20071443 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20070803

~d
07_443
August 1, 2007
cl~anwater
M.I,'NA6 EME NT TRUST PUNT}
ode a
^ ~ ~~ 1
o ~ '~00
PSG 3 ~ ~N-~re
.VrP~~F2 y-~
~E. ~pS
~~
City of Roanoke Rapids, NC
City Manager's Office
P.O. Box 38
Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870
Prepared by:
Dewberry and Davis, Inc.
2301 Rexwoods Drive, Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27607 - 3366
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Dewberry ~~~~~~~
.;,.
~•••••~ Dewberry
...

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
City of Roanoke Rapids
Stream Restoration Plan -Reach 2
Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina
Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF)
August 1, 2007
C~~~i'lWc~~~t'
MJ~IVA6EMENT Tt11iT F'YMD
:~ ;-
City of Roanoke Rapids, NC
City Manager's Office
P.O. Box 38
Roanoke Rapids, NC 27870
Prepared by:
Dewberry and Davis, Inc.
2301 Rexwoods Drive, Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27607 - 3366
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Dewberry

1

1

1

~~
1

~- • •
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................ ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... v
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 ProjectDescription ............................................................................................................... 1
2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................ 3
3 LOCATION INFORMATION .............................................................................................................. 4
3.1 River Basin Information ....................................................................................................... 4
3.2 USGS 8-digit Catalog Number ............................................................................................. 4
3.3 County Information .............................................................................................................. 4
3.4 Stream Classifications .......................................................................................................... 4
3.5 USGS Quadrangle Information ............................................................................................ 5
3.6 Addition Watershed Identifications ...................................................................................... 5
4 GENERAL WATERSHED INFORMATION ......................................................................................... 6
4.1 General Description .............................................................................................................. 6
4.2 Drainage Area ....................................................................................................................... 6
4.3 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................................ 6
4.4 Future Land Use ................................................................................................................... 6
4.5 Soils ...................................................................................................................................... 6
5 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................... .. 8
5.1 Project Site .......................................................................................................................... .. 8
5.2 Existing Hydrologic Features ............................................................................................. .. 8
5.3 Project Site Soils ................................................................................................................. .. 8
5.4 Plant Communities ............................................................................................................. .. 9
5.5 Threatened/Endangered Species Study ............................................................................... .. 9
5.6 Rosgen Survey and Classification ...................................................................................... 11
5.6.1 Cross-sections ................................................................................................................. 12
5.6.2 Dimension ...................................................................................................................... 12
5.6.3 Pattern ............................................................................................................................ 12
5.6.4 Profile ............................................................................................................................. 12
5.6.5 Pebble Counts ................................................................................................................. 12
5.7 Topographic Survey ........................................................................................................... 12
5.8 Bank Erosion Hazard Index ................................................................................................ 13
5.9 Wildlife Observed ............................................................................................................... 14
5.10 Summary of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Findings ............................................................... 14
6 STREAM REFERENCE RESTORATION STUDIES ......................................................................... 15
6.1 Site Identification and Description ..................................................................................... 15
6.1.1 Reference Reach 1 -Smith Park .................................................................................... 15
6.1.2 Reference Reach 2 -Falls Lake State Park .................................................................... 16
6.2 Rosgen Classification ......................................................................................................... 17
6.2.1 Reference Reach 1 -Smith Park ..................................................................................... 17
6.2.2 Reference Reach 2 -Falls Lake State Park .................................................................... 18
6.3 Morphological Table .......................................................................................................... 19
6.4 Plant Communities ............................................................................................................. 20
6.4.1 Reference Reach 1 -Smith Park .................................................................................... 20
6.4.2 Reference Reach 2 -Falls Lake State Park .................................................................... 20
6.5 Current Land Use/ Land Cover ........................................................................................... 20
6.6 Soils .................................................................................................................................... 20
Dewberry

I

1

I

1
I
6.6.1 Reference Reach 1 -Smith Park .................................................................................... 20
6.6.2 Reference Reach 2 -Falls Lake State Park .................................................................... 20
7 NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN AND STREAM RESTORATION PLAN ............................................ 22
7.1 Design Considerations ........................................................................................................ 22
7.1.1 Infrastructure Constraints ................................................................................................ 22
7.1.2 Grade Control Points ...................................................................................................... 22
7.1.3 Utility Constraints .......................................................................................................... 23
7.1.4 Preservation of Large Trees ........................................................................................... 23
7.1.5 Minimal Damage to the Roanoke Canal Trail ................................................................ 23
7.2 Proposed Stream Classification .......................................................................................... 24
7.3 Rosgen Priority Level ......................................................................................................... 24
7.4 Bankfull Discharge ............................................................................................................. 24
7.5 Dimension ........................................................................................................................... 24
7.6 Pattern ................................................................................................................................. 24
7.7 Profile ................................................................................................................................. 24
7.8 Morphological Table .......................................................................................................... 25
7.9 Sediment Transport Analysis .............................................................................................. 27
8 TYPICAL DRAWINGS ................................................................................................................... 29
8.1 Typical Cross-Sections ....................................................................................................... 29
8.2 Structures ............................................................................................................................ 29
8.3 Channel Blocks ................................................................................................................... 29
9 STREAM RIPARIAN PLANTING PLAN .......................................................................................... 30
9.1 Riparian Buffer ................................................................................................................... 30
9.2 Riparian Vegetation ............................................................................................................ 30
10 STREAM MONITORING PLAN .................................................................................................. 32
10.1 Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Geomorphology ........................................................... 32
11 STREAM SUCCESS CRITERIA ................................................................................................. 33
11.1 Monitoring Report .............................................................................................................. 33
12 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING ............................................................................................... 34
12.1 Prior to Construction .......................................................................................................... 34
12.2 During Construction ........................................................................................................... 34
12.3 Sediment and Erosion Control ............................................................................................ 34
12.3.1 Tree Protection ........................................................................................................... 35
12.3.2 Erosion Control Features ........................................................................................... 35
12.3.3 Temporarily Impacted Areas ..................................................................................... 35
12.4 Following Construction ...................................................................................................... 36
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 37
APPENDICES ........................................................................ ....................................................................I
Appendix A: General Watershed Information ................. .................................................................. II
Appendix A-1: Physiographic Region Map ................ ................................................................. III
Appendix A-2: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangles ......... .................................................................IV
Appendix A-3: Project Watershed Land Use Map ...... .................................................................. V
Appendix A-4: Project Watershed Soils Map ............. ................................................................. VI
Appendix A-5: Project Site Map ................................. ............................................................... VII
Appendix B: Description of Existing Conditions ............ .............................................................. VIII
Appendix B-1: Project Site Pebble Count Data .......... .................................................................IX
Appendix B-2: Project Site BEHI Data Sheet ............. ............................................................... XII
Appendix C: Restoration Plan Materials ......................... .............................................................. XIII
Appendix C-1: Proposed Cross-Sections .................... .............................................................. XIV
Appendix C-2: Proposed Plan Sheets .......................... ........................................................... XVIII
Dewberry

J
Table of Tables
Table 1 Project Watershed Land Use Summary .................................................................................... 6
Table 2 Project Watershed Soil Series ...................................................................................................7
Table 3 Project Watershed Soil Textures ..............................................................................................
Table 4 Project Soil Series ................................................................................................................... .7
..9
Table 5 Project Soil Textures ............................................................................................................... ..9
Table 6 Halifax County Species of Concern ......................................................................................... .. 9
Table 7 NCNHP Species of Concern within Project Site .................................................................... 10
Table 8 Morphological Table -Existing Conditions ............................................................................
Table 9 Predicted Annual Bank Erosion Rates -Reach 2' .................................................................. 13
14
Table 10 Morphological Table -Reference Reaches ....:.......................................................................
Table 11 REF-2 Watershed Soil Series ................................................................................................ 19
21
Table 12 Watershed Soil Textures ........................................................................................................ 21
Table 13 Morphological Table -Comprehensive ................................................................................
Table 14 Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress Estimates ..................................................................... 26
28
Table 15 Shield's Curve Estimates ...................................................................................................... 28
Table 16 Sample Species for Riparian Buffer Re-Establishment ......................................................... 31
i Table of Figures
Figure 1 Map of Targeted Local Watersheds ......................................................................................... 5
Figure 2 Location of Reference Reach 1 -Smith Park .........................................................................16
Figure 3 Location of Reference Reach 2 -Falls Lake State Park .........................................................16
Figure 4 Pedestrian Bridge, Vehicular Access bridge and Abandoned Water Line Pipe ..................... 23

1
1
Dewberry

1
1
1
1

The North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) awarded CWMTF Project No.
2006A-412 to the City of Roanoke Rapids to stabilize/restore the two tributaries (Reach 2 and Reach
5) to the Roanoke River within the City of Roanoke Rapids. Reach 2 is located in eastern Roanoke
Rapids from just downstream of Rollingwood Road to its confluence with the Roanoke River. Reach
5 is located near the northern edge of Roanoke Rapids downstream of Carolina Street and north of
Right Meyer Drive. Reach 2 has previously been estimated to contribute 44 tons per year of sediment
to a portion of the Roanoke River known to be a spawning and feeding ground for anadromous fish
and to contain several species of State-status Threatened mollusks. Restoration of Reach 2 will
improve the stream's aquatic resource and function, as well as contribute to improved water quality
and protection of the Roanoke River. The project also stabilizes `Unnamed Drainage Path-1' (UDP-
1), `Unnamed Drainage Path -2' (UDP-2), and `Unnamed Drainage Path -3' (UDP-3) which drain
into Reach 2.
Reach 2 is 250 linear feet (500 ft both banks) of a tributary to the Roanoke River in eastern Roanoke
Rapids and UDP-1 is a 200 ft drainage Swale along the Roanoke Canal Trail which drains into Reach
2. The UDP-2 and UDP-3 are 20 ft and 80 ft drainage swales which drain into Reach 2. This
Restoration Plan documents the restoration and stabilization approach for the Reach 2, UDP-1, UDP-
2, and UDP-3. At the downstream project limits, Reach 2 has a drainage area of approximately 331
acres (0.52 square miles). The drainage area for Reach 2 is moderately urbanized watershed,
characterized by residential development with landscaped and lawn areas. Within the project limits,
the stream and UDP-1 lacks sinuosity and have riparian buffer zones that have been highly impacted
by bank erosion. Erosion is resulting in private and public property loss. The UDP-2 and UDP-3 are
drainage swales which will need grade control and energy dissipation structure (i.e. step pool) and
revised channel dimensions due to modified orientation for Reach 2.
A Rosgen analysis was performed on Reach 2 to collect stream dimension, pattern, profile, and cross-
sectional data within the project limits. The Reach 2 project reach has high gradient with step-pool,
cascading channel bedform with bedrock grade control and shows significant areas of bank erosion
below its confluence with the UDP-1. Using the Rosgen classification system, Reach 2 is classified as
A3/1 stream type.

1

1
Because the study stream length is located around the Roanoke Canal Trail, there are many site
constraints that have been considered in the development of the Restoration Plan which also impact
the stream design. Roanoke Canal Trail is located along the historical Roanoke Canal which was
built in 1800s as a North Carolina segment of Roanoke navigation System. The Roanoke Canal Trail
is on the historic register. The Roanoke Canal Trail proximity to the streams limits the space available
to develop stream pattern and buffers with the project area. An emphasis has been placed on causing
minimizing the erosion to the Roanoke Canal Trail and maintaining large trees along the project
reach.
Reach 2 currently has a vehicular access bridge which is a private makeshift structure to provide
access across the stream and a smaller pedestrian bridge located within the project limits.
Downstream of the bridges, the channel slope flattens into a backwater area near its confluence with
the Roanoke River. It was requested that the pedestrian bridge and vehicular access bridge are
removed and saved for the City.
Dewberry
1

1

1

1
i~

1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
This Restoration Plan documents the evaluation and development of a conceptual stream design for
approximately 4001inear feet of Reach 2 and 300 ft of UDP-1. The stream is located within the City
of Roanoke Rapids, in Halifax County NC. The identified stream length is located in eastern
Roanoke Rapids from just downstream of Rollingwood Road to its confluence with the Roanoke
River. The historic Roanoke Canal Trail, a sanitary sewerline and a raw water main intersect the
reach upstream of its confluence with Roanoke River. The City of Roanoke Rapids has agreed to
provide a Conservation Easement along the stream reach identified for restoration. Dewberry &
Davis, Inc. (Dewberry) is working with the City to develop stream restoration documents for the
identified reaches.
As part of the development of the Stream Restoration Plan for the identified stream reach and
tributary, Dewberry has performed the following tasks:
• Watershed and Stream Data Collection
• Topographic Study (excluding a Boundary Survey)
• Existing Stream Analyses
• Reference Reach Identification and Analysis
• Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study
• Development of Conceptual and Restoration Plans
Dewberry began the restoration plan process by collecting existing GIS databases from various
sources for reference use on this project. Some of the databases include color aerial photography, NC
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2-ft topographic data, NRCS soil survey information, etc. A
2-ft topographic data was obtained from the NCDOT for use in developing Digital Elevation Model
(DEM) for the project site and watershed. Using this DEM, watersheds were developed for the study
stream; see Appendix A-5 for overall project watershed. Aerial photography was analyzed for land
use within each watershed. (Appendix A-3)
A detailed topographic survey was conducted along study stream. The topographic survey included
approximately 150 feet in width (centered along each stream) extending the length of each study
stream. Survey included location of large trees and utilities within the survey extents. Stream profiles
were collected, geomorphic features mapped, general channel features and typical cross sections were
collected along each study stream.
The project scope did not include a Boundary Survey. Property and utility easement location
information was obtained from the City of Roanoke Rapids Planning Department. The Conservation
Easement shown was obtained from City as an approximate boundary.
As part of the existing stream analysis, surveyed stream features were analyzed to develop the Rosgen
morphological table. The riparian buffer was evaluated to document the existing plant species present
on site and to note any invasive plant species. Soil samples were collected within the riparian buffer
area and sent to the USDA Soil Service for analysis.
' A search has been conducted to locate an urban reference reach with similar watershed characteristics
to the project reaches. An urban reference reach Unnamed Tributary to Roanoke River (REF-1) has
been located and survey has been performed to document stream features, see Appendix A-1 for
Dewberry 1

J

1

1
1
i~
1

['

1
1
1
reference reach location and watershed. Typical cross sections were surveyed and a morphological
table developed for this site. The riparian buffer was analyzed to document plant species present.
Data collected has been analyzed, evaluated, and applied in the development of the Restoration Plan,
contained in this document.
Dewberry 2
1

2.1 Goals and Objectives
' This stream restoration project will support the CWMTF's mission to restore wetlands, streams, and
riparian (streamside) areas throughout the state.
- Enhance or restore degraded waters.
- Contribute toward a network of riparian buffers and greenways for environmental,
educational, and recreational benefits.
Specifically, the stream restoration will have the following benefits:
- Reduction of downstream sedimentation by stabilizing eroding stream banks along
the Roanoke Canal Trail;
- Replacement of a degraded stream reach with a stabilized stream which supports
natural stream processes;
- Reduction in private property loss;
- Reduction in public property loss to the Roanoke Canal Trail, a Historic Register
property;
- Improved aquatic habitat, including pools for fish, and reduction in water temperature
from shading of riparian trees; and
- Improved aesthetics of the restored stream reach.
In addition, the restoration of the riparian buffer will have the following benefits:

- Increased stream bank stability in an area with easily eroded soils, which in turn
reduces the potential for public and private property loss'
- Additional source water protection for the Roanoke River, an essential spawning and
feeding ground of several anadromous fish;
- Reduction in sedimentation to a reach of the Roanoke River with known populations
of threatened (State status) mussels;
- Reestablishment of a riparian corridor for wildlife.
The restoration project endeavors to support the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's
(NCDWQ) efforts to improve water quality as identified in the Roanoke River Basinwide Water
Quality Management Plan for 2001. In general, the project supports, wholly or in part, the following
sections of the Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan:
- 4.2.1 Sedimentation
- 4.2.2 Loss of Riparian Vegetation
- 4.2.3 Channelization
- 4.2.4 Habitat Degradation
- 4.9.1 Bank Failure

Dewberry
1

~ ...._ ..
3.1 River Basin Information
' North Carolina contains 17 river basins either partially or completely. The project watershed is
situated at the boundary of the Piedmont and Coastal Plains Physiographic Regions and within the
Roanoke River Basin. The Roanoke River basin drainage area is greater than 10,000 square miles,
' while the North Carolina portion of the basin is approximately 3,500 square miles, see Appendix A-1.
3.2 USGS 8-digit Catalog Number
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) categorizes the nation into 21 regions, into sub-regions,
into accounting units, and finally into cataloging units. Each of these divisions results in the
assignment of two digits. The result is that these cataloging units or watersheds each possess a unique
8-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC). The Roanoke is sub-divided into 10 of these 8-digit units. The
project watershed has a HUC of 03010107 (03 South-Atlantic Gulf, O1 Chowan-Roanoke, O1
Roanoke, 07 Lower Roanoke).
The North Carolina State Office of the USGS has further subdivided the 8-digit watersheds, devised
at the federal level, into 14-digit sub-watersheds. The project watershed's 14 digit HUC is
03010107070010. Amap of the Reach 2's 14 digit HUC is provided in Appendix A-1.
' 3.3 Coun Information
ty
The project watershed is located within the city of Roanoke Rapids in eastern Halifax County. A map
of Halifax and surrounding counties is provided, see Appendix A-1.
1 3.4 Stream Classifications
The project stream is not stream that has been classified for use or condition by NCDWQ. Reach 2
directly drains to the Roanoke River. The NCDWQ has assigned a C; surface water classification for
the Roanoke River near Roanoke Rapids.
A "C" classification indicates waters defined to have a best use of aquatic life propagation/protection
and secondary recreation. Waters that have a primary classification of "C" are waters which have
sufficient water quality to support fish consumption, aquatic life, and secondary recreation (i.e.,
wading, boating and minimal human body contact with water).

1
1
Within Appendix II of the Roanoke Basinwide Watershed Restoration Plan (2001), the NCDWQ
noted that the benthic macro invertebrate bio-classifications were completed at two locations near
Reach 2. On the Deep Creek at US 158 and Quankey Creek at SR 1619 the streams received
"GOOD" and "GOOD-FAIR" ratings between 1990 and 1999. The NCDWQ's "GOOD-FAIR"
benthic macro invertebrate bio-classification rating indicates a use support rating of "Partially
Impaired" for benthic organisms.
Dewberry
1

' 3.5 USGS Quadrangle Information
Reach 2 is located within the central eastern portion of the Roanoke Rapids 7.5 minute USGS
quadrangle. A complete map showing the Roanoke Rapids and adjacent quadrangles can be found in
Appendix A-2.
3.6 Addition Watershed Identifications
The North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) uses several
different methods to categorize and organize the state's watersheds. Three (3) of these identifications
are listed below with their descriptions.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Watershed Restoration Plan for the Roanoke
River Basin (2001) and The Basinwide Assessment Reports (Roanoke River Basin 2005) both place
the project watershed in a watershed with a DWQ identifier of Roanoke River Subbasin 03-02-08.
The Division of Water Quality's Nonpoint Source Management Program also recognizes that the
project watershed lies within a "Category 2 Basin" or a basin "Meeting Goals, Including Those
Needing Action to Sustain Water Quality." The Nonpoint Source Management Program uses the
North Carolina Unified Watershed Assessment 8 Digit Cataloging Category to identify watersheds.
These cataloging units are synonymous with the USGS units. The project watershed's 8-digit number
is 03010107.
The EEP identifies small watersheds that are of special concern called Targeted Local Watersheds.
There are several EEP Targeted Local Watersheds (defined by their NRCS 14-digit hydrologic unit)
within the same North Carolina Unified Watershed Assessment 8 Digit Cataloging Category. The
project site is closest to EEP's Roanoke River Targeted Local Watershed numbers (03010107)
070010, 070020, and 070030. These watersheds are located just west of the project watershed, see
Figure 1. The EEP uses these watersheds to concentrate multiple restoration projects within a local
watershed to maximize program resources and result in greater benefits to water quality. A benefit of
identifying Targeted Local Watersheds is to encourage other groups and organizations to consider
implementing projects in these areas also.
' Figure 1 Map of Targeted Local Watersheds
~~_
NGDENR Roanoke
. ~ ~~
~L .~ °. :-a, Rwex E3asin
,r-~ _ ,..
~ - 4 rv:
• -~ r (~ ~ ~ P 1Fcua-.
~tl ~l ~.9~ tM1Sb 14cV.~urw.
..1..
Dewberry 5

t

1

t
4.1 General Description
The project watershed is located entirely within the City of Roanoke Rapids and is roughly bounded
by 10`h Street to the west, 8~' Street to the north, SR 1742 to the south and Roanoke River to the east.
The project watershed is urban in nature, and is characterized by moderate density commercial and
residential development.
4.2 Drainage Area
Reach 2 has a drainage area of approximately 331 acres (0.52 square miles) at the downstream project
limits. Reach 2 enters the site through culverts located at Rollingwood Road.
4.3 Existing Land Use
The project watershed is an urban watershed with significant amounts of commercial and residential
uses, as shown in Table 1 and Appendix A-3. Approximately 12% of the project watershed has a
commercial land use while roughly 44% is used for residential purposes. Less than 18% of the area in
the watershed is open space.
Table 1 Project Watershed Land Use Summary
Land Use % b area
Commercial 12
Residential 44
Mobile Home Park 1
Institutional /Recreational 6
Roads / Ri ht of Wa 19
O en 18
An analysis was performed to evaluate impervious area of the watershed. GIS layers representing
building footprints, driveways, parking areas, and roadways were obtained from the City of Roanoke
Rapids to facilitate this evaluation. Based on this data and an analysis of aerial photography,
impervious area for the watershed is over 39%.
4.4 Future Land Use
A review of the aerial photography indicates that the project watershed is built out to its ultimate
potential considering the fact that most of the open areas lie within the public property along Roanoke
Canal Trail which can not be developed. It appears that parcels have already been developed under
the current zoning regulations. It is assumed that there will not be a significant change in zoning or
land use in the foreseeable future. Therefore, there is no reasonable expectation for significant
changes in the hydrologic function of the watershed.
1

1
1
4.5 Soils
The project watershed contains several different soil mapping units, which are predominated by the
Emporia soil series. The Turbeville, Winston, and Riverview series are also found in small pockets
(Appendix A-4). Table 2 lists the soil mapping units and the percentage of the watershed area made
up by each soil mapping unit, in which each series described below, is found. Soils in the project
watershed are predominately sandy loams. The soil textures and corresponding percentage of
watershed area are shown in Table 3.
Dewberry

LJ

Table 2 Project Watershed Soil Series
1

1
1
Soil Ma in Unit % of Watershed
Em oria 96.0
Turbeville 2.1
Winston 1.4
Riverview 0.5
Table 3 Project Watershed Soil Textures
Soil Texture % of Watershed
Fine Sand Loam 99.5
Loam 0.5
Emporia Series
This series consists of very deep well drained soils found mostly in upland coastal plain areas with
flat geomorphic conditions. Infiltration is moderately slow to slow and surface runoff is medium to
high. Most Emporia soils are classified as sandy loam.
Turbeville Series
This series consists of very deep and well drained soils found on nearly level to steep soils on high
terraces in the Piedmont rand Upper Coastal Plains. Slope gradients are commonly from 0 to 35
percent. The soils are typically fine sandy loam.
Winston Series
This series consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in glacial outwash, or old alluvium, with a
mantle of loess and volcanic ash. The soils in this soil series are on terraces and terrace escarpment
and have slopes of 0 to 65 percent. Most Winston soils are classified as Coarse-loamy over sandy or
sandy-skeletal.
Riverview Series
This series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils that are formed in loamy
alluvium on flood plains. Slopes range from 0 to 5 percent. Most Riverview series soils are classified
' as fine-loamy.

1
Dewberry

1
5.1 Project Site
' The study stream length of Reach 2 is located in eastern Roanoke Rapids from just downstream of
Rollingwood Road to its confluence with the Roanoke River. The historic Canal Trail, a sewer line,
and a water main intersect the reach upstream of its confluence with Roanoke River. A majority of
' Reach 2 is located within a deep, confined valley within an area between two residential dwellings.
Evidence of historic anthropogenic channel alteration, including riprap and former silt fencing were
observed along the upper reaches of the tributary.
Reach 2 currently has a makeshift vehicular access bridge and a smaller pedestrian bridge located
within the project limits. There is also an exposed sewer line crossing downstream of the makeshift
vehicular access bridge. Downstream of the bridges, the channel slope flattens into a backwater area
' near its confluence with the Roanoke River. Evidence of active erosion was observed on a large
portion of the north bank in this area. The stream bank and riparian buffer have moderated tree cover
in most locations along Reach 2.
t Because the project reaches are located around Roanoke Canal Trail which is on historic register,
there are many factors that have been carefully considered during development of the Restoration
Plans. As part of the Restoration Plan, Dewberry considered many constraints including, but not
limited to the following:
• Preservation of large trees along the project reaches,
• Utilization/re-utilization of existing pedestrian crossing along the stream reach,
• Utility crossings along the stream,
• Lack of grade along project reaches,
• Minimum changes to the Roanoke Canal Trail
' • Maintaining existing grade control points, and
• Anticipated Conservation Easement limits.
' Efforts to minimize tree removal have been made, as they provide not only environmental benefits,
but an aesthetic benefit, as well. Large diameter trees have been surveyed along the project reach and
shown on the Restoration Plan.

Known utilities include electric, water, stormwater, and sanitary-sewer lines. Potential utility
conflicts were considered during development of the Restoration Plan.
' S.2 Existing Hydrologic Features
Reach 2 enters the project area via stormwater culverts/drainage systems under Rollingwood Road.
Reach 2 flows into Roanoke River approximately 250 linear feet downstream of the u/s project limits.
' S.3 Project Site Soils
An analysis has been made of the soils within the project limits using NRCS GIS soil data. Based on
' this dataset, the predominant soil of the project site is the Emporia series. The soils in this series
consist of very deep well drained soils found mostly in upland coastal plain areas with flat
geomorphic conditions. Infiltration is moderately slow to slow and surface runoff is medium to high.
' Most Emporia soils are classified as sandy loam. The soil types, textures, and corresponding
percentage of project area are shown in Table 4 and Table 5.
Dewberry
1

1
u

0
1

1
1
1

r
1
1
1
Table 4 Project Soil Series
Soil Ma in Units % of Project Site
Em oria 40
Riverview 40
Winston 20
Table 5 Project Soil Textures
Soil Texture % of Watershed
Fine Sand Loam 60
Loam 40
Emporia Series
This series consists of very deep well drained soils found mostly in upland coastal plain areas with
flat geomorphic conditions. Infiltration is moderately slow to slow and surface runoff is medium to
high. Most Emporia soils are classified as sandy loam.
Riverview Series
This series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils that are formed in loamy
alluvium on flood plains. Slopes range from 0 to 5 percent. Most Riverview series soils are classified
as fine-loamy
Winston Series
This series consists of very deep, well drained soils formed in glacial outwash, or old alluvium, with a
mantle of loess and volcanic ash. The soils in this soil series are on terraces and terrace escarpment
and have slopes of 0 to 65 percent. Most Winston soils are classified as Coarse-loamy over sandy or
sandy-skeletal.
5.4 Plant Communities
Overstory vegetation observed along the upper reaches of Reach 2 within the steep valley included
river birch (Betula nigra), American elm (Ulmus americana), black cherry (Prunus serotina), red
maple (Ater rubrum), tag alder (Alms serrulata) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Overstory
vegetation within riparian areas along downstream portions of Reach 2 also included sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), box elder (A. negundo) and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). Shrubs
included Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and herbaceous vegetation included Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Reach 2 has a drainage
area of approximately 331 acres (0.52 square miles). Although not heavily urbanized, the majority of
the watershed is developed. The development consists largely of residential dwellings with
landscaped and lawn areas, commercial areas and roads. The remainder of the watershed is forested.
5.5 Threatened/Endangered Species Study
A search of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the NCNHP indicates three (3)
endangered, one (1) threatened, and thirteen (13) species of concern could be potentially found in
Halifax County or in the areas of the 7.5 minute USGS Quadrangle Map for Roanoke Rapids (Table
6).
Table 6 Halifax County Species of Concern
Common Name Scientific Name State Status* Federal Status**
Vertebrate
Dewberry

1

1
1

r~
1
1
t

J
1
1
American Eel Anguilla rostrata Special Concern FSC
Bachman's S arrow Aimo hila aestivalis S ecial Concern FSC
Bald Ea le Haliaeetus leucoce halus Threatened Threatened
Carolina madtom Noturus uriosus S ecial Concern FSC
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea S ecial Concern FSC
Red-cockaded
wood ecker Picoides borealis Endangered Endangered
Roanoke bass Amblo lites cavi rons S ecial Concern FSC
Southeastern m otis M otis austrori arius S ecial Concern FSC
Invertebrate
Atlantic i toe Fusconaia masoni S ecial Concern FSC
Chowanoke cra fish Orconectes vir iniensis S ecial Concern FSC
Dwarf wed emussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endan ered Endan ered
Green floater Lasmi ona subviridis S ecial Concern FSC
Tar Rivers in mussel Elli do steinstansana Endan ered Endan ered
Yellow lam mussel Lam silis cariosa S ecial Concern FSC
Yellow lance Elli do lanceolata S ecial Concern FSC
Vascular Plant
Bo St. John's-wort H ericum ad ressum S ecial Concern FSC
Virginia least trillium Trillium pusillum var.
vir inianum Special Concern FSC
*State Status Abbreviations: E= Endangered, T =Threatened, &FSC =Federal Species of Concern
It can be reasonably assumed that the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) is not found on or near the
project site due to the lack of suitable habitat. The red-cockaded woodpecker has highly specialized
habitat requirements, which account for its endangered status (http:r%www.fivs.aov,~`nc-
es/birdslrcwood.html & http:/Jwww.fws.pov./rcwrecover~~`). Its cavity trees are found only in mature
pine forests containing trees greater than about 60 years of age which are fairly open and free of a
hardwood understory. The project site has no old growth trees. Even on the upstream end where a
stand of trees exist, the pine trees for the most part are relatively young and are intermixed with a
hardwood understory, which would not be favorable for RCW nesting.
Neither of the endangered mollusk species can reasonably be assumed to be present within the project
limits, nor were any mollusks found during field visits. Given the urban nature of the project
watershed, the poor water quality resulting from significant residential runoff, down cutting, and the
relatively low base flow in the streams, the project stream is assumed to not be suitable for sensitive
mollusk species.
The NCNHP included the following species shown in Table 7 to the list created based on their
knowledge of the area:
Table 7 NCNHP Species of Concern within Project Site
Common Name Scientific Name State Status* Federal Status**
Vertebrate
Mississippi Kite Ictinia mississippiensis Significantly Rare N/A
Invertebrate
Trian le Floater Alasmidonta undulata Threatened N/A
Alewife Floater Anodonta im licata Threatened N/A
Roanoke Slabshell Elli do roanokensis Threatened N/A
Dewberry to
1

1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i

Eastern lam mussel Lam silis radiata Threatened N/A
Vascular Plant
Buffalo Clover Trifolium reflexum Si nificantl Rare N/A
Sessile-flowered trillium Trillium sessile Si nificantl Rare N/A
Dwarf stin in nettle Urtica chamaed oides Si nificantl Rare N/A
*State Status Abbreviations: E= Endangered, T =Threatened, & FSC =Federal Species of Concern
The NCNHP lists one significantly rare bird and four threatened mussels for the Roanoke Rapids
USGS Quadrangle that were not specifically listed in the USFWS or the NCNHP documentation.
The bird, the Mississippi Kite, is listed as significantly rare in North Carolina, but is globally secure.
The Mississippi Kite winters in the tropics and migrates to breeding ranges whose northern limit
includes North Carolina. The Mississippi Kite's North Carolina habitat is mature, extensive
bottomland forests, which is not found at this urban project site.
The four mussels classified as threatened by the NCNHP are the Triangle Floater, the Alewife
Floater, the Roanoke Slabshell, and the Eastern Lampmussel. The NCNHP was contacted for
information regarding these species, and they do not list an occurrence for any endangered, threatened
or species of concern on Reach 2, however, several occurrences of State status threatened mussels
have been noted nearby on the Roanoke River.
The assumption that these species are not likely to be found in this watershed cannot be substantiated
without a full investigation by a qualified professional, which is beyond the scope of this project.
However, the existing conditions of the project site suggest that there is no reasonable expectation of
finding any of the above listed species within the project site.
5.6 Rosgen Survey and Classification
A stream survey and classification has been performed using Rosgen methodology. A morphological
investigation of the streams is a key component of the survey and includes the collection of cross
section, assessment of stream dimension, pattern, profile, and substrate materials. These
characteristics were collected and evaluated using the techniques outlined in Applied River
Morphology (Rosgen, 1996).
The Reach 2 study reach can generally be characterized as a high gradient stream with low sinuosity,
and having significant areas of bank erosion below its confluence with the portion of Roanoke Canal.
Using Rosgen's classification, as outlined in Applied River Morphology, Reach 2 was classified as an
entrenched (1.25), small cobble bed stream (D50 = 104.25 mm) with a width to depth ratio of greater
than eleven to one (11:1) and a very low sinuosity (1.12). Based on an evaluation of Reach 2 is
classified as a Rosgen A3/1 stream type. Based on further evaluation of the stream, the upstream half
of the stream from the culvert to the Roanoke Canal Trail seems to have a very high slope and less
sinuosity which biases the overall classification of the stream. The downstream half from the
confluence with the Roanoke River to the Roanoke Canal Trail has the physical features of a Rosgen
F3 Rosgen stream.
The entrenchment ratio for Reach 2 is 1.25 on average, but in many locations it is much less and there
' are several hardened soil outcroppings that artificially skew the average value. For this reason the
stream is classified as entrenched rather than moderately entrenched. The average width to depth ratio
is high at 11.56 and the sinuosity is low at 1.117. Ordinarily an A stream type possesses a low
sinuosity, but this reach is constrained by buildings and high slopes that suppress the natural sinuosity
' of the stream. The DSO of the bed is 104.25 mm, which is representative of a small cobble channel.
The cobbles are naturally present in the channel due to natural geomorphology of the stream.
Dewberry 11
1

' The discussion below describes the methodology and results of each portion of the stream survey and
classification.
5.6.1 Cross-sections
' Survey of the reachs included collection of stream profile and cross sections. Cross-sections were
taken at representative riffles, maximum pools, and head of pools. The data collected at each cross-
section included longitudinal and cross-sectional station, bankfull station and elevation, thalweg
' location and elevation, edge of water location and elevation, breaks in slope, floodprone area, and top
of bank. A topographic survey, including large diameter tree location, was performed within an
approximately 150 foot width, centered along each project reach length.
1
ll
d
at one (
)
ecte
Reach 2 is comprised of several riffle-pool sequences. Cross sections were co
representative run, riffle, pool, and glide locations.
' 5.6.2 Dimension
Bankfull location identification is a critical aspect in the assessment of stream dimension. The most
dominant bankfull indicators were the highest scour line and break in slope on each stream bank.
' Point bars and inner berm, which the Army Corp of Engineers often refers to as the Mean High Water
Elevation, were minimally present and typically were weak features.
' The mean bankfull cross-sectional area for Reach 2 is approximately 20.11 square feet. The mean
bankfull width is 15.26 feet. The mean entrenchment ratio in Reach 2 is 1.25. Summary dimension
measurements can be found in Table 8.
'
5.6.3 Pattern
Reach 2 has minimal sinuosity. Overall Reach 2 has a sinuosity of 1.25. Due to lack of sinuosity of
1 the stream no belt width or meander wavelength measurements were taken.
5.6.4 Profile
Reach 2 drops approximately 8.3 feet in elevation while traveling 189 feet through the project site.
This results in an overall slope of 0.044ft/ft or 4.4%. Upper portions of Reach 2 consist of a high-
energy riffle-pool sequence with a large amount of bedrock control. The upstream portion of the
channel from downstream of the Rollingwood Road is at a higher slope of approximately 5.5% while
the portion downstream of the confluence with UDP-1 to confluence with Roanoke River is at a slope
of 3.0%. Complete profile measurements can be found in Table 8.
' 5.6.5 Pebble Counts
Pebble counts were taken at two (2) locations along Reach 2. One (1) of these locations was taken at
the riffle section and one (1) was taken at the pool section. At each location, more than one-hundred
' samples were taken. The Dso of the bed is 104.25 mm, which is representative of a small cobble
channel. The cobbles are naturally present in the channel due to natural geomorphology of the stream.
Complete data sheets can be found in Appendix B-1.
' S.7 Topographic Survey
A topographic survey was completed using conventional and GPS survey techniques within the
stream and along the immediate overbanks. The topographic survey included the location of top and
bottom of banks for each stream, stream thalweg, and breaks in slope. Additionally, location of
Dewberry 12
1

bridges, culverts, large trees, buildings, and utilities were included. Cross-sections for both hydraulic
' modeling and for Rosgen analyses were also surveyed.
Table 8 Morphological Table -Existing Conditions

1

1

' Parameter Units Stream
each Name Reach 2
'm Stream T e A3/1
c Draina a Area miz 0.52
m
~ ,
Bankfull Dischar e, QBKF
cfs
203
Bankfull Velocit , VBKF fUs 10.1
Bankfull X-Sec. Area, ABKF ft2 20.1
Bankfull Width, WgKp ft 15.3
Bankfull Mean De th, DgKF ft 1.3
c
4 '
Width/De th, WgKF DBKF 11.6
y
~
Bankfull Max De th, DM,ix
ft
2.0
E
~. p
DMA%~ DBKF 1.5
W. Flood Prone Area, WppA ft 26.1
Entrenchment Ratio, WFPA ~ WBKF 1.3
Bank Height Ratio, BHR 3 0
Parameter Units Min ~ Max
Meander Len th, LM ft
M.L.Ratio, LMT WBKF
m Radius of Curvature , R~ ft Nominal pattern in this
o' RC Ratio, R~, WgKF portion of the Reach.
Belt Width, WgLT ft
BW Ratio, WBLT~ WBKF
L.Pool S acin , L 5 ft
P.S.Ratio, L s/WBKF
Pool Width, W ft Not measured
P.W. Ratio, W /WgKF
~ Pool De th, D ft
a P.D. Ratio, D I DgKF
Valle Slo e, Sval 4.4%
j Channel Slo e, Soh 4.4%
Sinuosit , K 1.1
Pool Slo e, Sp 0
~ D~6 -Channel mm 6.28
a Dso -Channel mm 104.25
3
y
D8, -Channel
mm
Bedrock
a 5.8 Bank Erosion Hazard Index
Bank Erosion Hazard Index forms were completed at eight (9) representative features throughout the
length of Reach 2. These reaches lack strong morphology and comprise a minor percentage of the
overall stream length being evaluated. Seven (7) of eight (8) of the evaluations resulted in either a
high or very high potential for erosion. Table 9 with the predicted annual bank erosion rates can be
' found below and a location map can be found in Appendix B-2.
Dewberry 13

Table 9 Predicted Annual Bank Erosion Rates -Reach 21
Subreach
ID BEHI NBS Length
(ft Loss (cu
ds/ r Loss
tons/ r
1R Moderate 29.8 Low 48 0.13 0.17
2R Hi h 38.8 Low 25 0.51 0.66
3L Ver Hi h 40.6 Moderate 20 2.96 3.85
4R Ver Hi h 40.8 Hi h 19 4.22 5.49
SL Ver Hi h 41.5 Moderate 19 3.94 5.12
6R Hi h 36.6 Moderate 15 2.67 3.47
7R Ver Hi h 44.1 Ve Hi h 24 9.33 12.13
8L Hi h 38.2 Hi h 28 1.97 2.56
Totals 25.73 33.45
'Source: Relationship of BEHI and NBS to predict annual streambank erosion rates, North Carolina data, 2006.
5.9 Wildlife Observed
At the time of wildlife assessment, much of the project site had recently been denuded as part of a
' maintenance operation. Consequently, this potentially resulted in loss of habitat for some species.
During the wildlife assessment, few terrestrial species were encountered. A few species seen on-site
include red snake, grey squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), and other unidentified small birds.
' No aquatic community was noted along the project reach.
5.10 Summary of Hydrologic and Hydraulic Findings
' Reach 2 has not been studied by FEMA and, consequently, are not subject to regulation under Federal
Emergency Management Act (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Therefore, no
flood study submittal is required to be made to this federal agency. It lies within the floodway fringe
' of the Roanoke Rapids hence a floodplain development permit is obtained by the community.
1

1
1
Dewberry
14

1

6.1 Site Identification and Description
' Factors that were evaluated in order to select reference streams, include finding a stream with
comparable watershed size, watershed soils, stream bed/bank soils, stream classification, stream
stability, watershed land use /land cover, impervious area, valley slope, stream slope, and steam
' order to the project reach stream. While many sites were investigated for potential as a Reference
Reach, finding a stable reference reach stream in good condition in an urban setting is challenging.
Eight (8) stream sites were selected as potential reference sites based on appropriate drainage areas
' and upstream land use similar to Reach 2. The headwaters for each of these streams are semi-urban to
urban and the drainage areas ranged from 42 to 162 acres. Each potential reference site was field
assessed and two sites were deemed to have suitable morphological features for use as a reference.
The remaining sites were severely degraded and many were noted to contain significant reaches of
' altered features.
The two streams selected for reference reaches were evaluated using the US Army Corps of
' Engineers Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program (EMRRP's) Reach
Assessment -Physical and Reach Assessment -Environmental characterization as outlined in the
EMRRP Technical Note SR-03. Both streams selected as reference reaches received "Optimal"
ratings using the Reach Assessment -Environmental Characterization. Assessments for each reach
are located in Appendix A.
6.1.1 Reference Reach 1-Smith Park
' The Unnamed Tributary to the Roanoke River lies within Smith Park, located on 5`h Street adjacent to
the Davis Recreation Center in Roanoke Rapids (Figure 2), is classified as an E4 stream. It is selected
as Reference Reach I (REF-1) for Reach 2 due to similar physical features. Moreover, The REF-1
' lies within the same physiographic region with similar watershed characteristics as compared to
Reach 2. The drainage area for this reach is approximately 90 acres and is characterized by low-
density residential development. A significant portion of the stream bed contained bedrock, which
' greatly minimized the stream's ability to down-cut. The reach lacked sinuosity due to horizontal
restrictions caused by a sanitary manhole and existing trees.

1
1
^ Dewberry 15

Figure 2 Location of Reference Reach 1 -Smith Park
6.1.2 Reference Reach 2 -Falls Lake State Park
Reference Reach 2 (REF-2) is an Unnamed Tributary to Lower Barton Creek draining the Chatsworth
subdivision in northwestern Wake County (Figure 3 ), The watershed drainage area is approximately
36.4 acres and is roughly defined by Wagon Ridge Road and Adams Mountain Road at the western
watershed boundary, Brass Kettle Road along the southern watershed boundary and by existing inter-
stream boundaries elsewhere.
The watershed land use is approximately 32 percent wooded and 65 percent low density residential
development. The parcels, which are wholly or partially contained by the watershed, range in size
from one acre to 2.75 acres, many of which are retain significant wooded areas. Currently, the
watershed is approximately nine percent impervious.
Figure 3 Location of Reference Reach 2 -Falls Lake State Park
_~
'~` ~~l ~ Youngsville
L.?'~a
n
- L" r. ~J
Re'fe(ellCB ~ VVSkeFUrast
Reach 2 J~
_. __ y
~ a ..fij]
~ ~ ,~
~, l z r %'7 ~ ~ „fir- `U" ~~
,, ~ ~
,~~~` ~ n~ ~ P.olesville
i ( ~,.Y
_ ~~~f ~
I~ 4, ~ t
µZ--'a.} ~ RalelJh ~..r5n fry. ~~s4
.,.~
~~ Dewberry 16

1
1

1

1
1
t
f
ll
t
1

1

6.2 Rosgen Classification
Rosgen survey of the reference sites followed the techniques outlined in the reference entitled United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) stream channel reference sites: an illustrated guide to field
techniques. Morphological information for each reference reach used for the project design is located
in Morphological Table (Table 10).
6.2.1 Reference Reach 1 -Smith Park
Rosgen survey for the REF-1 was taken in April 2002. The surveyed reach was 226 feet in length,
approximately 23 bankfull widths, and contained five riffles and two pools but lacked strong pattern
features. However, this reference reach was included to provide dimension data from a local stream
with a drainage area very similar to the project site.
6.2.1.1 Cross-sections
Cross-sections were taken at four (4) representative head of riffles and 1 representative head of pool.
Survey shots at these cross-sections included thalweg, edge of water, bankfull, breaks, flood prone
location, top of banks, and additional out of bank ground shots. Additionally, survey shots were
taken at the other features to confirm bankfull width and depth, pool to pool spacing, riffle to riffle
spacing, riffle to pool spacing, and water surface slope.
6.2.1.2 Dimension
The average bankfull area at the representative riffles was 9.8 square feet, while the average bankfull
width was 9.2 feet. The bankfull mean depth was 1.04 feet. The average bankfull widths ranged
between 6.5 to 12.3 feet.
6.2.1.3 Pattern
Due to the lack of sinuosity of the stream no belt width or meander wavelength measurements were
taken. Pattern data from this reference reach was not used in design.
6.2.1.4 Profile
The surveyed reach has an elevation drop of 3.35 feet along a channel length of 226 feet, which
results in a slope of approximately 1.48 %. The reach has a valley length of 210 feet and a stream
length of 226 feet, which indicates a sinuosity of 1.149. The two pools were separated by 31 feet or
roughly 3.2 bankfull widths. The average riffle to riffle spacing was measured to be approximately
45 feet or 4.66 bankfull widths.
6.2.1.5 Pebble Counts
Wolman Pebble Count was conducted along the reach. Riffles represented approximately 80% of the
reach length, so pebble counts were completed with a ratio of 5 riffle counts to each pool count. A
total of 100 counts were taken, 16 counts taken at each of four riffles, 10 counts at one riffle, and 28
counts taken at a pool. The DSO of Reference Reach 1 was determined to be 19 mm, which indicates a
gravel bed.
6.2.1.6 Rosgen Classification
The entrenchment ratio for the Smith Park Reference Reach was determined to be 2.0 and the width
I to depth ratio was determined to be 8.8. This information combined with a sinuosity of 1.149, a slope
of 1.48%, and a DSO of 19, indicates the surveyed reach of the Unnamed Tributary to the Roanoke
River within Smith Park, is a Rosgen type E4 stream.
Dewberry 17
1

6.2.2 Reference Reach 2 -Falls Lake State Park
Rosgen survey and dimension and pattern measurements for REF-2 were taken between August 9 and
13, 2002. The surveyed length was 95 feet, approximately equal to 20 bankfull widths, and contained
two meander wavelengths, five (5) riffles and four (4) pools.

6.2.2.1 Cross-sections
Cross-sections were taken at one (1) representative head of riffle and one (1) representative head of
pool. Survey shots at these cross-sections included thalweg, edge of water, bankfull, breaks, flood
' prone location, top of banks, and additional out of bank ground shots. Additionally, survey shots
were taken at the other features to confirm bankfull width and depth, pool to pool spacing, riffle to
riffle spacing, riffle to pool spacing, and water surface slope.
6.2.2.2 Dimension
The bankfull area at the representative riffle was 3.3 square feet, while the average bankfull width
was 5.1 feet, which results in a bankfull mean depth of 0.7 feet.
6.2.2.3 Pattern
The UT to Lower Barton Creek has a valley length of 68 feet and a stream length of 95 feet, which
indicates a sinuosity of 1.397. One belt width measurement was taken and measured to be 62 feet.
The meander wavelength was taken at two locations, and resulted in a measurement of 18 feet and a
measurement of 32 feet. The radius of curvature measurements ranged from the tightest curve with a
radius of 3.5 feet, the second curve had radius of 13.5 feet, and the largest radius measured 23.6 feet.
1
I

1
1
1
1
6.2.2.4 Profile
The surveyed reach has an elevation drop of 2.3 feet along a channel length of 95 feet, which results
in a slope 2.42%. The average riffle to pool spacing is 17 feet or roughly 3.5 bankfull widths. The
average pool to pool spacing is 23.1 feet or roughly 5 bankfull widths. The average riffle to riffle
spacing was 25 feet.
6.2.2.5 Pebble Counts
A Wolman Pebble Count was conducted along the reach. Riffles represented approximately 65% of
the reach length, so pebble counts were completed with a ratio of 2 riffle counts to each pool count.
A total of 100 counts were taken, with 22 counts taken at each of three representative riffles and 11
counts taken at each of three representative pools.
Bedrock was encountered in one pool and one riffle. Two riffles contained a gravel bed with a
number of cobble sized stones and the other riffle was a cobble bed with a number of gravel sized
stones. The three pools contained sand beds and each had a small amount of silt/clay present.
Overall, the reach is classified as having gravel channel material. The channel material is 33% sand,
33% gravel, 20% cobble, 12% silt/clay, and 2% bedrock. The DSO of REF-2 is 4.9 mm.
6.2.2.6 Rosgen Classification
The entrenchment ratio for the representative riffle is 2.22, which indicates a Rosgen type C or E
stream. The width to depth ratio of 7.3 indicates the stream is a Rosgen type E stream. The sinuosity
is at the bottom end of Rosgen's range for an E stream, however, streams in North Carolina generally
have lower sinuosities than reported by Rosgen. The 2.4% slope and gravel bed result in a final
classification of E4b.
Der~u-berry 18
1

I
I

1
1
I
I

1
i
6.3 Morphological Table
Based on the data collected, Rosgen parameters and ratios were generated for the REF-1 and REF-2.
Table 10 summarizes the key morphological values for both reaches.
Table 10 Morphological Table -Reference Reaches
Parameter Units REF-1 REF•2

Reach Name UT to Roanoke
River -Smith Park UT to Lower Barton
Creek -Falls Lake
State Park
~ Stream T e E4 E4b
tS Draina a Area mil 0.14 0.06
Bankfull Dischar e, QBKF cfs 40 11.3
Bankfull Velocit , VgKF fUs 4.1 3.4
_ Bankfull X-Sec. Area, AgKF ftZ 9.8 3.3
Bankfull Width, WBKF ft 9.2 5.1
Bankfull Mean De th, DgKF ft 1.0 0.7
°_ Width/De th, W9KF/DBKF 8.8 7.3
N
~ Bankfull Max De th, DMpx
ft
1.6
0.8
E DMAX /DBKF 1.6 1.1
W. Flood Prone Area, Wppp ft 18.1 10.5
Entrenchment Ratio, WFpA /WBKF 2.0 2.2
Bank Hei ht Ratio, BHR 1.4 1.0
Parameter Units Min Max Min Max
Meander Len th, LM ft 18 32
M.L.Ratio, LM/ WBKF 3.8 6.8
x ~ Radius of Curvature , Rc ft Nominal pattern in 3.5 23.6
a
RC Ratio, Rc/WsKF this portion of the
Reference Reach.
0.8
5.0
~ Belt Width, Wg~T ft 62.0 62.0
BW Ratio, WELT/ WBKF 13.2 13.2
_
L.Pool S acin , L s ft 17.4 35.1
P.S.Ratio, L s/WBKF 3.7 7.5
~ Pool Width, W ft N
d 3.4 4.9
~ P.W. Ratio, W /WBKF ot measure 0.8 1
v
o
,Pool De th, D
ft
0.4
0.8
a` P.D. Ratio, D /DBKF 0.9 1.9
Valle Slo e, Sval 1.6% 3.4%
Channel Slo e, Scn 1.5% 2.4%
Sinuosit , K 1.1 1.4
~ Pool Slo e, Sp 0 0
;: D~6 -Channel mm 0.34 -
.~~.
~
DS° -Channel
mm
19.0
4.9
~ De, -Channel mm 2069.0 -
~ Dewberry 19
1

i,
f
6.4 Plant Communities
6.4.1 Reference Reach 1-Smith Park
A number of large hardwoods were located near the reference reach site; however, the stream
generally lacked a riparian buffer. Since the reach was located in a park, the site was almost
exclusively covered in frequently mown grass.
6.4.2 Reference Reach 2 -Falls Lake State Park
REF-2 can generally be described as a mature mesic beech cove. Many large diameter trees are
present suggesting that the site has likely not been logged in more than 100 years. Due to the lack of
disturbance, the understory is relatively open and easy to walk through.
The overstory along the stream is dominated by large diameter Beech (Fagus grandifolia) and Tulip
Tree (Liriodendron tulipifera). A number of large Sweetgum trees (Liquidambar styrac~ua) are also
present. At the top of the adjacent ridges, approximately 100 yards uphill of the stream, the overstory
community shifts to habitat dominated by White Oak trees (Quercus alba) and Hickory trees (Carya
sp.), both of which are more typical of drier, mature upland piedmont forests.
The dominant woody understory species include Dogwood (Corpus sp.), Umbrella Magnolia
(Magnolia tripetala), Ilex sp., Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and small American Elm trees
(Ulmus americana). Numerous small seedlings of Dogwood and White Oak trees, mostly liked
seeded from upland areas, are widely distributed. Vitis sp. was the most frequently observed vine in
the understory.
In areas near the stream bank, Christmas Ferns (Polystichum acrostichoides) are common along with
patches of Microstegium. Several notable monoculture patches of Broad Beech Fern (Thelypteris
hexagonoptera) were also observed.
6.5 Current Land Use/ Land Cover
This section describes the land use of the reference watershed for REF-1. The reference watershed is
an urban watershed largely characterized by commercial and residential use. This watershed
generally has similar characteristics of the watershed of Reach 2. REF-2 is primarily used for very
low density residential lots with a large amount of open space.
6.6 Soils
REF-1 is located in an area where the soil is all Emporia land complex, which is one of the
predominate soil found in Reach 2's watershed. REF-2 is located in a watershed, where the soils are
primarily sandy loamy or loamy sands, which are generally consistent with the soils in Reach 2's
watershed
6.6.1 Reference Reach 1-Smith Park
' The entire reference site exists within one soil classification. This map unit is Emporia-Urban land
complex (ErB), which is a Sandy Loam that is composed of a mixture 40% Emporia soil, 30% urban
land, and 30% other soils (typically). Emporia soils are characterized by moderate permeability,
medium surface runoff potential, and moderate erosion potential. Emporia soils are generally
classified as hydrologic type C.
6.6.2 Reference Reach 2 -Falls Lake State Park
The watershed contains several three soil series, namely the Lloyd, Madison, and Wilkes series.
Table 11 lists the soil series and the percentage of the watershed area in which each series is found.
1 Dewberry
20

i~

The watershed soils are predominately Sandy Loams, with a nearly equal percentage of Loam soils.
The soil series and soil textures and their corresponding percentage within watershed area are listed in
Table 12.
1
fJ
1
i
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
Table 11 REF-2 Watershed Soil Series
Soil Series Percentage of
Watershed Soils
Ll od 47.4
Madison 51.5
Wilkes 1.1
Table 12 Watershed Soil Textures
Soil Type Percentage of
Watershed Soils
Sand Loam 51.5
Loam 47.4
Ston 1.1
Dewberry 21
1

1
1
1
1

i

i
1

r
1
~~
1
1
1
7 NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN AND STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
7.1 Design Considerations
With the project site located in a moderately residential area on the upstream end and preserved area
which is on historic register on the downstream half, there are many constraints that must be
considered in the development and design of the Restoration Plan. Some of the most significant
design considerations include: proximity of existing infrastructure (buildings, Roanoke Canal Trail,
etc), the presence of utilities (sanitary sewer line and water main) along and crossing the stream, the
presence of footing on the makeshift vehicular access bridge, the preservation of large trees and
minimal damage to the Roanoke Canal Trail.
For the UDP-1, the field survey indicates instances of significant bank erosion which pose a threat to
the Roanoke Canal Trail. The stream bank stabilization techniques (energy dissipation at the
confluence with Reach 2, bank grading and maintaining a riparian buffer) need to be installed to
prevent the bank erosion. The step pools will also be placed on the UDP-2, and UDP-3 to help enable
the energy dissipation before the confluence with the Reach 2.
7.1.1 Infrastructure Constraints
Roanoke Rapids has agreed upon the establishment of a conservation easement that will protect the
proposed stream and its riparian buffer zone. The riparian buffer zone is taken to be the area
extending fifty feet from the each stream bank along the length of the stream. Because the project
stream flows through residential area on the upstream end, the space available to implement pattern in
the stream and buffer zone is limited. In addition, along the project reach, there is a sanitary sewer
and water main crossings that restrict the alignment of the natural channel design.
In addition, the proximity of Roanoke Canal Trail to the project influenced the decision to either raise
the stream to its existing floodplain or to lower the floodplain to the stream. The proposed natural
channel design recommends raising the stream to attach to its current floodplain.
7.1.2 Grade Control Points
The project stream has two types of stream crossings, including makeshift vehicular access bridge and
pedestrian bridges, both located along the downstream reach of Reach 2. As part of the design, the
pedestrian bridge will be removed and discarded while vehicular bridges to be removed and placed at
the nearby property owned by Mr. Grayson Mitchell. Since the bridges will be removed, they will not
serve as a grade control points for the stream. The portion of exposed abandoned water line pipe
located downstream of the vehicular bridge will be removed and plugged at the open ends. Figure 4
below shows the location of Pedestrian & vehicular access bridges and `abandoned' water line
crossing (looking upstream).
Dewberry 22

t

1
1

ji

1
1

1

f

1
1
Figure 4 Pedestrian Bridge, Vehicular Access bridge and Abandoned Water Line Pipe
The existing `active' sanitary sewer lines and water mains should be maintained in their existing
condition. Because these utilities are to be maintained, it provides a grade control point that must be
maintained in the proposed design. Therefore, the slopes (both in profile and channel banks) in the
stream sections around the utility crossings are restricted.
7.1.3 Utility Constraints
Within the project area are several different utilities, including: sanitary sewer and water. While
utilities have been located as part of the Restoration Plan development, contractors will be responsible
for verification of all utility information prior to construction. Each utility crossing has been
carefully considered in the development of the natural channel design. Utilities not only provide
vertical and spatial constraints. Some utilities, such as the sewer line, manhole locations, were more
carefully analyzed because they are within protected easements and the cost of relocation of these
utilities is great.
7.1.4 Preservation of Large Trees
Large trees stand along the project reach through out the length of the stream. It is the intent of this
project to preserve the existence of these large trees while providing a stable, natural channel design.
Tree locations along the project study have been surveyed and tree type and diameter noted. The size
and location of trees are an important consideration in the development of the plan and profile of the
natural channel design, particularly in areas where large trees are sparse along the reach. The
proposed design will utilize root structure of the large trees as a part of the design to encourage
stream stability of the proposed stream.
7.1.5 Minimal Damage to the Roanoke Canal Trail
The project area of Reach 2 is being intersected by the Roanoke Canal Trail which is a public
property and also in the historic register. The UDP-1 also runs along the trail and causes damage to
the trail due to bank erosion. The project aims at natural channel restoration in Reach 2 and bank
stabilization on the UDP-1 while limiting damage to the trail and minimizing futLtre bank erosion.
=~r Dewberry
... 23

1
7.2 Proposed Stream Classification
The proposed Reach 2 will have an E3b classification. The channel will be relocated and modified
with the average bankfull width of 21.5 ft. The proposed channel cross-section will have a width to
depth ratio of 11. The sinuosity of Reach 2 will be increased to 1.2, and the pattern will be changed to
have a Meander length between 81.7 ft and 146.2 ft. The radius of curvature will be kept between
17.2 ft and 107.5 ft.
7.3 Rosgen Priority Level
The majority of the proposed restoration will be a Priority Level 1 restoration. The majority of the
proposed reach will be provided a new alignment, at a lower slope. The new channel will have a
increased stream length, which will result to greater sinuosity. The channel will be raised to reconnect
to it's floodplain.
7.4 Bankfull Discharge
Stream Restoration Institute's (SRI) Urban Piedmont regional curves were used to develop the
bankfull discharge for the project reach. Typical existing cross sections were used to develop
parameters used in the equation. A bankfull discharge value of 203 cfs was established for Reach 2.
i
f
'
ons
or
s n equations and USGS Regression Equat
These discharges were verified with the Manning
Urban basins in North Carolina. The discharges calculated by all three methods were similar to each
other but the discharge calculated by SRI regional curves were used for the design.
7.5 Dimension
The proposed cross-sectional dimensions were based on a combination of data collected from the
project site and from the reference site. For reasons stated in section 7.4 the proposed section was
compared to the SRI's regional curves.
The cross-sectional shape for Reach 2 has been designed with a less narrow width to depth ratio than
the existing conditions. Channel banks are provided at slope 3:1. Decreased bank slopes will reduce
BEHI scores and will help improve bank stability.
7.6 Pattern
The pattern measurements for the proposed alignment increase the overall channel length. The pattern
will be changed to have a Meander length between 81.7 ft and 146.2 ft. The radius of curvature will
be kept between 17.2 ft and 107.5 ft.
7.7 Profile
The existing Reach 2 profile is constrained by several grade control points, including: sanitary sewer
pipe and water main. A proposed profile has been developed that will maximize channel slope while
maintaining these control points.
The pedestrian bridge and vehicular access bridge will be removed they will not serve as an
additional control point.
Feature spacing was based on the Reference Reach REF-2. REF-2 shows a pool to pool spacing of
17.4 to 35.1 ft. The proposed pool to pool spacing ranges from 79.5 to 161.2 ft, with an average
around 5.6 bankfull widths.
Dewberry 24
1

1
1
i
1

1
J

1

1
7.8 Morphological Table
Using the data collected in Sections 1 through 5, Rosgen parameters and ratios were generated for
both reference reaches and the Reach 2. Table 13 summarizes the key morphological values for the
reference reaches, the Reach 2, and the proposed or design values for the Reach 2. The values shown
in the Table 13 show the channel dimension, pattern, and profile data for both the existing conditions
and the proposed design.
Dewberry
25

1

0

1
6>

~y
C

L
a

O
U

U
.r
te
O
O

a
L
O

M

~
L
F

lG CO ~ h
~ M N N ~ ~ O h O)
.a ~r V O O 00
N ~ (O f~ N ~ M ~
Y
O N
U M 1N M 00 N ~ O ~ ~ CO O M O ~ ~ N M M O
~ w p O
N ~ d' N N ~ M ~ ~ N ~ N N E O O ~
O
~ ~ m
O, C 1~
~ p
M N
~ O
O W
OMO N
M l0
~ f~
M N
n O
O W
.- W
O
N
d
r
'd
~
w U ~ ~ M ~ ~ M M ~ O ~ ~ M O a p V y o
V o
V ~ M ~ O
Q O N O N ~ ~ ~ N ~ N ~ M t+ d ~
~
~
~ CO O
~ 'O
N
W ~ C
C.~ m
~ E w ~
Z
S" O t
Z ++
Y
~ ~
~
N
M
W
~
M
N
~
N
~
N
M
~
M
~
r~
O)
v

~
00
o
d1
r
Ud ~
N C N
C O
, r
d m ~ ~ ~ M ~ M ~ f~ M OD ~ o N 0 ~ ~ ~ O)
~ ~ Y W O ~ M M l17 O I~ O ~ N ~ M N ~- 7

m f0
O J
C
W
W
~
M
N
N
~
~
~
O
V
O
~ J N '~. c' M M O O M n M M 0 0 0
O ~
H

Y

O (0 ~

rL ~ N =
w
C V

'C
•' oa ~,~ R
O d
~ p~ ~ ~ p r 00 N O OD (O CO ~
00 O ~ G O d R ~ ~ r M O
°' O
~ ~~ w o v v oi oi ~ eo ~ ~ cy ~ ~~ L E o O
w ~ C O d
~ N
~
~
F N
~
?
~ a L
d
c V1 y
O
Z
.
~ Z.z..Q:
w
j
E
U
~
~
~
~
~
~ .~
_
~
~
~
~
~
~
E
E
E

m
3

;
a
~ Y
~ LL
o ~
0 u
3 a
3
m
a~'
, ~
~
N m
~ m
~ Y
m "' y
m
w d 0
~ m
£ ~
J LL
Y `7 Y
m ~
°'
Y m
~ Y
m
v
~ ~ Q ~+ p ~ ~ Q ~ '~ ~ r ~ m ~ ~ ~ '~ 3 ~ > N

a
a
~i
~ ~'
o ci
~
w
m ~
o
~
~
d
c
~
~
~
~
~+
~ w ~ ~ p N ai
Y N
a~
a~
a
a~ a~ ~
N
~
~
>
N
.L.+ x
(9
O
L
O
J
U
O
J o
O
O
c
C
c
C s
c
C
Z
L ~
E ~
m _
>
Y _
>
Y _
> _
> _
> ~

L
>
Y D O
p U
c O
2 N
~
C O
~
m
~ ~
~
7 O
~ ~

~ O
~
m
~ _~

0 O
~
m
~ ~
~ ~
~ N
~ (6
~ fn N
c "'
~'
O O
(~ L
U L
U L
U
U t6
~ C
m Y Y Y .
..
~ ~ tl. ~
C Y ~ J N ~
U ~ d ~ ~ ~ O C
L C 0 m ~ ~
N
~ Cn ~ N
aO f6
[~ f0
a0 (6
[0 f6
0~ ~ (0
00 O ~ W N
m ~ ~ ~ ~ N
CO m J d O
d d O
d Q. (0
> U Cn 0
a o o o
~e~aua~ uo~suawip u~a}}ed a~yo~d a;e
a;s n
N

~'
~,

1

7.9 Sediment Transport Analysis
The movement of a sediment particle is influenced by many factors, but in general, it is a function of
a sediment particle's physical characteristics and the hydraulic conditions present in a stream channel.
' Shields developed a parameter referred to as the critical dimensionless shear stress, which is currently
used in sediment transport capacity analysis to estimate the energy needed to initiate movement of a
particle of a given size. Critical dimensionless shear stress ('L*e;) is a measure of the force required to
move a given size particle resting on the channel bed. It can be calculated using the Dsos developed
from the pebble counts and the analysis of pavement and sub-pavement samples. The equation for
critical dimensionless shear stress is as follows:
'C*e; = 0.0834(d;/dso) _os~z
' Where, 'L*e; =the critical shear stress (dimensionless)
d; = D50 of riffle bed surface (mm)
dso =subsurface dso (~)
' For Reach 2, the Dso of the riffle bed surface was 19.96 mm and the Dso of the sub-pavement sample
was estimated from the Halifax County Soil Survey to be 4.25 mm (based on percent passing sieve
' number 40). These values result in a 'C *e; value of 0.0216.
Once 'C*e; has been estimated, the depth of water in the channel that is necessary to move the largest
particle found in the bar sample can be calculated. Hey and Rosgen (1997) developed the following
relationship:
*ci ((r sand - r water) / r water) Di
d=
S
' Where, 'L*e; =the critical shear stress (dimensionless)
r sand =density of sand (2.65 g/cm3)
rwater =density of water (1.0 g/cm3)
Di =largest particle found on the point bar sample (ft)
S =average bankfull slope
The t*e; for Reach 2, as noted above, is 0.0216 (dimensionless). In absence of pavement/subpavement
sample, during the field visit of the site the size of the largest moveable particle in the stream was
observed from the eroded site near the confluence with the Roanoke River. The size of the particle
which will be entrained was estimated to be 120 mm (approximately 0.4 ft). The average existing
bankfull slope was 0.044, which results in a depth of flow needed to move the sediment to be
approximately 0.325 ft. The minimum bankfull water surface slope required for entrainment was
calculated as 0.0007 ft/ft (Table 14).

Dewberry 27

1
~_
Table 14 Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress Estimates

D~
d S min.

Reach
(mm) d50
(mm)
"G*C1 r sand
(g/cm3) r water
(g/cm3)
largest S
(~/ft)
depth of bankfull
slope
stone (ft) flow (ft) ft/ft
Reach 2 120 4.25 0.0216 2.65 1.00 0.4 0.044 0.325 0.007
The flow depth calculated using the Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress can be compared with the
' proposed design mean riffle depth to determine if the design dimensions or profile need adjustment.
The required depth to move the 120 mm particle was calculated to be approximately 0.325 feet,
which compares favorably with the design mean bankfull depth of 2.0 feet and the design bankfull
' water surface slope of 0.02 ft/ft and indicates the proposed riffle cross-section should have enough
flow depth to adequately transport the available sediment.
' Additionally, the shear stress was calculated using Shield's Curve. The formula below (1936) is used
to calculate a shear stress, which is then used to find a corresponding particle size on Shield's Curve.
The particle size found on Shield's curve will be the size particle that will be transported by the given
shear stress. The channel design, based on Shield's curve, should generate enough shear stress to
' transport a particle equal to the D84 of the point bar.
'L = gRhs
2
Where, 'C =shear stress (lb/ft )
g =specific gravity of water (62.41b/ftz)
' Rh =hydraulic radius (ft)
s =average riffle slope (ft/ft)
The bankfull cross-sectional area is 42 square feet, the wetted perimeter is 25.5 feet, the average riffle
slope is 0.02, and the D84 is 74.94 mm. Table 15 summarizes the values found using the formula
above and the Shield's Curve.
1

Table 15 Shield's Curve Estimates
Particle Pebble Largest in

Reach g Rh Slope ~ Size (mm) Count
Channel
(lb/ft3) (ft) (ft/ft) (lb/ftz) -Shield's D~ (mm) (mm)
Curve
Reach 2 62.4 1.65 0.02 2.06 200 74.94 120
' Based on the Shield's Curve calculations, the design riffle cross-sections should experience enough
shear stress to transport a 200 mm particle. This value was compared to the Pavement D84, the Pebble
Count D84, the largest particle found in the channel and the selected structure stone size. The Shields
' Curve Estimate indicates the proposed channel shear stress will mobilize the largest particle found in
the channel, but will not mobilize the in-stream structure stones.
Because the median size of sediment transport for the proposed condition is similar to the existing
size sediment in transport in the stream, the proposed stream should be adequately sized to transport
similar sized sediment.
1
Dewberry 2g
1

1

1
1
1

C~

1
~~

1
1
1
$ TYPICAL DRAWINGS
8.1 Typical Cross-Sections
The proposed cross-sections will modify the Reach 2 to a stream with an E3b Rosgen classification.
Sections have been designed with consideration placed on maintaining the bankfull depth, bankfull
area, width to depth ratio, maximum depth, and feasible slopes for the channel material.
The riffle cross-sections will have a bankfull cross-sectional area of approximately 42 square feet, a
bankfull width of 21.5 feet, a bankfull maximum depth of 3.0 feet, and a bankfull mean depth of 1.72
feet. The width to depth ratio is approximately 12.5 and the entrenchment ratio will be 2.3. The riffle
sections are shown in Appendix C-1.
The pool cross-sections will have a bankfull cross-sectional area of approximately 43.3 square feet a
bankfull width of 23.2 feet, a bankfull maximum depth of 3.4 feet, and a bankfull mean depth of 1.87
feet. The pool sections differ from the riffle sections by geometry as shown in Appendix C-1.
Transition sections for placement between riffle and pool sections have been designed based on the
direction of the curve in the stream.
8.2 Structures
The structures suggested for the proposed Reach 2, UDP-1, UDP-2, and UDP-3 include cross vanes,
vanes, step pools, and channel blocks. The cross vanes and vanes have been proposed in order to help
the stream make the proposed curve without putting to much stress on the outer streambank of turns.
The step-pools are used to dissipate the energy in the channel.
8.3 Channel Blocks
Channel blocks will be necessary for the locations where the new channel leaves the old channel.
Standard channel blocks will be used to provide protection at these locations
Dewberry 29

l

1

9.1 Riparian Buffer
As part of the stream restoration, the project will include creation, restoration, and repair of the
riparian buffer along the project reach. Within the project reach, the riparian buffer is in need of
varying levels of restoration ranging from complete restoration to augmentation.
The list below (Table 16) is based on species noted during the vegetative study of the project site and
reference sites, and supplemented by multiple Native Riparian Plants, which are recommended by the
Stream Restoration Institute.
9.2 Riparian Vegetation
Within the planted buffer, species survival will be determined within 50 feet by vegetative plots
established at the completion of construction. Species density and survival will be documented as
well as the introduction of species not installed during the buffer planting.
Dewberr
v 30

1

1
1
1
1
1

1
1
Table 16 Sample Species for Riparian Buffer Re-Establishment
Sam le List of Plants for Reach 5
Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Name
Salix x cottetii kerner Bankers Dwarf Willow* Popu/us deltoides Eastern Cottonwood
Salix ur urea 1. Pur leosier Willow* Quercus polustris Pin Oak
Cornus amomum mill Silk do wood * U/mus rubra Sli a Elm
Arisaema triphyllum 'ack-in-the- ul it* Acerrubrum Red Ma le
Asclepias incarnate swam milkweed* Quercus phellos Willow Oak
Carex crinata frin ed sed e* Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood
Carex intumescens bladder sed e* Quercus pa/ustris Pin Oak
Carex lupulina ho sed e* P/atanus occidentalis S camore
Carex lurida lurid sed e* Salix nigra Black Willow
Carex scoparia broom sed e* Quercus bicolor Swam White Oak
Carex stricta tussock sed e* Betula nigro River Birch
Carex vulpinoidea fox sed e* Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash
Chelone glabra turtlehead* Acer saccharinum Silver Ma le
Cyperus strigosus umbrella sed e* Amelanchiercanadensis Shadbush
Elymus hystrix bottlebrush rass* C/ethra alnifolia Sweet Pe er Bush
Eupatorium fistulosum Joe- a-weed* Photinia melancarpa Black Chokeber
Eupatorium perfoliatum boneset* Lindera benzoin Northern S icebush
Juncus effuses soft rush* Aronia arbutifolia Red Chokeber
Leersia oryzoides rice cut rass* Cornus amomum Silk Do wood
Lobelia cardinalis cardinal fower* Sambucus canadensis Elderber
Panicum virgatum switch rass* Vaccinium corymbosum Hi h Bush Blueber
Polygonum sagittatum tearthumb* Alnus serrulata Ta Alder
Scirpus atrovirens reen bulrush* Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fern
Scirpus cyperinus wool rass* Osmunda cinnamomea Cinnamon Fern
Scirpus validus soft stem bulrush* Saururus cernuus Lizard's Tail
Sparganium americanum bur-reed* Acorus ca/amus Sweetfla
Uniola /atifolia river oats* Andropagon virginicus Broomsed e
Vernonia noveboracensis ironweed* Carex crinita Frin ed Sed e
Ludwigia alternifolia bush seedbox* Juncus effusus Soft Rush
Impatiens capensis 'ewel-weed* Leersia oryzoides Rice Cut rass
Quercus falcata Southern red oak Panicum virgatum Switch rass
Ilex opaca American Holl Scirpus fluviatilis River Bulrush
Carya cordiformis Bitternut Hicko Eupatorium dubium Joe P e Weed
Quercus alba White Oak Eupatorium perfoliatum Boneset
Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar Lobelia cardinalis Cardinal Flower
Juglans nigra Black Walnut Carex intumenscens Bladder Sed e
U/mus rubra Sli a Elm Solidago gramnifolia Goldenrod
Acerrubrum Red Ma le Aster novae-angliae New En land Aster
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Asclepias turberoso Butterfl Weed
'These species will be the only species used within Zone C
' Dewberry
31

10.1 Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Geomorphology
' Monitoring is not included as part of the CWMTF project funding and will be coordinated following
construction by the CWMTF.

t

1
1
Dewberry 32
1

11.1 Monitoring Report
Monitoring is not included as part of the CWMTF project funding and will be coordinated following
construction by the CWMTF.

1

1
Dewberry
33

1
1

The general sequence of construction will proceed from upstream to downstream and is described in
general terms below. Variance from the construction sequence as shown on the construction plan and
specifications will need prior approval from the engineer of record.
12.1 Prior to Construction
Prior to construction, apre-construction meeting will be held. Following this meeting, and prior to
staking, the contractor will coordinate with the landowner and engineer to locate suitable staging
areas. The contractor will stake the stream alignment, and will mark the limits of grading and
clearing and Limits of Disturbance (LOD). Contractor will then install tree protection measures.
Sediment control devices and runoff control measures will be installed. Following inspection of
protective measures, all vegetation marked for removal will be removed. The staging, entry, and
access routes will be cleared and then constructed.
12.2 During Construction
Each days work will be limited to the amount of work that can be completed and protected with
permanent or temporary measures before the work day's end. Sediment and erosion control measures
will be inspected and repaired/adjusted daily.
The stream channel will be protected from construction by diverting the natural flow opposite the
under construction bank. Techniques to divert stream flow may include, but are not limited to: (1)
edging with sandbags, (2) conveying water with corrugated metal pipe or corrugated plastic, or (3)
bypass water by pump around.
Topsoil will be stripped and placed in stockpile to be placed over fill as needed. The channel will be
excavated and in-stream structures will be installed. The structures will be surveyed and stream
banks will receive final grading to design cross-sectional shape. The channel cross-section will be
surveyed and modified as needed.
l
il
y
y or permanent
Finished slopes will be stabilized with coir matting and the area will be temporar
seeded according to the plans and specifications.
' All land disturbance activities associated with the restoration are to be in accordance to the NC
Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual and the NC Erosion and Sediment
Control Field Manual. Sediment and erosion control measures will be shown in detail on the
construction plans and a sediment and erosion control plan will be submitted to the NC Division of
Land Quality for permitting when construction plans are completed.
12.3 Sediment and Erosion Control
Sediment and erosion control measures to be used may include, but are not necessarily limited to,
diversion ditches, sediment basins, check dams, outlet protection, tree protection fencing, silt fencing,
temporary seeding, mulching, and erosion control blankets. Work will be limited to the length of
stream that can be constructed and stabilized before the end of the work day. All sediment and
erosion control measures will be inspected daily and following storm events, and will be adjusted
and/or repaired as needed.
Dewberry 34

t

!J

12.3.1 Tree Protection
The site contains a large number of mature overstory trees. Tree preservation and protection
measures will be used to prevent damage to designated trees. Grading around trees that remain in
place will be done to minimize soil compaction over the roots.
12.3.2 Erosion Control Features
Silt fencing will be used where necessary to control sediment transport and to protect exposed and
1 steep grades. Additional protection will be required for denuded areas not at final grade within seven
days and from any slope that seeps water from the slope face.
Sediment basins and traps, perimeter dikes, sediment barriers and other measures shall be constructed
as a first step in any land disturbing activity and will be made functional before upslope land
disturbance takes place. Stockpiles will be stabilized or protected with sediment trapping measures.
12.3.3 Temporarily Impacted Areas
Temporary stream crossings may be required for this project. These crossing will be restored prior to
the completion of the project.
When stream reaches require dewatering, a pump around detail must be provided to the engineer for
review prior to installation.
All disturbed areas above normal water level will receive temporary stabilization with vegetation
and/or mulch, weed free straw, hydro-mulch, cover crop, erosion control blanket, or similar. A
' suitable temporary seed mixture will be provided on the construction plans. Silt fence will be used as
needed in addition to temporary seeding.
Temporary accesses, storage, and staging areas are to be restored to preconstruction conditions. The
soil will be restored to alleviate compaction. Exposed areas will be stabilized in a manner similar to
disturbed areas described above. Where vehicle access intersects paved public roads, provisions shall
be made to minimize transport of sediment by vehicular traffic. When sediment is transported to
paved surfaces, the surface shall be cleaned thoroughly at the end of each day. Washing will not be
allowed until the surface has been shoveled or swept and sediment disposed in a sediment control
area.
All temporary sediment and erosion control measures shall be removed within 30 days after final site
stabilization or after the temporary measures are no longer needed. Trapped sediment and disturbed
soil areas resulting from the disposition of temporary measures shall be permanently stabilized to
prevent further erosion and sedimentation.

1
1
' Dewberry ,5

12.4 Following Construction
' All temporary erosion and control measures will be removed within 30 days after final site inspection.
An as-built survey and as-built plans will be performed and prepared by the contractor to ensure that
the location and elevation of the alignment and in-stream structures are in good agreement with the
design plans.

1

1
1
1
u
1

1
1
Dewberry 36
1

1

1

1

1
i

~I
1
Brockman, C. Frank, illustrated by Merrilees, Rebecca. 1968. Trees of North America. Golden
Press, NY, New York.
Carolina Raptor Center. http://www.carolinaraptorcenter.org/rs_hawk.php
Doll, Barbara A. et. al,. 2000. Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Urban Streams Throughout the
Piedmont of North Carolina. American Water Resources Association.
FISRWG (10/1998). Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. By the
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG) (15 Federal agencies of the US
gov't). GPO Item No. 0120-A; SuDocs No. A 57.6/2:EN 3/PT.653. ISBN-0-934213-59-3.
Harman, William A. et. al,. June/July 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North
Carolina Streams. American Water Resources Association Summer Symposium Proceedings.
Harrelson, Cheryl C.; Rawlins, C. L.; Potyondy, John, P. 1994. Stream channel reference sites: an
illustrated guide to field techniques. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Hey, Richard D. and Dave Rosgen. 1997. Fluvial Geomorphology for Engineers. Wildland
Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality
Section. October 1995. Basinwide Assessment Report - Neuse River. North Carolina Division of
Water Quality, Raleigh, N.C.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality
Section. August 1997. Common Wetland Plants of NC. North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
Raleigh, N.C.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality
Section. August 2000. Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, 2001. North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, N.C.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality
Section. April 2001. Internal Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina. North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, N.C.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Nonpoint
Source Management Program. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/uwacolor.gif
North Carolina Office of Environmental Education -North Carolina River Basin Maps
http://www. ee.enr. state.nc.us/ecoadr/Watersheds-NC-map.html
North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute. 1998. River Courses 1-4. North Carolina State Bio-Ag
Engineering Cooperative Extension Service Water Quality Group, Raleigh, NC.
Dewberry 37
1

North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute -Recommended Coastal Plain Native Plants
http://www5.bae.ncsu.edulprograms/extension/wqg/sri/Recommended%20Native%20Plant%20Speci
es.htm#Coastal%20Plain%20Region*
North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute -Piedmont Regional Curves
http://www.bae.ncsu. edu/programs/extension/wqg/sri/coastal.htm
Radford, Albert, Ahles, Harry, and Bell, C. Ritchie. September 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora
of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Rosgen, Dave. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. http://rcwrecovery.fws.gov/rcw.pdf and
http ://www. fws. gov/nc-es/es/
United States Department of Agriculture, et al. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration Principles,
Processes, and Practices. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
United States Department of Agriculture. Plants Database. http://plants.usda.gov/
United States Department of Agriculture (NRCS). 2006 Soil Survey of Halifax County, North
Carolina. Soil Survey Staff. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Vanoni, Vito (1977). Sedimentation Engineering. New York: ASCE.
North Carolina Flood Information - www.ncfloodmaps.com/
Dewberry 38

1

1
t
1

1

i

I
Dewberry
1

it

Appendix A: General Watershed Information
1
J
1

1

Dewberry
~r
i

Appendix A-1: Physiographic Region Map
1

i
1

~i
i

' Dewberry III

N
N U
~ W
° o w
d ~
~
~ a c x
~ ~.~
o ~~
G ~~~ Q
X ~~
N~
L t m m
~ N m m
~ .~+ > ~ o d' m 2 m
~ o ~ a c r c c ~ t
t ~ O O! J ~ m

~J ~
(6
~
N ~ ~~
O C N U d ~ N~ U~ W N ~ ~ ~1 N ~ S !~ ~
d' ~r '~/ N ~
N ~~ N C W W Y
~~
~ ? M ~ O N~ M ~ A ~~
S ~
U a
o N
o ~
T Q ~ ~
®
J m ~
~
~
T
js o U FI

~ n
~ ,
'~ t
f
~. ~
~
t~
~
l
I~Y~~ .l ZTi
,"' "`
~

f ' ~ ~
`-^ 1 .
~~

I r,

Y ~ _ ~B,

z
~
. .

~ Q
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..

~1B
~, ..
~~~.~, ..

~ ~.
~
~, ~ , . ~:
~~
`~

o ~~ ~
.
,~~r
~
~ ~~~
,~
^
m t
J / a
_ ~~,~.
~ .
~. ,

w C ,
~
i' O
~j
~ ~ ~:
'
1
~,/
i
_
~

~
~
~

.E.;:
A . ~ ~
~
~ I
~ ~ ti ~

t

Appendix A-2: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangles

~~
1
1

1
Dewberry 1~
t

1
Appendix A-3: Project Watershed Land Use Map

1

1

Dewberry ~
1

~ ~ ~ ~

Q ~ a
i ~ ~a ~
~ C ~ U
N
L N ~ w
~
O LM
/^/~~~
~
-Y ~ X ~ ~ O
~ `U- ~ (A = ~
~ ~ /Y
A

o i ,~y
C
~ ~
~ N
~
~ L~
~, ~
0
0~30
~3~ z N 3
j~ Q
Q _
U~
~ ~
>
d (.1 ~~ U~ J~>
J N

iv
Q
d J
a` ~ ~ ~ h~'~ _'. M
~°~
""'
~-

Appendix A-4: Project Watershed Soils Map

0

1
1

C'~
1

Dewberry ~I

d' a
¢ ~ ~ ~ ~
d
O ~l'y~
T~~ X N c
~ ~ ~ N O
~ a01.. N ~
~ 3 ~ z j
3
~ 14.~~
o a ~ o
a ~~ ~ ~~ ~^^W~~~~~~~~"" ~
d ~
`O ~
U Q

U ~ o
a ~
-
~ ~~. .
,~ w .. ,.

tt ~~ ~ ~ r"~.~~`,
*d «~ * ~~~ ~ M5 w
~
~~~ r
t ~ r
~~
~ ~ ,
~
~
V ~ \
i
;
~ ~
~
j

~G ,.
., t ,~~
r,~"r ~" N
!
~ y,!'F ~} ~, ~
~ w o
~
*i *
~t 4 '~ ~r' „~ w
'
'
f"
f ~
ti
to O N Vl o u U
~ d
..
Y
i ,
Y
'9y~~gy,~., ~
.ems ~ ~~'4~`
~ e N
O a O O ~ ~ n
O~ O O c O O
~..
R'-..
°j_ ~ "~ ~~ E i
s a~' `~- ~! w O y v ~ N
N d
E E o T
w O

C, ~ k d i"
F
a Jay
'.; ~
` g,
~ ~ ~ o H
° ° a
i
3 y u, ~ m
~
.
~i °: k' ~ t' ,~
~ ~ c c a ° ~
w c
o ~ 3 ~ w

.•
~~
1
0. v w w w ~ F
~
:_
~: ke`~
'f`rS
w ~ P
"~t
a3„ . i'
' ~~~ e ,
~
y a m U ~ Q m LL
~ U W W W ~ 1~

U
O

Appendix A-5: Project Site Map

t

t

Dewberry III

ii

Appendix B: Description of Existing Conditions
1

1

1
1
: Dewberry VIII

t
1
Appendix B-1: Project Site Pebble Count Data
' REACHWIDE PEBBLE COUNT
Reach 2
1
1
1
t
i
t

t
Size (rnm Total No. Item a< Cum. °~°
4 - 4.452 4 4 fl
0.462 - 0.125 4 4 0
4.125=4.25 4 4 fl
4.25 - 4.54 4 [~ 4
4.54=1.4 2 1.8 1.8
1.0 - 2.0 5 4.5 6,31
2.4 - 4.4 5 4.5 14.81
4.0- 5.7 5 4.5 15,32
5.7-$.4 3 2.7 18.42
8A - 11..3 8 7,21 25,23
11.3 -16.0 4 3.6 28.83
16.4 -22.6 7 6.31 35.14
22.6 - 32.4 1fl 9.41 44.14
32 - 45 3 2.7 4$, 85
45 - 64 2 1.8 48.65
64 - 94 4 4 48,65
1?t3- 128 4 3.5 52,25
128 - 184 14 9:41 81..26
180 - 256 8 5,41 86.67
256- 362 4 4 86,67
362 - 512 4 (7 68.67
512-102A 2 1,8 68.47
1424 -2448 i 4.4 89.37
Bedrock 34 34.53 144
[316 mrn 8.28
Q35 mrn} 22.45
D54 mrn 1(34.25
[384{mrn} Bedrock
f795{mrn} Becirodc
D100{mrn) Bedrock
SiIUCI {gad 4
Sand °/'0 5.,`31
Grauel 46 42.34
Cobble °r~ 18.42
Boulder ~ 2,7
Bedrock °~ 30.53
' Total Particles ~ 111

t Dewberry IX
1

1
1
1
i]

t

1

Et~FFLE PEigBLE CdUNT
Reach 2
Size (rnm> Tota11 Na, ham ~ Qum. %
0 - QO$2 d 4 d
p.pe:2 - 0.123 d o 0
0.12s - a.2s 4 3.92 3.92
0.26 - 0.50 7 6.86 10.78
0.:30 -1.0 3 2.94 13.7 3
1,0 - 2.0 1 d.9E3 14,71
2.0 - 4.0 4 3.92 18.83
4.0 - 6.7 6 6.88 24.51
5.7 - 8A 4 3.92 28.43
8.0 -11.3 4 3.92 32.35
11.3-16.0 15 1471 47.06
16.0 =22.6 5 4.9 51.96
22.6 -32.0 16 15.89 67.65
32 - 43 7 8.86 74, 51
4S - 8d 8 7.84 $2.35
64 =1i0 4 3.92 88.27
90 -1 ~ 2 1.98 88.24
128 -1 BO 4 3.92 92.16
180 =258 5 4.9 97..46
256 -362 2 1.96 99.42
362 - 312 0 0 99.42
512 -1020. 1 d.98 140
1021-20A8 d d 1d0
Bedrock d 0 1 da
Q16 mm 2.66
D33Imm) 12.15
i25p #mm# 19.96
D84 (mm} 74.94
D95 {mm} 224.t~5
D100 mm td23.95
sibrQ ~ o
Sand 14.71
4revel ~ 87.84
Qpbble °6; 14.71
Bpukier % 2.94
Bedrock 9:1 d
Tptal P»ttlt~e~ ~ 102
Dewberry X
1

t
1

1

1

1

1
1
Pt?OL PEBBLE GAUNT
F7eac h 2
Size mm Total No. Item °% Cum. °k
4 - 0.062 6 5.83 5.83
4.462 - 0.125 1 4.97 6.8
4.125 - 0.25 1 0.97 7.77
0.25 - 4.50 t 0,97 9.7d
4.50 - 1.4 7 6.8 15..53
1.4 - 2.0 7 6.8 22.33
2.0 - 4.4 6 5.53 29.16
4.0 - 5.7 3 2:91 31.07
5.7 - 8.4 6 5.$3 36.89
5.0 - 11.3 10 9.71 48.8
11.3 -16.4 10 9.71 56:31
16.4 -22.6 1 tt 15.53 71.84
22.6 - 32.0 9 8.74 8U.58
32 - 45 5 4.95 95.44
45 - 8d 3 2:91 $9.35
64 - 90 2 1.94 9Q.29
90 - 128 0 0 94.29
128 = 184 t 4.97 91.26
150 - 256 1 4:97 92.23
256 - 362 1 0.97 93.2
362 - 512 4 4 93.2
512 - 1074 0 0 83.2
1074 -2048 0 0 93.2
Bedrock 7 6.9 t 00
Q16 mm 1.(]7
Q35(mm) 7.25
i354~mm} 12.95
d54{mm) 41.15
d95(mrn) Bedre>cic
Q104{mrn Bedroc,~c
$ihrCl tea 5.83
Sand ~~ 165
Gra+eel ~ fr6.02
Cobbke ~ 3.88
Boulder q 0.97
Bedroak 96 6.8
Total Particles ~ 103
Dewberry XI

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Appendix B-2: Project Site BEHI Data Sheet
N
~, F~ur~,E ~~ ~~ -
rev ~r.~rE~~ ~~r~,
_ ~ ~.
PH' TC',..
_ ~• CT011
PHDT4 f ;{,
4 E.r;P~SE~ ~EJWERLI~:E
.. '_ _.. -.._ CR~SStMu
__
4 s.+` ..
FHA ,5
T r 7 - -_--- . -y ., ..
PH~T;3 . ~rC 7 '~_, _ ~.
,~',
' ~` r;~
,1_ ~~r
_ / _r~~
~,
'tom
~_-~_ ` -~
HvTL 4 t~`g acs
~~ ~.~,
..~~'ca~
+~ .Q
"?r
,~, •~' a s; r,
r
PHCT ~-~ "Sv
y=
,t,'
y
~r
PFi~`O
84VK5. °GhTS Cf 11TEFE.T,.{N] ri~::w 5EC?~~~ lGt{ -CAL+ 51:~?CV'E"E'MTH SI6iAE cR.i:tUR~F_Y
GPS'.!lT :tF.'A1~Et1 ^. XN'. F:EAS+AC"E TNYi]h~SF~RI`FORtIA'104{L PI,~G`~S ChLY. RS
M3T4 a{IfT FJA ~`al>{ tEC.I.~?i AYYO'NEA WG. TXEREARE W~'+:.WM~S+H~ ~.~,4_..^.URitY
SSYE, iNC..i=.54'?.~E' 'r] i.S^~P A!i8is=~' Fri eYw'Y »ECI.~A D4 R'.{3E C.4 A4v,.C'.OK'MEh 6" T'~E I,SEP. -_.__,__ ____._____ ...
fl{SEC UPQ~+HJF73NR1^J1.7EThME~~ s'3~f'=E.+S4vE G{T~.
t~`E ' `" SURVEY LOCATIONS- `"'`'~e
REACH 2
'~?AOr4 e" ~Uk - 4C Alv`JKE RA?1~~,
~a~.ec-r.a ~`~ ~ :;"REih RS-GRNTIi;II
t2c?-]'-~13 Rte.:;"JOKE RA!~#'1S. 1JC
Dewberry
X~I

t

t Appendix C: Restoration Plan Materials

1

1

r

1
Dewberry XIII
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Appendix C-1: Proposed Cross-Sections
Upstream Riflle
~ ~.~.
101 -- -- --- - - - ~- - - -- _ ~ -
I ,
- ----- --- -- --7~ -
100
\ ------ -- ~ ' i
\ ', ~, ~ 3
~ ~ ~
o ~ r
~ ~~ ~f~
E
w ~
97 -- - - I
1
96 - --- -- -- -- ---- -
--- -- --
4
~i
95
0 3 6 9
Distance (ft)
12 15 18
Typical Section - Upstream Run(Transistion Left Pool)
101 I ~_
100 -- - i _ - -- ~ _ - -- - ~ *- ---
\ i -- i 1
f~ ~
~~ ~
99 - ~- --- - ---- --- ;- -~L-- - -
~~' •
` ~ ~
98 . ~'
> ~ -
i
w ~s -- r' -~---
97 -- _ - - - -- -- --_
- ~- -
96 - - ------ -- - - -
'~I 95
0
3
Dewberry
6 9 12 15 18
Distance (ft)
XIS

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
lOS
103
101
0
99
w
97
9S
0
105
104
103
.-.102
101
0
'Y 100
.~ 99
w
98
97
96
95
0
Typical Section -Downstream Pool (Left Pool)
Typical Section -Upstream Pool (Right Pool)
Dewberry
X~
i
I
18
3 6 Distance~ft) 12 1 S
3 6 9 12 15
Distance (ft)

101

0 99
.Y
a,
w 97
95
0
3 6 9 12 15
Distance (ft)
Left Transition }Riffle
-~- Left Pool
Transition Left pool
101.00
100.00 " '
~. ~~
99.00 -. ~~~
~` ^ .~
~~
~ ~.~ / ;i
o
98.00 `>~ ;
d k~ ~~~.
W
~-
r -~,
97.00 - ~ - ~'
96.00
95.00 ~ --~
0.00 5.00 station 10.00
15.00 20.00
18
Dewberry X~l
Typical Section -Downstream Run (Between Pools)

i
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-~ Riffle
Right Transition -s-Right Pool
Trarsition Right Pool
101.00
100.00 '
99.00 -
98.00
97.00

96.00
95.00 -
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00
j Station
Dewberry
xvli

Appendix C-2: Proposed Plan Sheets

1

t

1
1
Dewberry xviil
f