20140328 Ver 1_401 Application_20140414

WW1
NCKSON
community infrastructure consultants
March 31, 2014
Mr. Mickey Sugg
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Karen Higgins
NC Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Mr. Sugg and Ms. Higgins:
WK Dickson is submitting a 404 Nationwide Permit 13 and 401 General Certification 3885 Pre-
Construction Notification for the ABC Warehouse Streambank Stabilization. The PCN is being
submitted on behalf of Onslow County ABC Board. The project includes installation of a sheet pile
retaining wall, riprap bank stabilization, log grade control, and drainage improvements to protect the
ABC warehouse. The project is located at 409 Center Street, Jacksonville. Specifically, the ABC
warehouse is located on the right bank of UT to Scales Creek approximately 400 feet downstream of
Center Street. The following documents are attached:
• Pre-Construction Notification;
• Engineering Memorandum describing existing conditions and alternatives analysis;
• Regulatory email correspondence;
• Exhibits and photo log documenting current conditions and the proposed stabilization; and,
• Preliminary project plans.
WK Dickson project engineer (Scott Sigmon) and project scientist (Daniel Ingram) met with David
Bailey and Joanne Steenhuis on August 19, 2013 to discuss this project and the permitting implications
of the various alternatives. The consensus was that a NWP 13 was appropriate and no mitigation
would be required due the existing impaired condition of the channel. All construction will be
accessed from the top of the channel bank and the sheet piles will be vibrated into place with no
excavation required. There are no wetlands present in the project area.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this project and please let me know if you have any questions
or require any additional information.
Sincerely,
W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc.
Daniel P. Ingram
Project Scientist
cc: Joanne Steenhuis, NCDWR Wilmington Regional Office
meta Grady, Onslow ABC Board Administrator
File: 20130217.00. RA
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
Tel. [phone]
Fax 919,782.9672
www.wl<dicl<son.com
C/fe19708415-7asbil.doc
North Carolina * South Carolina * Georgia

l(� \1 2 0 1 4 0 3 2
Q�oF w a rF9OG ` v"
Office Use Only
Corps action ID no
o < DWQ project no
Form Version 1 4 January 2009
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
la
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
lb Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number 13 or General Permit (GP) number
1c
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
X❑ Yes ❑ No
1 d
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply)
X❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
le
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification
❑ Yes ❑X No
For the record only for Corps Permit
❑ Yes ❑X 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 ❑X No
1g
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties If yes, answer 1h
below
Fx� Yes ❑ No
1h
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2.
Project Information
2a
Name of project
ABC Warehouse Streambank Stabilization Project
2b
County
Onslow
2c
Nearest municipality / town
Jacksonville
2d
Subdivision name
Country Club Acres Sec 4, Subsection 999
2e
NCDOT only, T I P or state project no
3.
Owner Information
3a
Name(s) on Recorded Deed
Onslow County ABC Board
3b
Deed Book and Page No
677,772
3c
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable)
APP 1 2014
9
3d
Street address
409 Center St
3e
City, state, zip
Jacksonville, NC 28546
NR A r Branch
3f
Telephone no
910 - 577 -7186
3g
Fax no
3h
Email address
nlgrady @embargmall com
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1 4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑ Other, specify:
4b.
Name:
Neta Grady - System Administrator
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
Onslow County ABC Board
4d.
Street address:
409 Center Street
4e.
City, state, zip:
Jacksonville, NC, 28546
4f.
Telephone no.:
910 - 577 -7186
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
nlgrady @embargmail.com
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Daniel Ingram
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
WK Dickson
5c.
Street address:
720 Corporate Center Drive
5d.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27607
5e.
Telephone no.:
919 - 782 -0495
5f.
Fax no.:
919- 782 -9672
5g.
Email address:
dingram @wkdickson.com
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
438606495758
1b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 34.755055 Longitude: - 77.386517
1 c.
Property size:
2.1 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Scales Creek
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
SC; HQW; NSW
2c.
River basin:
White Oak
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 existing channel is an impaired urban perennial stream. The channel is incised with highly unstable banks. In- stream flows and
concentrated overland flow from roof drains is causing active erosion and threatening the foundation of the adjacent ABC warehouse. Vegetation is typical
disturbed urban species. The stream lacks bedform diversity and is composed primarily of riffle /run habitats with high instream sediment loads. The attached
Engineering Memorandum further describes the existing conditions. The attached exhibits display the topography, soils, and aerial photography. The attached
photo log documents the existing conditions.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 500
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project: The proposed project will stabilize the existing channel right bank to prevent undermining
of the adjacent ABC warehouse. Bank pin monitoring has documented channel bank loss exceeding two feet in some areas over the previous year.
The stabilization will be accomplished through a variety of construction techniques including sheet piles, rip rap, log grade control, and drainage
modifications. The attached Engineering Memorandum further describes the project purpose.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project will include sheet - piling and rip rap stabilization to prevent further bank erosion, drainage improvements to prevent rill erosion and
gullying, and bed stabilization to prevent further channel incision.The attached exhibits, plans, and Engineering Memorandum further describes the
selected alternative 2A.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
Comments:
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑ preliminary ❑ Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known):
Agency /Consultant Company:
Other:
4d.
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes X❑ No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑ Wetlands ❑X 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.
Wetland impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
2b.
Type of impact
2c.
Type of wetland
2d.
Forested
2e.
Type of jurisdiction
Corps (404,10) or
DWQ (401, other)
2f.
Area of
impact
(acres)
W1
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W2
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W3
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W4
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W5
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
W6
Choose one
Choose one
Yes /No
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.
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
3b.
Type of impact
3c.
Stream name
3d.
Perennial (PER) or
intermittent (I NT)?
3e.
Type of
jurisdiction
3f.
Average
stream
width
(feet)
3g.
Impact
length
(linear
feet)
S1 P
Stabilization
UT Scales Creek
PER
Corps
10
185
S2 T
Excavation
UT Scales Creek
PER
Corps
10
10
S3
Choose one
S4
Choose one
S5
Choose one
S6
Choose one
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i. Comments:
Sheet pile installation and rip rap stabilization will be continuous along the length of the ABC warehouse (approximately 185 linear
feet). Impact S4 is a log grade control structure at the downstream end of the protect to prevent further channel incision and destabiliation
of the sheet piles. A temporary impact is proposed for the log grade control installation
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivi ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01
Choose one
Choose
02
Choose one
Choose
03
Choose one
Choose
04
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar - Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet)
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet)
B1
Yes /No
B2
Yes /No
B3
Yes /No
B4
Yes /No
B5
Yes /No
B6
Yes /No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D.
Impact Justification and Mitigation
1.
Avoidance and Minimization
1 a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Impacts have been minimized through use of sheet piles installed mostly outside the OHWM. Alternatives such as gabion baskets and modular
block wall would have required extensive dewatering and excavation within the OHWM, and were not proposed. Channel bed stabilization will be
achieved with a log grade control designed with natural channel design principles.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
All construction will be accomplished from the channel bank. Work below the OHWM will be performed in dry conditions with pump - arounds as
needed. the only proposed earthwork within the OHWM is for the downstream log grade control.
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 Q No
2b.
If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3.
Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a.
Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b.
Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
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:
Choose one
4d.
Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e.
Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f.
Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g.
Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h.
Comments:
5.
Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a.
If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

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
Yes No
buffer mitigation?
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.
6c.
6d.
6e.
Zone
Reason for impact
Total impact
Multiplier
Required mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes Q 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
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 ❑X No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
The project does not increase impervious area and does not result in any potential for future impervious area.
There will be no change to existing
stormwater
conditions.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
El 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):
E] 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 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
❑X 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
El Yes
❑X 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:
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,
E] Yes
0 No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑Yes
0 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
El Yes
0 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.
The project involves installing a sheet piling to stabilize the streambank on a full developed parcel. This will not result in or encourage
new
development.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

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 ❑X No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
-
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
NC Natural Heritage Program database, USFWS Onslow County Protected Species List, Site visit by qualified biologist.
S. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NOAA NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Mapper v3.0
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 ❑X 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?
NC SHPO HPOWEB GIS Service
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA- designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes Q No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
FEMA Flood Hazard GIS data obtained from NC Floodplain Mapping program.
6mdLi
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Applicant/Agent's Signat
Date
( nrs signature is valid only if an al orization
letter from the applicant is rovi ed.
Page 10 of 10

M E M O R A N D U M
720 Corporate Center Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
TO: Neta Grady, Project Manager
FROM: David Kiker, PE
DATE: October 16, 2013
I&WK
WDICKSON
community infrastructure consultants
919.782.0495 tel. [phone] fax
RE: Evaluation of Bank Stabilization Alternatives
along Unnamed Tributary to Scales Creek (UT1)
near the ABC Office and Distribution
Warehouse; Jacksonville, Raleigh, NC
10.4.13
Introduction
In February 2013 WK Dickson issued a report that summarized an evaluation of the primary and
secondary systems associated with the Center Street drainage project, including an unnamed
tributary to Scales Creek (UT1). The goal of the original project was to identify problem areas
along UT1 and recommend improvements to mitigate flooding and erosion of channel banks. As
described in the original report, the reach of UT1 experiencing the worst channel bank erosion is
the reach just downstream of Center Street adjacent to the ABC Office and Distribution Warehouse
building located at 409 Center Street. The original concept plan to help stabilize the banks in this
area involved creating a hardened toe, raising the channel bed, and installing permanent liners on
the banks. This design required participation from adjacent property owners to facilitate
temporary construction access, and to allow for permanent impacts to the stream and riparian
corridor. Per your request we have modified the original design (presented in the February 2013
report to the City of Jacksonville), to eliminate participation from adjacent property owners in an
effort to expedite the schedule and reduce overall project costs. This memorandum summarizes
the revised stream stabilization plan, and updates the estimated construction costs.
Bank monitoring pins were installed in the winter of
2012 to measure the rate of channel erosion near the
ABC Warehouse building. Recent readings have
shown as much as 18 inches of bank erosion since the
pins were installed. Due to the rapid rate of erosion, it
is necessary to eliminate the need to secure offsite
easements and the potential for additional project
delays. Eliminating offsite easements will also
significantly reduce project costs. This memorandum
summarizes two modified bank stabilization
alternatives developed by WK Dickson to achieve the
new project goals. The two new alternatives focus on
being cost effective, constructible, and providing
Photo 1: Exposed Bank Monitoring Pins

protection of the warehouse building foundation during construction and from long -term bank
erosion.
Evaluated Alternatives
The revised alternatives provide a hardened toe on the right side of the channel (looking
downstream) that would eliminate the need to raise the channel bed (previously proposed), and
eliminate the need to perform construction on the left overbank of the channel (see Figure 1). In
addition, the current alternatives eliminate the need to purchase easements for the property on the
opposite side of the channel from the ABC Office and Distribution Warehouse.
The alternatives presented in this memorandum reduce the footprint of the channel, maximize
useable land, and eliminate the need for offsite easements when compared to the previously
recommended alternatives. Reducing the footprint and eliminating the need for offsite easements
will help control costs but with the reduced footprint comes a series of alternatives that are more
challenging to construct. However, with the smaller project footprint comes a higher unit cost for
the gabion or anchor wall systems. Although costs are not too much different than the original
design recommendations, the more elaborate wall designs are less susceptible to failure when
compared to the original designs. In addition, the new alternatives will have less maintenance costs
than those alternatives originally presented. Cross sections of the proposed designs have been
provided along with an image of the toe proposed protection measure (see Attachments 1 through
4). A list of pros and cons highlighting cost, constructability, and permitting has been provided to
facilitate a comparison of alternatives. With both of the alternatives, it is recommended that the
roof leaders from the ABC Office and Distribution Warehouse be collected in a central line and
redirected underground towards the downstream side of the property, away from the proposed
bank stabilization measures. The following are the four alternatives evaluated as part of this
project:
Table 1: Summary of Bank Stabilization Alternatives
Alternative
Description
#1A
Gabion toe lower wall with permanent liner protecting upper bank
#113
Gabion toe lower wall, modular block upper wall, and temporary liner on upper bench
#2A
Sheet pile /anchor lower wall with permanent liner protecting upper bank
#213
Sheet pile /anchor lower wall, modular block upper wall, and temporary liner on upper
bench
As shown in this memorandum, Alternative #2A is the recommended alternative. This alternative
is the least expensive, has the least amount of future maintenance, and is the most easily
constructed of the alternatives that have been presented. The following sections provide a more
detailed description of the alternatives evaluated for this memorandum:
Photo 2: Gabion Wall
Alternative #1A
Alternative #1A involves stabilizing the right channel toe
and bank with a series of gabion baskets stacked on each
other as shown in Attachment #1. The gabion wall will
extend approximately 1.5 feet below the bed of the
channel and approximately 3.0 feet above the bed. The
wall is proposed to be buried 1.5 feet below the bed to
prevent undermining of the wall and a potential failure
from scour or channel bed degradation. To further reduce
the potential for channel degradation a log grade control
structure is proposed on the downstream side of the

project. Option #1A will include a permanent liner set on a 1(H):1(V) side slope channel
bank that will be secured using soil nails.
Pros:
1. Gabion baskets are a proven application, and large gabion baskets (4.5 feet x 3 feet) are not
susceptible to the erosive forces imposed from a relatively small channel.
2. Working with smaller, rather than larger, rip -rap means smaller equipment needed for
installation of rip -rap.
3. Live stakes and other vegetation will help to hold soil and plastic erosion control matting in
place. Once grass and live stakes have "greened in" the upper channel bank will look
more natural and will hold up better to the erosive forces from large flood events.
4. Permanent plastic erosion control matting does not require vegetation to provide adequate
shear stress and velocity protection (in times of drought or before slope is fully vegetated).
5. Low maintenance requirements for gabions.
Cons:
1. Since the invert of the gabion stone foundation will be about 27 inches below channel
invert, the channel will need to be dewatered to get good compaction for the base of the
gabions.
2. Gabion boxes are not aesthetically appealing.
3. Gabion box installation will be difficult adjacent to ABC Office and Distribution
Warehouse where excavating below channel invert (while keeping side slopes stable) is
required.
4. Some minor maintenance will be needed if vegetation does not take and soil slumps
behind plastic matting.
Alternative #1 B
Alternative #1 B modifies Alternative #1 A to include a 4 foot high modular block upper wall and a
flatter upper bench that is sloped at 7.5(H):1 (V). Because the upper bench is relatively flat, it will
require a temporary liner and not a permanent liner as required for Alternative #1A. The
permanent cover for the upper bench will be an unmaintained riparian corridor of native grasses,
scrubs and trees.
Pros:
1. The pros listed in Alternative #1A (items 1 through 3) apply for Alternative #1 B.
2. A less expensive temporary erosion control mat will replace the permanent liner required
in Alternative 1A.
3. Low maintenance requirements for gabions.
Cons:
1. The cons listed in Alternative #1 A (items 1 and 2) apply for Alternative #1 B.
2. Keeping side slopes stable will be difficult adjacent to the ABC Office and Distribution
Warehouse where excavating below the channel invert is required to install the Gabion
boxes.
3. Some minor maintenance will be needed if vegetation does not take and soil slumps
behind plastic matting.
4. Estimated to be the most costly of the alternatives.
Alternative #2A

Alternative #2A is similar to Alternative #1A; however, the lower wall will be a 10 -foot high sheet
pile /anchor wall that extends approximately 5.5 feet above the channel bottom (see photo 2). This
alternative was proposed to create a hardened toe that would significantly reduce potential for a
bank failure. With this alternative, the need for both dewatering the channel and providing
temporary shoring or bracing for the foundation to the ABC Warehouse building would be
eliminated. The upper channel bank will be graded at a 3(H):1 (V) side slope. A permanent liner is
proposed to reduce potential for a bank failure. It is recommend at final design that shear stresses
be further evaluated to determine if a cover of native grasses, shrubs and trees is sufficient to keep
this upper bank stable with a 3(H):1(V) side slope. It is anticipated that the proposed permanent
liner can be replaced with a temporary liner for an additional savings of approximately $5,400.
Photo 3 shows a typical sheet pile /anchor wall application.
Pros:
1. Channel will not need to be dewatered to drive
in the sheet pile /anchor wall system.
2. Sheet pile /anchor wall will extend
approximately 4.5 feet below the channel
bottom and will not be susceptible to the
erosive forces imposed from a relatively small
channel.
M
5
6
Cons:
Permanent erosion control matting does not
require vegetation to provide adequate shear
stress and velocity protection (in times of
drought or before slope is fully vegetated).
Grasses, shrubs and live stakes will create a
more natural "greened in" look for the upper
channel bank.
Low maintenance requirements for a pile /anchor wall.
Although not a natural material, the sheet pile /anchor wall
than gabion baskets.
Photo 3: Anchor Wall
is more aesthetically pleasing
1. Installation of the wall system will require heavy machinery to access the rear of the
building.
2. Aluminized steel wall is not a natural looking wall and some people may not prefer the
aesthetics of this material.
Alternative #213
Alternative #213 modifies Alternative #2A to include a 2 -foot high modular block upper wall and a
flatter upper bench that is sloped at 10(H):1 M. The 2 -foot high modular block upper wall
effectively reduces the side slope of the upper bench from 3(H):1 (V) to 10(H):1(V). This alternative
was proposed to eliminate the need for a permanent liner, as is presented in Alternative #2A.
Pros:
1. Channel will not need to be dewatered to drive in the sheet pile /anchor wall system.
2. Sheet pile /anchor wall will extend approximately 4.5 feet below the channel bottom and
will not be susceptible to the erosive forces imposed from a relatively small channel.
3. Sheet pile /anchor wall will eliminate the need for a permanent liner on the upper channel
bench. Shear stresses on the upper bench will be minimal given the low depths of flow
and relatively flat channel slopes. Side slopes of 10(H):1 (V) will effectively eliminate
potential for bank sloughing due to steep slopes, poor soils or lack of vegetation.

4. Grass and live stakes will create a more natural "greened in" look for the upper channel
bench.
5. Low maintenance requirements for pile /anchor wall.
Cons:
1. Installation of a wall system will require heavy machinery to access the rear of the building.
2. Aluminized steel wall is not a natural looking wall and some people may not prefer the
aesthetics of this material.
Engineers Opinion of Probable Cost
As part of this study, cost estimates were developed for each of the referenced alternatives. The
cost estimates are approximate and are subject to change due to local costs for materials, delivery,
construction, and other factors. The cost estimates provided in this memorandum were prepared
to assist ABC staff in making planning level decisions and prioritizing improvements. These cost
estimates are not final design estimates. A summary of each cost estimate is shown in Table 2.
Itemized cost estimates for each project area are contained in Attachments 5 through 8.
Table 2: Cost Estimate Summary
Alternative
Description of work
Cost Estimate
#1A
Gabion toe lower wall with permanent liner protecting upper bank
$258,000
#113
Gabion toe lower wall, modular block upper wall, and temporary liner
$273,180
on upper bench
#2A
Sheet pile /anchor lower wall with permanent liner protecting upper
$230,350
bank
#213
Sheet pile /anchor lower wall, modular block upper wall, and temporary
$230,720
liner on upper bench
Summary and Conclusions
Design Considerations
At final design, an evaluation will need to be prepared that shows that the selected alternative does
not adversely affect 10 -, 25- and 100 -year water surface elevations for upstream properties. There
are several buildings with first floor elevations just above the channel banks. If the selected
alternative does adversely impact upstream properties then the current alternative will need to be
modified until there are no net increases to 100 -year water surface elevations.
The local drainage system that collects the roof leaders has not been designed at this time. It is
anticipated that the main line that collects all the roof leaders will be an 8 -inch diameter HDPE line
that has a series of clean outs at the tie -in locations with the vertical collection lines feeding off the
roof.
It is assumed that the contractor will remove and replace (in its current location) the existing steel
fence located at the rear of the property.
Constructability Summary
The gabion toe alternatives present the contractor with several construction challenges that are not
faced with the sheet pile /anchor wall alternative. As shown in Attachments 5 through 8, the
estimated dewatering and pump around costs for the gabion alternatives are approximately
$40,000 more than the sheet pile /anchor wall alternatives. With the channel in close proximity to
the building foundation it will be necessary to take measures during and /or before construction to
prevent movement of the soil adjacent to the structure's foundation. Measures such as a pre -
project video inspection of the building, additional bank protection measures prior to a pending

storm event or other measures may be needed due to poor soils. These constructability challenges
further confirm that the alternative to install a sheet pile /anchor wall is the preferred alternative.
Maintenance Requirements
Should an alternative be selected for a permanent liner and a steep channel bank, it will be
necessary to secure this liner with soil nails. It is not uncommon for these liners to require
maintenance after large flood events where the soil nails have moved due to minor erosion.
Project Timeline
As discussed previously, the channel is unstable and in some areas has seen significant erosion of
its banks. Predicting future erosion rates is not easy given the highly unpredictable variables that
affect this process. Size and duration of rainfall storms, cohesiveness of soils, historical erosion,
debris accumulation, sediment loading from watershed, maturity of vegetative root system, and
runoff from the ABC building roof leaders will all affect future erosion rates and the timeline that
will result in a failure of the building foundation. For this reason, we recommend that the ABC
Office and Distribution Warehouse Staff continue to monitor the channel after large storm events.
Corrective actions may be warranted if the channel banks continue eroding at a high rate.
Corrective actions may include installing an erosion control blanket and placing rip -rap at the toe
and banks of the channel. The following table summarizes the anticipated final design and
construction schedule:
Table 3: Final Design. Bid and Construction Schedule
Description
Time to Complete
Contract signed for final engineering design
December 1, 2013
Collect survey, utility locations and provide to engineer
January 4, 2013
Finalize design plans and specifications — issue 60% design plans
February 7, 2013
Obtain comments from ABC staff for final design
February 21, 2013
Receive erosion control permit
February 21, 2013
Receive Nationwide Permit from USACE
February 21, 2013
Finalize and seal construction documents— issue 100% design plans
February 28, 2013
Advertise for bids
March 11, 2013
Review pre -qualification package
March 25, 2013
Conduct pre -bid meeting
April 2, 2013
Review bids and make recommendation of award
April 12, 2013
Sign construction contract
May 6, 2013
Contractor to begin construction
May 9, 2013
Completion of construction
August 1, 2013
Conclusion
WK Dickson recommends that the ABC staff proceed with Alternative #2A on the basis that this
option is the least expensive alternative; it helps minimize the potential for foundation issues
during construction, reduces potential for bank sloughing due to a large flood event, and has the
lowest anticipated future maintenance needs.

CONCEPTUAL CHANNEL GRADING
FACING DOWNSTREAM
Attachment 1
REMOVE AND
REPLACE EXISTING
SECURITY FENCE
EXISTING TOB
A
INSTALLED PER
MANUFACTURE
RECOMMENDATIONS
INSTALL LIVE STAKES
AND NATIVE GRASSES
ONSLOW CO UNTY
ABC OFFICE AND
WAREHOUSE
•r.t.f�•r. v`J�
1'�,wr iv^o
{ PROP. SLOPE WITH PYRAMAT
(PERMANENT LINER)
BACKFILL
CHANNEL
BANK
GABION BASKETS
48° h
EXISTING
CHANNEL
BANK
NTS
ABC Office And Warehouse
Bank Stabilization Measures
Alternative #1A
Gabion Toe With
Permanent Liner
DWDEKSON
community Infrastructure consultants
720 CORPORATE CENTER DRIVE
RALEIGH, NC 27607
(919) 782 -0495
Office Locations:
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
1

H
Z
N r .�
CD =) < CO ,
QLLZO 'fit z
U ooW zi
Cl)U� Y U J LLI
a Zw O ¢ "'- OJ zz
4 H z Y
QLnz Z3�e' m3 X =Q a
Z W l� I --------------- - - - - -- ri. �' U W U m W
Q 'wiw g Z H
og� Is:k, oa
d
fy
W W Wi,l:x4+ ^3 pi 7
of of Ul
3 :4t4°N,,s
T* f a2vpt.t .'r.
v+�tyb1'"�i� ..
r^ to OKA
AA
Ur
W nM ++
W z L
c
Z U) «<
m'
Q Z OO NN
O Z Y N
U Q z w
J ❑ N N� HZYr+kr
st>a
U X w c� cn a z s�`,c.
a W X m �4i
D Z = W W C-)
'tit,;ij;iii'�':G.*ix
U J1
JR
W LL
U z Z
Z Z Q , xo H,ai }4��6 ' N
n a n �.•Exr:.,�
�•s1 *��;d;��;�z g�rv4�`t:..�r3x -Z �2ya • Q
"'' ,•tym�. v- S +`x„ }:tit..
.hV•i ire A ..
•�;3uc.T i•',��Y,`r' §fix
i • T}} y...
�tt�'+Sgii �4
�iy4 Lti
1•:4t�
ya3 0 °
to
C N
Ix 0 N
W z
z _
U , CD
W�y3 rn
FJv m
O� O (S
a 0-5 °
o U
U JUU
O
N o 0
o z in
Z
Ui
c
�C
co
L
O C
Q CU
> d
N a)
L � r
N C
a �a
O j
cu
(D
Ch N
O
Co
Co
C O
a N
U �
cu
0 C
L)
m
am

orn °
CNO
4a4'llUN U
rZ�
Z _
U 0
W 01
F J v m
a Q C p 0
C) O C C
a 0-5 °
z o p o
O U U
U N L L
O
N
ozcof)
Z
u�
� c
�e
L
(Q �
N
* i J
U N
=acu
a) a) E
aaa
a)
LCD
o
c�
c`a a)
c
o
c �'
a N
cu
OC/)
UY
m
am

CONCEPTUAL CHANNEL GRADING
FACING DOWNSTREAM
Attachment 4
REMOVE AND
REPLACE EXISTING
SECURITY FENCE
EXISTING TOB
ONSLOW COUNTY
ABC OFFICE AND
WAREHOUSE
INSTALL LIVE STAKES
AND NATIVE GRASSES
•r. t. v`��
EXISTING
CHANNEL
BANK
5.5'
. RAf'B-.4L. OCK
RETAINING WALL
TEMPORARY LINER
BACKFILL
yyta ; ..
1 -v7.
STEEL PILE /ANCHOR WALL' •
EXISTING
CHANNEL
BANK
NTS
ABC Office And Warehouse
Bank Stabilization Measures
Alternative #2B
Sheet Pile /Anchor Wall With Modular
Upper Wall And Temporary Liner
DWDEKSON
community Infrastructure consultants
720 CORPORATE CENTER DRIVE
RALEIGH, NC 27607
(919) 782 -0495
Office Locations:
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
1

ATTACHMENT 5: Center Street Area Improvements Stormwater Study
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs - Alternative 1A
Updated: 10 -1 -2013
Alternative Description: Gabion Toe Protection and Vegetated Slope w/ Permanent Liner
Item Description
QUANTITIES
Amount
1
Mobilization (assume 7.5 %)
1
LS
$ 11,220.00
$ 11,220.00
2
Grading for Bank Stabilization including Plantings
1
LS
$ 15,000.00
$ 15,000.00
3
Gabion Retaining Wall
210
LF
$ 210.00
$ 44,100.00
4
Dewatering
1
LS
$ 10,000.00
$ 10,000.00
5
Pump Around
1
LS
$ 30,000.00
$ 30,000.00
6
Backfill
93
CY
$ 35.00
$ 3,266.67
7
Shoring protection and monitoring of building
1
LS
$ 10,000.00
$ 10,000.00
8
Log Grade Control Structure
1
EA
$ 1,500.00
$ 1,500.00
9
8" HDPE Pipe
254
LF
$ 18.00
$ 4,572.00
10
Warm Season Sod
256
SY
$ 5.00
$ 1,281.67
11
Construction Staking
1
LS
$ 4,000.00
$ 4,000.00
12
Erosion Control Matting (Permanent Liner)
397
SY
$ 18.00
$ 7,140.00
13
Erosion Control
1
LS
$ 4,000.00
$ 4,000.00
14
Fence Removal / Replacement
1
LS
$ 8,000.00
$ 8,000.00
15
Tree Protection
1
LS
$ 1,750.00
$ 1,750.00
16
Utility Relocations
1
LS
$ 5,000.00
$ 5,000.00
Subtotal $ 160,830.00
20% Contingency $ 32,170.00
Total $ 193,000.00
Design, Administration, Fiscal and Legal $ 65,000.00
Total Opinion of Project Cost $ 258,000.00
*The Engineer's opinions of probable construction costs are made on the basis of the Engineer's experience and qualifications and represent the Engineer's best judgment as a professional
generally familiar with the construction industry. Since the Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others; over the contractors
methods of determining prices; or over competitive bidding or marketing conditions, the Engineer's cannot and does not guarantee that proposal, bids or actual construction costs will not
vary from opinions ofprobable construction costs prepared by the Engineer.
* *Assumes easements will not be required, donated or obtained for a minimal cost
Preliminary Cast Estimate.xlsx

ATTACHMENT 6: Center Street Area Improvements Stormwater Study
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs -Alternative 1 B
Updated: 10 -1 -2013
Alternative Description: Gabion Toe Protection with Upper Modular Block Wall
Item Description
QUANTITIES
a
Amount
1
Mobilization (assume 7.5 %)
1
LS
$ 12,100.00
$ 12,100.00
2
Grading for Bank Stabilization including Plantings
1
LS
$ 15,000.00
$ 15,000.00
3
Gabion Retaining Wall
210
LF
$ 210.00
$ 44,100.00
4
Dewatering
1
LS
$ 15,000.00
$ 15,000.00
5
Pump Around
1
LS
$ 30,000.00
$ 30,000.00
6
Modular Block Retaining Wall
800
SF
$ 25.00
$ 20,000.00
7
Dispose of Excess Material (onsite)
78
CY
$ 5.00
$ 388.89
8
Shoring protection and monitoring of building
1
LS
$ 10,000.00
$ 10,000.00
9
Log Grade Control Structure
1
EA
$ 1,500.00
$ 1,500.00
10
8" HDPE Pipe
254
LF
$ 18.00
$ 4,572.00
11
Warm Season Sod
256
SY
$ 5.00
$ 1,281.67
12
Construction Staking
1
LS
$ 4,000.00
$ 4,000.00
13
Erosion Control Matting (Temporary Liner)
397
SY
$ 4.50
$ 1,785.00
14
Erosion Control
1
LS
$ 4,000.00
$ 4,000.00
15
Fence Removal / Replacement
1
LS
$ 8,000.00
$ 8,000.00
16
Tree Protection
1
LS
$ 1,750.00
$ 1,750.00
17
Utility Relocations
LS
$ 5,000.00
$ -
Subtotal $ 173,480.00
20% Contingency $ 34,700.00
Total $ 208,180.00
Design, Administration, Fiscal and Legal $ 65,000.00
Total Opinion of Project Cost $ 273,180.00
*The Engineer's opinions of probable construction costs are made on the basis of the Engineer's experience and qualifications and represent the Engineer's best judgment as a professional
generally familiar with the construction industry. Since the Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others; over the contractors
methods of determining prices; or over competitive bidding or marketing conditions, the Engineer's cannot and does not guarantee that proposal, bids or actual construction costs will not
vary from opinions ofprobable construction costs prepared by the Engineer.
* *Assumes easements will not be required, donated or obtained for a minimal cost
Preliminary Cast Estimate.xlsx

ATTACHMENT 7: Center Street Area Improvements Stormwater Study
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs - Alternative 2A
Updated: 10 -1 -2013
Alternative Description: Sheet Pile /Anchor Wall and Vegetated Slope w/ Temporary Liner
Item Description
QUANTITIES
Amount
1
Mobilization (assume 7.5 %)
1
LS
$ 9,610.00
$ 9,610.00
2
Grading for Bank Stabilization including Plantings
1
LS
$ 15,000.00
$ 15,000.00
3
Aluminized Steel Sheet Pile /Anchor Wall
210
LF
$ 335.24
$ 70,400.00
4
Backfill
187
CY
$ 35.00
$ 6,533.33
5
Log Grade Control Structure
1
EA
$ 1,500.00
$ 1,500.00
6
8" HDPE Pipe
254
LF
$ 18.00
$ 4,572.00
7
Warm Season Sod
256
SY
$ 5.00
$ 1,281.67
8
Construction Staking
1
LS
$ 4,000.00
$ 4,000.00
9
Erosion Control Matting (Permanent Liner)
397
SY
$ 18.00
$ 7,140.00
10
Erosion Control
1
LS
$ 3,000.00
$ 3,000.00
11
Fence Removal / Replacement
1
LS
$ 8,000.00
$ 8,000.00
12
Tree Protection
1
LS
$ 1,750.00
$ 1,750.00
13
Utility Relocations
1
LS
$ 5,000.00
$ 5,000.00
Subtotal $ 137,790.00
20% Contingency $ 27,560.00
Total $ 165,350.00
Design, Administration, Fiscal and Legal $ 65,000.00
Total Opinion of Project Cost $ 230,350.00
*The Engineer's opinions of probable construction costs are made on the basis of the Engineer's experience and qualifications and represent the Engineer's best judgment as a professional
generally familiar with the construction industry. Since the Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others; over the contractors
methods of determining prices; or over competitive bidding or marketing conditions, the Engineer's cannot and does not guarantee that proposal, bids or actual construction costs will not
vary from opinions ofprobable construction costs prepared by the Engineer.
* *Assumes easements will not be required, donated or obtained for a minimal cost
Preliminary Cast Estimate.xlsx

ATTACHMENT 8: Center Street Area Improvements Stormwater Study
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs - Alternative 213
Updated: 10 -1 -2013
Alternative Description: Sheet Pile /Anchor Wall with Upper Modular Block Wall
Item Description
QUANTITIES
Amount
1
Mobilization (assume 7.5 %)
1
LS
$ 9,750.00
$ 9,750.00
2
Grading for Bank Stabilization including Plantings
1
LS
$ 15,000.00
$ 15,000.00
3
Aluminized Steel Sheet Pile /Anchor Wall
210
LF
$ 335.24
$ 70,400.00
4
Modular Block Retaining Wall
400
SF
$ 25.00
$ 10,000.00
5
Backfill
62
CY
$ 35.00
$ 2,177.78
6
Log Grade Control Structure
2
EA
$ 1,500.00
$ 3,000.00
7
8" HDPE Pipe
254
LF
$ 18.00
$ 4,572.00
8
Warm Season Sod
256
SY
$ 5.00
$ 1,281.67
9
Construction Staking
1
LS
$ 4,000.00
$ 4,000.00
10
Erosion Control Matting (Temporary Liner)
397
SY
$ 4.50
$ 1,785.00
11
Erosion Control
1
LS
$ 3,000.00
$ 3,000.00
12
Fence Removal / Replacement
1
LS
$ 8,000.00
$ 8,000.00
13
Tree Protection
1
LS
$ 1,750.00
$ 1,750.00
14
Utility Relocations
1
LS
$ 5,000.00
$ 5,000.00
Subtotal $ 139,720.00
20% Contingency $ 27,940.00
Total $ 167,660.00
Design, Administration, Fiscal and Legal $ 65,000.00
Total Opinion of Project Cost $ 232,660.00
*The Engineer's opinions of probable construction costs are made on the basis of the Engineer's experience and qualifications and represent the Engineer's best judgment as a professional
generally familiar with the construction industry. Since the Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others; over the contractors
methods of determining prices; or over competitive bidding or marketing conditions, the Engineer's cannot and does not guarantee that proposal, bids or actual construction costs will not
vary from opinions ofprobable construction costs prepared by the Engineer.
* *Assumes easements will not be required, donated or obtained for a minimal cost
Preliminary Cast Estimate.xlsx

From: Daniel Ingram
To: 'Bailey. David E SAW'; Joanne Steenhuis lJoanne.Steenhuis(cbncmail.net)
Cc: Scott Siamon
Subject: RE: Center Street stream channel stabilization meeting summary (UNCLASSIFIED)
Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 9:27:00 AM
Correct. Thanks, David.
Daniel Ingram
0 919.782.0495
M 919.622.3845
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Bailey, David E SAW [mailto: David. E.Bailey2(a)usace.army. mil
]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 9:01 AM
To: Daniel Ingram; Joanne Steenhuis (loanne.Steenhuis @ncmail.net)
Cc: Scott Sigmon
Subject: RE: Center Street stream channel stabilization meeting summary (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Sounds good, Daniel. The only clarification I have is that we discussed between 350 and 500 linear feet
of stabilization. For this stream bank length and with the stabilization methods discussed during our
meeting, the USACE would not require compensatory mitigation given the low quality of the resource in
question. Thanks.
-Dave Bailey
David E. Bailey
Regulatory Specialist
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE- SAW -RG -L
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 -1343
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: David. E.Bailey2 @usace.army.mil < mailto: David. E.Bailey2(a)usace.army. mil >
We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer
Service Survey is located at:
httD: / /Der2.nWD.usace.armv.mil /survev.html <httD: / /Der2.nWD.usace.armv.mil /survev.html>
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Daniel Ingram [ mailto:dingram(a)wkdickson.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 3:07 PM
To: Bailey, David E SAW; Joanne Steenhuis (loanne.Steenhuis @ncmail.net)
Cc: Scott Sigmon
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Center Street stream channel stabilization meeting summary
David and Joanne,

Thanks again for meeting with me and Scott Sigmon yesterday. I wanted to summarize our
conversation and give you all an opportunity to provide any additional comments.
Project Summary
* The City of Jacksonville is not pursuing the watershed scale improvements due to budget cuts;
* The Onslow County ABC Commission is pursuing a stabilization on their property to protect the
ABC warehouse;
* Bank pin monitoring has documented up to 1.5 feet of bank erosion on the channel toe in the
last six months;
* Stabilization measures may include gabion baskets along the toe, engineered soil lifts, retaining
walls, and grading;
* Additional erosion control measures will include improvements to redirecting roof drains to a
single stable downstream outlet.
Permitting Discussion
* Due to the impaired stream conditions and severity of erosion all proposed stabilization
measures will be allowed under NWP 13 with no mitigation required;
* A PCN will be required for any channel work below the OHWM;
* Stabilization measures that do not require dewatering are preferred.
Thanks again for your time and let me know if you have any additional comments on this project.
Daniel P. Ingram
Project Manager
W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc.
0 919.782.0495
M 919.622.3845
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

ABC Warehouse Streambank Stabilization
Existing Conditions Photo Log
View upstream of right
bank sloughing, phone
cable exposed.

,�. ���
��� _
7� `��
�'°
+/�' M
` ..� i z+ -

Upstream Center Street
culverts perched,
indicating bed instability.
Bank pi
water s
1.5 feel
n array, pin at
urface visible with
of bank loss.