20140547 Ver 1_Technical Proposal_20130222

Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C.
O
O
O
z
601 East Stream Restoration Project
F WJ
To Provide Stream Mitigation in the Yadkin River Basin
.far
a ..
Cataloging Unit 03040105
RFP #16-004110

601 EAST STREAM RESTORATION SITE
Part 5:
5.0 Technical Approach
5.1 Project Goals & Objectives
The goal of this project is to restore a degraded
stream to a naturally functioning state on the project
site. The project will provide ecological uplift to the
site by restoring the stream to an appropriate
channel pattern, profile and dimension.
The restoration goals for this project to:
• Improve water quality with the construction of
stable stream banks, establishment of protective
buffers and implementation of best management
practices to reduce sediment.
• Improve the stream function and habitat by
connecting the channelized and incised stream
to its floodplain.
• Restore long -term stability with the restoration of
channel pattern, profile, and dimension.
• Improve in- stream habitat with the installation of
structures that will provide pool enhancement,
shelter, and habitat for aquatic species.
The project objectives will include:
• Restoration of 13.31 acres of stream buffer to
control sediment transport from the farmed
floodplain.
• Installation of Best Management Practices
(BMP's) to provide controlled stable crossings of
the stream and sediment management upstream
of the project.
• Restoration of 2,956 linear feet of stream with
Priority I restoration in order to raise the stream
elevation, reconnect the floodplain, and restore
pattern, profile and re- establish channel
dimension.
• Enhancement of 1,239 linear feet of stream by
adjusting the stream pattern and dimension.
Ecological Benefits will include:
• Improvement of nutrient removal from adjacent
farming practices through the restoration of
riparian buffers.
• Reduction of water temperatures through the
planting of trees and shrubs along the stream
corridor.
• Improvement of habitat for two populations of
freshwater mussels documented to occur in
Lanes Creek just downstream of US 601,
Savannah iilliput (Toxolasma pullus) and Carolina
creekshell (Villosa vaughniana), both state listed
and Federal Species of Concern (FSC), by improved
water quality.
5.2 Protect Description
The 601 East Restoration Site is located approximately
10 miles southeast of Monroe and 0.25 miles east of
the intersection of US 601 and Landsford Road (NC
1005) in Union County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The
stream is named Tanyard Branch and is a tributary to
Lanes Creek, part of the Yadkin River Basin. The site is
located within the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) sub -basin 03 -04 -14 and local HUC
03040105081010, which is an EEP targeted
watershed. The site is bisected by Landsford Road
with the upstream portion to the south (Figure 1).
Tanyard Branch is not classified by NCDWQ; however,
Lanes Creek is classified as water supply class, WS -V,
upstream of the Marshville Water Supply Dam and is
listed as a 303(d) stream (NCDWQ 2006).
The north and south parcels of the site can be
accessed from Landsford Road. As evidenced from the
1969 aerial there has been significant farming
adjacent to the stream in which minimal narrow buffers
have been present for many years.
5.2.1 Existing Conditions
5.2.1.1 Intermittent Reach
The restoration project will begin with the intermittent
section of a first order stream. The channel scored a
26.5 on the DWQ Stream Classification rating sheet
which is included in the Appendix.
The Bc /G type channel has bed form features of riffles
and pools yet is devoid of vegetation. The stream
conditions have
changed within the
intermittent stream
segment of the project
since our first
observations made in
July of 2008. The
channel remained in a
similar condition from
2008 through March of
2010. Over the last 9
months of 2010 the
Beginning of the intermittent
stream
23

601 EAST STREAM RESTORATION SITE
intermittent channel has down cut significantly and
the sediment transported downstream has impacted
approximately 765 feet of the perennial channel. A
large head cut is located approximately 270 feet
north of the beginning of the intermittent stream
reach. The intermittent stream ends approximately
50 feet south of the beginning of the perennial
stream as determined prior to the impacts in 2010.
The intermittent channel
length from the large
head cut to the sediment
blockage in the channel
is 250 linear feet. The
channel bank height
ratios range from 2 to 3
below the head cut and
are from 1.2 to 1.5
above the head cut. The Large head cut in the
intermittent channel is intermittent channel.
lacking vegetation and is currently being planted in
row crops to the top of the channel banks. All of the
intermittent stream length will be included in this
project.
5.2.1.2 Reach A
Reach A begins at the head of the perennial stream
located approximately 1,950 feet south of Landsford
Road. The reach scored 33.5 on the DWQ Stream
Classification rating sheet dated 7/15/2008
included in the Appendix. Green frog (Rana
clamitans) tadpoles and adults were found
throughout this section of the channel. Additionally,
an unknown species of right- handed snails, a
perennial indicator, were found throughout.
No wooded
buffer exists
along the existing
stream banks
throughout reach
A. The adjacent
land is currently
being utilized for
row crops
planted within
a distance of 5 Beginning of Perennial Stream documented
to 15 feet from July 2008 and reconfirmed January 2010.
the top of each stream bank. The existing stream
runs through the center of the valley with very little
pattern. The drainage area to the head of the
perennial stream is 0.13 square miles.
The watershed consists of rural farmland. Field rock
spans the channel width forming check dams at
various locations within this upper stream reach. These
check dams were created when the fields were cleared
to slow the flow of water through the stream. The
existing stream slope is steep, 1.8 %, in this upper
segment to the existing buffered reach 1,040 feet
below.
The existing vegetation along the channel is contained
within a narrow band of channel and eroded floodplain.
The vegetation consists of cattails (Typha latifolia),
spike rush (Eleocharis obtusa), arrow -arum (Peltandra
virginica), and duckweed (Lemna sp.).
The stream classifies as an entrenched Bc Type
channel with bank height ratios ranging from 1.5 to 3
for the majority of the stream length upstream of
Landsford Road. The channel at the head of the reach
is the least incised, with a bank height ratio of 1.5. The
stream has been impacted by loss of stream buffers,
straightening, placement of rock obstructions, and
farming practices.
Due to the large amount of sediment transported from
incision on the intermittent
channel directly upstream,
the perennial stream form
identification completed in
January of 2011 relocated
the beginning of the
perennial stream 765 feet
downstream from the
original location. The
existing field rock spanning
the channel throughout the
reach greatly contributed
Original location of start of to the channel filling with
perennial stream currently filled
with sediment sediment and changing the
perennial stream origin
location. Additionally, due to the time of year, stream
biology indicators were weak or absent in the impacted
area.
5.2.1.3 Reach B
Reach B is a short segment of stream located
approximately 1,040 linear feet downstream from the
head of the perennial stream. The stream in this
location classifies as a E type channel and has good
pattern with wooded buffers containing mature
hardwood trees within the floodplain on both banks.
Vegetation includes laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia),
24

601 EAST STREAM RESTORATION SITE
winged elm (Ulmus alata), blackberry (Rubus sp.),
common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans). An existing pump house is
located in this area. This wooded stream buffer
extends through a 200 foot stream reach. The
channel in this
area is incised
approximately 2
to 2.5 feet. Due
to this incision,
the banks are
steep and are
eroding. This
wooded section
of stream marks
a change in the
existing stream Reach B.
slope. The slope of the channel upstream is much
steeper at 1.8% than the channel segment below at
0.9 %.
5.2.1.4 Reach C
Downstream of
Reach B the
channel becomes
wide and
vegetated with the
invasive exotic
parrot feather
(Myriophyllum
aquaticum) in Reach C.
addition to the previously listed species. The channel
slope in this segment reduces to 0.9 %. The channel
is filled with sediment, which forms a mucky
substrate, concealing the channel pattern and form.
Row crop production occurs adjacent to the stream
banks. Reach C continues approximately 700 feet
downstream to Landsford Road.
5.2.1.5 Reach D
The stream flows into a 30 inch culvert under
Landsford Road and continues north as a E type
channel through a substantially wooded buffer for
approximately 1100 feet. The vegetation within this
buffer includes the previously listed species in
addition to common greenbrier, , winged elm, willow
oak (Quercus phellos), persimmon (Diospyros
virginiana), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), joe pye weed
(Eupatorium purpureum), mulberry (Morus sp.), red
maple (Acer F
rubrum), sweet
gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), and ,
green ash
(Fraxinus
pennsylvanica).
The invasive
exotics Japanese
stilt grass
(Microstegium Reach D
vimineum), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and
kudzu (Pueraria montana) are also present. The
buffer extends from 50 to 100 feet on the western
side of the stream. The eastern buffer is limited with
a 10 to 20 foot existing width. In the upper end of the
wooded area an earthen berm is located on the
western side of the stream and the western
floodplain rises in elevation at a quicker rate than the
floodplain to the east.
5.2.1.6 Reach E
At the end of the wooded stream reach D a tributary
enters the stream from the east. Just below the
tributary the stream is culverted and has been
diverted from its original channel location. The
existing stream culvert crossing provides access to
farm fields to the east and west of the stream. The
original stream path turned to the west. The
abandoned channel is still visible on site.
Approximately 200 linear feet of the old channel has
been filled and is currently under crop production.
The abandoned channel is close to bankfull
conditions at the top of the reach however it
becomes increasingly incised forming a G type
channel until it reaches a channel depth of 6 feet at
the confluence with
Lanes Creek. The {`
existing channel
has steep banks y
with limited
vegetation. The_ +.
diverted channel
provides a direct r F"
route to Lanes
'i
Creek through the
agricultural farm Reach E
fields. The lower half of the relocated channel has a
wooded buffer to the north and east. Beavers are
present in the wooded reach of this channel.
25

601 EAST STREAM RESTORATION SITE
5.2.2 Geology and Soils
North Carolina is divided into a variety of geologic
belts. The site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt.
This region extends north to Virginia, through the
Carolinas, and into eastern Georgia. The Carolina
Slate Belt is characterized by rocks originally
deposited by volcanic activity and sedimentation that
then when through low -grad metamorphism resulting
in a slatey cleavage.
Mapped soils onsite are:
• BaB - Baden channery silt loam, 2 -8% slopes
• BaC - Baden channery silt loam, 8 -15% slopes
• BdB2 - Baden channery silty clay loam, 2 -8%
slopes, eroded
• ChA - Chewacla silt loam, 0 -2% slopes, fre-
quently flooded
• CmB - Cid
• MhA - Misenheimer -Cid complex, 0 -3% slopes
• TaB - Tatum gravelly silt loam, 2 -8%
• TbB2- Tatum gravelly silty clay loam, 2 -8%
• TbC2- Tatum gravelly silty clay loam, 8 -15 %,
Eroded
5.2.3 Cultural Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was
visited on July 25, 2008, to review whether any
properties eligible to be listed on the National
Register of Historic Places or significant archeological
areas were located on the site or within a 1 mile
radius. No sites were found within the project
boundary but one site was found within 1 mile: the
Harrison Lee House. It is not anticipated that stream
restoration activities will have any impact on this
property.
5.2.4 Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been or
are in the process of decline due to either natural
forces or their inability to coexist with human
activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended)
requires that any action likely to adversely affect a
species classified as federally protected, be subject
to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
( USFWS). Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service website (last
updated on January 31, 2008) was consulted to
obtain a listing of all threatened and endangered
species for Union County. There are three federally
endangered species listed for Union County, two plants
and a freshwater mussel (Table 5.2). The entire 601
East site has been under intensive agricultural use for
an extended period of time making it unlikely that
either of the plants occur on site. The stream is in
such a degraded condition that the presence of the
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorate) is also
unlikely. Prior to any restoration activities, the site will
be investigated to determine if any habitat exists. A
Section 7 ESA clearance will be obtained from USFWS
prior to any restoration activities.
Table 5.2. Federally Protected Species Listed for Union
County, NC
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Carolina heelsplitter
Lasmigona decorate
E
Michaux's sumac
Rhus michauxii
E
Schweinitz's sunflower
Helianthus schweinitzii
E
A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) digital database of rare plants,
animals, and natural areas, for records of threatened
and endangered species or federally designated
habitat found within one mile of the project site was
also conducted on July 23, 2008. No element
occurrences were revealed.
5.2.5 Floodplain Compliance
The stream is not in a regulated FEMA floodplain.
5.2.6 Other Site Constraints
There exists a power distribution line belonging to
Union Power Cooperative on the north side of
Landsford Road. These utilities will not present a
problem for design or construction as they are located
within the roadway right -of -way and will not be
disturbed by the restoration project. No other utilities
exist on the site. The stream is not within 5 miles of an
airport.
5.3 Project Development
5.3.1. Intermittent Reach
Enhancement I is proposed for the first 255 feet of
intermittent stream segment where the stream slope
will be improved through improved stream pattern. The
stream bank height ratios warrant enhancement in this
stream segment. The buffers will be re- established to a
width of 50 feet on either side of the stream banks.
The enhancement of the buffers and stream banks will
stabilize the stream pattern, provide habitat and
0

601 EAST STREAM RESTORATION SITE
shade, and reduce sediment import into the stream
from adjacent land use. Structures will be
incorporated into the enhancement to preserve the
stream profile in these highly erodible soils.
A large head cut has occurred in the stream and has
affected 230 feet of channel downstream. The
restoration approach for this stream segment will be
restoration of 255 feet of stream in order to modify
the stream pattern, profile, and dimension. The
restoration will reconnect the recently incised stream
to its original floodplain providing functional uplift.
The existing bank height ratios of 2 to 3 will be
reduced to 1 with the restoration. Structures will be
utilized in this segment to stabilize the stream bed.
The remaining intermittent stream length, 175 feet,
bank height ratios reduce significantly. Therefore
enhancement I is proposed to restore the channel
dimension and pattern as it ties into the perennial
stream start location.
5.3.2. Reach A
Due to the sediment import in the upper reach of the
perennial channel the stream incision has reduced.
The restoration approach for the beginning of the
perennial stream 660 feet will consist of
Enhancement I where the stream's pattern and
dimension will be restored. This restoration approach
is appropriate as this area has lower bank height
ratios. The remaining length of Reach A, 345 feet,
will be restored utilizing a Rosgen Priority 1
approach. The stream will remain in the central valley
location; however, the stream's pattern, profile, and
dimension will be changed to reflect a stream
appropriate for the given valley and watershed
conditions. The longitudinal profile will be elevated to
allow for bankfull flows to access the existing
floodplain. The stream slope is at its maximum
within this stream segment. Constructed riffles and
grade control structures will be utilized to maintain
the channel's restored vertical alignment. The
additional sinuosity added in the designed channel
will also reduce the stream slope.
A full restoration approach is warranted throughout
this segment because of stream incision ranging
from 1.5 to 2.2 feet, impacts due to straightening,
channel dimension impacts due to the lack of
vegetation, and rock obstructions placed within the
channel.
The ecological uplift will reconnect the stream to its
floodplain and restore stream function and habitat,
provide floodplain buffers to reduce sediment import,
restore longterm stability with the restoration of channel
pattern, profile and dimension, and improve in- stream
habitat.
5.3.3. Reach B.
The restoration approach for this stream segment within
the existing wooded buffer will consist of Enhancement I,
149 feet, where the stream's profile and dimension will be
restored. A minor pattern adjustment may be applied in
areas where established floodplain vegetation can be
avoided. Grade control structures will be installed within
this segment as appropriate to hold the proposed vertical
alignment. The channel has incised throughout this reach
one to two feet. Enhancement is an appropriate
restoration approach for this stream reach to minimize
impacts to the established floodplain wooded buffer. The
existing springhouse will be excluded from the project
easement as it is still used by the property owner. A
proposed culverted crossing will be located in the spring
house easement as well. All permanent crossings for the
project will be constructed with reinforced concrete pipes
sized to handle the bankfull flow. Concrete floodplain
culverts will be installed where possible to improve the
floodplain flow through the elevated earthen crossing
embankment. Invasive species will be removed from
within the existing buffer.
5.3.4. Reach C
The restoration approach for the channel segment that
begins just below the wooded buffer and extends to
Landsford Road will be a Priority I restoration for 810 feet.
Functional uplift will be accomplished by raising the
stream profile to reconnect it to the floodplain and provide
for a better slope to transport sediment through the reach.
Appropriate pattern and dimension will be returned to the
stream and a buffer established. The stream buffer will
improve habitat, reduce sediment import, and restore long
term stability.
5.3.5. Reach D
Reach D has a good wooded buffer on the western edge
of the existing stream. The buffer on the eastern side of
the stream is minimal. Stream enhancement will not be
performed within this channel segment.
Conversations with the adjacent landowner resulted in
their declining of any participation with the project.
The condition of the channel within the reach is
reasonably stable. Any destabilization that has occurred is
27

601 EAST STREAM RESTORATION SITE
most likely due to the stream incision that is
progressing upstream from below. Due to the
wooded buffer adjacent to the channel all along the
reach the stream and banks have remained
moderately stable. The restoration of the stream
segment below will insure that the head cut does not
proceed upstream. Additionally the culvert at
Landsford Road will prevent future upstream
progression of the head cut.
5.3.6. Reach E
The restoration of Reach E will consist of a Rosgen
Priority 2 restoration, 1,546 feet, in which the
channel dimension, pattern, and profile will be
changed. The restored stream will be transitioned at
the downstream end to connect it with Lanes Creek.
Structures placed in the channel will provide stability
for the tributary if future incision occurs in Lanes
Creek. A full restoration approach is required for this
stream segment due to its significant incision,
straightening, and deviation from acceptable
dimension. The restoration will provide for ecological
uplift restoring the streams access to the floodplain.
Since this channel segment is currently not
connected with the stream flows, this segment of the
project will be constructed in the dry and, after
stabilization, will be connected to the stream upper
reaches. This reach includes one permanent
culvert stream crossing excluded from the Tab
conservation easement for farm equipment
access.
5.3.7. Proposed Stream Buffer Vegetation
To initialize the proposed riparian community,
the stream buffer will be planted with a mix of
successional and climax tree and shrub species
that have been selected to establish a mix of
shade - intolerant canopy and shade - tolerant
understory species. The vegetation composition
will be modeled to closely match the previous or
typical natural community based on the
project's landscape position, soil type, and
hydrology. Plantings will consist of a combinatio n
woody stems and a native seed mix. Woody tree
shrub species may consist of a combination of th
following tree species; green ash, oaks (Quercus
black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), persimmon (Diosp
virginiana), red elm (Uimus rubra), mulberry(Mor
rubra), and hackberry (Celtis occidentalis). The nati
herbaceous seed mix will provide valuable wildlif
food and cover with seed mixes for the stream b a
and buffer consisting of a combination of the
following species; switchgrass (Panicum virgatum),
creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera), coreopsis
( Coreopsis sp.), deer tongue (Panicum virgatum), big
bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), soft rush (Juncus
effuses), Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum
pensylvanicum), little bluestem (Schizachyrium
scoparium), and Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans).
Wetland herbaceous seed mixes where applicable, may
consist of a combination of the following herbaceous
species; creeping bentgrass, fox sedge (Carex
vulpinoidea), Virginia wild Rye (Elymus virginicus),
sneezeweed (Helenium amarum), blue flag (Iris
versicolor), showy tick trefoil (Desmodium
canadense), black- eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta), and
blue vervain ( Verbena hastata). Rye (Elymus
virginicus), sneezeweed (Helenium amarum), blue flag
(Iris versicolor), showy tick trefoil (Desmodium
canadense), black- eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta), and
blue vervain (Verbena hastata).
5.4. Proposed Mitigation
The 601 East Site presents opportunities for stream
mitigation credits. The proposed stream mitigation
allows for the restoration or enhancement of the entire
intermittent and perennial reaches of Tanyard Branch.
A summary of the proposed stream mitigation units
can be found in Table 5.3.
le 5.3. Proposed SMUs for 601 East Site
Stream L
Length
Reach (
(ft) M
Mitigation Type R
Ratio S
SMUs
Intermittent 4
430 E
Enhancement 1 1
1:2 2
215
Intermittent 2
255 R
Restoration 1
1:1 2
255
A 6
660 E
Enhancement 1 1
1:2 3
330
A 3
345 R
Restoration 1
1:1 3
345
B 1
149 E
Enhancement 1 1
1:2 7
75
C 8
810 R
Restoration 1
1:1 8
810
E 1
1546 R
Restoration 1
1:1 1
1546
Total 3
3,576
of 5
5.4.1. Stream Mitigation
and T
The restoration of the perennial reach Tanyard Branch
e i
involves both Restoration and Enhancement I, as
sp.), d
detailed in Section 5.3 Project Development. The
28

601 EAST STREAM RESTORATION SITE
Owner of Record
Agreement
5.5 Current Ownership
5.6. Proiect Phasing
EBX, has entered into an Agreement for Purchase
EBX has extensive stream restoration experience, and
and Sale of Easement with the landowner for the
understands the most recent mitigation requirements
601 E Site. The Memorandum of Option to Purchase
and standards. Accordingly EBX is in a strong position
has been recorded at the Union County courthouse. A
to implement this project in a timely and effective
copy of the Memorandum of Option to Purchase is
manner. Upon contract execution for restoration of the
provided in the Appendix and is summarized in Table
601 E Site, EBX will implement the project schedule
5.5. The agreements allow EBX to proceed with the
outlined in Table 5.6. The project schedule will be
restoration and to restrict the land use in perpetuity
monitored in bi- monthly staff meetings with the project
through a conservation easement. EBX is prepared to
manager. If the schedule is delayed by external
close on the project area after contract award by
conditions additional staffing will be added to the
NCEEP and will provide copies of the deed of
project to return the project into schedule compliance.
easement, title, survey, and map.
Continuous coordination with all sub - consultants on
7 years 8 months
the project will ensure project task items are delivered
Table 5.5. Summary Information of Current Land Owner-
on time.
ship for the Project Site
Table 5.6. Project Schedule
Project Task
Owner of Record
Agreement
Agreement Expi-
Task 2a: Deliver Conservation Easement to EEP for Review and
Execution
7 months
Task 2b: Record Fully Executed Conservation Easement
Date
ration Date
8 months
Task 4: Permits Obtained
10 months
Frank Howey Jr.
July 01,
December 31,
1 year 9 months
Task 6: Final Mitigation Plan ( Including As -built Drawings)
2008
2012
2 years 8 months
Table 5.6. Project Schedule
Project Task
Schedule of Completion Time
(from date of contract execution)
Task1: CE Document and Public Meeting
4 months
Task 2a: Deliver Conservation Easement to EEP for Review and
Execution
7 months
Task 2b: Record Fully Executed Conservation Easement
Within 1 week of receipt from EEP
Task 3: Final Restoration Plan and Performance Bond
8 months
Task 4: Permits Obtained
10 months
Task 4a: Mitigation Site Earthwork Completed
1 year 5 months
Task 5: Mitigation site Planting and Installation of Monitoring De-
vices
1 year 9 months
Task 6: Final Mitigation Plan ( Including As -built Drawings)
1 year 11 months
Task 7: Submit 1st Year Monitoring Plan
2 years 8 months
Task 8: Submit 2nd Year Monitoring Plan
3 years 8 months
Task 9: Submit 3rd Year Monitoring Plan
4 years 8 months
Task 10: Submit 4th Year Monitoring Plan
5 years 8 months
Task 11: Submit 5th Year Monitoring Plan
6 years 8 months
Task 12: Submit 6th Year Monitoring Plan
7 years 8 months
Task 13: Submit 7th Year Monitoring Plan
8 years 8 months
- - 29

601 EAST STREAM RESTORATION SITE
5.7 Success Criteria
EBX has been involved in obtaining recent approvals
from the regulatory agencies for a series of Mitigation
Plans for wetland and stream restoration that are a
part of the Neu -Con Umbrella Wetland and Stream
Mitigation Banking Instrument for the Neuse River
Watershed, as well as several NCDOT and NCEEP full
delivery projects. The stream buffer restoration
success criteria for the project site will follow
accepted and approved success criteria presented in
the recent site specific restoration and mitigation
plans developed for numerous NCEEP full delivery
projects and the EBX Neu -Con Mitigation Banking
sites, as well as the Stream Mitigation guidelines
issued in April 2003 as well as the supplemental
guidance released November 7, 2011.
5.7.1. Streams
To demonstrate mitigative success, baseline
conditions will be established in the form of as -built
drawings. The as -built drawings will include profile
and plan views of the completed stream project. At
the conclusion of the construction activities, the
channel modifications and planted vegetation will be
monitored annually for a minimum of seven years.
Monitoring reports will be submitted every year to
NCEEP. Crest gauges will be installed on the
completed project to verify the occurrence of bankfull
storm events. At least two bankfull events, that do
not occur within the same year, will be documented
within the monitoring period.
5.7.1.1. Stream Channel Stability
Permanent surveyed cross sections will be
established in the frequency and locations in
accordance with NCEEP Baseline Monitoring
Guidance, Version 2.0. Fifty percent of cross sections
shall be located at pools and fifty percent at riffles/
ripples. Measurements of bank height and
entrenchment ratios shall be monitored to ensure
that the project remains stable. Bank pin arrays in
pool cross section locations shall be installed in
accordance with EEP Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland
Mitigation (11/7/2011). Visual monitoring of the
project shall be conducted twice per year to identify
and document excessive lateral movement of the
channel, bank instability, instability /failure of in-
stream structures, structure piping, headcuts, beaver
activity, excessive live stake mortality, invasive
species, aggradation /excessive sediment deposition,
or other potential problems with the channel.
Reference stakes indicating the surveyed stations, and
corresponding to the as -built survey, shall be installed
in the riparian buffer near the channel every 100 feet
along the length of the project.
5.7.1.2. Substrate
Substrate monitoring will occur in the form of pebble
counts that show the as built and annual monitoring
distributions are trending to or maintaining the design
distribution.
5.7.1.3 Sediment Transport
The dimension, profile, and substrate monitoring
should ensure that there is neither significant
aggradation nor degradation in the design channel.
5.7.1.4 Stream Channel Restoration Performance
Standards
• The Bank Height Ratio (BHR) Shall not exceed 1.2
within the restored channel reaches.
• Entrenchment Ratio (ER) shall be no less than 2.2
within the restored channel reaches.
• The stream project shall remain stable and all
other performance standards shall be met through
two separate bankfull events, occurring in separate
years, during the 7 year post construction
monitoring period.
5.7.2 Vegetation
The vegetation monitoring will be conducted according
to the EEP Monitoring Requirements and Performance
Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation
supplemental guidance released November 7, 2011
and the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) - EEP
Protocol for Recording Vegetation.. Vegetation
monitoring plots will be 100 square meters in size and
will be conducted according to the Levels I and II
protocol which has a focus on planted and natural
stems. The purpose of this level of monitoring is to
determine the pattern of installation of plant material
with respect to species, spacing, density, and to
monitor the survival and growth of those installed
species. The success criteria for the preferred species
in the restoration areas will be based on annual and
cumulative survival and growth over seven (7)
years. Survival of preferred species must be at a
minimum 320 stems per acre at the end of the three
years of monitoring, 260 stems per acre after five
years and 210 stems per acre after seven
years. Determining sampling strategy for woody trees
and shrubs depends on the size and uniformity of the
plants. According to the CVS -EEP protocol and
30

601 EAST STREAM RESTORATION SITE
supplemental guidance released November 7, 2011,
the total area of all the sampling plots must be equal
to or greater than 2% of the planted portion of the
project site.
The 601 East Restoration Project will be determined
to be successful once vegetation success criteria
have been met within the restoration and
enhancement areas.
Vegetation monitoring following of the CVS Protocol
Version 4.2, Level I, will be completed for monitoring
year 1 which includes only planted stems. Level 11
will be used for monitoring years 2, 3, 5, and 7 which
include planted and natural woody stems. CVS Data
collection will be conducted near the end of each
growing season prior to leaf fall.
5.7.3. Remedial Actions
During the annual review the entire project reach will
be evaluated for any potential problem areas and
photographs taken to document the degree and
severity. Potential problem areas may include bank
instability, in- stream structure failure, unsuccessful
vegetation establishment or invasive species
establishment. In the event that the site or a specific
component of the site fails to achieve the defined
success criteria, EBX will implement the adaptive
management plan developed during the preparation
of the Mitigation Plan in coordination with NCEEP and
the review agencies. The remedial action plan will
include a description of the failure, the source or
reason for the failure, a concise description of the
corrective measures that are proposed, and
timeframe for the implementation of the measures.
Remedial actions will be undertaken considering any
seasonal limitations. Any remedial actions will be
documented on the as -built plans. Beaver
management will be performed on the project site
throughout the duration of the 7 year post -
construction monitoring period.
31

t, C
L11
-S
im
>
am
-ij
.S,w
f I�A V
c
cj 550
r Ts-
I
58
L7
t kf5'
f
0 x6
"J
C I --
USGS Quadrangle Map: Pageland 1993
IMAGE COURTESY OF GOOGLE EARTH lqw— NTS I IMAGE COURTESY OF GOGGLE EARTH NTS
N 2000 1000 0 2000 601 EAST SITE
®� FIGURE 1 A
DATE: JANUARY 5,2011 SITE LOCATION JL-�-
WARD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PC

LANES
CREEK
TANYA
BRANCH
D INAGE AREA XARI
LAND FORD
172.78 AC .
0.27 SQ MI.
51 AC
SQ MI.
LEGEND:
` APPROXIMATE EASEMENT BOUNDARY
-� WATERSHED
-- - EXISTING STREAMS
EXISTING CONTOURS
CONTOUR INFORMATION FROM NC DOT 2007 PARCELS
N 1000 500 0 1000 601 EAST SITE
" FIGURE 2
DATE: OCTOBER 14, 2011 WATERSHED MAP
WARD CONSULTWG ENGINEERS, PC

WARD CONSUL I'INU LNUINRt.RS, FC

4.. - " -
-11 -15
ti
i.
LANDSFORD ROAD r;, '
(A) ElIn•lICI.-F 01T I RESTORATION (255v)
6 0 F�;-
UPPER • (6,
6
BEGINNING OF
NME S
6 INTER I N TREAM INTERMITTENT
EN • NCEM 175 FT) STREAM
LEGEND:
(A) CHANNEL SEGMENT IDENTIFICATION
PROPERTY LINE
ENHANCEMENT I
PROPOSED PERENNIAL STREAM = 3510 LF
(Z
PROPOSED INTERMITTENT STREAM = 685 LF (255 FT)
APPROXIMATE EASEMENT BOUNDARY
-4-
TOTAL AREA z 13.31 Ac.
2007 Aerial from NCOneMap org
600 300 0 600 601 EAST SITE
FIGURE 4
DATE OCTOBER 14,2011 ONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN I wl-
A6..dk.1A.L
WARD CONSUL-nNG ENGINEERS, PC
- 4
xq -
:41
i.
LANDSFORD ROAD r;, '
(A) ElIn•lICI.-F 01T I RESTORATION (255v)
6 0 F�;-
UPPER • (6,
6
BEGINNING OF
NME S
6 INTER I N TREAM INTERMITTENT
EN • NCEM 175 FT) STREAM
LEGEND:
(A) CHANNEL SEGMENT IDENTIFICATION
PROPERTY LINE
ENHANCEMENT I
PROPOSED PERENNIAL STREAM = 3510 LF
(Z
PROPOSED INTERMITTENT STREAM = 685 LF (255 FT)
APPROXIMATE EASEMENT BOUNDARY
-4-
TOTAL AREA z 13.31 Ac.
2007 Aerial from NCOneMap org
600 300 0 600 601 EAST SITE
FIGURE 4
DATE OCTOBER 14,2011 ONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN I wl-
A6..dk.1A.L
WARD CONSUL-nNG ENGINEERS, PC

010050
1 J. ,
hicken Pen
601 West—,
Carolina Creekr
ite Store
"GO060
Legend
EBX Watershed Projects Map Targeted Watersheds
Yadkin 05 Stream Mitigation Sites Restoration Drainage Areas
G0 2 4 8 Proposed EBX Mitigation Site s
Miles
4wj -7t inch = 4 miles • Existing EBX Mitigation Sites
w

�o
Existing Preliminary 601 E Profile
0
0 'E 0
_ + Floodplain -w- TW -*-- Bankfull
117 � 765 ft Impacted by Sediment
115
113
111
109
107
105
103
101
99
97
95
93
91
89
87
85
83
81
79
77
75
73
71
69
67
65
63
61
Last 9 Months of 2010
Stream Slope = 1.85%
New Perennial Stream
ftocation (jan — - -
2nJ 1)
- —I
Stream Slope = 0.88%
N
i
I
d
c U 3
i
n ancemen —
c c
I
(stream Rattern & — y
_
Dimension Restored)_ o —
0
— —
I
i
Restoration
Restoration
I
i
Woods E -I
nctional- Uplift -&
Replant Buff
Replant Buffer)
—I
F— Restoration
Dimension-and-
-
Replant Buffer)
Not Included in Project
— 1ish- eMffwr --
—_—
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2900 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: r
i Project/Site:
I Latitude:
Evaluator: ,aC i i - i
County-, i Y,ll „
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is intermittent
1 (
Stream Dete 'on(Circle one)
Ephemeral Perennial
Other
if>
i/? 79 or perennial if 230' `�
erennit ifa 3
ermittertt.
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_ "� ' :-,> )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
%3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
J:
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool uence
0
-
L.'
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
j
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
(1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
(1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
C2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
(3.)
9. Grade control
0
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
1.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
�1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No # 0,
Yes= 3
arunaai attcnes are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrologv (Subtotal= ti )
12- Presence of Baseflow
0
(2
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
LD'
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
C1;'
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5'
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
Q.5'
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes ,3 -
C. Biolociv (Subtotal = (, ; )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
(2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
�_ :
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
10,.
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
"D
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5­­-F
1,:
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: �< �," - _I. r, c
-k� -
r -. �. i c L
A L
i
Sketch:
I

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date
1 — 'l 1
Project/Site �u� 15-
Latitude
Evaluator. } tt l '1 �4,�\ t
County CIv,`I
Longitude.
i
1
2
3
Total Points:
Steam is at least l ern
3
Stream Determination (circl
Other
rf _ 19 or perennial rf >_
it 3030t'
Ephemeral Intermittent erennra
e g Quad Name
A Geomorphology (Subtotal = t
Absent
(Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
[?)
3
3 In- channel structure ex nffle -pool, step -pool,
n le- ool sequence
0
1
C2)
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
1 0
1
0
3
5 Active/relict floodplain
0
Yes - (3)
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
1
1
3
9 Grade control
0
05
15
1 5
10 Natural valley
0
05
1
15
11 Second or greater order channel
No =
Yes = 3
"arUflcial ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
B Hvdroloov (Subtotal = q S )
12 Presence of Baseflow
10
1
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
3
3
14 Leaf litter
15
1
d 5
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
05
1
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
0
1
15
17 Sod -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes - (3)
C B1010av (Subtotal = (0 1
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22 Fish
0
U
1
15
23 Crayfish
CO)
05
1
15
24 Amphibians
0
0 1
1
15
25 Algae
0
i Lv 1
1
15
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0 75, OBL =CIO
Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identrfied using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes
�c� �s L,' �' -,,;t c--F „ f�,i -�r,t ti �� ��f i �� I IPC• In (rJ.�
Sketch
cc1Su -ice ,I u, 1P, c

North Carolina Division of Water Quality — Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date- 7/15/08 Project EBX Latitude
Evaluator Kate Montfeth Site 601 East Longitude
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent 195 County Union
it 19 or perennial if 2:3D e 9 Quad Name
A Geomorphology (Subtotal= 105_)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity
0
1
2
3
3 In- channel structure riffle -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4 Sod texture or stream substrate sorting
0
1
2
3
5 Active /relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7 Braided channel
0
1
2
3
8 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
98 Natural levees
0
1
2
3
10 Headcuts
0
1
2
3
11 Grade controls
0
05
1
15
12 Natural valley or drainageway
0
0
1
15
13 Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence
No
Yes= 3
Man -made ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B Hvdroloov (Subtotal = 3 1
14 Groundwater flovddischarge
CO)
1
2
3
15 Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or rows season
0
1
2
3
16 Leafidter
0
1
05
0
17 Sediment on plants or debris
0
05
1
1 5
18 Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack Imes)
0
05
1
1 5
19 Hydnc sods (redoximorphic features) present?
No = 0
Yes =
C Bioloov (Subtotal = 3 1
20 Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
0
21b Rooted plants in channel
3
2
1
0
22 Crayfish
0
05
1
15
23 &valves
0
1
2
3
24 Fish
0
05
1
1 5
25 Amphibians
0
05
1
15
26 NUcrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
05
1
1 5
27 Filamentous algae, penphyton
0
1
2
3
28 Iron oxidizing bactenatfungus
0
05
1
1 1 5
29 ° Wetland plants in streambed
FAC = 0 5, FACW = 0 75, OBL = 15 SAV = 2 0, Other = 0
- Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or Wetland plants
Notes (use backside of this form for additional notes) Sketch
The stream is to the rmddle of a corn field There is
no vegetation or biology —dust a channel

*
**
North Carolina Division of Water Quality — Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date 7/15/08 Project EBX Latitude-
Evaluator: Kate Montieth Site. 601 East Longitude.
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent 33.5 County. Union
rf 2 19 or ennral d a 30 e g Quad Name:
A Geomorphology Subtotal = 13.5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1e Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity
0
1
2
3
3 In- channel structure rdfle -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4 Sod texture or stream substrate sorting
0
1
2
3
5 Activelrelic floodplain
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7 Braided channel
0
1
2
3
8 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
98 Natural levees
0
1
2
3
10 Headcuts
0
1
2
3
11 Grade controls
0
05
1
Is
12 Natural valley or drainageway
0
0
1
15
13 Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence
No
Yes= 3
Man -made ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
R Hvrirninnv lSuhtntal = 75 1
14 Groundwater floWdischarge
0
1
2
3
15 Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or grawing season
0
1
(2 )
3
16 Leaflitter
0
1
0 5
0
17 Sediment on plants or debris
no
05
1
15
18 Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack Imes)
0
05
1
15
19 Hydnc sods (redoximorphic features) present?
No = 0
Yes =
C Bioloov (Subtotal = 125 1
20b Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
0
21 b Rooted plants in channel
3
2
1
0
22 Crayfish
0
05
1
15
23 Bivalves
0
1
2
3
24 Fish
0
05
1
15
25 Amphibians
0
05
1
15
26 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
05
1
15
27 Filamentous algae, penphyton
0
1
2
3
28 Iron oxidizing bacteriatfungus
0
1 05
1
15
29b Wetland plants in streambed
FAC = 0 5, FACW = 0 75, OBL = 0 SAV = 2 0, Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence or upland plants, Item 29 rocuses on the presence or aquatic or wetiana plants
Notes (use backside of this forth for additional notes) Sketch
* Stream has been straightened
** Farmer has added rock piles to stream creating riffles and pools and grade control
Collected right- handed snails, Ob- zervedlgreen frnv tarinnlec and adults; Adult salamander (escaped
before ID -ed)
Perennial origin at what appears to be an old headcut — farmer has added pile of rocks to streambed,
probably to stop erosion at headcut No water above headcut, water below headcut

North Carolina Division of Water Quality — Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date 7/30/08 Project EBX -601 East Latitude
Evaluator: Michael Wood Site Mill Creek Longitude.
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent 19.5 county Union e g Quad Name'
d t 19 or erennia! d t 30
A. Geomorphology (subtotal = 20 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity
0
1
2
3
3 In- channel structure riffle -pool sequence
0
1
1
3
4 Sod texture or stream substrate sorting
0
1
2
3
5 Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
1
3
7 Braided channel
CO)
1
2
3
8 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
9 a Natural levees
0
1
2
3
10 Headcuts
0
1
2
3
11 Grade controls
0
05
1
12 Natural valley or drainagenray
0
05
1
13 Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence
No = 0
Yes
Wn -made ditches are not rated, see discussions in manual
R Hvrirnlnnv fSuhtntal = 7.5 1
14 Groundwater flow/discharge
0
1
1
3
15 Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or rownn season
0
1
Q2
3
16 Leafldter
15
1
05
0
17 Sediment on plants or debris
no
05
1
15
18 Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack Imes)
0
05
(175
15
19 Hydnc sods (redoximorphic features) present?
No = 0
Yes =
C Bioloav (Subtotal = 85 )
20b Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
0
21 b Rooted plants in channel
3
2
1
0
22 Crayfish
0
0
1
15
23 Bivalves
0
1
2
3
24 Fish
0
05
1
25 Amphibians
@D
05
1
15
26 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
0
1
15
27 Filamentous algae, penphyton
0
1
2
3
28 Iron oxidizing bactena/fungus
0
05
1
15
29 Wetland plants in streambed
FAC = 0 5, FACW = 0 75, OBL = 15 SAV = 2 0, Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants Rem 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants
Sketch
Notes (use back side of this form for additional notes )