil's Racetrack (west & east) and North Branch 3, LIVE STAKE (TYP) SEE PLAN VIEW EROSION CONTROL FOR SPACING MATTING (SEE DETAIL) Section View e S mmaH StremnGs Southwest Branch, Middle Branch and Southeast Branch NOTE: 1. LIVE STAKES TO BE PLANTED IN AREAS AS SHOWN ON PLANS AND DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. Live Staking & junccus Plugs 7.5 Not to Sa Ile w2E "o m 1/2 "TO 2" j DIAMETER p O Fw a- < TOP OF BANK NOTES: 1. PREPARE THE BANK WHERE THE SOD MAT WILL BE TRANSPLANTED BY RAKING & FERTILIZING. 2. EXCAVATE TRANSPLANT SOD MATS WITH A WIDE BUCKET AND AS MUCH ADDITIONAL SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE. 3. PLACE TRANSPLANT ON THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED. 4. FILL IN ANY HOLES AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND COMPACT. 5. ANY LOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED. 6. PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE TOGETHER SUCH THAT THEYTOUCH. 7. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ABOVE TRANSPLANTED SOD MATS. TRANSPLANTED SOD AND ROOTMASS Transplanted Sod Mats 9.5 ort 1 c e ]Plan Vnew OF BANK OF SLOPE SHALLOW evv mym �L e� e� e {� IN ^m^ zOm ®an® �b I m w � v DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343 REPLY TO p ATTENTION OF 18 January, anuary, 2013 Regulatory Division Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the Devils Racetrack Mitigation Plan (SAW 2012 - 00810) Ms. Suzanne Klimek North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 Dear Ms. Klimek: The purpose of this letter is to approve the Draft Mitigation Plan and to provide the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCMT) during the 30 -day comment period for the Devil's Racetrack Stream and Wetland Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed on 26 August, 2012. Due to a few significant issues an additional review meeting was conducted on 12 September, 2012 between the USACE, NCDWQ, NCEEP, and Wildlands Engineering. These comments and meeting minutes are attached for your review. Based on our review of the proposed changes from the 12 September, 2012 meeting, we have determined that there are no additional concerns with the Draft Mitigation Plan. The changes discussed in the initial commenting phase and agreed to in the subsequent meeting will be reflected in the Final Mitigation Plan and submitted along with the PCN for permit authorization. The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN) Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter and a summation of the addressed comments. If it is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit, you must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the appropriate USACE field office at least 30 days in advance of beginning construction of the project. Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in the permit authorization for the project, particularly if issues mentioned above are not satisfactorily addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Mitigation Plan, but this does not guarantee that the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or monitoring of the project that may require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions regarding this letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation Rule, please call me at 919 - 846 -2564. Sincerely, Tyler Crumbley Regulatory Specialist Enclosures Electronic Copies Furnished: CESAW- RG -R/T. Brown Jessica Kemp, NCEEP John Hutton, Wildlands Engineering WILDLANDS ENGINEERING September 20, 2012 Mr. Todd Tugwell US Army Corps of Engineers 11405 Falls ofNeuse Road Wake Forest, NC 27587 Re: Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Response to comments oil Draft Mitigation Plan Dear Mr. Tugwell; We have reviewed the comments on the Draft Mitigation Plan dated September 10, 2012 and have revised the Mitigation Plan accordingly. We will submit the revised Mitigation Plan along with the PCN as requested. Below are responses to each of your comments. For your convenience, the comments are reprinted with our response in italics. 1. The mitigation plan indicates that partial credit is to be awarded for portions of the stream and wetland restoration under the power lines on the property, and Table 15 on Page 49 -50 lists a 25% reduction of credit (1.33:1 ratio). The IRT has previously discussed reduction for stream and wetland projects within maintained utility lines. If the resulting areas will be maintained mechanically as woody trees and shrubs (as proposed in the mitigation plan), the subsequent reduction of credit should be 50 %. If the areas will be treated with herbicide and maintained as herbaceous -only, the subsequent reduction of credit should be 75 %. Additionally, these areas should be avoided where possible. Crossings needed to maintain the utilities should also be accounted for, and if there are stream reaches immediately adjacent to the casements where the buffer is less than the required 50 feet (coastal and piedmont) due to maintenance, these areas may be further reduced in accordance to current guidance for non- standard buffcr widths. Per your comment and our subsequent discussion of -this issue at our 9112112 meeting, we agree to revise the ratios as you ham suggested using the 75% reduction in credils,for wetlnnd and streams in the powerline easement. These changes have been made to the mitigation plan. Also based on discussions during the 9112112 meeting, one hate added text to the mitigation plat staling that we upill not nreel vegetation requirements in pager line easements. 2. It is not clear from the plans provided with the mitigation plan which ditches will remain open, both within and bordering the mitigation site. hi particular, will ditches remain open along the boundary of the site with the campground and along Devil's Racetrack Road, and if so, what drainage effect will they have on the wetland restoration. A map indicating all ditches on and bordering the site, including if they will remain open, would be helpful. A newfigure (Figure 11) has been cleated showing the plan_ for which ditches wi11 be filled and which will be left open within the project site and along 1he project boundaries. This figure Will be included in the final version of the 11itigation Plan that will be submitted with the PCX wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone 919 - 851 -9986 • lax 919- 851 -9987 • 5605 Chapel Hill Road, f# 122 • Raleigh, NC 27607 3. The plan shows proposed restoration a stream through an existing pond on Middle Branch, along with wetland restoration immediately below the pond. We previously discussed the possibility of using the pond as a BMP rather than restoring a stream through it, but still providing stream credit. Was this option explored? We continue to have concerns about conducting restoration within the pond and dam area. Page 64 of the mitigation plan indicated that up to 7 feet of fill would have to graded from the dam area, and fill will likely have to be placed within the pond bed. Both of these activities increase the likelihood of problems with soils, hydrology and vegetation. Please provide more detail about the proposed work in these areas. It may be more appropriate to consider these areas as creation than restoration due to the fact that so much earthwork has to be conducted to achieve the proposed conditions. We agree that the BAIP approach (hereafter- )-efersred to as a headwater- welland) within the pond footprint oil AIiddle Branch is a better option and have 1•evised the Aitigation Plan to reflect this change. By changing to a headwafer wetland, cut depths downsb•eam of fire pond can be reduced signifncantly. The discussion oar page 64 has been edited to reflect this change and all othel- references to Middle Blanch have been edited accoi-dinglj Tllis clranrge tivill be shoii�lt on tlne filial connsb•rtction Plans. 4. We continue to have concerns that several of the streams proposed for the site were likely not streams before the site was converted to agricultural use, and that these drainages were constructed as ditches through wetlands. If so, the project would result in created streams that would primarily serve to undermine the functional value of the wetland in these areas. One example of this is North Branch, which is proposed to be constructed through an area of the site where historical aerial photographs do not seen] show any indication of a former stream. This drainage will also be substantially reduced in watershed size due to the rerouting of the main stem of Devi I's Racetrack Stream through the center of the site. As we have discussed before, it also does not appear that the proposed restoration of Devil's Racetrack Steam on the east side of Devil's Racetrack Road was located in its proposed alignment based on the historical aerials. Rather it appears that this area was more of an expansive wetland floodplain adjacent to the river. Establishing a stream along the corridor of the exiting ditch may serve to improve the connectivity of the stream with the floodplain, but to what extent will restore the historic conditions and fiinetions of the system? Additionally, will this approach lead to issues concerning hydrologic trespass of areas of the floodplain that are not part of the project? As discussed in tine 9112112 IRT meeting, Nol•th Branch is a jurisdictional dream upstream of the point where it enters Devil's Racetrack Creek with a contl'Ibuting d1•ainage area of 119 acres. If left in its cun•renf configuration, this stream would remain in all incised channel that flows into a roadside ditch along Devil's Racetrack Road resulting in poor water quality and contributing to flooding of adjacent residential properties. Odle, thel•e is little hislorical phologr'aphic evidence to indicate the original colrfigta•ation of this channel, then -e is a valley signature along the proposed alignment ofNo•fh Branch. Restoration of this reach ass pr-oposed will result in reconnection of the stream to surrounding wetland floodplains while signs flcantl }, nnpl•oving channel fOn7n and reducing potential potential water, qualit}, stressors. Based on discussions at the 9112112 meeting, it appears that the IRT agrees frith this approach, therefore no llnodifncaliolls to this design are proposed. Tire alignment of Devil's Racetrack Creek (East) imis also discussed at the 9112112 meeting. We reviewed the 1911 NRCS soils snap showing the alignment of Devil :v Racetrack ill a similar confrgrn•alion to its ctwivni status, discussed the fact that there is no clear evidence that the creek flowed to the south into a large slough that connects to the Nettse River, discussed tine current degrarled status of line stream and the disconection from the Arertse via the drop hilet sn- uctuve, and reviewed the landscape selling along terrace of lire ATeuse cis opposed to a low elevation backwater wetland condition. It is my unden•standing that eve13lonte agreed that, while it is unclear what the wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone 919 - 351 -9986 • fax 919. 851 -9987 • 5605 Chapel Hill Road, 9 122 • Raleigh, NC 27607 true historical condition of this stream channel uws, the design approach represents the best ls'ay to colniect this creek to the Nerrse River alit! opeli tip altadralrtous fish spalt,ning hcrbitcrl. T1lerefore no modifications to this design are proposed. 5. One of the four overall goals of the project is listed as restoring fish passage from the Neuse River to Devil's Racetrack Creels. Is this appropriate as a primary goal of the project as opposed to a secondary benefit, and if so, what performance standards can be included to demonstrate success? We agree that while this is a likely ecological benefit of the project, i1 should not be considered as a prhnaly goal. Me have edited the Mitigation Plait to reflect this change. 6. The project proposes to replace the culvert under Devil's Racetrack Road. Has approval for this replacement been received from NCDOT, and are their concerns with getting approval to raise the existing invert of this culvert? The NCDOT enei�oachrrrerlt agreement has been discussed ill detail uwilh the local district office. The official application and associated modeling documentation u ,as subinitted to the district of oil 9 118 112. The wain concern of the district office )iws that isv not shmi, a rise in 50 yr flood elevations on any adjacent properties. The overall site plan will actually reduce 50 -yr flood elevations on adjacent parcels h), as much cis 0.7 ft. Tf'e do liol aitticipate all}+ problelrls it,itll geitiitg approval for this action and will provide the final approval letter to the IRT when it is received. 7. Page 68 and 69 of the Mitigation Plan that discuss performance standards refer to 7 years of monitoring for certain activities and 5 years for other activities, including photo documentation and stream and hydrology assessments. Please clearly indicate which monitoring activities are proposed for 5 years and which are proposed for 7 years, ensuring that they are in compliance with the monitoring requirements for the RFP. All monitoring activities are proposed.for 7 years. This was a mistake in the Mitigation Plan and has been corrected. II is ow- understanding that if vegetative performance standards are lnel by veal- S there is the potential that the IRT would not require vegetative nloniloring in years 6 and 7. This language was left unchanged. 8. We have previously discussed our concerns regarding whether several of the proposed tributaries will have adequate hydrology, or whether these systems were Constructed as ditches through wetlands. Page 68 of the plan includes performance standards that require a minimum flow of 20 consecutive days per year under normal circumstances. This standard seems too low to demonstrate that the channels will be at least intermittent. Additionally, it is not clear from the standards how flow will be documented. Per discussions at the 9 112 112 meeting, we hcn e changed this performance standard to 30 days of consecutive flo►v. 9. It would be helpful if Table 15 were modified to include a colunvu for credits (WMU's and SMU's). lf'e agree and have made this change to Table 15. 10. No information was presented on the location and number of proposed monitoring wells. Please provide a copy of the proposed well and vegetation plots to true USACE for review prior to initiating monitoring. The locations of tile monitoring wells and vegetation plots should be placed to represent the entire site, including the edges of the proposed wetland areas. Additionally, placing wells in transects perpendicular to the valley can help in evaluating the site. wildlands Engineering, Inc. * phone 919 -851 -9986 * fw.x 919 -851 -9987 • 5605 Chapel Hill Road, 9 122 * Raleigh, NC 27607 An cidditional figure (Figure 12) has been created showing the plarl fo1- itrotlitoi-iilg il,ell placelrleyat ]Jost Construction. If you have any questions or need any additional information on the revisions discussed above, you can reach nee at (919) 851 -9986 eat 102. We look forward to continuing working with you for the remainder o the project. SincerAy, t in 9 wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone 919- 851 -9986 • fix 919 -851 -9987 • 5605 Chapel Hill Road, 9 122 • Raleigh, NC 27607 Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Small Stream Hydrologic Assessment Meeting Meeting Summary September 12, 2012 Attendees: Todd Tugwell /USACE Tyler Crumbley /USACE Eric Kulz /DWQ Guy Pearce /EEP Jeff Schaffer /EEP Jessica Kemp /EEP Michael Ellison /EEP John Hutton /Wildlands Engineering Jeff Keaton /Wildlands Engineering Meeting Introduction John Hutton of Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (WEI) began by discussing the purpose of the meeting and said that the meeting would follow a similar agenda as the previous IRT meeting held on March 15, 2012. John said that the meeting would focus on four topics that were the same as the previous meeting as well as the design approach to Devil's Racetrack East where it connects down to the Neuse River. The agenda topics are listed below: Small Stream Questions 1. Would stream channels naturally format the slope /drainage area combinations that exist on the site? 2. Are the small streams on the site jurisdictional? 3. Are the small streams degraded? 4. What is the correct approach for design on the small streams? Large Stream Questions 1. How did Devil's Racetrack Creek historically cross the Neuse Floodplain? 1. What is the correct approach to restoration of this channel ized system? Topic 1: Would streams form in the watersheds of the small channels on the site? John gave an introduction on the overall configuration of the site and showed a map of the site. He described the overall site and reviewed the current locations of each of the four small reaches. John then presented a series of historical aerial photos to illustrate the conditions of the site and the small streams from 1939 through 1988. He described the changes to the site over time that can be observed on the aerial photos. He pointed out that the site was wooded in 1939 but that faint signatures of the stream channels could be seen on the photo. Next he showed the 1949 aerial which still showed the site being wooded but more clearly showed the alignments of each of the four small streams at that 1 time. John then showed the 1971 aerial photo which still showed the site being wooded. It did not appear that significant manipulation had occurred at that time. Todd Tugwell pointed out that he thought the site had probably been cleared at some previous time and that the stream signatures looked as if channelization had been done at some point in the past and Eric Kulz agreed. John then showed the 1988 aerial photo and discussed how during the time between 1971 and 1988 the site had been cleared and the stream had been channelized and relocated. He stated that the aerials showed major manipulation of the site between 1971 and 1988 and that WEI discussions with the farmer who worked on the site during that period also indicated that was true. Guy stated that one question he had about the site was whether the small streams would maintain flow in the lower sections once the valley slopes flattened out. John said that, while WEI is aware that could be a problem, he didn't think it would be on the Devil's Racetrack site because the slopes on the small streams don't ever become low enough for that to occur. Eric discussed his comment on the mitigation plan that Devil's Racetrack Creek (East) may have connected to a slough to the south of the existing channel instead of connecting directly to the Neuse River as WEI plans. John referred to the aerial photography and showed a soils map dated 1911 which clearly showed Devil's Racetrack Creek (East) connecting directly to the Neuse as planned by WEI. John also discussed WEI's field investigation to see if the creek likely once connected to the slough to the south. He explained that there is high ground between the current location of the creek and the slough and a connection between the two was very unlikely. Eric then raised another topic that he commented on when reviewing the Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Plan — that valley signatures for the small streams don't show up on the LIDAR available for the site. John responded to this comment initially by suggesting that part of the reason the valleys don't show up well on the LIDAR is that the color ramp symbology of the map would not show the valleys because there is too much vertical relief in the area. John showed mapping with contour intervals that were based on LIDAR data to illustrate this point. Todd agreed with Eric and thought that the valleys should be visible. Eric asked if the small streams should be considered stream creation. John then followed up by saying that WEI has done a lot of analysis to show that the work proposed for the small streams should be restoration and began reviewing the analyses for the group. First John showed the reference reaches for the site and told the group that these reaches were used as traditional reference reaches for the project designs and also to investigate slope- drainage area combinations that lead to stream formation in this landscape. The reference reaches include Johanna Branch which has been used as a reference for multiple projects in the area, the Cox and Westbrook mitigation sites near Johanna Branch and four streams from the Scout Camp reference site. On the Scout site, there is a small steep stream draining to a larger stream with a flatter slope on either side of the site. Todd mentioned that the reference reaches were very good but the small streams did not cross wide floodplains before connecting with the larger streams the way the small streams on the project site would before they connect with Devil's Racetrack Creek. John mentioned again that the slopes of the lower reaches of the small streams stayed relatively steep in the proposed designs. John then discussed an analysis of channel initiation that WEI had performed on the reference reaches. A figure illustrating the results of the study was shown to the group. The figure is a plot of the slope (y- axis) and drainage area (x -axis) of locations where the reference streams have well- formed channels, poorly- formed channels, or moderately well- formed channels. John discussed that the best way to decipher any relations between slope and drainage area was to visually separate the points to show break lines between slope- drainage area combinations below which no well- formed channels were observed on the reference sites and above which channels were always observed. The plot also included slope -area points for each of the design reaches on the project site. Jeff and John discussed where these points fell with regard to the break lines. The middle and downstream reaches of Southeast Branch fell to the right of the break line representing the slope- drainage area combinations always resulting in channel formation. This indicates that natural stream channels would form in those watersheds. Two reaches, UT to Southeast Branch and Southeast Branch, fell between the two break lines indicating that channels would sometimes form in those watersheds. Four of the reaches, Southwest Branch Upstream, Southwest Branch Downstream, Middle Branch Upstream, and Middle Branch Downstream, fell on or to the left of the breakline representing slope- drainage area relations below which no channel formation was observed. This indicates that channels would not form in these watersheds. John pointed out, however, that the reference reaches on the plot were formed by rainfall - runoff hydrology. John discussed the fact that Southwest Branch and Middle Branch were actually spring fed streams and they had very nearly perennial flow. Therefore, even though the plot shown to the group indicates that streams would not form in those watersheds, the plot does not represent spring -fed streams and there is reason to believe that streams would naturally form downstream of springs producing as much flow as the ones at the upstream end of Southwest and Middle Branch. Todd mentioned that the plot shows that all of the reference sites are steeper than the design sites and is concerned that project channels will not maintain flow in area where slopes are flatter. He stressed that performance standards will be important. Topic 2: Are the channels jurisdictional? John then showed pictures of the current conditions of the design reaches and discussed each of these reaches. He also showed pictures that illustrated flow conditions in each of the reaches overtime from January 2011 through November 2011. John indicated that flow was observed in these channels all throughout this period. Some of the photographs showed discharge monitoring weirs that WEI had installed on the four small channels. John discussed the reasons for installing the weirs —to demonstrate continuous flow in the channels and to assist with design discharge determination. John showed plots of the discharge data collected at the weirs. The data sets for streamflow and rainfall for Southeast, Middle, and Southwest Branches have been updated since the previous meeting in March and include data from December 2011 to early June 2012 (UT to Southeast Branch was not updated). The plots indicated that three of the small streams flowed almost continually for this time period but that UT to Southeast Branch only flowed in response to rain events. The plots were also updated with text showing the number of total days of flow, the number of consecutive days of flow, and the number of days flow data were collected for each stream. These numbers help to illustrate that the streams flow most of the time. John then showed and discussed a table of long -term rainfall averages for Johnston County by month compared to rainfall data collected for several months (updated since the March meeting to September 2011 -June 2012) by the rain gauge installed and monitored by WEI on the project site. The table showed that rainfall totals below normal for every month in the period except for May 2012. John indicated that three of the small streams maintained flow during this dry period and that this was a further indication that the streams were perennial. An ensuing discussion arose about how many consecutive days of flow the IRT members thought would be appropriate as a performance standard for Coastal Plain streams. Thirty days was a length of time that most in the group thought would be appropriate. EEP staff present discussed the difficulty of finding streams to restore in the coastal plain and how these types of performance standards would make that even harder. Todd brought up the idea of building a headwaters wetland feature to treat runoff in the area at the upstream end of Middle Branch by retrofitting the pond to work essentially as an extended detention wetland rather than rebuilding a stream channel through the pond. John said that WEI would not have any problem redesigning that area to be a wetland feature instead of stream restoration. Todd discussed that he would want to see water quality monitoring on inflow and outflow of the wetland feature but that the results would not be tied to performance standards for the Devil's Racetrack project. The information would be used to help the IRT determine if these types of project features would be appropriate for future projects. Todd stated that he was concerned that the flow data only indicated that the ditches were draining surrounding wetlands and groundwater and that if the channel inverts were raised the main source of hydrology might be cut off. John showed profile plots of Middle Branch and Southwest branch indicating the elevation of the spring head in relation to any channel adjustments proposed in the design. The spring heads are, in both cases, situated 4 -6 feet above the highest point proposed for grade adjustment on the project. Todd brought up the concern that even though flow originates at a higher elevation, flow could be lost in the downstream section due to infiltration when the streams are disconnected from groundwater. John pointed out that groundwater would be raised significantly throughout the site as discussed in the next section. John then discussed that the stream valleys had been filled and that WEI has had discussions with the farmer who worked the site in the early eighties when the mass grading was completed. The grading included channelizing many of the streams on site and filling in some of the valleys. Next, John showed an email from Thomas Brown who is the USACE field office representative who is working on the JD determination for the Devil's Racetrack Site. The email indicated that Thomas believes that all of the streams on the site except for UT to Southeast Branch are jurisdictional although no official determination has been made at this point. Topic 3: What is the potential for uplift if these small streams are restored? John began this discussion topic by showing examples of the existing cross sections of the small streams overlaid with the proposed design cross section. The design cross sections would be much smaller and al at a higher elevation than the existing channels. John also showed pictures of the streams to show erosion and obvious channelization that will be corrected by the project. John also addressed the issue that had been raised about cutting off groundwater flow by raising the stream beds by pointing out that by raising the channel invert of Devil's Racetrack Creek, the entire water table would be raised by several feet so that groundwater would still contribute to stream flow in the small reaches. To illustrate this point, he showed a plot of the preliminary Drainmod model results used to analyze the wetland hydrology. The plot showed changes in water table depth over time for both the existing and proposed conditions. The proposed water table stayed much higher than the existing demonstrating that the water table would be significantly raised as a result of the project. John also mentioned that this is one of the key benefits of the project and that significant ecological uplift would result from the restoration wetland hydrology. At this point, Guy raised an issue related to the planting plan of the site. He described how the small channels might be completely covered by vegetation and that planting willows on top of the stream banks to shade out shrubs, cattails, etc. would help to maintain the channels. Michael Ellison suggested that other species such as Green Ash and sycamore could serve the same purpose. Michael also mentioned that EEP is concerned with the use of live stakes on stream banks and that they would like WEI to not use on the small stream channel banks as is typically done on this project. John said that WEI is planning to plant juncus -carex sod on the site to use as sod mat on the stream banks. John stated that WEI would revise the planting plan before finalizing the mitigation plan. Topic 4: The design approach John showed plots of the existing and proposed profiles for the small channels. He described how the designs that WEI plans to implement would not cut of the springs contributing flow to Southwest and Middle Branches. John introduced the topic of the design plan for the connection of Devil's Racetrack Creek (East) to the Neuse River. He described the plan for this element of the project and discussed how it will provide a new spawning area for anadromous fish. John showed a picture of the current "drop structure" that connects Devil's Racetrack Creek (East) with the river and pointed out that fish cannot swim up Devil's Racetrack Creek with this current configuration. The reconstructed confluence will be the level of the river so that migrating fish can swim upstream on the creek. Hard substrate will also be used as grade control and as an aid to spawning habitat for shad (a significant anadromous species in the Neuse River). Todd stated that fish passage should not be an overall goal because there is no plan to measure it. Jeff Jurek suggested leaving as a goal in the mitigation plan but calling it a secondary goal. Eric stated that he was not sure if Devil's Racetrack (East) should be considered stream restoration as opposed to stream creation. John re- emphasized that WEI explored all options to redesign this portion of the project, including connecting Devil's Racetrack Creek to the slough to the south of the current channel. John stated that all available information indicates that a stream has been in the location of the proposed alignment for Devil's Racetrack Creek (East) for at least as long as any recorded information indicates. He said the design represents the best possible way to connect the Creek to the Neuse River. Next there was a brief discussion on the agricultural ditches on the site that will be filled. Todd asked for clarification on which ditches will be filled. John explained the plan for filling the ditches, including the ditch along Devil's Racetrack road which will be filled to the elevation of the culvert that will be replaced under the road. Since this ditch will not be filled all the way to the surrounding floodplain, Todd indicated that he would like to see a groundwater monitoring well near this ditch to show the effect of leaving the ditch partially unfilled on nearby wetlands. Todd then stated that, in general, the IRT would like to see proposed well locations for groundwater monitoring with future mitigation plans so that they have an opportunity to comment on well placement. John asked if there was a target for number of wells for a particular area and Todd said that there was not. John suggested for Devil's Racetrack that wells be installed in transects across the site. John also mentioned for IRT members who were not present at the March 15 meeting that monitoring weirs could be installed at log drops in the small streams to monitor flow to see if streams are meeting hydrology success criteria. Todd then stated that he did not think any stream or wetland credit should be given for the areas of the project within the power line easement. A general discussion of how this should be applied to mitigation projects followed. Todd stated that since he had put a reduced credit ratio of 4:1 (75% reduction in credits) for areas in the power line easement in his written response to the mitigation plan, that he would be OK with that ratio for those areas on the Devil's Racetrack site. Todd also asked that WEI state in the mitigation plan that vegetation success criteria would not be met in the power line easement. Since WEI had no more information to present, a summary discussion ensued. Todd stated that he had no "over- riding comments" and indicated if the items discussed during this meeting were addressed in the final mitigation plan then it would be approved. He asked that WEI send a memo describing the changes that were going to be made based on the discussions during this meeting. Eric said that his comments about the project had all been addressed during this meeting and that he had no further comments. He indicated that he would send a follow up response to the IRT stating that his concerns had been addressed. Todd stated that when the final mitigation plan is received, the IRT comment period will end. The meeting was adjourned. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINESRS WILMINGTON DISTRICT Action Id. SAW-2012-00810 County: Johnston U.S.G.S. Quad: Four Oaks NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION Property Owner: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Agent: Matt Jenkins Address: 1430 South Mint St. Address: Suite 104 Charlotte, NC, 28203 Property description: Size (acres) 100 Nearest Town Four Oaks Nearest Waterway Neuse River River Basin Meuse USGS HUC 03020201 Coordinates Latitude: 35.4488 Longitude: -78.3804 Location description: The property is located on each side of Devils Racetrack Rd, south of its intersection with I- 95, east of US Hwy 701, east of Four Oaks, Johnston County, NC Indicate Which of the Following Apply: A. Preliminary Determination Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331). If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also, you may provide new information for farther consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD. B. Approved Determination There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. X There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344'. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. — We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps. X The waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years. — The waters of the U.S. including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period to exceed five years from the date of this notification. There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our WUMUM published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at (252) 808 -2808 to determine their requirements. Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Thomas Brown at 919- 554 -4884 x22/Thomas.L.Brown(&usace.arMy.mil. C. Basis For Determination Ordinary High Water Mark, 1987 manual Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Reeional Supplement D. Remarks This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work. F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B. above) This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address: US Army Corps of Engineers South Atlantic Division Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer 60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M 15 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8801 In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by August 12, 2012. "It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence." Corps Regulatory Date: June 13, 2012 Expiration Date: June 13, 2017 The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the attached customer Satisfaction Survey or visit ht1p:// per2. 1n�13 .usace.arrnv.niil/survey.1itnl1 to complete the survey online. Copy furnished: Applicant: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. File Number: SAW -2012 -00810 I Date: June 13, 2012 Attached is: See Section below ❑ INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A ❑ PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B ❑ PERMIT DENIAL C ® APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D F-11 PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may acceptor object to the permit. ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Pen-nit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the fornl to the district engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below. B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit • ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit. • APPEAL: if you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terns and conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a pen-nit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information. ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD. APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Thomas Brown, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to: Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10MI5, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801 Phone: (404) 562-5137 MITIGATION PLAN Devil's Racetrack Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Johnston County, North Carolina EEP ID #95021 Neuse River Basin HUC 03020201 Prepared for: 1{,Il lil I111 PROGRAM NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 (January 2013) MITIGATION PLAN Devil's Racetrack Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Johnston County, North Carolina EEP ID #95021 Neuse River Basin HUC 03020201 Prepared for: E t� ii ellt rmba� NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 Prepared by: i*A WILDLANDS ENGINEERING Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 5605 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 122 Raleigh, NC 27607 Phone — 919 - 851 -9986 John Hutton JHutton@wildlandseng.com (January 2013) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (WEI) proposes to restore and enhance a total of 15,512 existing linear feet (LF) of stream and restore 56.4 acres of wetlands on a full delivery mitigation site in Johnston County, NC. The streams proposed for restoration include five unnamed tributaries (UTs) to the Neuse River. The largest of these streams, referred to herein as Devil's Racetrack Creek, drains directly to the Neuse River. The other four streams are small headwaters tributaries to Devil's Racetrack Creek. The project will provide 18,216 stream mitigation units (SMUs) and 55.2 wetland restoration units (WMUs). Buffer restoration will also take place but is not intended for mitigation credit at this time. The Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Project site is located near the town of Four Oaks in central Johnston County, NC. The site is in the eight -digit Cataloging Unit (CU) 03020201 in the Neuse River Basin, otherwise known as the Neuse 01 CU. The 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) is 03020201140010 which was identified as a Targeted Local Watershed in NCEEP's 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) Plan. The RBRP identified the following goals for the watershed: Wetland restoration and enhancement that contribute to the improvement of water quality downstream in the estuary and Implementation of buffer and stream projects in headwaters. The proposed project will help meet both of those goals and will provide numerous additional ecological benefits within the Neuse 01 CU. This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following: • Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14). NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010. These documents govern EEP operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation. Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives ................................ ............................... 2.0 Project Site Location and Selection ......................................... ............................... 2.1 Directions to Project Site ......................................................... ............................... 2.2 Site Selection and Project Components ................................... ............................... 3.0 Site Protection Instrument ....................................................... ............................... 4.0 Baseline Information - Project Site and Watershed Summary . ............................... 4.1 Watershed Historical Land Use and Development Trends ...... ............................... 4.2 Watershed Assessment ............................................................ ............................... 4.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils ........................................... ............................... 4.4 Valley Classification ................................................................ ............................... 4.5 Surface Water Classification and Water Quality ..................... ............................... 5.0 Baseline Information - Stream Reach Summary ..................... ............................... 5.1 Existing Stream and Vegetation Condition .............................. ............................... 5.2 Stream Geomorphology ........................................................... ............................... 5.3 Channel Evolution ................................................................... ............................... 5.4 Channel Stability Assessment .................................................. ............................... 5.5 Bankfull Verification ............................................................... ............................... 5.6 Design Discharge ..................................................................... ............................... 6.0 Baseline Information - Wetland Summary .............................. ............................... 6.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands ............................................................ ............................... 6.2 Hydrologic Characterization .................................................... ............................... 6.3 Soil Characterization ................................................................ ............................... 6.4 Vegetation Community Types Descriptions and Disturbance History ................... 7.0 Baseline Information - Regulatory Considerations .................. ............................... 7.1 401/404 .................................................................................... ............................... 7.2 Endangered and Threatened Species ....................................... ............................... 7.3 Cultural Resources ................................................................... ............................... 7.4 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass ....... ............................... 7.5 Essential Fisheries Habitat ....................................................... ............................... 7.6 Utilities and Site Access .......................................................... ............................... 8.0 Reference Sites ........................................................................ ............................... 8.1 Reference Streams ................................................................... ............................... 8.2 Reference Wetlands ................................................................. ............................... 9.0 Determination of Credits ......................................................... ............................... 10.0 Project Site Mitigation Plan ..................................................... ............................... 10.1 Designed Channel Classification ............................................. ............................... 10.2 Designed Wetland Type ........................................................... ............................... 10.3 Target Buffer Communities ..................................................... ............................... 10.4 Stream Project and Design Justification .................................. ............................... 10.5 Sediment Transport Analysis ................................................... ............................... 11.0 Project Implementation Summary ........................................... ............................... 11.1 Site Grading, Structure Installation, and Other Project Related Construction........ 11.2 Natural Plant Community Restoration ..................................... ............................... 12.0 Maintenance Plan ..................................................................... ............................... 13.0 Performance Standards ............................................................ ............................... Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan 5 .6 .6 .6 .7 .7 .8 .8 .9 10 11 12 13 14 20 21 22 23 27 27 27 34 36 36 37 37 39 40 40 40 41 41 47 49 53 53 61 62 62 63 65 65 67 68 69 Page ii 13.1 Streams ....................................................................................... ............................... 69 13.2 Vegetation ..................................................................................... .............................70 13.3 Wetlands ..................................................................................... ............................... 71 14.0 Monitoring Plan .......................................................................... ............................... 71 14.1 Additional Monitoring Details .................................................... ............................... 72 15.0 Long -Term Management Plan .................................................... ............................... 72 16.0 Adaptive Management Plan ........................................................ ............................... 73 17.0 Financial Assurances .................................................................. ............................... 73 18.0 References ..................................................................................... .............................74 TABLES Table 1. Site Protection Instrument ....................................... ............................... Table 2. Project and Watershed Information ......................... ............................... Table 3. Floodplain Soil Types and Descriptions .................. ............................... Table 4. Reach Summary Information ................................... ............................... Table 5a. Existing Stream Conditions ..................................... ............................... Table 5b. Existing Stream Conditions ..................................... ............................... Table 6. Existing Conditions Channel Stability Assessment Results ................... Table 7. Design Discharge Analysis Summary ..................... ............................... Table 8. Wetland Summary Information ............................... ............................... Table 9. Modeling Results Showing Expected Performance by Gauge Location Table 10a. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 1 ..................... ............................... Table 10b. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 2 ..................... ............................... Table 10c. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 3 ..................... ............................... Table IOd. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 4 ..................... ............................... Table IOe. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 5 ..................... ............................... Table 10f. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 6 ..................... ............................... Table 10g. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 7 ..................... ............................... Table 10h. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 8 ..................... ............................... Table 11. Regulatory Considerations ....................................... ............................... Table 12. Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Person County, NC ....... Table 13a. Summary of Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters ......................... Table 13b. Summary of Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters ......................... Table 14. Reference Wetland Hydrology Results 2006 -2010 . ............................... Table 15. Determination of Credits ......................................... ............................... Table 16a. Design Morphologic Parameters .............................. ............................... Table 16b. Design Morphologic Parameters .............................. ............................... Table 16c. Design Morphologic Parameters .............................. ............................... Table 17. Summary of Mean Sediment Transport Capacity of Design Reaches .... Table 18. Maintenance Plan ..................................................... ............................... Table 19. Monitoring Requirements ........................................ ............................... FIGURES Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site Map Figure 3 Watershed Map Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan ................ 7 ................ 7 .............. 10 .............. 12 .............. 17 .............. 18 .............. 21 .............. 25 .............. 27 .............. 30 .............. 31 .............. 31 .............. 32 .............. 32 .............. 33 .............. 33 .............. 34 .............. 34 .............. 36 .............. 37 .............. 43 .............. 45 .............. 48 .............. 50 .............. 54 .............. 56 .............. 59 .............. 64 .............. 68 .............. 71 Page iii Figure 4 Soils Map Figure 5 Hydrologic Features Map Figure 6 NC Coastal Plain Regional Curves with Project Data Overlay Figure 7 FEMA Flood Map Figure 8 Reference Sites Vicinity Map Figure 9 Stream and Wetland Design —West Figure 10 Stream and Wetland Design — East Figure 11 Ditch and Abandoned Stream Grading Figure 12 Groundwater Gauge Locations APPENDICES Appendix 1 Project Site Photographs Appendix 2 Historic Aerial Photographs Appendix 3 Memorandum of Option Appendix 4 Project Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms and Jurisdictional Determination Appendix 5 Existing Conditions Geomorphic Data Appendix 6 NRCS Map Appendix 7 Streamflow Monitoring Weir Hydrographs Appendix 8 Drammod Calibration Plots Appendix 9 Soil Core Maps and Data Appendix 10 Agency Correspondence Appendix 11 EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist Appendix 12 Coastal Plain Reference Reach Database rw Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page iv 1.0 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives The Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Project site is located near the town of Four Oaks in Eastern Johnston County, NC. The site is in the eight -digit Cataloging Unit (CU) 03020201, in the Neuse River Basin, otherwise known as the Neuse 01 CU. The 14 -digit hydrologic unit, or "Targeted Local Watershed," within the 03020201 CU that includes the project site is Neuse River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201140010. The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( NCEEP) follows the Compensation Planning Framework based on these hydrologic units when targeting mitigation sites for implementation. The first planning stage is the development of River Basin Restoration Priority Plans (RBRPs) to prioritize specific watersheds within the 8 -digit CUs in which to implement mitigation projects. Through the development of RBRPs, NCEEP develops restoration goals and priorities for the 14 -digit Targeted Local Watersheds. All Full Delivery Procurement projects must be located within a Targeted Local Watershed. The next phase of planning is the development of Local Watershed Plans to identify and prioritize specific mitigation projects. To date, no local watershed plan has been developed that includes the Devil's Racetrack project site watershed. The most detailed restoration goals in this case are identified in the RBRP. Restoration goals for the Targeted Local Watershed in the 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) document (http: // www .nceep.net/services /resiplans/ FINAL %20RBRP %2ONeuse %2020111207 %2000RRECTED. pdf) include the following: • Wetlands restoration and enhancement that contribute to the improvement of water quality downstream in the estuary and • Implementation of buffer and stream projects in headwaters. The Devil's Racetrack Creek Mitigation Project was identified as a stream and wetland mitigation project that will improve water quality and aquatic and riparian habitat within the CU. The project will contribute to meeting both restoration goals for the Targeted Local Watershed described above. The overall primary goals of the project include: • Restore a large wetland complex to a naturally occurring community to improve riparian habitat and water quality; • Restore a network of badly degraded stream channels, including multiple headwaters streams, to create aquatic habitat and further improve water quality to receiving waters; and • Restore riparian buffers along stream corridors for additional habitat and water quality benefits. A secondary goal of the project will be to restore fish passage from the Neuse River to Devil's Racetrack Creek. This is a secondary goal because success will not be measured. The primary project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives: • Promote wetland hydrology by raising channelized stream beds and filling drainage ditches; • Plant wetland areas with native tree species to restore a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp — Blackwater Subtype community; • Reconstruct stream channels to have the appropriate slope, planform, and cross - sectional geometry for the region of the Coastal Plain in which the project is located; • Size reconstructed stream channels to flood floodplains and wetlands frequently; w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 5 • Stabilize stream banks using bioengineering, natural channel design techniques, and grading to reduce bank angles and bank height; • Install in- stream structures and woody debris to promote aeration of water, create habitat, and influence the creation of bed forms commonly found in sand bed channels; • Restore riparian buffer areas with native tree species to stabilize channels, filter flood flows and runoff, and supplement wetland plantings; and • Remove project area from agricultural production further improving water quality. 2.0 Project Site Location and Selection 2.1 Directions to Project Site The proposed stream and wetland mitigation site is located in central Johnston County along Devil's Racetrack Road just east of its intersection with U.S. Highway 701 and approximately one mile east of Interstate 95 (Figure 1). To access the site, drive east along Devil's Racetrack Road approximately 1.2 miles from the Highway 701 intersection. Both portions of the site can be accessed on either side of Devil's Racetrack Road. 2.2 Site Se lection and Project Components This proposed mitigation project includes the restoration and enhancement of 18,744 linear feet (LF) of stream and restoration of 56.4 acres of riparian wetlands (Figure 2). No jurisdictional wetlands currently exist on the site. The site was selected for restoration because the streams have been relocated and channelized and the surrounding wetland complex has been drained for agricultural purposes. The portion of the site west of Devil's Racetrack Road is currently used for row crop agriculture and the eastern portion is currently used for timber production. The streams proposed for restoration and enhancement include five unnamed tributaries to the Neuse River. The largest of these streams, referred to herein as Devil's Racetrack Creek, discharges directly to the Neuse River. The other streams included in the proposed project are tributaries to Devil's Racetrack Creek. In the current configuration of channels, Devil's Racetrack Creek flows eastward from US Hwy 701 along the north and east boundaries of the property to the Neuse River on the east side of Devil's Racetrack Road. On the west side of Devil's Racetrack Road, four tributaries referred to as Southwest Branch, Middle Branch, Southeast Branch, and North Branch flow into Devil's Racetrack Creek. The project also includes restoration of degraded wetlands located adjacent to the streams. Photographs of the project site are included in Appendix 1. As a result of the proposed restoration activities, total stream length within the project area will be increased from approximately 15,512 LF to 18,744 LF. The proposed stream restoration designs for Devil's Racetrack Creek and North Branch will primarily be a Priority 1 approach and the stream types for the restored streams will be similar to E or C channels under the Rosgen classification system. Devil's Racetrack Creek will be rerouted back through its original valley and floodplain on the western portion of the site. North Branch and Southeast Branch will both join Devil's Racetrack Creek near Devil's Racetrack Road. This alignment of the streams is very similar to the historic, natural configuration (see historic aerial photographs in Appendix 2). Priority 1 restoration will continue to the portion of Devil's Racetrack Creek east of Devil's Racetrack Road. The lower portion of Devil's Racetrack Creek will transition to a relatively short section of Priority 2 restoration. The stream will be connected into an existing stream channel immediately above its confluence with the Neuse River resulting in a short Enhancement II section. Southwest Branch, Middle Branch, and Southeast Branch will be reconstructed as small, steep streams that flatten in gradient as they near Devil's Racetrack Creek. Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 6 A headwater wetland feature will be constructed as a portion of the stream restoration where a pond currently exists on the upstream end of Middle Branch. The majority of the streams will be built as Priority 1 restoration with the exception of the upper section of Southwest Branch which will have short sections of both Enhancement I and Enhancement II. The original valleys of Middle and Southeast Branch will be reconstructed near the upstream end of these reaches resulting in short sections of Priority 2 restoration. The wetland restoration designs will be based on reference conditions and will restore Coastal Plain small stream swamp communities. Based on the proposed mitigation effort, the project will result in 18,216 stream mitigation units (SMUs) and 55.2 riparian wetland mitigation units (WMUs). 3.0 Site Protection Instrument The Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site is located on two parcels owned by the Nell Howell Revocable Trust. An option to purchase a conservation easement, to be held by the State of North Carolina, has been recorded for 75.92 and 24.09 acres for a total of 100.01 acres. The land required for construction, management, and stewardship of the mitigation project includes portions of the parcel(s) listed in Table 1. Copies of the option agreements are included in the Appendix 3. Figure 2 depicts the proposed conservation easement. Table 1. Site Protection Instrument Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site All site protection instruments require 60 -day advance notification to the Corps and the State prior to any action to void, amend, or modify the document. No such action shall take place unless approved by the State. 4.0 Baseline Information — Project Site and Watershed Summary Table 2 presents the project information and baseline watershed information. Table 2. Project and Watershed Information Devil's Racetrack Creek Mitigation Site Project County Johnston County Physiographic Site Deed Book Ecoregion Southeastern Plains River Basin Neuse USGS HUC (14 Acreage Landowner PIN County Protection and Page No, but is within targeted local watershed Watershed Plan? WRC Class Warm Protected Instrument Number Nell Howell Revocable 168100 -48- Conservation Trust 4293 Johnston Easement TBD TBD Nell Howell Revocable 168100 -28- Conservation Trust 6055 Johnston Easement TBD TBD All site protection instruments require 60 -day advance notification to the Corps and the State prior to any action to void, amend, or modify the document. No such action shall take place unless approved by the State. 4.0 Baseline Information — Project Site and Watershed Summary Table 2 presents the project information and baseline watershed information. Table 2. Project and Watershed Information Devil's Racetrack Creek Mitigation Site Project County Johnston County Physiographic Upper Coastal Plain Region Ecoregion Southeastern Plains River Basin Neuse USGS HUC (14 03020201140010 digit) NCDWQ Sub -basin 03 -04 -02 Within NCEEP No, but is within targeted local watershed Watershed Plan? WRC Class Warm w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 7 Percent of The easement has not been recorded and is proposed to be Easement Fenced demarcated post construction. or Demarcated Beaver Activity Observed During No Design Phase? Devil's Devil's Reaches Southwest Middle Southeast North Racetrack Racetrack Branch Branch Branch Branch Creek Creek (west) (east) Drainage Area 20.6 10.8 69.9 49.9 493.5 831.4 (acres) Watershed Land Use Developed 0% 0% 0% 15% 5% 3% Forested /Scrubland 64% 40% 23% 43% 51% 59% Agriculture /Managed 36% 60% 77% 42% 44% 38% Herb. Open Water 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Watershed <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% Impervious Cover 4.1 Watershed Historical Land Use and Development Trends The Neuse 03020201 CU is one of the most developed and continues to be one of the most rapidly developing areas of the state. The CU includes portions of Orange, Durham, Wake, and Johnston Counties, all of which are among the fastest growing counties in the state and are part of the Raleigh - Durham -Cary combined statistical area, also known as "the Triangle." Population growth and associated rapid development create a significant need for mitigation projects in this CU. Targeted local watershed HUC 03020201140010 is located in the south central portion of the basin in central Johnston County. The watershed includes a large, mostly forested segment of the Neuse River and many tributaries including Polecat Branch and Miry Branch. The 53 square mile HUC is very rural overall with 62 percent of the land use comprised by forest or wetland and 34 percent farm land. The project watershed (Figure 3) is also primarily agricultural lands and forest. The only significant development in the watershed is a campground adjacent to Devil's Racetrack Creek on the western portion of the project site, a middle school in the upper portion of the watershed, a low- density subdivision with single family homes, and a small section of I -95. Land uses for each subwatershed are described in Table 2. 4.2 Watershed Assessment During the site assessment portion of the project, Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (WEI) reviewed available aerial photography of the project watershed and conducted a ground reconnaissance of the watershed. Aerial photographs of the area were obtained for a number of different time periods in order to characterize the development and land cover changes within the watershed. Aerial images from 1949, 1959, 1993, 1999, 2006, and 2009 were reviewed. The ground reconnaissance was performed to verify w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 8 land uses observed from the aerial photography, identify potential sediment sources, and develop a more detailed understanding of the hydrology of the project streams. Review of the aerial photographs indicates that, in general, there has been little change in the amount of forested area within the watershed within the last 60 years. The major exception to that is the project site itself which appears on aerial photos to have been cleared for farming sometime between the early 1960's and the early 1990's. Some forested area was cleared in the 1950's for the construction of the Interstate 95 corridor and a few other small parcels were cleared during the time period covered by the aerials. Some of the areas that were cleared for farming prior to 1949 were developed for other uses during the period. A plant nursery was established in the northwestern portion of the watershed just east of I -95 prior to 1993. That operation now appears defunct and the site is over -grown with weeds. The Smithfield KOA campground adjacent to the project site was established prior to 1993 on land that was previously cleared farmland. A small subdivision was built along Heath Road in the southwestern portion of the watershed between 1993 and 1999. Four Oaks Middle School was built on farmland around 2005 at the far western edge of the watershed. There have been virtually no changes in watershed land use since 2005 and the only significant change since the 1990's was the construction of the middle school. The only channel upstream of the project site is the upper extent of what is now referred to as Devil's Racetrack Creek. This channel connects to Devil's Racetrack Creek through a culvert under U.S. Highway 701. Upstream of the culvert, the channel runs through a wooded area southeast of the old nursery site. This area has been completely wooded at least as far back as the earliest aerial photo reviewed — 1949. Field review of this stream revealed a straight channel with a well - defined cross section. The stream appears to have been channelized at some point in the past. Despite this, the stream is very stable and it is not overly deep. It does not appear to be eroding and there is no evidence that it is supplying excessive sediment to downstream reaches. Small deposits of sand on the channel bed were observed at irregular intervals but it appears that very little bed deposition has occurred over quite a long period of time. It seems likely that this channel does not have enough flow and sediment load to drive morphologic changes. Even though the channel appears to have been constructed at some point in the past, due to its long -term stability, WEI collected cross - sectional geometry data and channel gradient data and used this stream as one of multiple reference sites. No recent watershed disturbances were identified during the ground reconnaissance and all of the land use visible in the latest aerial was confirmed. No significant sources of sediment were identified during the aerial photo review or ground reconnaissance. Neither the channel upstream of the project site nor the project streams appear to have significant deposition. The watershed appears to be stable and there are no indications of new disturbances that would affect the project that are likely occur within the near future. 4.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils The Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site is located in the western portion of the upper or Inner Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The landscape of the Inner Coastal Plain is characterized by flat lands to gently - rolling hills and valleys. Elevations range from 25 to 600 feet above sea level. The Coastal Plain largely consists of marine sedimentary rocks including sand, clay, and limestone. This area is the largest geologic belt in the State and formed through the deposition of estuarine and marine sediments approximately 100 to 140 million years ago. Specifically, the project site is located in the Cape Fear Formation (Kc — sandstone and sandy mudstone) of the Coastal Plain. The formation is described as indurate and graded with laterally continuous bedding. In addition, blocky clay, faint cross - bedding, feldspar and mica are commonly found within this formation type (NCGS, 2009). The floodplain areas of the proposed project are mapped by the Johnston County Soil Survey (SCS, 1994). Soils in the project area floodplain are primarily mapped as Altavista fine sandy loam, Bibb sandy w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 9 loam, Cecil loam, Goldsboro sandy loam, Leaf silt loam, Lynchburg sandy loam, Nason silt loam, Norfolk loamy sand, and Rains sandy loam. These soils are described below in Table 3. A soils map is provided in Figure 4. Table 3. Floodplain Soil Types and Descriptions Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Soil Name Location Description IV Altavista fine Altavista soils are found on valleys and stream terraces. sandy loam, Small portion of Devil's These soils are very deep, moderately well drained soils and Racetrack Creek (east) exhibit moderate permeability. They are occasionally flooded 0-2% slopes and not ponded. Bibb sandy Majority of Southwest The Bibb series consists of very deep, poorly drained, loam, Branch and upper Devil's moderately permeable soils that formed in stratified loamy and 0 -2% slopes Racetrack Creek (west) sandy alluvium. These soils are typically found on floodplains and coastal plains and are frequently flooded. The Cecil series consists of very deep, well drained Cecil loam, Upper Southwest Branch moderately permeable soils on ridges and side slopes of the 2-6% slopes Piedmont uplands. These soils are typically not flooded or ponded. Goldsboro Lower portion of Middle Goldsboro soils are typically found on flats on marine terraces loamy sand, Branch and coastal plains. These soils are very deep, moderately 0 -2% slopes well drained soils exhibiting moderate permeability. Majority of Devils The Leaf series consists of very deep, poorly drained, very Leaf silt loam, Racetrack Creek (east) slowly permeable soils on flood plains, low terraces along 0 -2% slopes and lower Southeast streams, coastal plains, and flats on broad interstream Branch divides. Lynchburg Lynchburg soils are found on flats on marine terraces and sandy loam, Upper portion of Southeast coastal plains. They are very deep, somewhat poorly drained Branch soils and exhibit moderate permeability. These soils typically 8 -15% slopes do not flood or pond. Nason silt Nason soils are found on hillslopes on ridges and upland loam, Upper portion of areas. They are deep well drained soils and exhibit Southwest Branch moderately high water movement through the most restrictive 8 -15% slopes layer. Norfolk loamy Norfolk soils are found on coastal plains and on broad sand, Upper portion of Middle interstream divides on marine terraces. They are very deep, Branch well drained soils and exhibit moderate permeability. These ° 2 -6 /° slopes soils are typically not flooded or ponded. Rains sandy Majority of open agricultural fields between Rains soils are found on flats on marine terraces, coastal loam, Southeast Branch and plains, and Carolina bays. They are very deep, poorly drained 0 -2% slopes Middle Branch soils that are typically not flooded or ponded. Source: Johnston County Soil Survey, USDA -NRCS, http: / /efotg.nres.usda.gov 4.4 Valley Classification The Devil's Racetrack project area is located in the Inner Coastal Plain physiographic province and the surrounding fluvial landforms are typical of this region. The portion of the site east of Devil's Racetrack Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 10 Road has little topography and lies on a flat terrace that was previously a portion of the Neuse River floodplain. This portion of the site includes Devil's Racetrack Creek (East) and is most similar to a valley type X — very broad and gentle slopes associated with extensive floodplains — according to the Rosgen (1996) valley classification. The portion of the site west of Devil's Racetrack Road has steeper slopes and a dendritic drainage pattern related to fluvial dissection. This portion of the site is on a gradual slope that decreases as it approaches the Neuse River floodplain terrace. The original, natural valley of Devil's Racetrack Creek is a fairly broad flat floodplain. However, it is not located on an extensive plain, has no terraces, and is not located in a steep, mountainous setting. It is more typical of the North Carolina Piedmont and none of the Rosgen valley classifications accurately describe this valley. The valleys of the tributaries to Devil's Racetrack Creek have been regraded in some locations but are very discernible in others. Like Devil's Racetrack Creek, there is no appropriate classification for them in the Rosgen valley classifications. 4.5 Surface Water C/a55iflcation and Water Qua lity On February 8, 2011, and February 23, 2012, WEI investigated and assessed on -site jurisdictional Waters of the United States using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Routine On -Site Determination Method. This method is defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987) and the subsequent Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Regional Supplement. Determination methods included stream classification utilizing the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Stream Identification Form and the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet. Potential jurisdictional wetland areas as well as typical upland areas were classified using the USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Form. On -site jurisdictional wetland areas were also assessed using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method ( NCWAM). All USACE and NCWAM wetland forms are included in Appendix 4. The stream and wetland jurisdictional determination was approved by Thomas Brown with the USACE Raleigh Field Office in an approval letter dated June 13, 2012 (included in Appendix 4). The results of the on -site field investigation indicate that there are four jurisdictional stream channels within the property including Devil's Racetrack Creek and three unnamed tributaries to Devil's Racetrack Creek (Figure 2). In the current site configuration, a tributary referred to as North Branch is not on the property but flows into Devil's Racetrack Creek on the north side of the property boundary. North Branch was investigated in the field and also determined to be jurisdictional. Devil's Racetrack Creek and four of the tributaries are included in the project. An additional channel, an unnamed tributary to Southeast Branch, will be connected to the new alignment of Southeast Branch but no credit will be claimed for this tributary. No other perennial or intermittent tributaries have been identified on the site. No existing jurisdictional wetland areas were identified within the project site during this on -site investigation. The project site is in NCDWQ subbasin 03- 04 -02. None of the tributaries on the project site, including Devil's Racetrack Creek, are classified by NCDWQ. Therefore they all are, by default, required to meet the standards for Class C waters which are waters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife and aquatic life, maintenance of biotic integrity, and agriculture. Devil's Racetrack Creek discharges into a section of the Neuse River (NCDWQ AU# 27- (41.7)) that is classified as Class WS -V; NSW. Class WS- V waters are water supplies which are generally upstream and draining to Class WS -IV waters or waters used by industry to supply their employees with drinking water or waters that were formerly used as water supply. These waters are also protected for Class C uses. The Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) classification is a supplemental classification for waters needing additional nutrient management due to excessive growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation (NCDWQ, 2011). This section of the Neuse River, which extends from the City of Smithfield water supply intake to a point 1.7 miles upstream of the w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 11 confluence of Bawdy Creek, is listed as impaired for aquatic life on the North Carolina 303(d) list (NCDWQ, 2009). All NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms are included in Appendix 4. All of the streams included in the restoration project will be protected under the conservation easement that will be placed on the property. 5.0 Baseline Information — Stream Reach Summary On -site existing conditions assessments were conducted by WEI between September 2011 and March 2012. The assessments were performed on each of the streams listed in Table 4. All of the streams were determined to be perennial except for the upper reach of Southeast Branch which is intermittent. The locations of the project reaches and surveyed cross sections are shown in Figure 5. Existing geomorphic survey data is included in Appendix 5. Table 4. Reach Summary Information Devil's Racetrack Mitioation Site 1. Restoration length includes restoration and enhancement components. w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 12 Devil's Devil's Southwest Middle Southeast North Racetrack Racetrack Branch Branch Branch Branch Creek Creek (west)east Restored 1,155 1,900 2,892 2,034 5,212 5,540 Length (LF) Valley Type - -- - -- - -- - -- X X Valley Slope 0.022 0.024 0.021 - -- 0.005 0.00024 (feet/ foot) Drainage 20.6 10.8 69.9 49.9 493.5 831.4 Area (acres) NCDWQ stream ID 34.5-37 30 29-30.75 32 38 37.5 score Perennial or Intermittent P P P/I P P P NCDWQ C /NSW C /NSW C /NSW C /NSW C /NSW C /NSW Classification Existing Conditions G5 G5 G /F5 - -- Gc5 Gc5 Rosgen Classification Simon Evolutionary - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- Stage FEMA None None None None None None classification 1. Restoration length includes restoration and enhancement components. w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 12 S.1 Existing Stream and Vegetation Condition The streams located within the Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site have been channelized and comprise a network of deep drainage ditches for the surrounding farm land. The fields are currently drained for cultivation of soybeans, corn, wheat, and timber. The channels have been dug very deep for drainage, straightened, and in some cases redirected away from their original flow paths. The riparian buffers were entirely removed decades ago when the sites were cleared for agricultural use. There is a farm pond on the site that impounds the upper portion of one of the smaller tributaries — Middle Branch. Review of historic aerial photos indicates that the land cover patterns on the project site have remained essentially the same at least as far back as the early 1990's. To gain a clearer understanding of the previous condition of the site, WEI staff conducted an interview with a local farmer whose operation included the west side of the project site back to the early 1980's. During this discussion, he described alterations of the site including ditching and grading of the fields to prepare for row crop cultivation when he began farming the site. He was not present when the pond was built or when the largest ditch on the north edge of the property was dug. These features were built prior to clearing the land, but not long before row crop farming began in the early 1980's. However, he was present during channelization of Southwest Branch, Middle Branch, and Southeast Branch. He described how a dragline was used to dig the ditches and additional grading was done to fill low areas. Among the areas filled were valleys along Southwest and Southeast Branches and a low area that "stayed wet" along Middle Branch. This practice of "land leveling" is common in agricultural settings and has historically been encouraged by local NRCS offices to address Highly Erodible Lands (HEL). The upland areas on the site were mapped as HEL land by the NRCS (Appendix 6) and terracing is evident throughout the upland fields providing further evidence of significant land manipulation on the site. WEI staff attempted to determine historic valley grades through analysis of soil cores excavated to a depth of approximately six feet. The soil profile is highly disturbed as is common in situations where large scale land leveling has been conducted. Due to the disturbed nature of the soil profile, WEI was unable to locate historic A horizons or other evidence of the exact elevations of these valleys prior to land disturbance activities. The history of the east side of the site is less clear but the site is used for timber production and it is obvious that the original stream channel has been straightened and dredged to convey the drainage from the east side of the property to the Neuse River and to drain adjacent wetlands to improve timber production. Review of aerial photos indicates that the road along the existing canal appears to have been constructed between 1959 and 1971. This is the most likely time when the dredging was conducted. The existing vegetation communities within the proposed project area are predominately disturbed row crop agriculture covered seasonally by temporary fescue grasses with adjacent forested areas. Due to heavy agricultural activities and vegetation management over the past several decades, several major strata are completely absent from this area resulting in a dominant herbaceous layer with no mature trees or understory growth. Upstream headwater areas exhibit more mature forest coverage and include mature canopy species such as sweetgum (Liquidambar styracifua), red maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), winged elm (Ulmus alata), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and black jack oak (Quercus marilandica). Shrub species are dominated by Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) with vine species of catbriar (Smilax rotundifolia) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). The shrub layer also contains young tree species such as red maple, green ash, and winged elm. The downstream portion of the project site from Devil's Racetrack Road to the Neuse River includes areas dominated by planted evergreen species including longleaf and loblolly pines. Common understory growth includes sweetgum, red maple, black jack oak, red bay (Persea borbonia), and giant river cane (Arundinaria gigantea). w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 13 S.2 Stream Geomorphology Existing conditions channel morphology surveys were performed to document the current condition of the streams on the Devil's Racetrack site and to provide a basis for the design. The existing conditions assessment of the project reaches included surveying channel morphology, reviewing aerial photography, performing a visual channel stability assessment, and collecting and analyzing bulk bed material samples. The channels on the Devil's Racetrack site were extensively modified to provide drainage for farming and timber production, most likely during the 1970's and early 1980's. A dragline was used to deepen and straighten the channels, which, in some cases, were relocated out of the natural valleys. Some of the spoil was used to build a berm and a road along the eastern side of Devil's Racetrack Creek. Like many farm sites in eastern North Carolina, the channels are now very straight with no remaining sinuosity. The channels on the site are also very deep with bank height ratios as high as 10.7. The channel gradients on the site are quite variable between reaches. Devil's Racetrack Creek has slopes ranging from 0.0041 ft/ft on the western portion of the site to 0.0003 ft/ft on the eastern portion of the site. The smaller tributaries on the western portion of the site have higher slopes (0.022 ft/ft to 0.032 ft/ft) due to the topography in that area and the small, headwaters nature of those streams. Bulk samples of bed materials were collected at one or more locations on each reach. All of the reaches have beds comprised of sand and silt with few particles in the gravel size range. These streams all classify as sand bed channels. The bed forms in the channels consist primarily of plain bed or ripples with some small scour pools. There is vegetation growing on the channel beds in many locations which impedes the formation of ripples or dunes. The streams on the project site have all been channelized and remain very straight and very deep. In this unnatural condition, reliable bankfull features were difficult to identify. An estimate of bankfull stage was made for each reach based on potential field indicators (if available) and comparison to channel dimensions predicted by the rural Coastal Plain regional curves. WEI classified the streams based on the Rosgen classification system to the degree possible using these best estimates of bankfull stage. These channels are mostly classified as G5 stream types. All of these streams were most likely originally E stream types (or Eb depending on slope) but have been deepened to the point at which they now classify as G streams which have low entrenchment ratios because of the deep, confining channels. Cross - sectional surveys were conducted on each of the project reaches for assessment purposes. Figure 5 shows the cross sectional survey locations and the individual cross section plots are included in Appendix 5. Existing geomorphic conditions for each reach included in the project are summarized below in Tables 5a and 5b. The existing channel alignment of Devil's Racetrack Creek has been altered and the stream does not follow its natural valley any longer. The stream flows eastward from its headwaters near the intersection of Highway 96 and Heath Road, first through an open field and then a forested parcel, before entering a culvert under Highway 701. The stream enters the project site on the east side of 701. From this point, it runs along the perimeter of the Howell property west of Devil's Racetrack Road. This 4,975 LF portion of the stream — referred to as Devil's Racetrack Creek (West) — was relocated to the perimeter of the property to maximize the arable land available for row crops. The constructed channel is unusually deep (over 10 feet in some locations) even for a drainage canal. There is essentially no woody vegetation in the riparian zone of this channel and crops are planted nearly to the top edge of the right bank. There is some herbaceous vegetation growing on the channel banks but that has not prevented significant erosion from occurring at various locations along the channel. When bankfull stage is estimated in this channel it results in a width to depth ratio ranging from 4.0 -10.5 and entrenchment ratios ranging from 1.6 to 2.2. The channel is very flat with a slope of 0.0041 ft/ft and has no natural sinuosity. The classification that w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 14 most nearly describes this stream is a Gc5. This portion of Devil's Racetrack Creek has entrenchment ratios that vary significantly; in places they are within the typical range of E stream types. However, the bank height ratios range from 1.9 to 4.5, indicating that the channel is significantly incised throughout its length. The entrenchment ratio calculations (made for a few locations only) are an artifact of the small channel size and moderate bench formation at the base of mass wasting stream banks. Floodplain function is significantly impaired meaning that the channel functions most similarly to a G channel type. Southwest Branch is a small, spring -fed stream that has been channelized and flows due north for approximately 1,100 LF and discharges into Devil's Racetrack Creek just east of where it enters the property under Highway 701. The entire channel is within the property boundaries. It has been constructed as a deep, very straight, v- shaped channel to provide drainage for the adjacent fields. Even though the watershed is small (20.6 acres), the spring -fed stream maintains frequent flows and is classified as perennial. The downstream end of the channel has significant erosion and mass wasting on the channel banks. There is no vegetation in the riparian zone and crops are planted nearly to the top of both banks. There is some herbaceous vegetation on the channel banks. Estimates of bankfull stage resulted in width to depth ratios of 10 to 14 and entrenchment ratios of 1.5 to 1.9. The overall slope of the channel is 3.2% although it becomes much less steep by the downstream end (1.0 %). The sinuosity of the reach is essentially 1.0. The classification that most nearly describes this stream is a G5. Although this portion of Southwest Branch has moderate entrenchment ratios, the measured bank height ratios are greater than 10, meaning that the channel is significantly incised. The moderate entrenchment ratio calculations are an artifact of the small channel size and occasional bench formation where mass wasting has occurred. Floodplain function is significantly impaired meaning that the channel functions most similarly to a G channel type. Middle Branch is similar to Southwest Branch in that it is a small spring -fed stream that has been straightened and deepened to promote drainage. This channel has an even smaller drainage area than Southwest Branch (10.8 ac). There is a small pond at the headwaters of this channel that is the only pond on the property. From the outlet of the pond, the channel flows northeastward for approximately 1,650 LF before turning to the northwest about 150 LF before joining Devil's Racetrack Creek. The pond is buffered by 75 to 100 feet of loblolly pine trees but the channel downstream of the pond has no riparian buffer. There is some herbaceous vegetation on the channel banks, but like the other streams on the site that drain agricultural fields, row crops are planted nearly to the top of the banks. The classification that most nearly describes this stream is a G5. Although this portion of Middle Branch has entrenchment ratios of 2.0 to 3.8, the bank height ratios range from 5.3 to 6.5 meaning that the channel is significantly incised. Along portions of the channel entrenchment ratios are moderate. This is related to the small channel size and occasional bench formation at the base of high stream banks. Floodplain function is significantly impaired meaning that the channel functions most similarly to a G channel type. Southeast Branch is a fairly long reach (2,967 LF) that begins in a forested area on the south edge of the property and flows eastward through agricultural fields before joining Devil's Racetrack Creek just upstream of Devil's Racetrack Road. Southeast Branch has a larger drainage area than Middle and Southwest Branches (70 ac). Like the other channels that run through the row - cropped fields, the stream has been straightened and deepened, and all woody riparian vegetation has been removed. Considering the best estimates of bankfull stage, the stream has a width to depth ratio ranging from 6.8 to 24.3 and an entrenchment ratio ranging from 1.5 to 4.2. The overall slope of the channel is 2.3 %. Although the constructed channel curves in two locations, these turns appear to be driven by the valley and the sinuosity has been estimated as nearly 1.0. The classification that most nearly describes this stream is a G /F5. Although Southeast Branch has entrenchment ratios that are moderate to high, the bank height ratios range from 2.1 to 6.2 meaning that the channel is significantly incised. The moderate entrenchment ratio calculations are an artifact of the small channel size and moderate bench formation at the base of Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 15 high stream banks. Floodplain function is significantly impaired meaning that the channel functions most similarly to a G/F channel type. A design reach called North Branch will join the new alignment of Devil's Racetrack Creek approximately 150 LF upstream from Devil's Racetrack Road. North Branch currently flows into the existing alignment of Devil's Racetrack Creek on the north edge of the property from offsite. The proposed drainage configuration will be much more similar to the original drainage pattern of the site and includes relocating Devil's Racetrack Creek to the south of its current location through its natural valley. Once restored, North Branch will follow a pattern similar to its original path on the project site and join Devil's Racetrack Creek upstream of Devil's Racetrack Road. Currently, the drainage of the North Creek watershed and the Devils Racetrack watershed flow through the existing channel on the north perimeter of the property. In short, the restored drainage pattern includes a proposed channel on the project site for both Devil's Racetrack Creek and North Branch while currently there is only one channel. Therefore, there are no existing conditions data for North Branch on the project site. There is only one channel, the downstream portion of the mainstem of Devil's Racetrack Creek, on the project site east of Devil's Racetrack Road. The reach — referred to as Devil's Racetrack Creek (East) — flows through managed timberland and discharges into the Neuse River approximately 4,500 feet east of Devil's Racetrack Road. The channel has been straightened and deepened like the other channels on the project site. Spoil piles and levees run along much of the top of the channel banks. The channel and valley are essentially flat except for the very downstream end where the channel discharges into a drop structure down to its outlet into the Neuse River. The drop structure is 95 feet of 36 -inch corrugated metal pipe that drops 10.5 feet from the invert of Devil's Racetrack Creek (East) to the Neuse River. A gravel and dirt road parallels the channel all the way from Devil's Racetrack Road to the Neuse River. This maintained road has resulted in significant degradation of the riparian buffer for much of the right bank of the channel. The left bank of the entire reach is buffered. There is some herbaceous vegetation on the channel banks with density varying by location. Like the other channels on the project site, bankfull indicators were difficult to identify along this reach. With an estimate of bankfull stage, the channel has a width to depth ratio ranging from 5.0 to 7.8 and an entrenchment ratio ranging from 1.6 to 1.8. The slope is near zero and the sinuosity is essentially 1. The classification that most closely represents this channel is a Gc5. Although this portion of Devil's Racetrack Creek has moderate entrenchment ratios, the bank height ratios range from 2.6 to 4.3 meaning that the channel is significantly incised. The moderate entrenchment ratios are indicative of the small channel size with a moderate bench formation at the base of high stream banks. Floodplain function is significantly impaired meaning that the channel functions most similarly to a G channel type. There is an existing culvert under Devil's Racetrack Road that connects the streams on the western portion of the project site to Devil's Racetrack Creek (East). The current alignments of Devil's Racetrack Creek (West) and Southeast Branch join just upstream of the culvert. The existing culvert is a 36 inch reinforced concrete pipe that is 46 feet long and has a slope of 0.0067 ft /ft. The culvert will be replaced with an adequate sized culvert during construction of this project (see Section 11.1). w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 16 Table 5a. Existing Stream Conditions' Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 17 Notation Units Southwest Middle Branch Southeast Branch Branch Min Max Min Max Min Max stream type G5 G5 G /F5 drainage DA sq mi 0.032 0.017 0.109 area bankfull cross- Abkf SF 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.5 1.1 1.4 sectional area average bankfull vbkf fps 1.8 1.9 1.4 1.5 1.8 2.2 velocity width at wbkf feet 2.8 3.4 1.8 2.3 2.7 5.7 bankfull max. bankfull dmax feet 0.3 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.4 1.4 depth mean bankfull dbkf feet 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 depth bankfull width/ depth wbkf/dbkf 10 14 6.9 12 6.8 24.3 ratio low bank feet 3.2 8.5 1.6 3.9 2.4 3 height bank height BHR 10.0 10.7 5.3 6.5 2.2 6 ratio floodprone wfpa feet 4.9 6.2 4.6 6.8 8.6 11.4 area width entrenchment ER 1.5 1.9 2 3.8 1.5 4.2 ratio valley slope* Svalley ft/ft 0.022 0.024 0.021 channel Schannel ft/ft 0.032 0.024 0.023 slope shallow slope Sshallow ft/ft - -- - -- - -- shallow slope Sshallow / Schannel - -- - -- - -- ratio pool slope Spool ft/ft - -- - -- - -- pool slope S I/S poo channel - -- - -- - -- ratio Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 17 Locations of cross sections surveyed during existing conditions assessments are shown on Figure 5. Table 5b. Existing Stream Conditions' Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Southwest Devil's Southeast Notation Units North Branch Middle Branch Racetrack Creek Branch (West) Branch Min Max Min Max Min Max pool -to -pool LP-p feet - -- Gc5 Gc5 spacing DA sq mi 0.078 0.771 1.3 pool spacing LP-p /W bkf - -- - -- - -- ratio sinuosity K 1 1 1 belt width Wb,t feet - -- - -- - -- meander W blt /W bkf - -- - -- - -- width ratio linear meander Lm feet - -- - -- - -- length linear meander Lm /Wbkf - -- - -- - -- length ratio radius of Rc feet curvature radius of curvature Rc/ Wbkf - -- - -- - -- ratio Particle Size Distribution from Bulk Sample d5o Description Fine Sand Fine Sand Fine Sand d16 mm - -- - -- 0.084 d35 mm 0.065 - -- 0.275 d50 mm 0.105 0.083 0.409 d84 mm 0.336 0.498 0.939 d95 mm 0.4 0.9 1.6 d,00 mm 9.6 9.6 9.6 Locations of cross sections surveyed during existing conditions assessments are shown on Figure 5. Table 5b. Existing Stream Conditions' Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site W Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 18 Devil's Devil's Notation Units North Branch Racetrack Creek Racetrack Creek (West) (East) Min Max Min Max Min Max stream type - -- Gc5 Gc5 drainage DA sq mi 0.078 0.771 1.3 area W Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 18 Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 19 Devil's Devil's Notation Units North Branch Racetrack Creek Racetrack Creek (West) (East) Min Max Min Max Min Max bankfull cross- Abkf SF - -- - -- 5.7 6.3 14.2 19.1 sectional area average bankfull vbkf fps - -- - -- 1.5 1.8 0.3 0.4 velocity width at wbkf feet - -- - -- 4.8 8 8.1 10.4 bankfull max. bankfull dmax feet - -- - -- 1.3 1.6 2.1 2.8 depth mean bankfull dbkf feet - -- - -- 0.8 1.2 1 1.8 depth bankfull width/ depth wbkf/dbkf - -- - -- 4 10.5 5 7.8 ratio low bank feet - -- - -- 2.5 7.5 6.2 9 height bank height BHR - -- - -- 1.9 4.5 2.6 4.3 ratio floodprone wfpa feet - -- - -- 7.8 18 14.2 18.6 area width entrenchment ER - -- - -- 1.6 2.2 1.6 1.8 ratio valley slope* Svalley ft/ft - -- 0.005 0.00024 channel Schannel ft/ft - -- 0.0041 0.0003 slope shallow slope Sshallow ft/ft - -- - -- - -- shallow slope Sshallow / Schannel - -- - -- - -- ratio pool slope Spool ft/ft - -- - -- - -- pool slope S I/S poo channel - -- - -- - -- ratio pool -to -pool Lp_p feet spacing Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 19 1. Locations of cross sections surveyed during existing conditions assessments are shown on Figure 5. 5.3 Channel Evolution A review of aerial photos for the project area covering multiple time periods and discussions with landowners indicates that the streams were channelized and the riparian buffers were cleared during the 1970s and 1980's. During that time the morphology of the channels was changed completely from small headwaters streams into the straight, deep canals that exist on the site today. It does not appear that there have been significant changes to the channels over the decades since the alterations were completed except for bank erosion and mass wasting along some of the channel banks. It is doubtful that the channel gradients or bed elevations have changed since channelization. The current state of these channels is completely unnatural and maintained and no model of channel evolution driven by fluvial processes applies to this situation. w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 20 Devil's Devil's Notation Units North Branch Racetrack Creek Racetrack Creek (West) (East) Min Max Min Max Min Max pool spacing LP-p /W bkf - -- - -- - -- ratio sinuosity K - -- 1 1 belt width Wb,t feet - -- - -- - -- meander W blt /W bkf - -- - -- - -- width ratio linear meander Lm feet - -- - -- - -- length linear meander Lm /Wbkf - -- - -- - -- length ratio radius of Rc feet curvature radius of curvature Rc/ Wbkf - -- - -- - -- ratio Particle Size Distribution from Bulk Sample d5o Description - -- Medium Sand Fine Sand d16 mm - -- 0.168 - -- d35 mm - -- 0.33 - -- d50 mm - -- 0.464 0.179 d84 mm - -- 1.23 0.642 d95 mm - -- 2 1 dloo mm - -- 9.6 9.6 1. Locations of cross sections surveyed during existing conditions assessments are shown on Figure 5. 5.3 Channel Evolution A review of aerial photos for the project area covering multiple time periods and discussions with landowners indicates that the streams were channelized and the riparian buffers were cleared during the 1970s and 1980's. During that time the morphology of the channels was changed completely from small headwaters streams into the straight, deep canals that exist on the site today. It does not appear that there have been significant changes to the channels over the decades since the alterations were completed except for bank erosion and mass wasting along some of the channel banks. It is doubtful that the channel gradients or bed elevations have changed since channelization. The current state of these channels is completely unnatural and maintained and no model of channel evolution driven by fluvial processes applies to this situation. w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 20 S. 4 Channel Stability Assessment WEI utilized a modified version of the Rapid Assessment of Channel Stability as described in Hydrologic Engineering Circular (HEC) -20 (Lagasse, 2001). The method is semi - quantitative and incorporates thirteen stability indicators that are evaluated in the field. In a 2007 publication, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) updated the method for HEC -20 by modifying the metrics included in the assessment and incorporating a stream type determination. The result is an assessment method that can be rapidly applied on a variety of stream types in different physiographic settings with a range of bed and bank materials. The Channel Stability Assessment protocol was designed to evaluate 13 parameters: watershed land use, status of flow, channel pattern, entrenchment/channel confinement, bed substrate material, bar development, presence of obstructions and debris jams, bank soil texture and coherence, average bank angle, bank vegetation, bank cutting, mass wasting/bank failure, and upstream distance to bridge. Once all parameters are scored, the stability of the stream is then classified as Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor. As the protocol was designed to assess stream channel stability near bridges, two minor modifications were made to the methodology to make it more applicable to project specific conditions. The first modification involved adjusting the scoring so that naturally meandering streams score lower (better condition) than straight and /or engineered channels. Because straight, engineered channels are hydraulically efficient and necessary for bridge protection, they score low (excellent to good rating) with the original methodology. Secondly, the last assessment parameter — upstream distance to bridge — was removed from the protocol because it relates directly to the potential effects of instability on a bridge and should not influence stability ratings for the streams assessed for this project. The final scores and corresponding ratings were based on the twelve remaining parameters. The rating adjectives were assigned to the streams based on the FHWA guidelines for pool -riffle stream types. The HEC -20 manual also describes both lateral and vertical components of overall channel stability which can be separated with this assessment methodology. Some of the 12 parameters described above relate specifically to either vertical or horizontal stability. When all parameter scores for the vertical category or all parameter scores for the horizontal category are summed and normalized by the total possible scores for their respective categories, a vertical or horizontal fraction is produced. These fractions may then be compared to one another determine if the channel is more vertically or horizontally unstable. The assessment results for the streams on the Devil's Racetrack site indicate that all of the streams are rated in the second to the lowest category — fair. For every stream assessed, the lateral fraction was greater than the vertical fraction. This indicates that lateral instability is a greater problem for these streams than vertical instability. Total scores, stability ratings, and vertical and horizontal fractions are provided in Table 6. Table 6. Existing Conditions Channel Stability Assessment Results Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Proiect w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 21 Devil's Devil's Racetrack Racetrack Southwest Middle Southeast Creek Creek ji Parameter Branch Branch Branch U stream Downstream 1. Watershed characteristics 7 5 5 7 7 2. Flow habit 3 3 3 3 3 3. Channel pattern g g 9 10 8 w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 21 Parameter Southwest Branch Middle Branch Southeast Branch Devil's Racetrack Creek U stream Devil's Racetrack Creek Downstream 4. Entrenchment 9 8 8 9 8 5. Bed material 10 10 10 9 10 6. Bar development 4 4 4 4 5 7. Obstructions 5 5 5 5 5 8. Bank soil texture and coherence 7 7 7 7 7 9. Average bank slope angle 11 9 10 11 11 10. Bank protection 10 10 10 10 8 11. Bank cutting 7 6 6 7 7 12. Mass wasting or bank failure 9 5 5 9 7 Score 91 75 82 91 86 Ranking Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Lateral Score 44 37 38 44 40 Vertical Score 23 22 22 22 23 Lateral Fraction 0.73 0.62 0.63 0.73 0.67 Vertical Fraction 0.64 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.64 5.5 Bankfull Verification Bankfull stage indicators on the project streams were few and difficult to identify due to the deep channelization of the streams. However, during the existing conditions assessment, WEI staff identified the best available bankfull indicators and surveyed cross sections at those locations. Bank features considered to be potential bankfull indicators included flat depositional features and prominent breaks in slope. There are no nearby USGS gauging stations of comparable size that would be useful to develop a calibrated estimate of bankfull discharge and channel geometry at a local site. Bankfull data for the surveyed project reaches were compared with both sets of NC rural Coastal Plain (Doll et al., 2003 and Sweet and Geratz, 2003) regional curves and are shown overlaid with the regional curves for area and discharge in Figure 6. Three of the five project reaches for which existing conditions cross sections were surveyed are lower in drainage area (independent variable) than the lower extent of the regional curves. The estimated bankfull cross - sectional areas of each of the project reaches plot below both cross - sectional area regional curves except for Devil's Racetrack Creek below Devil's Racetrack Road which plots above both curves. Discharges for the two project reaches with drainage areas within the range covered by the regional curves plot above the discharge regional curves while the three project reaches with lower drainage areas appear as if they would plot above the Doll et al. curve. Visually the estimated bankfull discharges of the project reaches appear to plot within the range of the Coastal Plain curves while the majority of the estimated cross - sectional areas for the project reaches appear to plot below the curves. This is not surprising given the steeper slopes of many of the project reaches compared to those of the regional curves reaches. However, it remains unclear whether reliable bankfull field indicators were present or could have been identified. Bankfull discharges for project reaches were not chosen based on existing site conditions but on a variety of data as described in section 5.6 below. w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 22 5.6 Design Discharge Multiple methods were used to approximate the bankfull discharge for the project streams and to choose a design discharge for each of the separate design reaches. Due to the agricultural and forest land cover within the watershed, discharge estimates were made using methods intended for rural watersheds. Two different published regional bankfull discharge regression curves (regional curves) relating bankfull discharge to drainage area for rural watersheds in the Coastal Plain region of North Carolina (Doll, et al., 2003 and Sweet and Geratz, 2003) were used to estimate the bankfull discharge for each reach. WEI also created a project - specific bankfull discharge regional curve based on data collected for seven reference streams near the project site (including two completed stable mitigation sites) and used the relation to estimate bankfull discharge for each project reach. In addition, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) flood frequency equations for rural watersheds in the North Carolina Coastal Plain (USGS, 2009) were used to estimate peak discharges for each reach for flows with a recurrence interval of two years. The two -year discharge provides a reasonable approximation of bankfull discharge, but is generally slightly larger than the discharge predicted by the discharge regional curves. To provide additional information, historic gauge data were collected from four nearby stream gauges operated by the USGS. These gauge data were used to develop a regional flood frequency curve (Dalrymple, 1960) for the area near the project site. A regional flood frequency curve uses multiple gauges (which are tested for regional homogeneity) to produce a statistical relation that can be used to estimate the magnitude of discharges of a large range of recurrence intervals for any ungaged site within the region. This relation was used to estimate 1.2 -year and 1.5 -year discharges for each of the project reaches. It should be noted that the USGS gauges used in these analyses were on reaches with much larger drainage areas than the project site. No nearby gauges for similar sized watersheds were available. To support the statistical analyses described above, a continuous discharge monitoring station was installed on each of the small tributaries on the project site including Southeast Branch, Middle Branch, and Southwest Branch (Figure 5). The discharge monitoring stations consisted of a v- notched weir across the channel with a gauge staff plate and a pressure transducer housed in PVC on the upstream side of the weir. The depth of water flowing through each v -notch was monitored by the transducer at regular intervals from November 16, 2011 to March 7, 2012. For the first portion of the monitoring period flow depth was measured twice per day. This interval was increased to every 15 minutes beginning on December 7, 2012. The depth of flow was used to calculate a discharge over the weir for each monitored depth. These data were compiled to produce a 112 day discharge record for each of the small tributaries. The hydrographs of each discharge monitor are included in Appendix 7. A tipping bucket rain gauge was also installed on the project site allowing streamflows in the small tributaries to be compared with rainfall data. A 61 -year record of daily rainfall at the nearby Smithfield weather station (NOAA Station 317994) was used to develop a rainfall frequency curve for 24 -hour annual maximum storms for comparison to the 24 -hour rainfall totals collected onsite. Although this station is 5.1 miles from the project site, it provides the best data for analyzing long term rainfall patterns for the area surrounding the site. The largest daily rainfall recorded on the project site during the period when the discharge monitoring stations were collecting data was 0.86 inches. Based on the Smithfield station record, this would represent a 24 -hour rainfall with a recurrence interval of approximately 0.55 years. While many factors not measured (e.g. antecedent moisture, seasonal differences in uptake by vegetation, etc.) have significant effects on the relationship between precipitation and streamflow, the discharge data collected on the project site and comparison to the Smithfield rainfall frequency curve provide an additional qualitative line of evidence to support selection of design discharges for the small streams. The main outcome of this analysis is that the largest discharges recorded on the weir gauges likely represents discharges much below a one -year recurrence interval. w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 23 Each of the statistical methods described above was used to estimate a bankfull discharge or discharge with a recurrence interval approximating bankfull for each design reach. The monitored discharge data and rainfall data were used to provide additional information about the discharge regime of the small streams. A design discharge was selected for each reach based on comparison of the results of these analyses. Use of the regional curves provides the only bankfull discharge estimates based on a dataset that includes streams with comparable drainage areas to the project sites. The regional flood frequency curves are based on actual gauge discharge records and use rigorous statistical methods to reduce the variability and potential error inherent in using a single gauge record for similar purposes. These methods produced generally similar results. The discharge monitoring data and rainfall data provide a check that the selected discharges are in the appropriate range. The design discharges were chosen to be on the low end of the range of the bankfull or 1.0- to 1.2 -year discharges predicted by the three sets of regional curves and the regional flood frequency curve. The selected design discharges are significantly lower than the estimates made from the reference reach regional curve and the regional flood frequency curve. Out -of- bank flow events are expected to occur on the proposed channels one or more times per year. Table 7 summarizes the results of each of the discharge analyses described in this section. Two of the small tributaries, Southwest Branch and Middle Branch, are spring -fed streams and respond less to rainfall - runoff events. This can be seen on the hydrograph plots for these reaches (Appendix 7) as the discharge appears more constant over time for both when compared to the discharge of Southeast Branch, which is more influenced by rainfall - runoff hydrology. The standard deviation of the discharge values for Southeast and Middle branches are both 0.02 cfs while the standard deviation of the discharge values of Southeast Branch is 0.06 cfs. This indicates more variability in the discharge of Southeast Branch over time. The designs have been developed for Southwest and Middle Branches such that the springs feeding the systems will continue to supply water to them. However, due to the hydrology of these two streams, it is expected that they will flood less frequently than the other design reaches. Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 24 Table 7. Design Discharge Analysis Summary Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site W Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 25 Regional Regional Curve Reference USGS Regional Regional Highest Drainage Drainage Curve Qbkf Reach NFF Flood Flood Peak Flow Design Reach Area (ac) Area (sq. Qb� (Doll (Sweet Regional Rural Frequent Frequency (Weir 8 Qbkf mi.) et. Al, and s Curve Qbkf a Qzyr s Y Ql.z s Ql.s Data) 7 2003)1 Geratz, yr yr 2003)2 Devil's Racetrack Creek (West )US of 384 0.6 8.8 7.0 12.4 43.3 16.9 23.8 - -- 10 SE Branch Devil's Racetrack Creek (West )DS of 449 0.7 10.8 9.4 16.2 57.0 22.6 30.38 - -- 13 SE Branch Devil's Racetrack Creek (East) 729.5 1.14 14.7 10.3 19.1 65.7 26.8 37.8 - -- 16 upstream of Neuse River Devil's Racetrack Creek (East) at 831.4 1.3 16.3 11.1 20.8 71.5 29.5 41.5 - -- 17 Confluence to Neuse River Middle Branch 8.6 0.01 0.4 0.7 1.0 3.7 1.1 1.5 0.44 2 North Branch 118.8 0.19 3.5 3.4 5.7 20.2 7.2 10.2 - -- 5 Southeast Branch 16.72 0.03 0.8 1.2 1.7 5.7 1.8 2.5 - -- 1.5 Upstream Southeast Branch 41.8 0.07 1.5 1.8 2.8 10.3 3.4 4.8 1.11 2 Middle Southeast Branch 65.1 0.1 2.2 2.4 3.8 13.7 4.7 6.6 - -- 3 Downstream W Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 25 1. Bankfull discharge estimates based on North Carolina Coastal plain Regional Curve (Doll et al., 2003) 2. Bankfull discharge estimates based on North Carolina Coastal Plain Regional Curve (Sweet and Geratz, 2003) 3. Bankfull discharge estimates based on regional curve regression developed from reference reach data collected for this project and other nearby projects. 4. Two -year discharge estimate calculated from USGS NFF regional regression equations (Weaver et al., 2009). 5. 1.5 -year discharge estimate developed through a regional flood frequency analysis of four nearby gauges 6. 1.2 -year discharge estimate developed through a regional flood frequency analysis of four nearby gauges. 7. Highest recorded peak measured from weirs installed on certain project streams during November 2011 to March 2012. 8. Chosen design bankfull discharge. W Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 26 Regional Drainage Regional Curve Curve Qbkf Reference USGS Regional Regional Highest Reach Drainage Area Area (sq. Qb� (Doll (Sweet Reach Regional NFF Rural Flood Frequent Flood Frequency Peak Flow Design s (ac) mi.) et. Al, and 3 a s 5 (Weir Qbkf 2003)1 Geratz, Curve Qbkf Q2Yr Y Q1.2 Yr Q1.5 Yr Data 2003)2 Southwest Branch 14.6 0.02 0.7 1.0 1.4 5.2 1.6 2.2 0.97 1.5 1. Bankfull discharge estimates based on North Carolina Coastal plain Regional Curve (Doll et al., 2003) 2. Bankfull discharge estimates based on North Carolina Coastal Plain Regional Curve (Sweet and Geratz, 2003) 3. Bankfull discharge estimates based on regional curve regression developed from reference reach data collected for this project and other nearby projects. 4. Two -year discharge estimate calculated from USGS NFF regional regression equations (Weaver et al., 2009). 5. 1.5 -year discharge estimate developed through a regional flood frequency analysis of four nearby gauges 6. 1.2 -year discharge estimate developed through a regional flood frequency analysis of four nearby gauges. 7. Highest recorded peak measured from weirs installed on certain project streams during November 2011 to March 2012. 8. Chosen design bankfull discharge. W Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 26 6.0 Baseline Information — Wetland Summary Table 8 presents the baseline wetland information. Table 8. Wetland Summary Information Underwood Mitigation Project 6.1 Jurisdictional Wet /ands On February 23, 2012, WEI delineated jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the project easement area. Potential jurisdictional areas were delineated using the USACE Routine On -Site Determination Method. This method is defined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and subsequent Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Regional Supplement. Routine On -Site Data Forms have been included in Appendix 4. The results of the on -site jurisdictional determination indicate that there are no jurisdictional wetlands located within the project easement. The stream and wetland jurisdictional determination was approved by Thomas Brown with the USACE Raleigh field office in an approval letter dated June 13, 2012 (included in Appendix 4). 6.2 Hydrologic Characterization In order to develop a wetland restoration design for the Devil's Racetrack Site, an analysis of the existing and proposed conditions for groundwater hydrology was necessary. DrainMod (version 6.0) was used to model existing and proposed groundwater hydrology at the site. DramMod simulates water table depth over time and produces statistics describing long term water table characteristics and an annual water budget. DramMod was selected for this application because it is a well- documented modeling tool for assessing wetland hydrology (NCSU, 2010) and is commonly used in wetland creation and restoration projects. For more information on DramMod and its application to high water table soils see Skaggs (1980). 6.2. -1 Groundwater Modeling For the Devil's Racetrack wetlands, eight total models were developed and calibrated to represent the existing and proposed conditions at eight different groundwater monitoring gauge locations across the w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 27 West East Size of Wetland (acres) N/A N/A Wetland Type (non- riparian, riparian riverine, or riparian non - riverine) Riparian Riparian Mapped Soil Series Bibb and Rains Leaf Drainage Class Poorly drained Poorly drained Soil Hydric Series Bibb and Rains Leaf Source of Hydrology Hillslope runoff, springs, overbank flooding Hillslope runoff, overbank flooding Hydrologic Impairment Ditching Ditching Native vegetation community Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp — Blackwater Subtype community Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp — Blackwater Subtype community % exotic invasive vegetation 0% 0% 6.1 Jurisdictional Wet /ands On February 23, 2012, WEI delineated jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the project easement area. Potential jurisdictional areas were delineated using the USACE Routine On -Site Determination Method. This method is defined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and subsequent Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Regional Supplement. Routine On -Site Data Forms have been included in Appendix 4. The results of the on -site jurisdictional determination indicate that there are no jurisdictional wetlands located within the project easement. The stream and wetland jurisdictional determination was approved by Thomas Brown with the USACE Raleigh field office in an approval letter dated June 13, 2012 (included in Appendix 4). 6.2 Hydrologic Characterization In order to develop a wetland restoration design for the Devil's Racetrack Site, an analysis of the existing and proposed conditions for groundwater hydrology was necessary. DrainMod (version 6.0) was used to model existing and proposed groundwater hydrology at the site. DramMod simulates water table depth over time and produces statistics describing long term water table characteristics and an annual water budget. DramMod was selected for this application because it is a well- documented modeling tool for assessing wetland hydrology (NCSU, 2010) and is commonly used in wetland creation and restoration projects. For more information on DramMod and its application to high water table soils see Skaggs (1980). 6.2. -1 Groundwater Modeling For the Devil's Racetrack wetlands, eight total models were developed and calibrated to represent the existing and proposed conditions at eight different groundwater monitoring gauge locations across the w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 27 site. The locations of the monitoring wells are shown in Figure 5. Resulting model output was used to validate the wetland restoration plan and to develop a water budget for the site. The modeling procedures are described below. Data Collection DramMod models are built using site hydrology, soil, climate, and crop data. Prior to building the models, soil cores were taken to validate existing mapped soils across the site. Further explanation of the site soils can be found in Section 6.3 of this report. Rainfall and temperature data were obtained from nearby weather station Smithfield (Station 317994) operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Weather Service. The data set for this station was obtained from the North Carolina State Climate Office from January of 1960 through December of 2011. These data were used to calibrate the models and perform the long term simulations. Information to develop model inputs for crops currently grown onsite was obtained through site observations. Existing Conditions Base Model Set up and Calibration Models were created to represent eight monitoring gauge locations on the site at as shown on Figure 5. The models were developed using the conventional drainage water management option to best simulate the drainage of the site. Each of the eight gauges was installed in August 2011 and recorded groundwater depth twice per day with In -situ Level TROLL® 100 or 300 pressure transducers through early March 2012. This period was used as the calibration period for the groundwater models. The first step in developing the model was to prepare input files from various data sources. A soil input file obtained from N.C. State University, which has similar characteristics to the soils on the site, was used as a base soil input file for each model. The soil files were refined by adjusting certain parameters for each of the mapped soils found on -site using published soil survey data (MRCS, 2011) and in -situ soil profiles and characterization. Temperature and precipitation data from a nearby weather station, described above, were used to produce weather input files for each model. The precipitation data files were calibrated with on -site rain gauge data for the monitoring period. Once the necessary input files were created, the project settings were adjusted for this application and then calibration runs were conducted. To calibrate the model, soil parameters not measured in the field were adjusted within the limits typically encountered under similar soil and geomorphic conditions until model simulation results were similar to observed gauge data. Also, the models were calibrated by adjusting crop conditions to reflect the site conditions of the calibration period. After calibration of each of the models was complete, the calibrated models were used as the basis for the proposed conditions models. Plots showing the calibration results are included in Appendix 8. Trends in the observed data are well- represented by the calibration simulations. Although hydrograph peaks between plots of observed and simulated data do not match exactly, relative changes in water table hydrology as a result of precipitation events correspond well between observed data and model results. Proposed Conditions Model Setup The proposed conditions models were developed based on the calibrated existing conditions models to predict whether wetland criteria would be met over a long period of recorded climate w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 28 data. Proposed plans for the site include relocating the streams and raising the stream bed inverts. In addition, the existing ditches that currently help drain the site will be filled. The proposed wetland areas will be disked and planted with native wetland plants. Settings for the proposed conditions model were altered to reflect these changes to the site. To account for changes to stream alignments, the ditch spacing values and the lateral seepage conditions in the models were altered. To simulate proposed site grading conditions, the ground surface elevations were decreased by the depth of ground to be graded at groundwater monitoring gauge 8. Grading will be done in this location to remove fill material only. No grading is proposed in the area surrounding any of the other wells that are used for modeling purposes. The only other wetland area that includes any proposed grading is the area around Middle Branch. Grading in this area is discussed in Section 10.2. Changes in the vegetation on the site were simulated by altering the rooting depth of plants on the site from variable shallow depths for crops (varying by time of year) to consistent and deeper values for hardwood tree species. Surface storage values were increased at all gauges to account for proposed disking to the site. Once the proposed conditions models were developed, each model was run for a 52 -year period from January 1960 through March 2012 using the weather data from the Smithfield weather station and on -site rain gauge data to perform the long term simulation. Modeling Results and Conclusions DramMod was used to compare calibrated existing conditions models with proposed conditions scenarios to determine the effect of proposed practices onsite hydrology. Each gauge location was evaluated to establish how often annual wetland criteria would be met over the 52 -year simulation period. Wetland criteria are defined as free water within 12 inches of the ground surface for a specified consecutive percent of the growing season. Model simulations were run starting at a 5% consecutive standard and increasing the consecutive standard by '/2 percent increments with subsequent model runs. This process was used to establish a percent consecutive performance standard and a target hydroperiod for monitoring purposes. The performance standard is defined for this purpose as the minimum threshold for evaluating monitoring gauge success during the post construction monitoring period. The target hydroperiod is not a threshold for success, but rather the estimated average hydroperiod that will be observed for the monitoring gauges. The model run simulations indicate that all of the gauges on the western side of the site function very similarly with the exception of gauge 3 which is affected by lateral seepage to the open ditch that will remain along the northern boundary of the site. Model simulations were analyzed at individual gauge locations and also as a group on the western side of the site. For the purposes of establishing a performance standard and target hydroperiod, 75% and 50% success rates, respectively, were identified as the appropriate break points. In other words, the performance standard was chosen at the point at which on average all gauges would meet the performance standard a minimum of 75% of the model years (> 39 out of the 52 years simulated). Using this approach, a performance standard of 8.5% and a target hydroperiod of 11.0% were chosen. The wetland performance standard is that the water table must be within 12 inches of the ground surface at each gauge for a minimum of 8.5% (20 consecutive days) of the growing season (March 21 through November 16). The modeling results show that all gauges, except for gauge 3, would meet the performance standard if the site is restored by raising the stream bed and removing the existing on -site ditches. The target hydroperiod is that the water table will be within 12 inches of the ground surface at each gauge for 11.0% (24 consecutive days) or more of the growing season. Table 9 shows the modeling results depicting the number of years out of the Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 29 52 year monitoring period that each gauge is expected to meet the performance standard and the target hydroperiod. The hydrology of a small area around gauge number 3 will be affected in the post construction condition by leaving a section of open channel adjacent to the proposed wetlands. The channel must remain open to allow for positive drainage from the KOA campground that is immediately to the north of the project along Hwy 701. The drainage impact on the area around gauge 3 was modeled by incrementally increasing and decreasing the ditch spacing to mimic conditions closer to and farther from the drainage effect of the open channel. Model simulations indicate that the furthest extent of hydrologic impact is 200 LF from the channel. This area has been removed from credit generation. WEI will coordinate with the campground to determine whether an agreement can be reached to relocate this section of open channel away from the project area. If an agreement can be reached, the revised wetland acreage will be accounted for in the Baseline Monitoring Document. Table 9. Modeling Results Showing Expected Performance by Gauge Location Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Gauge ID Number of Years Meeting Performance Standard (8.5 %) Performance Standard Success Rate Number of Years Meeting Target Hydroperiod (11.0 0/0) Performance Standard Success Rate 1 45 87% 38 73% 2 42 81% 29 56% 3 15 29% 4 8% 4 42 81% 28 54% 5 37 71% 23 44% 6 35 67% 23 44% 7 37 71% 26 50% 8 35 67% 21 40% 6.2.2 Surface Water Mode ling at Restoration Site The surface water runoff contributions are minimal therefore the wetland models were simulated as precipitation only contributions. The site will benefit from overbank flooding (not modeled) as a result of the raised stream beds and modified stream dimensions. 6.2.3 Hydrologic Budget for Restoration Site DramMod computes daily water balance information and outputs summaries that describe the loss pathways for rainfall over the model simulation period. Tables 10a — 10h summarize the average annual amount of rainfall, infiltration, drainage, runoff, and evapotranspiration estimated for the eight modeled locations onsite. Infiltration represents the amount of water that percolates into the soil. Drainage is the loss of infiltrated water that travels through the soil profile and is discharged to the drainage ditches or to underlying aquifers. Runoff is water that flows overland and reaches the drainage ditches before infiltration. Evapotranspiration is water that is lost by the direct evaporation of water from the soil or through the transpiration of plants. From the water balance results provided in the tables it can be seen that, in all cases evapotranspiration is larger in the proposed condition when compared to the existing condition. The drainage is lower from proposed conditions as compared to existing conditions. The reduction of the drainage through site modification is the w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 30 primary reason the proposed conditions meet the wetland success criteria. As a result of increased saturated soil conditions, infiltration decreases and runoff increases in the proposed conditions. Table 10a. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 1 Devils Racetrack Mitigation Site Table 10b. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 2 Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Average Average Average Average Hydrologic Annual Annual Annual Annual Parameter Amount Amount Amount Amount (cm of (% of (cm of (% of water) precip water) precip + runon) runon) Precipitation 119.79 100.0% 119.79 100.0% Runon 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% Precip + Runon 119.79 100.0% 119.79 100.0% Infiltration 119.53 99.8% 117.36 98.0% Evapotranspiration 72.74 60.7% 79.60 66.4% Drainage 46.57 38.9% 40.21 33.6% Runoff 0.27 0.2% 2.43 2.0% Table 10b. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 2 Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 31 Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Average Average Average Average Hydrologic Annual Annual Annual Annual Parameter Amount Amount Amount Amount (cm of (% of (cm of (% of water) precip + water) precip + runon runon Precipitation 119.79 100.0% 119.79 100.0% Runon 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% Precip + Runon 119.79 100.0% 119.79 100.0% Infiltration 119.54 99.8% 117.87 98.4% Evapotranspiration 71.98 60.1% 79.49 66.4% Drainage 47.11 39.3% 40.32 33.7% Runoff 0.26 0.2% 1.93 1.6% w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 31 Table 10c. Summary Water Balance for Gauge Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Table 10d. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 4 Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Average Average Average Average Hydrologic Annual Annual Annual Annual Parameter Amount Amount Amount Amount (cm of (% of (cm of (% of water) precip + water) precip + runon runon Precipitation 119.79 100.0% 119.79 100.0% Runon 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% Precip + Runon 119.79 100.0% 119.79 100.0% Infiltration 119.45 99.7% 118.50 98.9% Evapotranspiration 73.93 61.7% 78.44 65.5% Drainage 45.28 37.8% 41.37 34.5% Runoff 0.35 0.3% 1.30 1.1 Table 10d. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 4 Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 32 Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Average Average Average Average Hydrologic Annual Annual Annual Annual Parameter Amount Amount Amount Amount (cm of (% of (cm of (% of water) precip water) precip + runon) runon) Precipitation 119.79 100.0% 119.79 100.0% Runon 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% Precip + Runon 119.79 100.0% 119.79 100.0% Infiltration 119.34 99.6% 117.91 98.4% Evapotranspiration 75.01 62.6% 80.15 66.9% Drainage 43.99 36.7% 39.66 33.1% Runoff 0.45 0.4% 1.88 1.6% w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 32 Table 10e. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 5 Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Table 10f. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 6 Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Average Average Average Average Hydrologic Annual Annual Annual Annual Parameter Amount Amount Amount Amount (cm of (% of (cm of (% of water) precip + water) precip + runon runon Precipitation 119.79 100.0% 119.79 100.0% Runon 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% Precip + Runon 119.79 100.0% 119.79 100.0% Infiltration 119.10 99.4% 117.52 98.1% Evapotranspiration 75.05 62.7% 80.27 67.0% Drainage 43.97 36.7% 39.55 33.0% Runoff 0.70 0.6% 2.27 1.9% Table 10f. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 6 Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 33 Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Average Average Average Average Hydrologic Annual Annual Annual Annual Parameter Amount Amount Amount Amount (cm of (% of (cm of (% of water) precip water) precip + runon) runon) Precipitation 119.79 100.0% 119.79 100.0% Runon 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% Precip + Runon 119.79 100.0% 119.79 100.0% Infiltration 119.19 99.5% 117.38 98.0% Evapotranspiration 75.30 62.9% 80.43 67.1% Drainage 43.81 36.6% 39.39 32.9% Runoff 0.60 0.5% 2.40 2.0% w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 33 Table 10g. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 7 Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Table 10h. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 8 Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Average Average Average Average Average Hydrologic Annual Annual Annual Annual Parameter Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount (cm of (% of (cm of (% of (cm of water) precip + water) precip + water) precip + runon runon Precipitation 119.79 100.0% 119.79 100.0% Runon 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% Precip + Runon 119.79 100.0% 119.79 100.0% Infiltration 119.01 99.3% 117.31 97.9% Evapotranspiration 77.42 64.6% 80.54 67.2% Drainage 41.46 34.6% 39.23 32.7% Runoff 0.79 0.7% 2.47 2.1 Table 10h. Summary Water Balance for Gauge 8 Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site 6.3 Soil Characterization An investigation of the existing soils within the wetland restoration areas was performed by WEI staff and a licensed soil scientist (LSS) on February 22 and 23, 2012. Soil cores were analyzed at locations across the site to provide data to refine NRCS soils mapping units and establish areas suitable for wetland restoration. Forty -seven (47) soil cores were analyzed at approximately 200- to 300 -foot grid spacing in w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 34 Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Average Average Average Average Hydrologic Annual Annual Annual Annual Parameter Amount Amount Amount Amount (cm of (% of (cm of (% of water) precip water) precip + runon) runon) Precipitation 119.79 100.0% 119.79 100.0% Runon 0.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0% Precip + Runon 119.79 100.0% 119.79 100.0% Infiltration 119.28 99.6% 117.43 98.0% Evapotranspiration 73.23 61.1% 79.77 66.6% Drainage 46.01 38.4% 40.03 33.4% Runoff 0.52 0.4% 2.36 2.0% 6.3 Soil Characterization An investigation of the existing soils within the wetland restoration areas was performed by WEI staff and a licensed soil scientist (LSS) on February 22 and 23, 2012. Soil cores were analyzed at locations across the site to provide data to refine NRCS soils mapping units and establish areas suitable for wetland restoration. Forty -seven (47) soil cores were analyzed at approximately 200- to 300 -foot grid spacing in w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 34 key wetland areas across the site by the LSS. Soil texture, Munsell chart hue, chroma and value, and hydric soil characteristics were recorded for each core. The depth to hydric indicators was then measured as well. A map of the boring locations and the data for each core is included in Appendix 9. 6.3.1 Taxonomic Classification Analysis of the soil core samples collected from the project site along with consideration of site topography indicated that soil classifications largely agreed with the mapped soil units in nearly all locations. Soil classifications of the core samples are discussed below. Bibb Sandy Loam Soils within the western portion of the project area are predominately mapped as Bibb sandy loam, which is listed on the NC Hydric Soil List. This map unit is comprised of two units including the undrained Bibb component and the undrained Johnston component, both of which exhibit water tables at depths of one foot or less during the growing season. The Johnston component of this feature is also shown to exhibit frequent flooding for long or very long durations during the growing season. Soil cores 1 -10 (Appendix 9) indicate chroma values of 1 and 2 throughout the matrix to a depth of 18 inches and greater. The chroma 2 matrices typically showed distinct mottling of around 20% while the lower chroma 1 matrices showed mottling of less than 2 %. The soil mapping unit was confirmed to be correct in this area. Rains Sandy Loam Soils within the central portion of the western project area are predominately mapped as Rains sandy loam, which is listed on the NC Hydric Soil List. Both the drained and undrained components of this map unit exhibit a water table at a depth of one foot or less during the growing season. Soil cores 11 -18, 21 -32, 34, and 45 -47 indicate chroma values of 1 and 2 to depths of 18 -20 inches and greater with mottling ranging from 2% to 20% of the matrix. These cores show that the soils throughout the central portion of the row crop fields match the Rains series description. Leaf Silt Loam Soils within the eastern portion of the project area are predominately mapped as Leaf silt loam. This soil type is listed on the NC Hydric Soil List and both the drained and undrained components of this map unit exhibit a water table at a depth of one foot or less during the growing season. Soil cores 33 and 35 -44 indicate chroma values of 1 and 2 to depths of 18 inches and greater. Mottling within these profiles was shown within the pore linings and ranged from 2% to 20% of the soil matrix. The soils throughout the eastern portion of the project largely match the mapped Leaf soil unit. 6.3.2 Profile Description The floodplain areas of the proposed project are mapped by the Johnston County Soil Survey (SCS, 1994). Soils along the downstream portion of the Devil's Racetrack Creek floodplains are primarily mapped as Leaf silt loam. The upstream portion of Devil's Racetrack Creek and Southwest Branch are primarily mapped as Bibb sandy loam. Middle Branch is located between a pocket of Goldsboro sandy loam and Rains sandy loam. The upstream reach of Southeast Branch is located primarily within the Lynchburg sandy loam, transitioning to the Rains sandy loam at the downstream reach. These soils are described above in Table 3. A soils map is provided in Figure 4. Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 35 6.3.3 Hydraulic Conductivity The Bibb series has a moderate permeability and consists of deep, poorly- drained soils. Saturated hydraulic conductivity for this series is 14 -42 micro m /sec in the upper 6 inches of the soil with conductivity increasing to 14 -141 micro m /sec to a depth of 6 -80 inches. The Goldsboro series is a very deep, moderately well- drained with moderate permeability. Hydraulic conductivity for this soil ranges from 14 -42 micro m /sec in the upper 15 inches of the profile and decreases to a range of 4 -14 micro m /sec at depths of 15 -80 inches. The Leaf series is a very deep, poorly- drained soil type with very slow permeability. Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 4 -14 micro m /sec in the upper 6 inches of the profile and drops to a very slow 0.01 -0.42 micro m /sec at depths of 6 -80 inches. Lynchburg soils are very deep, somewhat poorly- drained, and exhibit moderate permeability. Hydraulic conductivity of this series is comparable to Goldsboro, which ranges from 14 -42 micro m /sec in the upper 10 inches of the profile and drops to a range of 4 -14 micro m /sec at depths of 10 -80 inches. The Rains series is a very deep, poorly- drained soil type that exhibits moderate permeability. Hydraulic conductivity ranges from 14 -42 micro m /sec in the upper 12 inches of the profile and decreases to 4 -14 micro m /sec at depths of 12 -85 inches. 6.4 Vegetation Community Types Descriptions and Disturbance History The existing vegetation communities within the proposed project area are predominately disturbed row crop agriculture covered seasonally by temporary fescue grasses with adjacent forested areas. Based on historical aerials, row crop agriculture has been the predominant land use on this property since between 1949 and 1971. Due to heavy agricultural activities and vegetation management over the past several decades, several major strata are completely absent from this area resulting in a dominant herbaceous layer with no mature trees or understory growth. Dominant species in these areas include fescue (Festuca spp.) with some of the stream banks exhibiting Chinese privet and soft stem rush (duncus effuses). Upstream headwater areas exhibit more mature forest coverage and include mature canopy species such as sweetgum, red maple, loblolly pine, longleaf pine, and blackjack oak. Common shrub species include winged elm, red maple, green ash, and Chinese privet with vine species of catbriar, and Japanese honeysuckle. The downstream portion of the project site from Devils Racetrack Road to the Neuse River has been largely maintained as an evergreen forest for timber production and includes longleaf and loblolly pines. Common understory growth includes sweetgum, red maple, black jack oak, red bay, and giant river cane. Portions of the undergrowth in this area have been heavily maintained through recent controlled burning. 7.0 Baseline Information - Regulatory Considerations Table 11 presents the project information and baseline wetland information. Table 11. Regulatory Considerations Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Orw Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 36 Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation Waters of the US — Section 404 permit (in 404 Yes In progress progress) Waters of the US — Section 401 certification (in 401 Yes In progress progress) Endangered Species Act Yes Yes None Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Letter from SHPO Coastal Zone Management Act /Coastal Area Management No N/A N/A Orw Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 36 7.1 4011404 As discussed in Section 4.5, the results of the onsite field investigation indicate that four channels are jurisdictional within the project limits. There are no jurisdiction al wetlands on the site. Impacts to portions of on -site jurisdictional features are anticipated as part of the development of the Devils Racetrack Mitigation Project. WEI will acquire written approval for these impacts through submittal of the appropriate Section 404 Nationwide Permit and 401 Water Quality Certification. A Nationwide Permit No. 27 is expected to be approved by the USACE and a Water Quality Certification No. 3885 is expected be approved by the NCDWQ; these permits authorize activities for aquatic habitat restoration, establishment, and enhancement activities. 7.2 Endangered and Threatened Species 7.2.1 Site Evaluation Methodology The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), defines protection for species with the Federal Classification of Threatened (T) or Endangered (E). An "Endangered Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range" and a "Threatened Species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an Endangered Species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) databases were searched for federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species for Johnston County, NC. Five (5) federally listed species, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) are currently listed in Johnston County (Table 12). Table 12. Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Person County, NC Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Species Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation Act Status Conclusion FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes In progress In progress Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A 7.1 4011404 As discussed in Section 4.5, the results of the onsite field investigation indicate that four channels are jurisdictional within the project limits. There are no jurisdiction al wetlands on the site. Impacts to portions of on -site jurisdictional features are anticipated as part of the development of the Devils Racetrack Mitigation Project. WEI will acquire written approval for these impacts through submittal of the appropriate Section 404 Nationwide Permit and 401 Water Quality Certification. A Nationwide Permit No. 27 is expected to be approved by the USACE and a Water Quality Certification No. 3885 is expected be approved by the NCDWQ; these permits authorize activities for aquatic habitat restoration, establishment, and enhancement activities. 7.2 Endangered and Threatened Species 7.2.1 Site Evaluation Methodology The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), defines protection for species with the Federal Classification of Threatened (T) or Endangered (E). An "Endangered Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range" and a "Threatened Species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an Endangered Species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) databases were searched for federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species for Johnston County, NC. Five (5) federally listed species, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) are currently listed in Johnston County (Table 12). Table 12. Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Person County, NC Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Species Federal Habitat Biological Status Conclusion Vertebrate Bald eagle Near large open water (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) BGEPA bodies: lakes, marshes, No effect seacoasts, and rivers Red - cockaded woodpecker E Open stands of mature No effect (Picoides borealis) pines Invertebrate Dwarf wedgemussel Slow to moderate stream (Alasmidonta heterodon) E currents; sand, gravel, No effect muddy bottom. Tar River spinymussel E Fast - flowing, well No effect w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 37 Species Federal Habitat Biological Status Conclusion (Elliptio steinstansana) oxygenated, silt -free streams. Vascular Plants Michaux's sumac Sandy or rocky open woods (Rhus michauxi►) E with some form of No effect disturbance. E = Endangered; T= Threatened; BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 7 2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species Descriptions Bald Eagle The bald eagle is a very large raptor species, typically 28 to 38 inches in length. Adult individuals are brown in color with a very distinctive white head and tail. Bald eagles typically live near large bodies of open water with suitable fish habitat including: lakes, marshes, seacoasts, and rivers. This species generally requires tall, mature tree species for nesting and roosting. Bald eagles were de- listed from the Endangered Species List in June 2007; however, this species remains under the protection of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ( BGEPA). This species is known to occur in every U.S. state except Hawaii. Red - Cockaded Woodpecker The red - cockaded woodpecker is a medium -sized woodpecker species (8 to 9 inches in length). Distinctive coloration includes black and white feathers with a large white cheek patch and a black back with a white barred pattern. This species is typically found year -round in large open stands of pines with mature trees of 60+ years in age. The foraging habitat for this species may include pine hardwood stands of longleaf and southern pine, 30+ years in age. Dwarf Wedg emussel The dwarf wedgemussel is a relatively small freshwater mussel with a yellowish brown shell approximately 1 inch in length. This species typically inhabits creeks and rivers with slow to moderate current and sand, gravel or muddy substrate. Typical threats to this species include common pollutants from municipal and industrial wastewater discharges as well as sedimentation and runoff from agricultural and forestry operations. This species is known to occur in stream reaches along the Atlantic Coast, including North Carolina. Tar River Spinymussel The Tar River spinymussel is a medium -sized freshwater mussel and is one of only three mussels in the world with spines. This species grows to approximately 2.5 inches in length and typically inhabits creeks with fast moving, well- oxygenated, silt -free water. Ideal stream substrates include uncompacted gravel and/or coarse sand. Typical threats to this species include common pollutants from municipal and industrial wastewater discharges as well as sedimentation and runoff from agricultural and forestry operations. Known occurrences of this species have been observed in Johnston County within the last 20 years. Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 38 Michaux's Sumac Michaux's sumac is a densely hairy shrub with serrated compound leaves that grows from 1 to 3 meters in height. These plants are found in disturbed, sandy or rocky open woods with basic soil types. Typical habitat may also include road rights -of -way and edges of artificially- maintained clearings. This plant is threatened by habitat destruction from residential and industrial development as well as fire suppression. This species is currently listed as historic for Johnston County. 7.2.3 Biological Conclusion A pedestrian survey of the site was performed on January 8, 2011 and February 23, 2012. On -site habitats include agricultural row crop fields, early successional woodlands, and young established pine forests. The on -site streams provide poor quality potential habitat for the Tar River spinymussel and the dwarf wedgemussel. Active runoff from adjacent agriculture fields and sedimentation degrades any potential on -site habitat quality for these species. Artificially maintained clearings have been entirely cleared of all vegetation strata other than herbaceous species and provide no habitat for the presence of Michaux's sumac. No habitat for red - cockaded woodpecker occurs onsite as they require 60+ year old pine trees. There is no suitable nesting or breeding habitat for bald eagles located within the site, as they require tall, mature trees, although potential suitable feeding habitat for bald eagles does exist within close proximity to the Neuse River. As a result of the pedestrian survey, no individual species were found to exist on the site. WEI requested review and comment from the USFWS on June 30, 2011, regarding the results of the site investigation of the Devils Racetrack Mitigation Site and its potential impacts on threatened or endangered species. Since no response was received from the USFWS within a 30 -day time frame, it is assumed that the site determination is correct and that no additional, relevant information is available for this site. A further review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's (NCNHP) element occurrence GIS data layer shows that no natural heritage elements for Federally - listed species occur within 1 mile of the proposed project area. All correspondence is included in Appendix 10. 7.3 Cultural Resources 7.3. -1 Site Evaluation Methodology The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, amended (16 U.S.C. 470), defines the policy of historic preservation to protect, restore, and reuse districts, sites, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, and culture. Section 106 of the NHPA mandates that federal agencies take into account the effect of an undertaking on any property, which is included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. A letter was sent to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on July 8, 2011 requesting review and comment for the potential of cultural resources to be affected by the Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Project. 7.3.2 SHPO/THPO Concurrence A request for records search was submitted on July 8, 2011 to the NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to determine the presence of any areas of architectural, historic, or archaeological significance that would be affected by the project. In a letter dated July 20, 2011 (see Appendix 10) the SHPO stated that they have reviewed the project and are "aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the project." w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 39 7.4 FEMA Floodolain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass The project stream channels do not have an associated regulatory floodplain; however, the downstream end of Devil's Racetrack Creek is located within the floodway and flood fringe of the Neuse River (Figure 7). The Neuse River was performed as a detailed study including 100 -year base flood elevations and mapped floodway. The Neuse River is mapped as FEMA Zone AE on floodplain FIRM panel 1680. No mapped cross - sections from the Neuse River exist within our project work area. No net fill is proposed in the mapped section of Neuse River floodplain. A detailed grading plan and evaluation of the proposed effects on hydrology will be submitted for approval by the Johnston County floodplain administrator. The EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist is included in Appendix 11 and has been submitted to the Johnston County floodplain administrator. The project will be designed so that any increase in flooding will be contained on the project site and will not extend upstream to adjacent parcels, so hydrologic trespass will not be a concern. The proposed restoration has been designed to transition back to the existing boundary conditions in a gradual manner. 7.5 Essential Fisheries Habitat 7.5.1 Habitat Description The USFWS does not list any Critical Habitat areas for Johnston County. Agency correspondence received for the project contains no mention of essential fisheries or requests for additional information related to essential fisheries 7.5.2 Biological Conclusion WEI requested review and comment from the USFWS on June 30, 2011, regarding the results of the site investigation of the Devils Racetrack Mitigation Site and its potential impacts on essential fisheries habitat. Since no response was received from the USFWS within a 30 -day time frame, it is assumed that the site determination is correct and that no additional, relevant information is available for this site. 7.6 Utilities and Site Access There is a 100 -foot wide power transmission line easement that runs southwest to northeast from U.S. Highway 701 through a small portion of the site before it exits the site near the confluence of Middle Branch and Devil's Racetrack Creek. This easement crosses both Southwest Branch and Devil's Racetrack Creek (west). Two farm road crossings will be relocated near the upstream end of Southeast Branch and near the middle of Devil's Racetrack Creek (East). Mitigation credit will not be claimed for these areas. The site is split by Devil's Racetrack Road where Devil's Racetrack Creek flows through a culvert. This culvert will be replaced as part of project construction in order to establish an appropriate invert elevation for Devil's Racetrack Creek (East) allowing for Priority 1 restoration in this reach. There are no other road crossings or utility easements that cross the project streams or wetlands on the site. The project area of the project includes two parcels — one west of Devil's Racetrack Road and one east of Devil's Racetrack Road. There are two likely access points for the western parcel — one on the west side off of U.S. Highway 701 and one on the east side off of Devil's Racetrack Road. The access for the eastern parcel is also off of Devil's Racetrack Road directly across the road from the western parcel access. All of the access points are existing, gated driveways. Existing farm roads and open fields will permit easy movement of construction equipment within the properties. Site access is provided by the conservation easement agreement that will be recorded. w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 40 8.0 Reference Sites 8.1 Reference Streams Due to the range of stream gradients on the Devil's Racetrack site, multiple reference reaches were necessary and WEI investigated multiple sources for potential reference information. To begin, existing reference reaches and completed mitigation sites near the project site were reviewed. Multiple sites were visited by WEI staff and a reference reach very near the project site, Johanna Creek, was selected as a reference for this project. The site has been surveyed by members of WEI's staff for past projects. Design parameter information was also gathered from two nearby mitigation projects well known to WEI staff — the Cox Site and the Westbrook Site. In addition, a database of reference reach and design parameters from six other Coastal Plain mitigation projects was assembled by WEI to provide additional plan and profile reference information. WEI reviewed mitigation plans, as -built documents, and monitoring reports for these projects. For each, the monitoring reports (two through Year 5) indicate that the cross sections and longitudinal profiles have shown little change since construction. One of the reference sites included in this group, Jarman Oak reference reach, was assessed in the field by WEI staff. The site was found to be a stable stream with characteristics similar to the other references and was used as a source of pattern data for the low- gradient design reaches. Finally, a large property with multiple small, reference quality streams was identified ten miles southeast of the project site. This site is owned by the Tuscarora Council of the Boy Scouts of America and is part of Camp Tuscarora. Four separate streams on the scout camp site were surveyed to provide reference information. Two of them are very small, steep headwater streams referred to as Scout West 1 and Scout East 1. The other two are somewhat larger streams with flatter gradients into which Scout West 1 and Scout East 1 flow. These larger streams are referred to as Scout West 2 and Scout East 2. The purpose of all of the reference data derived from the sites described above was to support the design of the project reaches. The primary high gradient reference reach used to inform the designs was Scout West 1 and the primary low gradient references were Scout West 2, Johanna Creek, and Jarman Oak reference reach. The data compiled from the other mitigation sites and reference reaches was primarily used to provide additional information on pattern and profile characteristics of stable Coastal Plain streams. Reference reaches can be used as a basis for design or, more appropriately, as one source of information on which to base a stream restoration design. Most reference reaches, including the ones used for this project, are located in heavily wooded areas and the mature vegetation contributes greatly to their stability. Design parameters for this project were also developed based on the design discharge and hydraulic and sediment transport modeling. Figure 8 shows the locations of the main reference sites used for this project (not including the Coastal Plain reference reach database sites that were not surveyed either for this project or previously by WEI staff). 8.1.1 Reference Streams Chanel Morphology and C/assiflcation The Scout Camp reference site (including four surveyed streams) is a wooded area located in southeastern Johnston County near Bentonville in the Mill Creek watershed. It is situated in a similar landscape to the Devil's Racetrack site and is similar in position relative to an especially broad, flat, and low -lying zone of the Neuse River floodplain and surrounding wetlands. The small headwaters streams on the site are similar in gradient to the upper portions of the small tributaries on the project site with slopes up to 2.6 %. The larger streams are much less steep (Scout West 2 has a gradient of 0.4 %) and are similar in gradient to Devil's Racetrack Creek and the downstream portions of the headwaters streams when they reach the Devil's Racetrack Creek floodplain. The Johanna Creek site is also located near Bentonville as are both the Cox and Westbrook mitigation sites. Johanna Creek flows through a mature forest and was previously used as a reference for the Cox site. Johanna Creek w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 41 is a low slope (0.22 %), meandering channel similar to but larger than Scout West 2. The Johanna Creek gradient and drainage area are comparable to Devil's Racetrack Creek (East). Collectively, the reference reaches surveyed for this project represent the range of stream morphology planned for the Devil's Racetrack site from steep, straight channels with gradient drops over woody structure to larger, flatter meandering streams. Scout West 1 is a very small, sand bed stream that is very steep for most of its length with an overall gradient of 2.6 %. It has a width to depth ratio ranging from 5.4 in the upper sections to 19.4 in the lower, less steep reaches. Its sinuosity is 1.1 and its entrenchment ratio is high — greater than 2.2 throughout. It is most closely represented by an E /C5b according the Rosgen classification system ( Rosgen, 1994) although for most of its length it is not a meandering riffle -pool stream. Much of the energy dissipation, gradient, and pool formation are controlled by sudden drops over woody structure (logs and tree roots). Scout East 2 is a similar but larger sand bed stream with an overall slope of 1.7 %, a width to depth ratio of 3.6 to 5.4, an entrenchment ratio of greater than 2.2, and a sinuosity of 1.2. It meanders more than Scout West 1 but also has a lot of energy loss and pool formation over woody structure. It is most similar to a Rosgen E5 stream. Scout West 2 is a larger, flatter stream with a width to depth ratio range of 5.7 to 11.0, a very large entrenchment ratio much greater than 2.2, and a sinuosity of 1.1 to 1.2. It is most similar to a Rosgen E5 stream type and functions more like an E5 as described by Rosgen with pool formations in meander bends and less drop in gradient over woody structure. Johanna Creek is the largest of the primary reference reaches and has the lowest slope. Its width to depth ratio is 10.1 to 19.7, its entrenchment ratio is as large as nearly 10, and its sinuosity is 1.2. Johanna Creek is most similar to an E5 /C5 stream type and fits the Rosgen classification system as well or better than Scout West 2 in that it is a meandering stream with pool formation and energy dissipation in meander bends. Summaries of geomorphic parameters for the reference reaches analyzed for this project are included in Tables 13a and 13b. All of the reaches described above were used to compile a reference reach database for this project. The database includes a dataset to support the design of the low- gradient reaches and a separate dataset to support the design of the higher - gradient reaches. The design parameters for a specific design stream reach were chosen from either the high- or low- gradient dataset but minor adjustments were made to meet design goals or specific site conditions. In these cases the designers' judgment and knowledge of successful design parameters from past projects were used. In addition, the Coastal Plain reference reach database compiled by WEI for this project was used to supply additional pattern and profile design parameters derived from a larger number of available streams in similar physiographic conditions. This was important to the design because short reaches surveyed for many of the reference streams were not long enough to obtain an accurate measure of sinuosity and other pattern and profile features, which are more variable along a reach than cross - sectional dimensions. Annotated tables of the composite high - gradient and low- gradient design parameters and the Coastal Plain reference reach database compiled by WEI for this project are included in Appendix 12. 8.1.2 Reference Streams Vegetation Community Types Descriptions Stream vegetation communities for the Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site will be similar to those of Johanna Creek and the Scout Camp reference reaches. Both of those streams are surrounded by mature hardwood forests composed of typical Coastal Plain bottomland riparian forest tree species. The mature trees within the riparian buffers provide significant bank reinforcement to maintain w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 42 channel pattern and keep the streams from eroding horizontally. Johanna Creek, Scout East 2, and Scout West 2 are classified as Coastal Plain small stream swamp and bottomland forest types (Schafale & Weakley, 1990). Dominant species include swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), river birch (Betula nigra), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styracifua), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). Common understory vegetation includes ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), American holly (Ilex opaca), leucothoe ( Leucothoe axillaris), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), and swamp titi (Cyrilla racemifora). The herbaceous stratum consists of microstegium ( Microstegium vimineum), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), jewel -weed (Impatiens capensis), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), green -briar (Smilax spp.), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), grape (Vitis spp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). Scout West 1 does not fit any natural community classification specifically due to the high valley slope but the vegetation community is similar to the other reference reaches. Table 13a. Summary of Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 43 Scout West 1 Scout East 2 Scout West 2 Parameter Notation Units min max min max min F max stream type E /C5b E5 E5 drainage area DA sq mi 0.06 0.67 0.34 bankfull Qbkf cfs 2.6 17.5 6.4 discharge bankfull cross- Abkf SF 1.3 2 6 6.9 5.3 5.4 sectional area average bankfull vbkf fps 1.3 2 2.5 2.9 1.2 1.2 velocity width at wbkf feet 2.6 6.3 4.7 6.1 5.6 7.6 bankfull maximum depth at dmax feet 0.5 0.7 1.7 1.8 1.2 1.3 bankfull mean depth dbkf feet 0.3 0.5 1.1 1.3 0.7 1 at bankfull bankfull width wbkf/dbkf 5.4 19.4 3.6 5.4 5.7 11 to depth ratio depth ratio dmax /dbkf 1.5 1.9 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 43 qw1k. Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 44 Scout West 1 Scout East 2 Scout West 2 Parameter Notation Units min max min max min max bank height BHR 1.1 1.3 1 1.1 1.2 ratio floodprone Wfpa feet >20 >50 >50 area width entrenchment ER >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 ratio valley slope Svalley ft/ft 0.029 0.02 0.005 channel slope Schannel ft/ft 0.026 0.017 0.004 sinuosity K 1.1 1.2 1.2 shallow slope Sshallow ft/ft 0.026 0.047 - -- 0.033 0.051 shallow slope Sshallow /Schannel 1 1.8 - -- 8.8 13.4 ratio pool slope Sp ° °, ft/ft 0.0125 0.027 - -- 0.003 0.0031 pool slope Spool /Schannel 0.5 1.1 - -- 0.795 0.816 ratio pool -to -pool Lp_p feet 27 67 - -- 20.7 27.4 spacing pool spacing Lp_p /Wb,f 4.9 12.2 - -- 3.7 4.9 ratio maximum pool depth at dp°°, feet 0.6 - -- 1.7 1.9 bankfull pool depth dp ° °, /db� 1 - -- 2.4 2.7 ratio pool width at w 0 feet 6.7 - -- 6.5 8.8 bankfull pool width Wpool /Wbkf 1.2 - -- 1.2 1.6 ratio pool cross - sectional Ap ° °, SF 2.2 - -- 5.9 8.2 area at bankfull pool area Ap ° °, /Abkf 1.3 - -- 1.1 1.5 ratio qw1k. Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 44 Table 13b. Summary of Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Scout West 1 Scout East 2 Scout West 2 Parameter Notation Units min max min max min max belt width Wblt feet 8.7 14.3 7.2 16.2 9.1 9.8 meander bankfull 14 11 discharge Wblt /Wbkf 1.6 2.6 1.3 3 1.4 1.5 width ratio 11.6 sectional area linear average bankfull 1.8 1.9 0.95 wavelength Lm feet 39.8 84.8 36.5 63.2 32.5 36.9 length bankfull maximum depth at 1.1 linear bankfull mean depth 0.8 wavelength Lm /Wbkf 7.2 15.4 6.8 11.7 4.9 4.9 ratio radius of Rc feet 3.1 9 5.5 16 5.4 6.8 curvature radius of curvature Rj Wbkf 0.6 1.6 1 3 0.8 1 ratio Table 13b. Summary of Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 45 Jarman Oak Johanna Creek Reference Parameter min max min max stream type E5 /C5 E6 drainage 0.9 1.27 area bankfull 14 11 discharge bankfull cross- 7.2 7.8 11.6 sectional area average bankfull 1.8 1.9 0.95 velocity width at 9.7 9.3 bankfull maximum depth at 1.1 2.3 bankfull mean depth 0.8 1.2 at bankfull Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 45 Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 46 Johanna Creek Jarman Oak Reference Parameter min max min max bankfull width 10.1 19.7 7.4 to depth ratio depth ratio 1.4 1.8 1.9 bank height 1 1 ratio floodprone >2.2 >150 area width entrenchment 8 9.6 16.1 26.9 ratio valley slope 0.0027 0.0055 channel 0.0022 0.004 slope sinuosity 1.2 1.4 shallow slope - -- 0.0129 shallow slope 3.2 ratio pool slope 0.0005 0.0029 pool slope 0.2 0.7 ratio pool -to -pool 16 59 32 55 spacing pool spacing 1.6 6.1 3.4 5.9 ratio maximum pool depth at 1.5 3.1 bankfull pool depth 1.9 2.5 ratio pool width at 8 10 8.7 9.0 bankfull pool width 1 0.9 1.0 ratio Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 46 8.2 Reference Wet /ands Two reference wetlands that have been monitored for periods of greater than five years were identified for the Devil's Racetrack project. Both sites are within 10 miles of the project site and are in similar geomorphic settings within the floodplain of small coastal plain streams. The first is the Johanna Creek reference wetland site, initially identified in 2001 by Buck Engineering. Hydrology at the site has been continuously monitored for over 10 years. The second site is the Cox Mitigation Site developed by Environmental Banc & Exchange in 2005. Although this is a constructed stream and wetland mitigation site and not a mature reference site, the project has been closed out and approved as a functional wetland site by the USACE and DWQ. WEI has discussed the use of this site in combination with the Johanna Creek site with the USACE and all parties have agreed that the use of the two sites in combination provides an appropriate range of vegetative and hydrologic comparison data. The Johanna Creek reference site is located in the transition area between the Coastal Plain and Piedmont physiographic regions of North Carolina adjacent to the Westbrook and Cox sites completed by Environmental Banc & Exchange in 2003 and 2005, respectively. It is located within the floodplain of Johanna Creek, a tributary to Mill Creek (Figure 8). The site is an example of a Coastal Plain small stream swamp, as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The Cox Mitigation Site is located in the valley adjacent to Johanna Creek and is also classified as a Coastal Plain small stream swamp. These systems exist as the floodplains of small blackwater and brownwater streams in which separate fluvial features and associated vegetation are too small or poorly developed to distinguish. It is difficult to define whether the site is of the brownwater or blackwater subtype, since the site exhibits features of both subtypes. Schafale and Weakley characterize the brownwater subtype as having its headwater originating in the Piedmont, while the blackwater subtype originates in the Coastal Plain. Hydrology of these w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 47 Jarman Oak Johanna Creek Reference Parameter min max min max pool cross - sectional - -- 16.2 area at bankfull pool area 1.4 ratio - -- belt width 14 20 21 36 meander 1.4 2.1 2.3 2.9 width ratio linear wavelength 50 - -- length linear wavelength 4 5.9 - -- ratio radius of 15 27 13.7 18.6 curvature radius of curvature 1.5 2.8 1.5 2.0 ratio 8.2 Reference Wet /ands Two reference wetlands that have been monitored for periods of greater than five years were identified for the Devil's Racetrack project. Both sites are within 10 miles of the project site and are in similar geomorphic settings within the floodplain of small coastal plain streams. The first is the Johanna Creek reference wetland site, initially identified in 2001 by Buck Engineering. Hydrology at the site has been continuously monitored for over 10 years. The second site is the Cox Mitigation Site developed by Environmental Banc & Exchange in 2005. Although this is a constructed stream and wetland mitigation site and not a mature reference site, the project has been closed out and approved as a functional wetland site by the USACE and DWQ. WEI has discussed the use of this site in combination with the Johanna Creek site with the USACE and all parties have agreed that the use of the two sites in combination provides an appropriate range of vegetative and hydrologic comparison data. The Johanna Creek reference site is located in the transition area between the Coastal Plain and Piedmont physiographic regions of North Carolina adjacent to the Westbrook and Cox sites completed by Environmental Banc & Exchange in 2003 and 2005, respectively. It is located within the floodplain of Johanna Creek, a tributary to Mill Creek (Figure 8). The site is an example of a Coastal Plain small stream swamp, as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The Cox Mitigation Site is located in the valley adjacent to Johanna Creek and is also classified as a Coastal Plain small stream swamp. These systems exist as the floodplains of small blackwater and brownwater streams in which separate fluvial features and associated vegetation are too small or poorly developed to distinguish. It is difficult to define whether the site is of the brownwater or blackwater subtype, since the site exhibits features of both subtypes. Schafale and Weakley characterize the brownwater subtype as having its headwater originating in the Piedmont, while the blackwater subtype originates in the Coastal Plain. Hydrology of these w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 47 systems is palustrine, intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded. Flows tend to be highly variable, with floods of short duration, and periods of very low flow. 8.2.1 Hydrological Characterization Climatic conditions of the Johanna Creek and Cox reference sites are the same as those described for the project site. Site hydrology is controlled by the main stream channel that flows through the site, as well as several small drainages that flow onto the site and provide additional water to the floodplain areas during wet periods. Due to the shallow, unincised condition of the main streams through the sites and drainage from upland side slopes, high water table conditions are sustained across the active floodplain. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed in the Johanna Creek reference site and monitoring data were collected from June 2001 to the present. Monitoring wells were installed at the Cox site following construction in the winter of 2005/2006 and data were collected for the monitoring period from 2006 to 2010. Table 14 presents the results for the 2006 to 2010 growing seasons as reported in the Cox Site annual monitoring reports prepared by WK Dickson and Co., Inc. The hydrology results reported are the percent consecutive period of the growing season during which the water table was within 12 inches of the soil surface. Annual results are averaged over the five year period to provide a range of anticipated conditions for comparison to the restoration site. Table 14. Reference Wetland Hydrology Results 2006 -2010 Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Max H dro eriod by Year Growing Season 17 -Mar through 5 -Nov 232 da s Reach 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average Johanna Ref MW1 8 3 2 3 18 6.8 Johanna Ref MW2 8 8 8 15 14 10.6 Johanna Ref AW3 29 19 22 17 18 21.0 Johanna Ref MW4 9 19 16 16 13 14.6 Johanna Ref MW5 0 1 0 0 13 2.8 Cox AW1 43 20 30 38 22 30.6 Cox MW2 29 18 27 31 15 24.0 Cox AW3 0 17 7 10 9 8.6 Cox MW4 2 2 7 11 9 6.2 Cox AW5 9 5 17 17 14 12.4 Cox MW6 29 4 8 12 5 11.6 Cox AW7 58 28 32 45 20 36.6 Cox MW8 13 8 25 19 18 16.6 Cox MW9 7 8 26 16 14 14.2 Cox AW10 6 4 22 17 13 12.4 Cox AW11 n/a 4 27 18 12 15.3 Cox AW12 n/a 0 4 3 2 2.3 Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 48 8 2 Sol/ Characterizatlon and Taxonomlc ClaSSIflCatlon The Johanna Creek reference site is located in the transition area between the Coastal Plain and Piedmont physiographic regions of North Carolina and is adjacent to the Cox and Westbrook sites completed by Environmental Banc & Exchange in 2005 and 2003, respectively. Soils located within the wetland areas of the reference site are mapped as the Bibb and Pantego series (SCS, 1994). Soils located within the wetland areas of the Cox reference site are mapped as the Pantego series (SCS, 1994). The Bibb series consists of poorly drained soils typically found on floodplains along streams in the Coastal Plain. Permeability is moderate, and the seasonal high water table is within 0.5 to 1.5 feet of the soil surface. The Pantego series consists of poorly drained soils typically found on broad stream terraces on the Coastal Plain. In the undrained condition, permeability is moderate, and the seasonal high water table is within one foot of the soil surface in winter and spring. WEI conducted a soil analysis at both reference sites to confirm earlier findings and to verify soil information obtained from the Johnston County soil survey maps. These tests revealed that the soils on both reference sites are correct and match the Bibb and Pantego soil series. The Bibb soil series is one of the soil types found on the Devil's Racetrack site while the Pantego series is very similar to the Rains and Leaf soil types found on the Devil's Racetrack site. The reference site soils have a deep, dark loamy layer to a depth of approximately two to three feet, underlain by a layer of sandy clay loam material to a depth of approximately 4.5 feet. At a depth of approximately 4.5 feet, a layer of sand begins and extends to an undetermined depth. 8.23 Vegetatlon Community Types Descrlptlons and Disturbance History Historical aerials reveal that the Johanna Creek reference wetland area has not been cleared since 1939. The reference wetland area is within the floodplain of the Johanna Creek reference stream and the vegetation community is described above in section 8.1.2. The Cox reference wetland was planted in the winter of 2005/2006. A forestry management plan was implemented resulting in accelerated tree growth and an average tree height of approximately 20 -30 feet as of Apri12012. The planting plan for the site included sycamore, black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), black walnut (Juglans nigra), swamp chestnut oak, overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), and river birch. 9.0 Determination of Credits Mitigation credits presented in Table 15 are projections based upon site design. Upon completion of site construction the project components and credits data will be revised to be consistent with the as -built condition. w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 49 Table 15. Determination of Credits Devil'i Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Credits Riparian Non - riparian Nitrogen Phosphorus Stream Wetland Wetland Buffer Nutrient Nutrient Offset Offset Type R RE R RE R RE Totals 18,104 112 55.2 - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- Project Components Project Stationing / Existing Approach Restoration or Restoration Mitigation Component or Location Footage / (PI, PII, Restoration Footage or Ratio Credits Reach ID Acreage etc.) Equivalent Acreage Devil's Racetrack Restoration Creek (West) 0 +00 to 0 +20 20 LF P1 (No Credit) 20 LF - -- - -- (DOT ROW) Devil's Racetrack 0 +20 to 16+26 & 41755 LF P1 Restoration 5,061 LF 1:1 5,061 Creek (West) 17 +50 to 52 +05 Devil's Racetrack Creek (West) 16 +26 to 17 +50 196 LF P1 Restoration 124 LF 4:11 31 (Power Line (Partial Credit) Easement) Devil's Racetrack Restoration Creek (West) 52 +05 to 52 +11 5 LF P1 (No Credit) 6 LF - -- - -- (DOT ROW) Devil's Racetrack Restoration (East) (DOT 52 +59 to 52 +65 5 LF P1 (No Credit) 6 LF - -- - -- ROW) Devil's Racetrack 52 +65 to 70 +73 & (East) 71 +03 to 88 +00 & 4,778 LF P1/2 Restoration 5,359 LF 1:1 5,363 88 +31 to 106 +85 W Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 50 Devil's Racetrack Restoration (East) (Easement 70 +73 to 71 +03 30 LF P1/2 (No Credit) 31 LF - -- - -- Break) Devil's Racetrack Restoration (East) (Easement 88 +00 to 88 +31 31 LF P1/2 (No Credit) 31 LF - -- - -- Break) Devil's Racetrack 106 +85 to 107 +97 0 LF P1/2 Restoration 112 LF - -- - -- (East) (No Credit) Southwest 500 +00 to 501 +31 & 154 LF Ell Enhancement 154 LF 2.5:1 62 Branch 600 +00 to 600 +23 Southwest 501 +31 to 502 +06 75 LF El Enhancement 75 LF 1.5:1 50 Branch Southwest 502 +06 to 504 +85 & 740 LF P1/2 Restoration 812 LF 1:1 812 Branch 505 +99 to 511+32 Southwest Restoration Branch (Power 504 +85 to 505 +99 111 LF P1/2 114 LF 4:11 29 Line Easement) (Partial Credit) Middle Branch 200 +00 to 204 +10 410 LF Headwater Wetland 410 LF 1:1 410 Middle Branch 204 +10 to 219 +06 1,326 LF P1/2 Restoration 1,496 LF 1:1 1,496 Southeast 300 +00 to 305 +03 & 2 946 LF P1 Restoration 2,860 LF 1:1 2,860 Branch 305 +35 to 328 +92 Southeast Branch 305 +03 to 305 +35 30 LF P1 Restoration 32 LF - -- - -- (Easement (No Credit) Break) North Branch 403 +76 to 424 +18 - -- P1 Restoration 2,042 LF 1:1 2,042 Riparian - -- 51.4 ac - -- Restoration 51.4 ac 1:1 51.4 ac Wetlands (West) Riparian Wetlands (West) 1.6 ac - -- Restoration 1.6 ac 4:1 0.4 ac (Power Line (Partial Credit) Easement) Riparian - -- 3.4 ac - -- Restoration 3.4 ac 1:1 3.4 ac Wetlands (East) W Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 51 Component Summation Restoration Level Stream (linear feet) Riparian Wetland (acres) Non - Riparian Wetland (acres) Buffer (acres) Upland (acres) Riverine Non -Riv. Restoration 18,515 56.4 - -- - -- - -- - -- Enhancement 229 - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- Enhancement 1 75 - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- Enhancement 11 154 - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- Creation - -- - -- - -- - -- Preservation - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- High Quality Preservation - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- 1. Ratio of 4:1 based on an expected 75% reduction in credits for stream restoration with shrub buffer zone in power line easements. Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 52 10.0 Project Site Mitigation Plan The design streams and wetlands will be restored to the appropriate type based on the surrounding landscape, climate, and natural vegetation communities but also with thorough consideration to existing watershed conditions and trajectory. The project includes stream restoration and enhancement as well as wetland restoration (Figures 9 and 10). The specific proposed stream and wetland types are described below. 10.1 Designed Channel Classification The stream restoration portion of this project includes six reaches: • Southwest Branch from 131 feet below its headwaters to the confluence with Devil's Racetrack Creek; • Middle Branch from its headwaters to the confluence with Devil's Racetrack Creek; • Southeast Branch from its headwaters to the confluence with Devil's Racetrack Creek; • North Branch from the northeast corner of the property to its confluence with Devil's Racetrack Creek; • Devil's Racetrack Creek (west) from U.S. Highway 701 to Devil's Racetrack Creek Road; and • Devil's Racetrack Creek (east) from Devil's Racetrack Creek Road to its confluence with the Neuse River. The upper 530 LF of Middle Branch will be designed as a headwater wetland feature. Stream restoration credit will be generated by construction of this feature and will be calculated as valley length through the feature. The project also includes one stream Enhancement II reach and one Enhancement I reach. The Enhancement II reach consists of the upper 131 feet of Southwest Branch along with 23 feet of a channel connecting the spring head to Southwest Branch. The Southwest Branch design includes 75 feet of Enhancement I in the transition between enhancement II and restoration. The site design has been developed based on similar reference conditions representing small inner Coastal Plain stream and wetland complexes with low gradient, meandering streams and straighter, higher - gradient zero- to first -order tributaries. The streams on the site are all sand bed channels and the designs will incorporate abundant woody structures that will drive scour pool formation and provide aquatic habitat. While the larger meandering streams will also have some pool formation in the bends, the bed profile of the steeper streams will be completely controlled by the woody structures. The streams will be small in cross section and shallow so that multiple out -of -bank flow events occur annually and hydrology of the adjacent riparian wetlands is maximized. The lower - slope, meandering channels will be constructed with side channels and meander scrolls which will fill at higher flows and provide additional habitat. The wetlands and riparian buffers will be planted with native tree species which will be managed throughout the monitoring period to maximize recovery of the site ecology. The stream restoration components of the project are all Priority 1 restoration except for a few short sections of Middle Branch and Southeast Branch and the downstream end of Devil's Racetrack Creek (east). Research on the history of the site indicates that the valleys of Middle and Southeast Branches were filled in and these will be excavated to return the site to a close approximation of its historic condition. The valleys will be sculpted into a natural valley shape rather than typical Priority 2 benching. Devil's Racetrack (east) will include two sections of Priority 2 restoration with different depths of w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 53 floodplain grading necessary. The Priority 2 designs are necessary to connect Devil's Racetrack Creek with the Neuse River without the need to construct a very steep section at the downstream end of the project. Instead, a more gradual slope will be constructed to provide the potential for fish migration from the river up the Devil's Racetrack Creek and back. The streams have been designed based on nearby reference conditions rather than particular stream types included in the Rosgen classification system. In general, the larger, meandering streams would be most similar to a Rosgen type C with width -to -depth ratios of 12 to 14, entrenchment ratios of greater than 10, slopes of 0.05% to 1 %, and sinuosity values of 1.2 to 1.55. The higher sinuosity values are based on streams in the Coastal Plain reference reach database developed for this project (Appendix 12). The downstream reach of Devil's Racetrack Creek (east) includes a steep section (2.5% slope) in order to drop down to the elevation of the Neuse River. The smaller, higher gradient streams would be most similar to the E stream type in cross section with fairly low width -to -depth ratios (10 to 12) and high entrenchment ratios (greater than 10). However, unlike E channels, these streams will be fairly steep with slopes ranging from 1% to 2.5% and fairly straight with sinuosity values of 1.05 to 1.1. These channels designs are based on reference reaches from a similar landscape. The downstream reach of Southwest Branch, Middle Branch, and Southeast Branch all flatten in slope as they near Devil's Racetrack Creek. A summary of the design parameters for each project reach is included in Tables 16a to 16c. The headwater wetland feature will be designed on the upper 530 linear feet of Middle Branch. There is currently a pond and earthen embankment in this area. The pond will be drained and the wetland feature will be constructed in the area that is now the pond. Stream restoration credit will be generated by this feature as it is an alternative preferred by the Interagency Review Team (IRT) to designing a stream channel through the pond bottom. Table 16a. Design Morphologic Parameters Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 54 _ I 0 I �s �s 0 _ = ai 3 L s s = v m d7 d7 m d7 d7 z 0m 0 = cn 0 L a a CO Min I Max Min I Max Min Max Min Max Stream Type - -- E /C5 - -- E /C5 Drainage Areal DA 0.023 0.023 0.013 0.013 ma. Bankfull Design Qbkf cfs 1.5 1.5 1 1 Discharge Cross - Section Features Bankfull Cross- Abkf SF 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.5 Sectional Area Average Bankfull vbkf fps 1.7 1.3 1.3 0.8 Velocity Bankfull Width wbkf feet 3.0 3.3 3.0 4.0 w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 54 w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 55 0 � R _ o I �s,� �Ce s= y s l eas CO gas CO p 3 L s 3 v d7 d7 d7 d7 CO Min I Max Min I Max Min Max Min Max Mean Depth at dbkf feet 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Bankfull Bankfull Width wbkf /dbkf 9.0 10.0 10.0 12.0 10.0 10.5 10.0 12.0 to Depth Ratio Maximum Depth at dmax feet 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 Bankfull Maximum dmax /dbk 1.4 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.7 Depth Ratio f Bank Height BHR 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 Ratio Floodprone wfpa feet 40 60 100 300 40 60 100 300 Area Width Entrenchment ER 13.3 20.0 30.3 90.9 33.3 100.0 22.2 66.7 Ratio Slope feet/ Valley Slope Svalley foot 0.0400 0.0400 0.0101 0.0101 0.0207 0.0207 0.0113 0.0113 feet/ Channel Slope Schannel 0.0171 0.0216 0.0078 0.0096 0.0096 0.0163 0.0024 0.0077 foot Shallow Features feet/ Shallow Slope Sriffle foot 0.0257 0.0648 0.0109 0.0308 0.0144 0.0489 0.0002 0.0074 Shallow Slope Ratio Srif /Schan 1.5 3.0 1.4 3.2 1.5 3.0 1.4 3.2 Pool Features feet/ Pool Slope Spool foot 0.0000 0.0086 0.0000 0.0038 0.0010 0.0065 0.0002 0.0031 Pool Slope Spool/ 0.10 0.40 0.10 0.40 0.10 0.40 0.10 0.40 Ratio Schan Pool -to -Pool Lp -p feet 15 24 5 23 15 24 5 22 Spacing Pool Spacing Lp -p /wbkf 4.9 8.0 1.6 7.0 4.9 8.0 1.6 7.0 Ratio Maximum Pool Depth at dpool feet 0.5 1.1 0.4 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.5 1.0 Bankfull Pool Depth Ratio dpool /dbkf 1.3 3.3 1.3 3.3 1.3 3.3 1.3 3.3 Pool Width at wpool feet 3.0 4.5 3.3 5.0 3.0 4.2 4.5 5.8 Bankfull w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 55 1. High slope reaches were not classified according to the Rosgen classification system 2. Drainage areas of proposed channel differ from those of existing channels due to changes in alignment of receiving streams. Drainage areas were determined for multiple locations on proposed channels where reach breaks are designed. Table 16b. Design Morphologic Parameters Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site _ I 0 � R AI M s s o _= �s,� �Ce eas gas p s= y 3 L s s l 3 v CO d7 d7 CO d7 d7 �O CO �O CO �O m Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max CO - -- - -- E /C5 Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Pool Width Bankfull Design Qbkf cfs 1.5 Ratio wpool /wbkf 5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 Pool Cross - Sectional Area Apool SF 1.3 2.0 1.2 2.1 1.0 1.6 1.1 2.0 at Bankfull Pool Area Ratio Apool /Abkf 1.3 2.0 1.1 2.0 1.3 2.0 1.1 2.0 Pattern Features Sinuosity K 1.05 1.18 1.05 1.45 1.05 1.18 1.15 1.45 Belt Width wblt feet 4 9 4 26 4 9 6 36 Meander Width wblt /wbkf 1.3 3.0 1.3 8.0 1.3 3.0 1.3 8.0 Ratio Linear LW feet 20 46 9 50 20 46 12 68 Wavelength Linear Wavelength LW /wbkf 6.8 15.4 2.7 15.0 6.8 15.4 2.7 15.0 Ratio Meander Lm feet 24 51 10 56 24 51 14 77 Length Meander Lm /wbkf 8.0 17.0 3.0 17.0 8.0 17.0 3.0 17.0 Length Ratio Radius of Rc feet 5 14 5 16 5 14 7 22 Curvature Radius of Rc/ wbkf 1.7 4.5 1.5 4.8 1.7 4.5 1.5 4.8 Curvature Ratio 1. High slope reaches were not classified according to the Rosgen classification system 2. Drainage areas of proposed channel differ from those of existing channels due to changes in alignment of receiving streams. Drainage areas were determined for multiple locations on proposed channels where reach breaks are designed. Table 16b. Design Morphologic Parameters Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site W Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 56 C s SIN s AI M s s a+ ca _= V s= V s= V L= z OC d OC CO �O CO �O CO �O m Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Stream Type' - -- - -- E /C5 E /C5 Drainage Areal DA ml. 0.026 0.065 0.102 0.186 Bankfull Design Qbkf cfs 1.5 2 3 5 Discharge W Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 56 w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 57 C �Irl SIN AIM a+ ca :Lj Z i m Z CO OC m OC m OC �O �O �O Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Cross - Section Features Bankfull Cross- Abkf SF 1.0 1.5 2.5 5.9 Sectional Area AverageBankful vbkf fps 1.7 1.4 1.4 0.9 1 Velocity Bankfull Width wbkf feet 3.0 4.0 5.4 9.2 Mean Depth at dbkf feet 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Bankfull Bankfull Width wbkf /dbkf 9.0 10.0 10.0 12.0 11.0 12.0 14.0 14.5 to Depth Ratio Maximum Depth at dmax feet 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.1 Bankfull Maximum Depth Ratio dmax /dbkf 1.4 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.2 1.7 1.4 1.7 Bank Height BHR 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.1 Ratio Floodprone wfpa feet 25 35 50 70 100 300 100 300 Area Width Entrenchment ER 8.3 11.7 12.5 17.5 18.5 55.6 10.9 32.6 Ratio Slope feet/ Valley Slope Svalley 0.0322 0.0322 0.0273 0.0273 0.0066 0.0066 0.0012 0.0023 foot feet/ Channel Slope Schannel 0.0108 0.0227 0.0096 0.0128 0.0025 0.0089 0.0007 0.0020 foot Shallow Features feet/ Shallow Slope Sriffle 0.0162 0.0681 0.0144 0.0384 0.0035 0.0285 0.0010 0.0065 foot Shallow Slope Ratio Srif /Schan 1.5 3.0 1.5 3.0 1.4 3.2 1.4 3.2 Pool Features feet/ Pool Slope Spool foot 0.0000 0.0091 0.000 0.0051 0.0000 0.0036 0.0001 0.0008 Pool Slope Spool/ 0.10 0.40 0.10 0.40 0.10 0.40 0.10 0.40 Ratio Schan Pool -to -Pool Lp -p feet 15 24 20 32 9 38 15 64 Spacing Pool Spacing Lp -p /wbkf 4.9 8.0 4.9 8.0 1.6 7.0 1.6 7.0 Ratio w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 57 1.1-ligh slope reaches were not classified according to the Rosgen classification system 2. Drainage areas of proposed channel differ from those of existing channels due to changes in alignment of receiving streams. Drainage areas were determined for multiple locations on proposed channels where reach breaks are designed. w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 58 C �Irl SIN AIM a+ ca :Lj p 3 i 3 i 3 i Z i m Z CO OC m OC an d �O �O �O Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Maximum Pool Depth at dpool feet 0.5 1.1 0.4 1.2 0.5 1.5 0.9 2.1 Bankfull Pool Depth dpool /dbkf 1.4 3.3 1.0 3.3 1.0 3.3 1.0 3.3 Ratio Pool Width at wpool feet 3.0 4.5 4.0 6.0 5.4 8.1 9.2 13.8 Bankfull Pool Width wpool /wbkf 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 Ratio Pool Cross - Sectional Area Apool SF 1.3 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.8 5.0 6.4 11.7 at Bankfull Pool Area Ratio Apool /Abkf 1.3 2.0 1.3 2.0 1.1 2.0 1.1 2.0 Pattern Features Sinuosity K 1.05 1.18 1.05 1.18 1.15 1.55 1.15 1.55 Belt Width wblt feet 4 9 5 12 7 43 12 74 Meander Width wblt /wbkf 1.3 3.0 1.3 3.0 1.3 8.0 1.3 8.0 Ratio Linear LW feet 20 46 27 62 15 81 25 138 Wavelength Linear Wavelength LW /wbkf 6.8 15.4 6.8 15.4 2.7 15.0 2.7 15.0 Ratio Meander Lm feet 24 51 32 68 16 92 28 156 Length Meander Lm /wbkf 8.0 17.0 8.0 17.0 3.0 17.0 3.0 17.0 Length Ratio Radius of Rc feet 5 14 6 18 8 26 14 44 Curvature Radius of Rc/ wbkf 1.5 4.5 1.5 4.5 1.5 4.8 1.5 4.8 Curvature Ratio 1.1-ligh slope reaches were not classified according to the Rosgen classification system 2. Drainage areas of proposed channel differ from those of existing channels due to changes in alignment of receiving streams. Drainage areas were determined for multiple locations on proposed channels where reach breaks are designed. w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 58 Table 16c. Design Morphologic Parameters Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 59 (A fC3t Rat R R W = d7 d7 d7 N-0 R d7 R Z IL U U U U Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Stream Type' E /C5 E /C5 E /C5 E /C5 Drainage Areal DA mi. 0.60 0.70 1.14 1.30 Bankfull Design Qbkf cfs 10 13 16 17 Discharge Cross - Section Features Bankfull Cross- Abkf SF 5.8 9.5 12.8 4.8 Sectional Area AverageBankfull vbkf fps 1.7 1.2 1.2 3.5 Velocity Bankfull Width wbkf feet 9.0 11.5 13.0 8.0 Mean Depth at dbkf feet 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.6 Bankfull Bankfull Width to wbkf /dbkf 14.0 14.5 14 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 Depth Ratio Maximum Depth at dmax feet 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.4 1.8 0.8 1.0 Bankfull Maximum Depth dmax /dbkf 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.7 1.3 1.7 Ratio Bank Height Ratio BHR 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 Floodprone Area wfpa feet 100 300 100 300 100 500 100 500 Width Entrenchment Ratio ER 11.1 33.3 8.7 26.1 7.7 38.5 12.5 62.6 Slope feet/ Valley Slope Svalley 0.0039 0.010 0.0025 0.0025 0.0004 0.0008 0.0264 0.0264 foot feet/ Channel Slope Schannel 0.0025 0.0087 0.0016 0.0022 0.0004 0.0008 0.0224 0.0251 foot Shallow Features feet/ Shallow Slope Sriffle 0.0036 0.0277 0.0023 0.0072 0.0007 0.0025 0.0377 0.0671 foot Shallow Slope Ratio Srif /Schan 1.4 3.2 1.4 3.2 1.4 3.2 1.5 3.0 Pool Features feet/ Pool Slope Spool 0.0003 0.0035 0.0002 0.0009 0.0001 0.0003 0.0025 0.0089 foot w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 59 1. High slope reaches were not classified according to the Rosgen classification system 2. Drainage areas of proposed channel differ from those of existing channels due to changes in alignment of receiving streams. Drainage areas were determined for multiple locations on proposed channels where reach breaks are designed. w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 60 _ r-N U( r-N U a) N I U *� I U N ++ 3 V - ++ W U + Yd U O = f7 O f7 O f7 d7 f7 Z R OC I R OC I R d7 OC R y OC U U U U Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Pool Slope Ratio Spool/ 0.10 0.40 0.10 0.40 0.10 0.40 0.10 0.40 Schan Pool -to -Pool Lp -p feet 14 63 18 81 21 91 39 64 Spacing Pool Spacing Ratio Lp -p /wbkf 1.6 7.0 1.6 7.0 1.6 7.0 4.9 8.0 Maximum Pool dpool feet 0.9 2.1 1.1 2.5 1.4 3.2 0.8 2.0 Depth at Bankfull Pool Depth Ratio dpool /dbkf 1.0 3.3 1.0 3.3 1.0 3.3 1.0 3.3 Pool Width at wpool feet 9.0 13.5 11.5 17.3 13.0 19.5 8.0 12.0 Bankfull Pool Width Ratio wpool /wbkf 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 Pool Cross - Sectional Area at Apool SF 6.2 11.3 10.4 19.0 14.0 25.5 6.2 9.5 Bankfull Pool Area Ratio Apool /Abkf 1.1 2.0 1.1 2.0 1.1 2.0 1.3 2.0 Pattern Features Sinuosity K 1.15 1.55 1.15 1.55 1.05 1.25 1.05 1.18 Belt Width wblt feet 12 72 15 92 17 65 10 40 Meander Width wblt /wbkf 1.3 8.0 1.3 8.0 1.3 5.0 1.3 5.0 Ratio Linear Wavelength LW feet 24 135 31 173 35 195 54 132 Linear Wavelength LW /wbkf 2.7 15.0 2.7 15.0 2.7 15.0 6.8 15.4 Ratio Meander Length Lm feet 27 153 35 196 39 221 64 136 Meander Length Lm /wbkf 3.0 17.0 3.0 17.0 3.0 17.0 8.0 17.0 Ratio Radius of Curvature Rc feet 14 43 17 55 20 62 12 36 Radius of Curvature Rc/ wbkf 1.5 4.8 1.5 4.8 1.5 4.8 1.5 4.5 Ratio 1. High slope reaches were not classified according to the Rosgen classification system 2. Drainage areas of proposed channel differ from those of existing channels due to changes in alignment of receiving streams. Drainage areas were determined for multiple locations on proposed channels where reach breaks are designed. w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 60 10.2 Designed Wet /and Type The proposed stream and wetland restoration project includes two distinct riparian wetland restoration zones. This does not include a headwater wetland feature planned for the impounded area at the top of Middle Branch for which no wetland credit is proposed. All areas proposed for wetland restoration are mapped as Prior Converted Wetlands by the NRCS (Appendix 6). The majority of the wetland restoration will occur adjacent to the stream restoration reaches on the west side of the property. This portion of the wetland restoration will account for 54.5 acres of wetlands restoration. The other zone includes 3.5 acres in a narrow corridor immediately adjacent to the mainstem of Devil's Racetrack Creek on the east side of the project. These two zones are depicted on Figures 9 and 10. Soil investigations for the wetland areas are described in detail in Section 6.3. The west riparian wetlands are adjacent to the mainstem of Devil's Racetrack Creek and the lower portions of Southwest Branch, Middle Branch, and Southeast Branch. There are three areas of delineated hydric soils immediately adjacent to one another on this portion of the site. The streams in this area are highly incised — existing bank height ratios range from 2.2 to 10.7 — which, in combination with extensive ditching across the site (Figure 2), increases the drainage effect on the surrounding historic wetlands. The ditches are variable in depth — A and B are the deepest with typical depths up to seven feet while typical depths for C, D, and E are two to three feet. The current plan for the site does not include filling ditch E due to adjacent landowners' objections. The drainage effect from the ditches and incised streams and the lack of surface water retention in the fields has impaired wetland hydrology and function. The bed elevation of each of these streams will be raised to restore the natural water table elevation and a natural over -bank flooding regime. The streams will be reconstructed in their most probable original valleys. Other drainage ditches on the site will also be filled (Figure 11) to eliminate their effect on draining the wetlands. These wetlands will be planted with native tree species appropriate for the mosaic of Coastal Plain small stream swamp and bottomland hardwood type of wetland ecosystems planned for the site. The groundwater modeling described in Section 6.2.1 indicates that the wetlands in this area will meet wetland criteria most years after the project is constructed. The wetland zone adjacent to Middle Branch is mapped as hydric soil however, as described in Section 5. 1, the valley along much of this stream was filled and graded out flat in the early 1980's to increase the farmable land on the property. The Middle Branch valley will be graded to match the most probable historic elevations based on information provided by a farmer who worked on the site during the time it was modified and review of the surveyed profile of the pond, dam, and channel downstream of the dam. The downstream portion of the graded valley includes a small section of the wetland restoration adjacent to Middle Branch. Although this small portion of the wetland zone will involve more significant grading than is typical with wetland restoration projects, the entire zone is considered to be restoration as the intent is to return this valley to historic conditions. Approximately 2.4 acres of wetlands will be graded along Middle Branch. The east riparian wetlands are also adjacent to an incised stream. The existing Devil's Racetrack Creek has bank height ratios of 2.6 to 4.3, indicating severe incision. This incised channel drains the adjacent historic wetlands. As part of the stream restoration, the channel bed in this area will be raised significantly so that the stream will have access to its floodplain and out -of -bank floods will occur fairly frequently. This activity will also serve to raise the water table significantly. The higher water table and frequent floods will provide the hydrology to maintain wetland conditions. The corridor through which the stream and wetlands will be restored has been highly manipulated within the past 100 years. The stream was drag -lined and spoil was used to create a berm along both side of the stream. Additional fill material, including a surface gravel layer, was used to construct a raised road bed extending from Devil's Racetrack Road to the Neuse River. Fill material will be removed from the roadway and existing dredge spoil berms and used to fill the existing stream. Grading depths have been designed to return the site to pre- disturbance elevations and uncover historic hydric soil surface layers. Soils analysis and modeling w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 61 results indicate that wetlands will be restored for approximately 1,200 feet extending downstream from Devil's Racetrack Road as shown on Figure 10. These wetlands will be planted with native tree species appropriate for the mosaic of Coastal Plain small stream swamp and bottomland hardwood type of wetland ecosystems planned for the site. The groundwater modeling described in Section 6.2.1 indicates that the wetlands in this area will meet wetland criteria most years after the project is constructed. 10.3 Target Buffer Communities The target communities for the restored and created wetlands and riparian buffer zones will be based on reference conditions, existing mature trees throughout the project area, comparison to vegetation listed for these community types in Shafale and Weakley (1990), and through consultation with native tree suppliers. The reference sites are the Johanna Creek stream and wetland reference site and the Scout Camp stream reference sites described in more detail in Section 8. Existing mature trees within the project area are described in Section 5.9. Bare root trees specified for planting are detailed in the construction plan set. 10.4 Stream Project and Design Justification Based on investigations of the project site watershed, the landscape surrounding the project, and nearby reference conditions in similar landscapes it is very likely that a small stream /wetland complex (Coastal Plain small stream swamp and bottomland hardwood ecosystem type) originally existed on this property. The property has been used for agriculture and timber production for decades. WEI staff interviewed a local farmer who once farmed the western side of the site. The farmer explained the dredging and filling activities that were conducted to prepare the site for agricultural use in the early 1980's. The details of the interview are explained in Section 5.1. The canal that is the mainstem of Devil's Racetrack Creek was excavated earlier. Aerial photos show that the road along the existing canal on the eastern portion of the site was constructed between 1959 and 1971. This is the most likely time when the dredging was conducted. The channelization of streams on the Devil's Racetrack site resulted in severely over - enlarged channels that are extremely deep in many locations. As can be clearly seen on aerial photos (Appendix 2), they have been relocated or redirected to maximize land available for row crop production. Stream valleys and other low areas were filled to raise wet areas and even out the fields. At the same time, the streams were straightened and the riparian vegetation was removed. The alterations of the site to promote farming resulted in complete elimination of the ecological function of this small stream /wetland complex. Specifically, functional losses at the site include degraded aquatic habitat, altered hydrology (related to loss of floodplain connection and lowered water table), and reduction of quality and amount of riparian wetland habitats and related water quality benefits. Ongoing bank erosion is occurring at some locations due to high, overly steep banks and lack of bank vegetation. The objectives described in Section 1 were partially developed to deal with the issues described in the paragraphs above. The key factors driving the need for this intervention are: • This site presents an opportunity to restore a large stream /wetland complex directly adjacent to the Neuse River to a naturally occurring community to create riparian and wetland habitat and improve water quality; • The stream channels, including multiple headwaters streams, are badly degraded and restoration will create aquatic habitat and further improve water quality to receiving waters; • Riparian buffers along stream corridors need reforestation for additional habitat and water quality benefits; and w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 62 • Devil's Racetrack Creek currently drops 10.5 ft over the drop inlet structure at the confluence with the Neuse River representing a significant barrier to passage of anadromous and other fish for spawning. Restoration will remove this barrier and restore natural migration patterns. These project goals are commensurate with the primary restoration goals for the Targeted Local Watershed in the 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) document: Wetlands restoration that contributes to the improvement of water quality downstream in the Neuse River estuary and Implementation of buffer and stream projects in headwaters. 10.5 Sediment Transport Ana /ysis A sediment transport analysis was performed for representative restoration reaches including Southeast Branch, Devil's Racetrack Creek (West), and Devil's Racetrack (East). In general, sediment transport analysis for stream restoration projects is performed to answer two questions: 1) What size bed material particles will become entrained at flows at or near the bankfull discharge (competence) and 2) Does the stream have the ability to pass the sediment load supplied to it (capacity). However, in sand bed channels the entire bed mobilizes at flows near and often well below bankfull, with the grains moving together as migrating bedforms such as ripples and dunes (Knighton, 1998). The more important question in regard to sediment transport in sand bed streams is that of capacity. Therefore, the focus of the sediment transport analysis for this project was to determine if the designed channels have the capacity to pass the sediment load supplied by their watersheds. A capacity analysis is much more difficult to perform and is prone to error. In order to perform the analysis, an estimate of sediment supply must be developed and compared with computation of the stream's ability or capacity to move the load. This analysis was performed for representative project reaches as described below. To begin an analysis of sediment supply a watershed assessment was performed (as described in Section 4.2). WEI staff performed a ground -based watershed reconnaissance, reviewed GIS land cover data, and analyzed a series of aerial photographs dating from 2009 back to the 1930's. The goal of the assessment was to determine the current condition of the watersheds and identify time periods when the watersheds underwent changes that would affect the sediment load such as development or land clearing. As described in Section 4.2, land cover within the watersheds has remained essentially the same for the last 60 or more years. The only exception to this is the project site itself which, according to available information, was cleared in the early 1980's. The only other development in the project watershed within the last 20 years includes the construction of the KOA campground adjacent to the site and a small plant nursery in the northwestern portion of the watershed prior to 1993, a small subdivision in the southwestern portion of the watershed between 1993 and 1999, and Four Oaks Middle School on the western edge of the watershed around 2005. Overall the watershed is only about 4% developed. The majority of land cover in the watershed is agricultural (40 %) and forest (39 %). The remaining 17% is managed herbaceous or shrubland. WEI staff also walked the mainstem of Devil's Racetrack Creek upstream of the project site. That portion of the stream is surrounded by woods for most of its length. It appears to have been straightened in the past but is stable. There do not appear to be any significant sediment accumulations in the channel. Because of the rural nature of the watershed, the stable land use, w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 63 and the lack of sediment accumulation in the streams on the site or upstream of the project area, the sediment load to the project streams is expected to be low. Because no sources of sediment were identified, a threshold channel design approach (Shields et al., 2003) will be used for each of the project reaches. This design approach is based on the concept that the morphology of the channels is not sensitive to sediment supply and channel migration and changes in slopes are not expected or desired. To validate the threshold design approach, a sediment modeling analysis was performed for representative design reaches. The sediment load of any watershed is difficult to determine and estimates are fraught with error. Load calculations performed with models such as the universal soil loss equation typically generate annual load estimates (e.g. tons per year) which are then difficult to use with a design discharge or a range of discharges. Therefore a sediment load estimate for the project watersheds was not developed with this type of model. Instead, the capacity of existing representative streams on the site (maximum load if channels are moving sediment through) was compared to the capacity of the proposed designs for the same representative streams. The rationale for this approach is: because sediment accumulation in the existing channels was not observed to be a problem, the existing streams are supply - limited or have the capacity to transport the loads coming to them. If the design reaches have the capacity to transport sediment equal or greater to the existing reaches, there is no reason to believe capacity would be insufficient for the design reaches. A HEC-RAS model was developed for three existing reaches and used to perform a sediment transport capacity analysis for the design bankfull discharges. Models of the proposed designs for the same project reaches were also developed and the results of the capacity analysis were compared. The reaches selected to represent the site include: • Devil's Racetrack (west) sta. 14 +78 to sta. 35 +03 • Devil's Racetrack (east) sta. 64 +92 to sta. 85 +12 • Southeast Branch sta. 311 +95 to sta. 326 +05. These reaches represent the range of stream sizes and slope conditions for the site and provide ample information on the mainstem of Devil's Racetrack Creek. The hydraulic design sediment transport analysis module was used to analyze sediment transport capacity in the existing and proposed channels. This module of HEC-RAS allows the user to input flow data, bed material data, and cross section and slope data and then choose from a variety of transport functions to analyze transport capacity. For this analysis, the three equations most appropriate for sand bed streams were selected: Engelund- Hanson, Larsen (Copeland), and Yang. While these equations are not expected to produce precise results, they provide an estimate of the existing channels' capacity that can be compared to that of the proposed channels calculated through the same methods. The results of the HEC- RAS capacity analysis for each existing and proposed design reach are summarized in Table 17. Table 17. Summary of Mean Sediment Transport Capacity of Design Reaches Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Reach Function Existing Proposed Reachwide Shallow Pool Reachwide Southeast Branch Engelund- Hansen (g /sec) 2,273 5,700 183 3,881 Laursen (Copeland) (g /sec) 2,436 2,315 71 1,575 w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 64 Reach J& Function Existing Proposed Reachwide Shallow Pool Reachwide Yang (g /sec) 1,574 2,482 87 1,692 Devil's Racetrack Creek (west) Engelund- Hansen (g /sec) 4,291 8,706 1,889 5,350 Laursen (Copeland) (g /sec) 17,137 27,603 6,151 17,042 Yang (g /sec) 11,348 23,081 4,921 14,141 Devil's Racetrack Creek (east) Engelund- Hansen (g /sec) 49 74 7 40 Laursen (Copeland) (g /sec) 1,297 4,349 343 2,346 Yang (g /sec) 583 1,750 61 905 As expected, the results of the sediment transport analysis summarized in Table 17 show that the different equations produce highly variable results. In all cases, the sediment transport in the shallows is much greater than in the pools (where more setting is expected). In general, the transport capacity of the proposed streams is equal to or slightly more than that of the existing channels, although in a few cases it is slightly less. Though these values are rough estimates, the results indicate that the proposed channels have the capacity to move at least as much sediment at the design bankfull discharge as the existing channels. Therefore, the proposed channels will move their sediment loads and any bed adjustments will most likely be in the form of scour. Grade control structures will be incorporated into the design to prevent scour. For more information on grade control, see Section 11.1. According to the results in Table 17, Devil's Racetrack Creek (east) has a significantly lower transport capacity than Devil's Racetrack (west). This is due to the lower slope of the east reach (both existing and proposed). The existing east reach has finer bed material than the west, indicating that more fines settle out on the east side. This is to be expected with the lower slope. While some accumulations of fine sediments have occurred along this reach, aggradation has not been observed to be a significant problem. 11.0 Project Implementation Summary The stream and wetland restoration will be constructed as described in this section. A full set of preliminary (60 %) design plans are included with this mitigation plan for review. 11.1 Site Grading, Structure Installation, and Other Project Related Construction The majority of the stream restoration elements of the project will be constructed as Priority 1 restoration in which the stream bed is raised so that the bankfull elevation will coincide with the existing floodplain. The cross sections will be constructed so that they are sized for the design discharge to fill the channels to the floodplain elevation. The cross sections of the larger, low - gradient reaches (North Branch, Devil's Racetrack Creek, and the downstream ends of Southwest Branch, Middle Branch, and Southeast Branch) will be well - defined. The cross sections of the higher - gradient reaches (the majority of Southwest Branch, Middle Branch, and Southeast Branch) will be less well - defined linear depressions on the floodplain. The sinuosity of each stream will be increased and the streams will meander through the floodplain to varying degrees. The low gradient streams will have a moderate to high sinuosity and will have irregular meander patterns similar to natural coastal plain streams. These reaches will also have natural Coastal Plain floodplain features including oxbows and meander scrolls. The higher - gradient reaches will have low sinuosity and meander patterns similar to the Scout East 1 and West 1 surveys. As described in Sections 5.1 and 10.2, some floodplain excavation will be performed to restore the expected original valley of Southeast and Middle Branch. The upper 131 feet of Southwest Branch will be Enhancement II and construction will include bank treatments and stabilization w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 65 only. Southwest Branch will transition from enhancement II to restoration through a 75 foot enhancement I zone where structures will be used to raise the grade of the channel in order to meet a Priority 1 restoration downstream. The streambed of the low gradient channels will vary between pools and shallow zones. Pools will be constructed in some meander bends, but unlike gravel bed channels, pools are not expected to form in every bend. Pools will also be constructed downstream of woody structures in straight sections of the channels. In the higher - gradient reaches, pools will be constructed at irregular intervals downstream of woody structures. Nearly all of the grade drop in these small channels will occur on the downstream end of these structures. As a result of the project, the floodplain will be more frequently inundated. Wetland hydrology will be improved by raising the channel beds. Wetland restoration is proposed in areas adjacent to the stream channels. As previously mentioned in Sections 5.1 and 10.2, sections of floodplain grading will be necessary on Southeast Branch and Middle Branch to restore the probable historic valley elevations. As previously discussed, WEI was unable to determine exact elevations of the historic valleys for these two reaches through soil core analyses. Grading depths to restore the natural valley elevations were determined through analysis of longitudinal profiles along the valley. For example, the original valley of Middle Branch was filled downstream of the pond to support the embankment. The grading depths in this area were determined by extending the downstream valley slope up- valley to the upstream limits of grading. Grading of these valleys will be completed in such a manner as to create a natural valley shape as opposed to a floodplain bench with consistent side slopes. The grading will vary in depth as needed but generally range from one to two feet. Creation of the headwater wetland feature will reduce the need to cut downstream of the embankment on Middle Branch (compared to restoring a stream channel through the pond bottom) so that only 2 feet of valley cut will be necessary. Less than one foot of cut will be excavated on downstream portions of Middle Branch and two feet to less than one foot on Southeast Branch. The deepest grading on Middle Branch is immediately downstream of the existing pond embankment which will be partially removed. In areas requiring the removal of topsoil, the topsoil will be stockpiled. These areas will be undercut by 6 inches and the topsoil will be replaced to achieve final grades and to create a suitable planting medium. Construction of Devil's Racetrack (East) will require the removal of spoil berms along both sides of the existing channel and removal of the raised roadbed throughout the work corridor including the Priority 1 section. In order to achieve the correct grades to avoid additional floodplain excavation on the upstream section of Devil's Racetrack (East), the existing 36 -inch reinforced concrete culvert under Devil's Racetrack Road will be replaced at a higher invert. The preliminary plan is to replace that culvert with four 30 -inch by 19 -inch elliptical reinforced concrete pipes. Floodplain grading will be necessary on a portion of Devil's Racetrack (East) and will result in Priority 2 restoration. For two sections, different depths of floodplain grading will be necessary. Beginning at station 65 +00 and extending downstream to station 101 +00, a moderate depth of floodplain grading will be necessary. The floodplain through this section will be excavated approximately one to three feet in depth from existing ground elevation and will be shaped into a wide valley with low side slopes similar to natural streams in the area. Beginning at station 101 +00, the slope will be increased to meet the grade of the channel that will connect Devil's w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 66 Racetrack Creek to the Neuse River. Floodplain excavation will be greater in this section with cut depths ranging from four to ten feet. No grading will be required to achieve the wetland restoration outside of the small stream valley restoration. Wetland hydrology will be restored by raising the inverts of the adjacent stream channels and filling drainage ditches. Wetland areas will be disked to increase surface roughness and better capture rainfall which will improve connection with the water table for groundwater recharge. Furrows will not exceed 6" to 9" in depth. Woody debris structures are common in small Coastal Plain streams and will be an important element of the stream restoration components of this project. Log and brush structures will be installed throughout all of the channels and will provide grade control, energy dissipation, and habitat. Log sill structures will be placed at all drops in the high - gradient channels. Log sills and brush will also be used as grade control in the low- gradient channels, although the drops in the streambeds of those channel will be more gradual throughout the alignment rather than at log sill structures only. Sections of the channel bed on the low- gradient, meandering streams will be seeded with native bed material to jump start the process of bed load movement through the system and provide a natural substrate from the completion of construction that otherwise might take months or years to form. The channel banks will also be armored with native materials from the site including root wads and brush toe features. These structures and revetments are shown on the preliminary design plans. 11.2 Natural Plant Community Restoration As a final stage of construction, riparian stream buffers and wetlands will be planted and restored with native trees and herbaceous plants. The target communities for the restored and created wetlands and riparian buffer zones will be based on reference conditions, existing mature trees throughout the project area, comparison to vegetation listed for these community types in Shafale and Weakley (1990), and through consultation with native tree suppliers. Stream banks will be stabilized with sod matting grown specifically for the purpose of establishing native grasses on the Devil's Racetrack site. The sod mats will be grown at a nearby location and will consist of a non - native Bermuda grass overseeded with a mix of native seed appropriate for the target community types. The purpose of the Bermuda is to bind the native seed together with a turf grass that will create a sod layer that can be harvested, rolled, transported to the site, and installed without breaking apart. Bermuda was selected over other turf grasses due to the fact that it is a low growing, non - allelapathic species and is relatively shade intolerant. This combination means that the Bermuda is unlikely to shade out the native species and will quickly disappear from the site as trees grow and shade this grass out. Permanent herbaceous seed will be placed on all other disturbed areas within the project easement. The stream banks will be planted with live stakes. Proposed permanent herbaceous species are shown in the plan set. Bare root trees will be planted throughout the project easement from the top of stream bank out through all riparian buffer and wetland zones. Species planted as bare roots will be spaced at an initial density of 520 plants per acre on a 12 -foot by 7 -foot spacing. The tree spacing will be established to allow for site maintenance for the purpose of increasing tree survival and growth rates. The site will be bush - hogged twice annually for the first three monitoring years through the 12 -foot spacing gap between the tree rows. Additionally, a band spray technique will be used to conduct one annual application of a pre- emergent herbicide along the tree rows. This maintenance approach will decrease herbaceous competition with the planted bare root seedlings allowing for improved tree survival and vigor. Bare root trees specified for planting are detailed in the construction plan set. w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 67 Live stakes will be planted on channel banks at 2 -foot to 3 -foot spacing on the outside of meander bends and 6 -foot to 8 -foot spacing on tangent sections. Point bars will not be planted with live stakes. Live stake species are detailed in the Construction plan set. 12.0 Maintenance Plan The site shall be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site shall be conducted a minimum of once per year throughout the post - construction monitoring period until performance standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site construction and may include the items included in Table 18. Table 18. Maintenance Plan Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Component/ Feature Maintenance through project close -out Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in- stream structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the channel. Areas where storm water and floodplain flows intercept the channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank Stream failures and head - cutting. Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted community. Annual mowing between tree rows and band sprays of pre- emergent along tree rows will be conducted for the first three monitoring years to control herbaceous competition. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species shall be controlled by mechanical and /or chemical methods. Any vegetation control requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and Vegetation regulations. Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree - blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and /or conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired Site boundary and /or replaced on an as- needed basis. Utility right -of -way within the site may be maintained only as allowed by Conservation Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights Utility Right -of -Way of way, or corridor agreements. The ford crossing is outside of the easement area and not subject to Ford Crossing maintenance. The road crossing is outside of the easement area and not subject to Road Crossing maintenance. Storm Water Management Device There are no stormwater management devices on the site. Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 68 13.0 Performance Standards The stream restoration performance criteria for the project site will follow approved performance criteria presented in the EEP Mitigation Plan Template (version 2.1, 09/01/2011), the EEP Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation (11/7/2011), and the Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003 by the USACE and NCDWQ. Annual monitoring and bi -annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished project. The stream and wetland restoration and enhancement sections of the project will be assigned specific performance criteria components for hydrology, vegetation, and morphology (streams only). Performance criteria will be evaluated throughout the seven year post - construction monitoring. If all performance criteria have been successfully met and two bankfull events have occurred during separate years, WEI may propose to terminate stream and /or vegetation monitoring. An outline of the performance criteria components follows. 13.1 Streams 13.1.1 Dimension Shallow section cross - sections on the restoration reaches should be stable and should show little change in bankfull area, maximum depth ratio and width -to -depth ratio. Shallow cross - sections should fall within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate Rosgen stream type (when applicable). If any changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of instability. Indicators of instability include a vertically incising thalweg or eroding channel banks. Changes in the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in the width -to -depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial action would not be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability. In order to monitor the channel dimension, two permanent cross - sections will be installed per 1,000 linear feet of stream restoration work, with shallow and pool sections in proportion to EEP guidance. Each cross - section will be permanently marked with pins to establish its location. An annual cross - section survey will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg. It is important to note that in sand bed channels pools and bed forms (ripples, dunes, etc.) may migrate over time as a natural function of the channel hydraulics. These sorts of bed changes do not constitute a problem or indicate a need for remedial actions. 13.1.2 Pattern and Profile Longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven year monitoring period unless other indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical and lateral instability. As mentioned above, migration of pools and bed forms are expected and do not require remedial action. Stream pattern and profile will be assessed visually as described below. 13.1.3 Photo Documentation Photographs should illustrate the site's vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis. Cross - section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of persistent bars within the channel or vertical incision. Grade control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected. Reference photos will also be taken for each of the vegetation plots. w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 69 Photographs will be taken once a year to visually document stability for seven years following construction. Permanent markers will be established so that the same locations and view directions on the site are monitored each year. Photos will be used to monitor restoration and enhancement stream reaches as well as vegetation plots. Lateral reference photos should show a stable cross - section with no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. The reference photo transects will be taken of both banks at each permanent cross - section. A survey tape pulled across the section will be centered in the photographs of the bank. The photographer will make every effort to maintain the same area in each photo over time. Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or vertical incision. The photographer will make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time. Grade control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected. Photographs will be taken at representative grade control structures along the restored stream. The photographer will make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time. Reference photos will also be taken for each of the vegetation plots. One representative digital photo of each vegetation plot will be taken on the same day vegetative cover estimates are conducted. 13.1.4 Substrate Pebble count procedures will not be conducted for this project due to the sand bed nature of the streams. 13.1.5 Stream Hydrology Two bankfull flow events must be documented on the restoration and enhancement reaches within the seven -year monitoring period. The two bankfull events must occur in separate years. Stream monitoring will continue until success criteria in the form of two bankfull events in separate years have been documented. Consistent flow must be documented in the smaller drainage area streams on the project site including Southwest Branch, Middle Branch, and Southeast Branch. Under normal circumstances stream flow must be documented to occur every year for at least 30 consecutive days during the seven year monitoring period. Stream flow must also be documented to occur intermittently in all months other than July through September of each monitoring year. 13.1.6 Macroinvertebrate5 Macroinvertebrates will be assessed prior to beginning restoration activities to establish a baseline for population diversity and abundance. The final performance standard will be an increase in diversity and abundance by the end of the seventh year of monitoring. 13.2 Vegetation The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the riparian corridor along restored and enhanced reaches and within the wetland restoration areas at the end of the required monitoring period (year seven). The interim measure of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of the third monitoring year and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of monitoring. Planted vegetation must average 10 feet in height in each plot at the end of the seventh year of monitoring. If this performance standard is met by Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 70 year five and stem density is trending towards success (i.e., no less than 260 five year old stems /acre), monitoring of vegetation on the site may be terminated provided written approval is provided by the USACE in consultation with the NC Interagency Review Team. The extent of invasive species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the required monitoring period (year five or seven). It is expected that vegetation in the power line easements will be controlled by the power company. Therefore, vegetation in these areas is not expected to meet performance criteria. As shown in Table 15, mitigation credits for these areas will be reduced by 75% due to the expectation of maintenance by the power company. 13.3 Wet /ands The final performance standard for wetland hydrology will be a free groundwater surface within 12 inches of the ground surface for 8.5 percent of the growing season, which is measured on consecutive days under typical precipitation conditions. This performance standard was determined through model simulations of post restoration conditions and comparison to reference wetland systems. A detailed discussion of the modeling approach to determining this performance standard as well as definitions and determinations of a target hydroperiod are included in section 6.2 of this report. If a particular gauge does not meet the performance standard for a given monitoring year, rainfall patterns will be analyzed and the hydrograph will be compared to that of the reference wetlands to assess whether atypical weather conditions occurred during the monitoring period. Figure 12 shows the proposed post - construction locations of groundwater monitoring gauges across the project site. 14.0 Monitoring Plan Annual monitoring data will be reported using the EEP Monitoring Report template (version 1.3, 01/15/2010). The monitoring report shall provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends, population of EEP databases for analysis, research purposes, and assist in decision making regarding close -out. The monitoring period will extend seven years for stream and hydrology assessments beyond completion of construction or until performance criteria have been met. Project monitoring requirements are listed in more detail in Table 19. All survey will be tied to grid. Table 19. Monitoring Requirements Devils Racetrack Creek Mitigation Site Iry Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 71 Quantity/ Length by Reach Monitoring Parameter Frequency Notes Feature SW Middle SE North DRC DRC RW RW Br. Br. Br. Br. West East West East Riffle Cross 1 2 3 2 5 6 n/a n/a Annual Sections Dimension Pool Cross 1 1 3 2 5 5 n/a n/a Annual 1 Section Pattern Pattern n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Annual Longitudinal 2 Profile Profile n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Annual Reach wide Substrate (RW) Riffle n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Annual (RF) 100 pebble count Hydrology Crest Gage 1 1 1 1 1 1 n/a n/a Annual 3 Iry Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 71 1. Cross - sections will be permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg. 2. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during bi- annual site visits. 3. Device will be inspected quarterly or semi - annually, evidence of bankfull will be documented with a photo. 4. Device will set to record stage once every hour. Device will be inspected and downloaded semi - annually. 5. Vegetation monitoring will follow CVS protocols. 6. Sampling will be performed using NCDWQ Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates, 3uly 2006. 7. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped. 8. Locations of fence damage, vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped. 9. Permanent markers will be established so that the same locations and view directions on the site are monitored. 14.1 Addition/ Monitoring Detai /s Vegetation Vegetation monitoring plots will be installed and evaluated within the restoration and enhancement areas to measure the survival of the planted trees. The number of monitoring quadrants required is based on the EEP monitoring guidance documents (version 1.3, 11/15/2010). The size of individual quadrants will be 100 square meters for woody tree species and shrubs. Vegetation assessments will be conducted following the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation (2006). The initial baseline survey will be conducted within 21 days from completion of site planting and used for subsequent monitoring year comparisons. The first annual vegetation monitoring activities will commence at the end of the first growing season, during the month of September. The restoration and enhancement sites will then be evaluated each subsequent year between June 1 and September 31. Species composition, density, and survival rates will be evaluated on an annual basis by plot and for the entire site. Individual plot data will be provided and will include diameter, height, density, vigor, damage (if any), and survival. Planted woody stems will be marked annually as needed and given a coordinate, based off of a known origin, so they can be found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference between the previous year's living planted stems and the current year's living planted stems. 15.0 Long -Term Management Plan Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT) the site will be transferred to the NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program. This parry shall be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 72 Quantity/ Length by Reach Monitoring Parameter Frequency Notes Feature SW Middle SE North DRC DRC RW RW Br. Br. Br. Br. West East West East Hydrology Transducer 1 1 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Annual 4 Hydrology Groundwater n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 26 2 Quarterly Gages Vegetation CVS Level 2 2 2 3 3 6 7 25 3 Annual 5 Macroinvertebrates DWQ 1 1 1 1 1 1 n/a n/a Years 2, 4, 6 Standard I & 7 Exotic and nuisance Annual 7 vegetation Project Boundary Annual 8 Reference Photos Photographs 6 9 14 11 26 28 n/a n/a Annual 9 1. Cross - sections will be permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg. 2. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during bi- annual site visits. 3. Device will be inspected quarterly or semi - annually, evidence of bankfull will be documented with a photo. 4. Device will set to record stage once every hour. Device will be inspected and downloaded semi - annually. 5. Vegetation monitoring will follow CVS protocols. 6. Sampling will be performed using NCDWQ Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates, 3uly 2006. 7. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped. 8. Locations of fence damage, vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped. 9. Permanent markers will be established so that the same locations and view directions on the site are monitored. 14.1 Addition/ Monitoring Detai /s Vegetation Vegetation monitoring plots will be installed and evaluated within the restoration and enhancement areas to measure the survival of the planted trees. The number of monitoring quadrants required is based on the EEP monitoring guidance documents (version 1.3, 11/15/2010). The size of individual quadrants will be 100 square meters for woody tree species and shrubs. Vegetation assessments will be conducted following the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation (2006). The initial baseline survey will be conducted within 21 days from completion of site planting and used for subsequent monitoring year comparisons. The first annual vegetation monitoring activities will commence at the end of the first growing season, during the month of September. The restoration and enhancement sites will then be evaluated each subsequent year between June 1 and September 31. Species composition, density, and survival rates will be evaluated on an annual basis by plot and for the entire site. Individual plot data will be provided and will include diameter, height, density, vigor, damage (if any), and survival. Planted woody stems will be marked annually as needed and given a coordinate, based off of a known origin, so they can be found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference between the previous year's living planted stems and the current year's living planted stems. 15.0 Long -Term Management Plan Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT) the site will be transferred to the NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program. This parry shall be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 72 conservation easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed restrictions shall be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party. The Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program currently houses NCEEP stewardship endowments within the non - reverting, interest - bearing Conservation Lands Stewardship Endowment Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account is governed by North Carolina General Statue GS 113A- 232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used only for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable. The NCDENR Stewardship Program intends to manage the account as a non - wasting endowment. Only interest generated from the endowment funds will be used to steward the compensatory mitigation sites. Interest funds not used for those purposes will be re- invested in the Endowment Account to offset losses due to inflation. 16.0 Adaptive Management Plan Upon completion of site construction WEI will implement the post - construction monitoring protocols previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described previously in this document. If, during the course of annual monitoring it is determined the site's ability to achieve site performance standards are jeopardized, WEI will notify the NCEEP of the need to develop a Plan of Corrective Action. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized WEI will: 1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions. 2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as necessary and /or required by the NCEEP and /or USACE. 3. Obtain other permits as necessary. 4. Implement the Corrective Action Plan. 5. Provide the NCEEP a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the extent and nature of the work performed. 17.0 Financial Assurances Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program's In -Lieu Fee Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources has provided the US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund projects to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by NCEEP. This commitment provides financial assurance for all mitigation projects implemented by the program. w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 73 18.0 References Dalrymple, Tate, 1960. Flood- Frequency Analysis. U.S. Geological Survey Water - Supply Paper 1543 - A. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 80 p. Doll, B.A., Dobbins, A.D., Spooner, J., Clinton, DR, and Bidelspach, D.A., 2003. Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for the Rural North Carolina Coastal Plain. Knighton, David, 1998. Flvial Forms and Processes. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 383 pp. Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), 2011. Web Soil Survey. hltp://websollsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/qpp/HomePage.htm North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 2009. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. hM?://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/Ts/bpuibasin/neuse/2009 North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2011. Surface Water Classifications. hitp://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/Ts/csu/classifications North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 2010. Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities. (http: / /www.nceep. net / services /restplans/ FINAL %20RBRP %2ONeuse %2020111207 %2000 RRECTED.pdf North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 2009. Mineral Resources. http: / /www. _geology.enr. state. nc. us / Mineral% 20resources /mineralresources.html North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), 2009. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Database, Johnston County, NC. http:/ /149.168.1.196 /nhp /county.html North Carolina State University (NCSU), 2010. DramMod Related Publications. Accessed May 10, 2010, at: http: / /www.bae.ncsu.edu /soil water /drainmod /drainmod _papers.html #wetland Lagasse, P.F., Schall, J.D., Johnson, F., Richardson, E.V., Richardson, J.R., and Chang, F., 2001. Stream Stability at Highway Structures, Second Edition. U.S. Department of Transportation, Report No. F14WA -IP -90 -014, HEC- 20 -ED -2. Washington, DC.: Federal Highway Administration, 132 p. Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169 -199. Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books. Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, 3rd approx. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. Shields, D. F., Copeland, R. R, Klingman, P. C., Doyle, M. W., and Simon, A. 2003. Design for Stream Restoration. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 129(8): 575 -582. Skaggs, R. W. 1980. DramMod Reference Report: Methods for design and evaluation of drainage -water management systems for soils with high water tables. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 329 pp. w Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 74 Soil Conservation Service (SCS), 1994. Johnston County Soil Survey. http: / /soildatafnart.nres.usda.gov /Manuscripts/NC 101 /0 /Johnston.pdf Sweet, W.V. and Geratz, J.W., 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and Recurrence Intervals for North Carolina's Coastal Plain. Journal of the American Water Resources Assosiation. 39(4):861 -871. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y -87 -1. Vicksburg, MS. 143 pp. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS), 1994. Soil Survey of Johnston County, North Carolina. Accessed September 22, 2011 at: http://solls.usda.gov/survey/online surveys /north_carolina / United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2006. Assessing Stream Channel Stability at Bridges in Physiographic Regions. Publication no. FHWA- HRT -05 -072. McLean, VA.: Federal Highway Administration Office of Infrastructure Research and Development, 147 p. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2008. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal Species of Concern and Candidate Species, Johnston County, NC. http://www.fivs.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html Weaver, J.C., Feaster, T.D., and Gotvald, A.J., 2009. Magnitude and Frequency of Rural Floods in the Southeastern United States, through 2006: Volume 2, North Carolina. U.S. Geological Scientific Investigation Report 2009 -5158. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 111 p. Wilcock, P., et al., 2009. Sediment Transport Primer: Estimating Bed - Material Transport in Gravel Bed Rivers. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS- GTR -226. Fort Collins, Co: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 78 p. Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan Page 75