20140798 Ver 1_401 Application_20140714

Division of Water Quality
401/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC, 27699 -1650
Attention: Division of Water Quality
401/Wetlands Unit
Please note that this package includes two copies of the permit
application, plans and supporting documentation instead of the
required five.
At their request, one copy each was sent directly to:
John Thomas
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive
Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Sue Homewood f
f Water North Carolina Division o ate Quality
ty �
585 Waughtown Street q
Winston - Salem, NC 27107 JAI _ LOT:
Doug Bessler D WATER JuALIrY
6,N�YI. StomtirrAr. r Brach j
North Carolina Wildlife Commission
645 Fish Hatchery Road
Marion, NC 28752
Sincerely,
Rocky Powell
Clear Creeks Consulting (Agent)

o� F wnrFgoG Office Use Only:
2 0 1 4 0 7 9 8 Corps action ID no.
r
a DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit ❑Section 10 Permit
1b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: NW - 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
® Yes
❑ No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification.
❑ Yes ® No
For the record only
❑ Yes
for Corps Permit:
® No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program.
❑ Yes
® No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes
® No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Big Creek III Stream Restoration
2b.
County:
Stokes
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Mount Airy
2d.
Subdivision name:
NA
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no:
3.
Owner Information
-- —
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Bruce Tilley
J
3b,
Deed Book and Page No.
00302/0498, 86.8 ac
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
s
J'
3d.
Street address:
118 Garden Grove Lane
Wqdiwd§ Storrrwat=r Srancri
3e.
City, state, zip:
Mount Airy, NC 27030
3f.
Telephone no.:
(336) 351 -3337
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
Page 1 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a
Applicant is
® Agent ❑ Other, specify
4b
Name
Debbie Dodson
4c
Business name
(if applicable)
The Resource Institute
4d
Street address
2714 Henning Drive
4e
City, state, zip
Winston - Salem, NC 27106
4f
Telephone no
(336) 750 -0522
4g
Fax no
4h
Email address
ddodson @resourceinstituteinc org
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name
Rocky Powell
5b
Business name
(if applicable)
Clear Creeks Consulting
5c. St'reet,address
1317 Knopp Road
5d
City„ state, zip
Jarrettsvdle, MD 21084
5e
Telephone no
(410) 692 -2164
5f
Fax no
5g
Email address
clearcreeks @zoominternet net
Page 2 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no (tax PIN or parcel ID)
5070 -00 -66 -6053, 5070 -00 -76 -0013, 5070 -00 -73 -3860
Latitude 36 °26 232 N Longitude -
1b Site coordinates (in decimal degrees)
80 °54 696 W
(DD DDDDDD) ( -DD DDDDDD)
1c Property size
498 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc ) to
Dan River
proposed project
2b Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water
C, Tr
2c River basin
Roanoke River
3. Project Description
3a Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity ofthe project at the time of this
application
The dominant land use in the watershed is forest and agriculture The project site is agriculture — hay production and large
wood lots
3b List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property
0 0 acres
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property
1,570
3d Explain the purpose of the proposed project
Correct the stream channel instability problems, improve water quality, enhance in- stream habitat, and restore natural
floodplain functions by implementing an effective, long -term restoration plan for the streams within the properties
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used
IThe general restoration approach includes reconstructing reaches of Big Creek by stabilizing eroding streambanks,
reconnecting the channel with the floodplain, providing a more regular plan form along reaches where meander bends
are extremely tight, and modifying channel cross - sections to improve habitat and sediment transport capacity The
majority of the fill placed will involve backfilling to narrow the existing overwide channel by constructing toe benches along
the channel margins to improve habitat and sediment transport Toe wood will be installed along the outside of meander
bends to stabilize newly constructed banks,and provide submerged habitat In addition, log - boulders -hooks and
constructed riffles will be constructed at key points along the channel to provide grade control, divert flow away from the
stream banks, and create in- stream habitat An existing ford crossing along the mainstem will be stabilized The banks
along the lower reach of a tributary will be graded create a floodprone bench
Mechanical clearing °will be limited to those:stream banks where grading is essential to establish stable channel geometry
All disturbed areas impacted within the limits of the project will be seeded with native grasses and planted with native
trees and shrubs All disturbed areas impacted outside the limits of the project will be seeded with grasses and clover
Equipment includes tracked excavators with hydraulic thumbs will be utilized for excavating and grading, and installing
in- stream structures, tracked trucks will be utilized for hauling rock and logs on -site, tracked loaders will be utilized for
hauling materials on -site and fine grading, dump trucks will deliver materials to the site
Page 3 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
El Yes [D No El Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the pasty
Comments
4b If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
of determination was made?
4c If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency /Consultant Company
Name (if known)
Other
4d If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State, determinations and attach documentation
A pre - application meeting will be held on -site July 30, 2014 to present the, project to the permitting agencies The
following persons were in attendance Mr John Thomas, USACOE and Mr Tommy Burchette, Foothills Consulting
5. Project History
5a Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions
6. Future Project Plans
6a Is this a phased project?
® Yes ❑ No
6b If yes, explain
This is Phase 3 of multi -phase projects proposed for Big Creek The Phase 1 project completed in 2008 restored over
4000 linear feet, Phase 2 completed in 2013 restored over 4500 linear feet This Phase 3 project starts where the Phase
2 project ended and is 1596 linear feet Additional restoration work may be conducted on downstream reaches The
additional work is dependenton landowner participation and the availability of funding
Page 4 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

C Proposed Impacts Inventory
1 Impacts Summary
1a Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply)
❑ Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2 Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted
2a
2b
2c
2d
2e
2f
Wetland impact
Type of Jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑P ❑T
[] Yes
❑ Corps
E] No
E] DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
0 0 acres
2h Comments
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted
3a
3b
3c
3d
3e,
3f
3g
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of Jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ❑ P ®T
stream bank
grading
Big Creek
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
27
1350
S2 ❑ P ®T
stream bank
Unnamed
® PER
® Corps
27
246
grading
Tributary
❑ INT
® DWQ
S3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h Total stream and tributary impacts
1596
31 Comments
Page 5 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open, Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U -S then'individually list all open water impacts below
'4a
4b
4c
4d
4e
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number —
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ❑P ❑T
02 ❑'P ❑ T
03 []PDT
04 ❑P ❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
0 0 acres
4g Comments
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If' pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below
5a
5b
5c
5d
5e
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5E Total
5g Comments
5h Is a dam high hazard permit required
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no-
51 Expected pond surface area (acres)
5j Size of pond watershed (acres)
5k Method of construction
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then, complete the chart below If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form
6a.
❑ Neuse El Tar-Pamlico El Other:
,Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
�6b
6c
6d
6e
6f
6g.
Buffer impact
number —
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary T
impact
re uired�
E] Yes
B1 ❑P ❑T
❑ No
B2 ❑P ❑T
❑Yes
❑ No
❑ Yes
B3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
61 Comments
Page 6 of 11
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project
Since the purpose of the project is to restore the 1596 LF of the existing stream channels it was not possible to avoid the
impacts
1 b Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques
1) Grading of streambanks will be conducted from the top of the adjacent floodplain or terrace, 2) seeding, mulching and
installation ofrcoir matting will proceed as channel sections are completed to provide immediate stabilization
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ® No
2b If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply)
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
❑ Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a Name of Mitigation Bank
3b Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c Comments
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached
❑ Yes
4b Stream mitigation requested
linear feet
4c If using stream mitigation, stream temperature
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only)
square feet
4e Riparian wetland mitigation requested
acres
4f Non- npanan wetland mitigation requested.
acres
4g Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested
acres
4h Comments
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan
Page 7 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer-Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a Will,the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation Calculate the
amount of mitigation required
Zone
6c
Reason for impact
6d
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1 5
6f Total buffer mitigation required:
6g If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e g , payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund)
6h Comments
Page 8 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1a
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1'b
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0%
2b
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why Stream restoration on rural agricultural
land
2d
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan
❑ Certified Local Government
2e
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a
In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b
Which of the following locally - implemented stonmwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply)
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other
3c Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a
Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply)
❑ Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other
4b
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 9 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1a
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
® Yes
❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
1 b
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes
® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes
❑ No
letter )
Comments
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes
® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B 0200)?
2b
Is this an after - the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes
® No
2c
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s)
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a
Will this project (based on past and reasonably, anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes
® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition, (non- discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility
Page 10 of 11
PCN Form — Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

,5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ® No
habitat?
5b Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ® No
impacts?
❑ Raleigh
5c If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
❑ Asheville
5d What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Previously discussed with Dave McHenry and Mark Fowlkes, North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission during a site
visit on January 18, 2012
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitats
❑Yes ® No
6b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
During same site meeting with Dave McHenry and Mark Fowlkes, North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission on
January 18, 2012.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Previuos contacts with Dolores Hall, Deputy State Archaeologist to confirm there are no archaeological resources on -site.
and Justin Kockntz, NC Historic Preservation Office to confirm there are no historical resources on -site
8. Flood Zone 'Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA - designated 100 -year floodplain?
❑ Yes ® No
8b. If'yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements.
8c What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? Reviewed NCFIoodMaps com
Debbie Dodson
July 9, 2014
Applicant/AgenCs Printed Name
Applican gen s Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only rf an authorization letter from the applicant
Date
is provided
Page 11 of 11
PCN Form — Version 13 December 10, 2008 Version

�r
Mutual Agreement
for
Stream Restoration Project
Resource Institute (RI) is a non- profit organization that assists organizations and
individuals in carrylug Out plojects to protect natural and human resources while promoting
economic development. RI can assist with projedts in a variety of ways, including, but not
lunited .to, fiend- raising, administering project funds, and contracting for services needed to
complete a project. RI has recently adopted a project referred to as the Western North Carolina
Stream Initiative to help farmers and landowners address eroding stream banks that are
negatively affecting them through loss of property, hazards for livestock, sediment transport into
a stream and degraded aquatic habitat. The farmer /landowner has either initiated an application
for assistance through USDA/NRCS's EQIP program or has already signed an
a ,reement/contract for assistance with USDA/NRCS's EQIP program. RI's role is to help attain -
the fimding, for the design, construction oversight and unmet construction needs of the work for
sites with current EQIP program agreements /contracts tluough USDA/NRCS.
RI will assist the fanner /landowner by helping to address issues related to managing and
contracting for the required design, planning, permitting and construction work for stream
enhancement practices on the site, as wall as necessary structure work, and bank stabilization.
RI's objective is to help address current w4ter quality degradation issues; however, work cannot
be guaranteed for acts of nature related to flood events. RI is working with MRCS, Consen�ation
Districts and the farmer /landowner to help reduce those impacts as much as possible.
In providing services to the farmer /landowner on this tract of land for stream
restoration/stabrlization activities to be performed we thereby mutually agree to the following
items-.
I . The farmer /landowner will allow ingress and egress for all activities related to the stream
restoration/stabilization such as: surveys, engineering, construction, monitoring, etc. for
RI and its agents.
2. Farnner/landowner will follow the contractual guidance in the EQIP program with USDA,
NRCS.
3. Farmer /landowner will provide RI with a copy of the NRCS EQIP contract, for the
purpose of allowing RI to share with RI's other fenders in an effort to help obtain
matching dollats. ,
4. RI will serve as the financial manager for all funds related to the stream
restoration/stabilization activities received for the project.
S. RI will provide project management services such as, obtaining the technical resources,
bidding and contracting of project elements, and project construction oversight.
6. RI will work with farmers /landowners to resolve differences between construction costs
and payment schedule rates.

i•
i
Signature Sheet:
Stream Restoration Project Agreement Letter
County
i
Farmer/landowner Signature and Title
3 Ilzol
Date
Resource Institute Incorporated
Chairman, Res urce Institute RC &D, Inc.
'-) - as- 1L-1
Date
2

Big Creek III Stream Restoration Project Landowners
Listed in a downstream direction
BRUCE TILLEY
118 GARDEN GROVE LANE
MOUNT AIRY, NC 27030
336- 351 -3337
PIN: 5070 -00 -66 -6053, 5070 -00 -76 -0013, 5070 -00 -73 -3860
Deed Book/Page: 00302/0498, 86 8 ac

Big .Creek III Stream Restoration Project
Project Description
The Resource Institute and the Surry Soil and Water Conservation District have a
history of working with interested landowners to improve the water quality of streams on
their property This project involves restoration of Big Creek along the Tilley Property
near Mount Airy, North Carolina close to the Surry and Stokes County line This is the
third project on Big Creek
In 2008, the Resource Institute and the Surry SWCD worked with landowners to restore
4036 linear feet of the upper reach of Big Creek In 2013, they worked with landowners
to restore 4515 linear feet of Big Creek immediately downstream of the first project
The current project, Big Creek III, will restore 1596 linear feet of Big Creek and its
tributaries immediately downstream of'the second project. Completion of this phase of
the overall restoration effort will lengthen the restored portion of Big Creek to more than
10,147 linear feet. The project will improve the water quality of Big Creek by reducing
sediment entering the stream corridor through unrestricted livestock grazing and stream
bank erosion It will also improve habitat for aquatic organisms
Big Creek is a third order tributary of the Dan River in the Roanoke River Basin The
Dan River is the main source of drinking water for the Town of Eden. The January 2008
Draft Report by the NC Division of Water Quality suggests that the North Carolina
portion of the Dan River has some issues with turbidity and fecal coliform
The hydrologic and sediment regime of Big Creek and its tributaries have been
historically altered by agricultural activities and development The channels in the
headwater areas have adjusted in response to direct impacts (i.e., channelization) as
well as indirect impacts (i.e., alterations in watershed hydrology) by incising (i.e., down -
cutting), widening, and eroding laterally. Clearing of riparian vegetation and unrestricted
livestock access as resulted in trampled and unstable banks along some reaches
Sediment eroded from these impacted reaches is still being transported to downstream
reaches within the watershed where deposition initiates lateral adjustments and
instability.
It is the intention of the Resource Institute and the Surry County Soil and Water
Conservation District to correct the stream channel instability problems, improve water
quality, enhance and /or restore natural floodplain characteristics,-and reduce the loss of
agricultural land by implementing an effective, long -term stream restoration plan for'this
section of Big Creek.

Qd7-
co
Ap .qp��- i t r� LTNC_H_ � {Oj'
CIO
Tor
one
ir
scr4 so
cc IF OSO
0.
_ ` r - ALBIOM CH
ul
CL
DAN , G
-,070
AE-
3NC `l i jig.
MOJ
r t 31Z
0 /
q � - - Qo � - rte- '�j • � '- j.- / `�
to , N
\f ~\ RD �~
\� � `�yo, `1 � �,: .;r ; oQ -Tom j 1 � � ,J } /p� \• �
J4
Im
aD��Y% -iN
aif
rW
� a
-
♦ BQ ,
X OF

It
IL
t 0
04 1
n Q. v^ n.* 1 .z 1.v m.
o
0.2 0.4 0'6 o.o I m/
Map center isUTM 17 549118E 4040125N (YVGS84/NAD83) U
ClaudwiUlequadnang|e M=-7.711
Projection isUTMZone 17NAD83 Datum G=0'326
Fig. 2—Big Creek III St[8@Dl Restoration Project Site
3

BIG CREEK III
STREAM RESTORATION
DESIGN REPORT
PREPARED FOR
RESOURCE INSTITUTE, INC.
PREPARED BY
CLEAR CREEKS CONSULTING LLC
IN COLLABORATION WITH
BAYLAND CONSULTANTS AND DESIGNERS, INC
and
FOOTHILLS CONSULTING
JULY 2014

PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Resource Institute and the Surry Soil and Water Conservation District have a
history of working with interested landowners to improve the water quality of
streams on their property. This project involves restoration of Big'Creek along
the Tilley Property near Mount Airy, North Carolina close to the Surry and Stokes
County line This is the third project on Big Creek.
In 2008, the Resource Institute and the Surry SWCD worked with landowners to
restore 4036 linear feet of the upper reach of Big Creek. In 2013, they worked
with landowners to restore 4515 linear feet of Big Creek immediately downstream
of the first project. The current project, Big Creek III, will restore 1596 linear feet
of Big Creek and its tributaries immediately downstream of the. second project
Completion of this phase of the overall restoration effort will lengthen the, restored
portion of Big Creek to more than 10,147 linear feet. The project will improve the
water quality of Big Creek by reducing sediment entering the stream corridor
through unrestricted livestock grazing and stream bank erosion. It will also
improve habitat for aquatic organisms
Big Creek is a third order tributary of the Dan River in the Roanoke River Basin.,
The Dan River is the main source of drinking water for the Town of Eden. The
January 2008 Draft Report by the NC Division of Water Quality suggests that the
North Carolina portion of the Dan River has some issues with turbidity and fecal
coliform
The hydrologic and sediment regime of Big Creek and its tributaries have been
historically altered by agricultural activities and development. The channels in
the headwater areas have adjusted in response to direct impacts (i e ,
channelization) as well as indirect impacts (i.e., alterations in watershed
hydrology) by incising (i.e., down - cutting), widening, and eroding laterally.
Clearing of riparian vegetation and unrestricted livestock access as resulted in
trampled and unstable banks along some reaches. Sediment eroded from these
impacted reaches is still being transported to downstream reaches within the
watershed where deposition initiates lateral adjustments and instability.
It is the intention of the Resource Institute and the Surry County Soil and Water
Conservation District to correct the stream channel instability problems, improve
water quality, enhance and /or restore natural floodplain characteristics, and
reduce the loss of agricultural land by implementing an effective, long -term
stream restoration plan for this section of Big Creek

TECHNICAL REPORT
I. Study Area
The study area for the current project includes the stream reaches along Big
Creek starting at a point approximately 5441 linear feet downstream of Albion
Church Road and ending at a point approximately 1350 linear feet further
downstream (Figs 1 and 2)
II. Scope of Studies
Existing data was collected and field studies were conducted to: evaluate the
current conditions along Big Creek II; determine which reaches to restore and'the
extent of the restoration effort required; develop reliable estimates of the design
discharge(s) and other design parameters that guided the preparation of
restoration design plarfs, and satisfy permitting requirements. This study did not
include wetland delineations,, identification of significant plant or animal habitat,
archeological or historical studies, or other environmental studies that may be
required by local, state or federal permitting agencies.
III. Watershed Characterization
Existing information on watershed characteristics and land use was collected,
compiled and reviewed. The data collected included: topographic, soils, geology,
and land use maps, meteorological data; hydrologic and hydraulic data; and
published technical reports. The following characterization of Big Creek II
watershed was developed from this information
A. Physiography and Basin Morphometry
The Big Creek watershed is situated in the northeast corner of Surry County. Its
headwaters are bounded by Chestnut Ridge on the north and west and on the
south by NC 89. The watershed lies north of the Westfield and Woodville
communities. This region is situated along the eastern edge of the Western
Piedmont physiographic province and is characterized by gently rolling to hilly
topography
The Big Creek III watershed area is 6 32 square miles (4,044 acres) at the
upstream end of the project. For purposes of this current study the Big Creek III
project is divided into two stream reaches
2

17-
6
'14
- e-6
re 1,
/* 4 11J'
r7`_�llr -'rte. .'i �- �' Kv
z
k f
11 Vi JJ I
S �J
,: e6
-cb 4p
4p
of
Y
y
V.3 V.0 V.bp I.Z I.D KR
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 rfl i
Map center is UTM 17 549118E 4040125N (WGS84/NAD83)
Claudiville quadrangle
Projection is UTM Zone 17 NAD83 Datum
Fig. 1 — Big Creek Ill Stream Restoration Project S
G
JUL 2 5 2014
D NA - IoVR R QUALITY
WAHMnAe A 0'--- .

The upper Big Creek watershed is relatively steep and the valley bottoms are
relatively narrow, confined by adjacent hill slopes. Upstream of the project area
the floodplain along the mainstem widens, and channel gradient flattens Except
where the channel flows adjacent to hill slopes,; the project reaches are
characterized by broad flood plains, 'increased sinuosity, and tight meander
bends
B Climate
The climate of North Carolina -is determined by its location ,in�the warm temperate
zone, but is, modified by three important factors: the ;proximity of the Atlantic
Ocean to the east, the distance of the state from the prevailing course of cyclonic
storms, ,and the gradual rise in elevation of the land towards the west,to the
summit of Mt. Mitchell. Unlike the Coastal Plain, in the Western Piedmont
extremes of temperature become greater and rainfall i's' less. Surry County
experiences moderate�winters and warm summers- Mean annual'ternperature is
'58° F. Mean monthly temperatures range from 32 to 50 °F in January and'68 to
88 in July
There are no distinct wet and dry seasons Most of the rainfall during the
growing season comes from summer thunderstorms, but may vary widely from
place to place and from season to season Winter rainfall results mostly from
low- pressure storms moving through the area and is'less variable than summer
rainfall. Mean annual precipitation is 44,.2 inches, with mean monthly
precipitation varying from a how of 2.8 inches in November to a high of 4.6 inches
in July.
Some snow falls every winter, with total amounts ranging from 1 inch to 2 feet.
Mean annual snowfall is 9 inches. Generally, only a few inches accumulate at
one time, and such accumulations usually melt within a few days.
C. Geology, Soils, and Land Use
According to the North Carolina Geological Survey,,'the Big Creek watershed is
'located within the Inner Piedmont Belt, which consists of a va riety of
metamorphic and igneous bedrock ,formations More specifically, the study area
is underlain by Cenozoic biotite, gneiss and schist rock, which is described as
inequigranular, locally abundant potassic feldspar and .garnet; interlayered and
gradational with calc- silicate, sillimanite -mica schist, mica schist, and amphibolite
(NCGS, 1998). It also contains small masses ,of granitic rock.
The dominant upland soils weathered ,from these rocks are Fairview, Rhodhiss,
Toast, and Woolwine loamy soils These soils are moderately deep to very deep,
well drained soils Fairview soils have a sandy clay loam surface layer and
clayey subsoil. Moderate permeability, low to high surface runoff, and moderate
to severe erosion hazard characterize these soils. Rhodhiss soils have a sandy
4

'loam surface layer and sandy clay loam subsoil. Moderate permeability, low to
high surface runoff, and moderate to severe erosion hazard characterize these
soils. Toast soils have a coarse sandy loam surface layer and clay subsoil
Moderate permeability, low to high surface runoff, and moderate to severe
erosion hazard characterize these soils. Woolwine soils have a gravelly sandy
loam surface layer and sandy clay loam, clay, and very gravelly sandy clay loam
subsoils. Moderate permeability, low to high surface runoff, and moderate to
severe erosion hazard characterize these soils.
The dominant floodplain soils along Big Creek are of the Colvard and Suches
series. These very deep,, well drained soils formed in sandy loamy alluvial
deposits They have a fine sandy loam surface layer and subsoil and are
characterized by moderately rapid permeability, slow surface runoff, a moderate
to high erosion hazard, and' occasional flooding
The dominant land use in the watershed is forest (60 %) and old field, cultivated
land and pasture (37 %) along the ridges, side slopes, and floodplain. Low -
density single - family residential fronting along secondary roads makes up less
than 3% of the land use
D Hydrology
One of the critical steps necessary for any geomorphic stream design project is
developing accurate estimates of the flow regime, particularly the bankfull
discharge.
1. Hydrologic Modeling
The Big Creek watershed delineation was expanded from previous work completed for
the first and second phases of the Big Creek Restoration The hydrologic model was
expanded to include the drainage area to the limit of the third phase of restoration The
USDA Soil Conservation Service SCS TR -55 computer program was used to compute
the runoff curve number'(RCN) and time of concentration (Tc) The resulting RCN and
Tcwere incorporated into Technical Release No 20 Computer Program for Project
Formulation Hydrology (TR -20), based upon Soil Conservation Service methodology
Peak discharges for the existing drainage areas were computed with all computations
assuming good hydrologic conditions Table 3 shows the computed results for RCN and
Tc for the drainage areas
Table 3 — Sub - Basins Drainage Area Characteristics
Area
Runoff Curve
Time of
Drainage Area
Area
(Acres)
(Square
Number
Concentration
Miles)
(RCN)
(Hours)
1
4,044
632.
58
230
2
55
009
60
039
3
72
Oil
56
046

SCS TR -20 computer model was then utilized to route selected storm events with the
computed. cumulative drainage area characteristics to develop peak discharges for the
selected study points The TR -20 model is a deterministic hydrologic model that
synthesizes a single event runoff hydrograph as a function of a rainfall input and
drainage area characteristics The model is designed to operate on a time varying
rainfall to produce a hydrograph that simulates the role of the watershed area, land
cover, hydrologic soil types, antecedent runoff conditions, topography, storage basins,
characteristics of the overland, shallow confined, and channel flow paths, and, storage
attenuation such as that created by flood plains, wetlands, structures, and ponds
The hydrologic model was calibrated as described within the Calibration of .the
Hydrologic Model section of this report The full hydrologic model can be found in
Appendix 1
2 Regional Regression Equations
Estimating flood frequency and magnitude based solely on gauged sites�does not
provide accurate spatial representation Regression analysis utilizes a 'region of
influence" method to correlate gauged and ungauged sites and is useful in determining
whether the hydrologic model has been sufficiently calibrated to provide the most
accurate estimate of peak discharges for the reach Regional regression equations from
Scientific Investigations Report 2009 -5158 "Magnitude and Frequency of Rural Floods in
the Southeastern United States, 'through 2006 Volume 2, North Carolina" bylthe U S
Geological Survey, dated 2009 were employed to analyze the calibrated peak
discharges of the hydrologic model The hydrologic model was considered successfully
calibrated if the peak discharges were within one standard error of the regional
regression peak discharge estimates Appendix 2 list the regional regression equations
used to determine the success of "the hydrologic model calibration
3. Calibration of the Hydrologic Model
The hydrologic model drainage area charactenstics and inputs are calibrated with
statistical methods to overcome the inherent limitations of the SCS TR -20 hydrologic
modeling software to over predict peak flows for all return periods Regional regression
equations use USGS stream gaging stations, they can provide -a reasonable indication of
existing runoff conditions and, therefore, can provide a base for calibration of the
hydrologic model Table 4 list the calibrated inputs used for the various storm events for
each drainage area
Table,4 — TR -20 Calibrated Inputs
Storm Event
Rainfall Distribution
Rainfall (inches)
Selected ARC
1 -YR
24 -hr Type II
3 0
2 0
2 -YR
24 -hr Type 11
3 5
2 0
5 -YR
24 -hr Type 11
42
2 0
10 -YR
24 -hr Type II
5 0
2 0
50 -YR
24 -hr Type II
62
2 0
100 -YR
24 -hr Type II
7 1
2 0
Table 5 lists the computed calibrated peak discharges for each study point
6

Table 5 — Calibrated TR -20 Peak Discharges
Study Point
1 -YR
(cfs)
2 -YR
(cfs)
5 -YR
(cfs)
10 -YR
(cfs)
50 -YR
(cfs)
100 -YR
(cfs)
1
190
367
699
1178
2049
2788
2
192
370
704
11,86
2060
2803
3
'194
374
710
1194
2073
2820
4 Results
Table 6 through 8 compares the regional regression equations with the calibrated TR -20
peak,discharges to determine whether the calibration, was successful in achieving the
target values within one standard error of the regional regression equations
Table 6 — Peak Discharge Results, Study Point 1
Storm
Regression
TR -20 Peak
Recurrence
Peak
Standard
Lower Limit
Upper Limit
Discharge
Interval (yrs)
Discharge,
°
Error ( / °)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(c s
2
523
345%
342
703
367
5
937
412%
551
1323
699
10
1241
351%
806
1677
1178
50
1998
396%
1207
2,789
2049
100
2320
41 9%
1348
3292
2788
Table 7 — Peak Discharge Results, Study Point 2
Storm
Regression
TR -20 Peak
Recurrence
Peak
Standard
Lower Limit,
Upper Limit
Discharge
Interval (yrs)
Discharge
Error ( %)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
cfs
2
527
'34.5%
345
709
370
5
945
412%
556
1335
704
1,0
1252
351%
812
1691
1186
50
2014
396%
1217
2812
2060
100
2338
41 9%
1359
3318
2803
Table 8 — Peak Discharge Results, Study,Point'l
Storm
Regression
TR -20 Peak
Recurrence
Peak
Standard
Lower Limit
Upper Limit
Discharge
Interval (yrs)
Discharge
Error ( %)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
2
533
345%
349
717
374
5
956
442%
562
1349
710
10
1265
351 %0
821`
1709
1194
50
2035
396%
1229
2842
2073
100
2363
419%
1373
3353
2820

The comparison shows the TR -20 peak discharges for the associated drainage areas
were within the standard error of the regression equations and were sufficiently
calibrated
5. Bankfull Discharge Estimates
Four methods were used to develop bankfull discharge estimates. These
included 1) updated regional regression equations developed in North Carolina
(NCSU and NRCS, 2006), 2) TR -20 Hydrologic Model, and 3) Manning's
equation and field data.
a Regional Regressions
North Carolina State University (NCSU) and the U S.D.A. Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) cooperated to develop regional regression
equations for bankfull discharge in the rural Piedmont area of North Carolina
(NCSU and NRCS, 1999) Recently updated regional regressions (NCSU and
NRCS, 2006) based on this original work were used as one method for
estimating bankfull discharges.
b. U.S. Geological Survey Regional Regressions
Estimates for the 2 -YR peak discharge were developed using regional regression
equations from Scientific Investigations Report 2009 -5158 "Magnitude and
Frequency of Rural Floods in the Southeastern United States, through 2006:
Volume 2, North Carolina" by the U S Geological Survey (2009).
c. U S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service TR -20 Methodology
As part of this current study a range of flows varying in frequency from the 1 -year
to the 100 -year discharge was developed using the U.S.D A. Soil Conservation
Service TR -20 Methodology . The 1 and 2 -YR recurrence interval peak
discharges were utilized ,to validate the discharge estimates developed using the
other two methods.
d. Manning's Equation
Bankfull discharge estimates were developed using Manning's equation and
cross - sectional data collected in the crossover (riffle) of relatively stable reaches
along the project area. The slope used was Ahe bankfull slope of the overall
reach, and estimates of Manning's n were developed utilizing visual observations
of the channel bottom and banks throughout the reach.
As shown in Table 9, the bankfull discharge estimates developed for Big Creek
using the rural regional regressions compare favorably with the Manning's
equation estimates for Study Points 1 ,and 3. Both estimates fall within the range

of discharges bound by the 1 and 2 =YR recurrence interval flood flows developed
with the TR -20 model. The 2 =YR recurrence interval flood flows developed with
the'TR -20 model were verified with the 95% confidence limits for the 2YR peak
developed using the USGS regional regression.
Based on this analysis it was determined that utilizing the Rural Regional
Regression estimates provides a reliable method for estimating bankfull
discharge for the proposed project design.
Table 9 — Bankfull Discharge Estimates
Study
NC
USGS
TR -20
Manning's
Point
Rural Regional
Regional
1 YR/ 2YR
Equation
(DA mil)
Regression (cfs)
Regression
(cfs)
(cfs)
Proposed Natural Channel Design Sections 2 -16
2YR
2
Proposed Natural Channel Design Section 17
(cfs)
1
2360
523
190
367
2355
(6 32)
342 - 703
2
2384
527
192
370
ND
(6 4)
345 - 709
3,
241,8
533
194
374
2457
(6 52)
349 - 717
E. Hydraulics
1 Hydraulic Model
HEC -RAS version 4 1,2 River Analysis System, developed by the U S Army Corps of
Engineers, was used to establish the water surface, velocity, and channel shear stresses
for Big Creek under existing and proposed conditions Table 10 describes the hydraulic
cross sections for the Big Creek II I Stream Restoration Project HEC -RAS version 4 1 2
River Analysis System, developed by the U S Army Corps of Engineers, was used to
establish the water surface, velocity, and channel shear stresses for Big Creek under
existing and proposed conditions Table 10 describes the hydraulic cross sections for
the Big Creek III Stream Restoration Project
Table 10 - Existing and Proposed River Stationing Descriptions
River
Descriptions
Stations
Existing Upstream Limit of Study
19
Proposed No Change
Existing
18
Proposed Upper Limit of Restoration - Natural Channel Design Section 1
Existing Mid Reach Cross Sections
17 -3
Proposed Natural Channel Design Sections 2 -16
Existing, Mid Reach Cross Sections
2
Proposed Natural Channel Design Section 17
0

Table 10 - Existing and Proposed River Stationing Descriptions
River
Descriptions
Stations
5 -YR
(cfs)
1,0 -YR
(cfs)
Existing Downstream Limit of Study
1
Proposed None Change
Table 11 Identifies the developed study point peak discharges with the associated cross
section hydraulic models flow change locations
T,able'11 — Peak Discharge Flown Change Locations
River Station
1 -YR
(cfs)
2 -YR
(cfs)
5 -YR
(cfs)
1,0 -YR
(cfs)
50 -YR
(cfs)
100 -YR
(cfs)
19
190
367
699
1178
2049
2788
6
192
370
704
1186
2060
2803
2 Hydraulic Analyses
Tables 12 through 15 detail the results of the hydraulic comparison between existing and
proposed conditions for the 1 YR, 2YR, 10YR and 100YR Storm Events The results
highlight the changes within the Water Surface Elevation, Channel Velocity and Channel
Shear Stresses The full hydraulic results model can be found in Appendix 3
Table'1,2 -1 =YR Storm Event Hydraulic Comparison
River
Station
EX. W.S.
Elevation
PR. W:S.
Elevation
Change
W.S.
Elevation
EX.
Channel
Velocity
PR.
Channel
Velocity
Change
Channel
Velocity
EX.
Channel
Shear
Stress
PR.
Channel
Shear
Stress
Change
Channel
Shear
Stress
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft/s)
(ft/s)
(%)
(Ib /sq ft)
(Ib /sq ft)
(%)
19
107521
1075 1r8
-003
381
385
10%
042
043
24%
18
107411
107425
014
64
599
-64%
134
1 1
-179%
17
107418
107452
034
288
189
-344%
021
008
-619%
16
107404
107411
007
323
491
520%
029
072
1483%
15
1073 8`5
1074
015
332
308
-72%
031
026
-161%
14
'1073 63
10731
-053
368
677
840%
038
145
2816%
13
107369
107337
-032
213
1 96
-80%
Oil
009
-182%
12
1073 39
107256
-083
383
664
734%
04
T4
2500%
11
107344
107231
-1 13
213
23
80%
012
013
83%
10
107328
1071 96
-1 32
257
396
541%
017
043
1529%
9
107323
1071 93
-1 3
1 73
216
249%
008
Oil
375%
8
107241
1071 23
-1 18
671
621
-75%
141
121
-142%
7
1071 41
107146
005
345
225
-348%
034
012
-647%
6
1071 24
1071 34
01
276
Z6
-58%
023
02
-130%
5
107094
1070 -99
005
41
436
63%
047
055
170%
4
107081
107006
-075
362
679
876%
035
145
3143%
3
107049
107016
-033
413
201
-513%
047
01
-787%
2
106995
106987
-008
412
369
-104%
05
039
-220%
1
106895
106895
0
51
51
00%
076
076
00%
10

Table 13 - 2 -YR Storm Event Hydraulic Comparison
River
Station
EX. W.S.
Elevation
PR. W.S.
Elevation
Change
W.S.
Elevation
EX.
Channel
Velocity
PR.
Channel
Velocity
Change
Channel
Velocity
EX.
Channel
Shear
Stress
PR.
Channel
Shear
Stress
Change
Channel
Shear
Stress
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft/s)
(ft/s)
( %)
(Ib /sq ft)
(Ib /sq ft)
1 %)
'19
107596
107617
021
6-01
454
-94%
068
055
49 1%
18
107543
107542
-001
5'22
606
161%
075
101
347%
17
107535
107563
028
398
278
-302%
038
017
-553%
16
107522
107513
-009
.3 94
553
404%
038
083
1184%
15
107508
107504
-004
3.61
367
17%
034
036
59%
14
107483
107402
-081
43
745
733%
047
1 58
2362%
13
10749
107447
-043
275
286
40%
018
018
00%
12
107449
107333
-1 16
479
795
660%
057
1 78
2123%
11
1074 59
107354
-1 05
272
313
151%
018
023
278%
10
10744
107306
-1.34
327
489
495%
025
06
140 -0%
9
107435
107301
-1 34
226
309
367%
012
022
833%
8
107321
107237
-084
806
617
-234%
1 82
1 06
-418%
7
107253
107248
-005
411
323
-214%
0,44
024
-455%
6
1,07246
107239
-007
284
292
28%
021
0 22
4 8%
5
107209
1071 95
-014
485
525
82%
062
073
177%
4
1071 91
107092
-099
471
782,
660%
055
1 74
.2164%
3
1071 52
107127
-025
616
292
-43,4%
071
019
-732%
2
107098
107091
-007
4 64
427
-80%
0158
048
-172%
1
106984
106984
0
64
639
-02%
1,08
1,08
00%
Table 14 - 10 -YR Storm Event Hydraulic Comparison
River
Station
EX. W.S.
Elevation
PR. W.S.
Elevation
Change
W.S.
Elevation
EX.
Channel
Velocity
PR.
Channel
Velocity
Change
Channel
Velocity
EX.
Channel
Shear
Stress
PR.
Channel
Shear
Stress
Change
Channel
Shear
Stress
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft/S)
(ft/s)
( %)
(lb /sq ft)
(Ib /sq ft)
(%)
19
1078'96
107885
-011
518
541
44%
058
064
103%
18
107827
107785
-042
695
835
201%
1 06
149
406%
17
10782
107818
-002
618
501
-189%
082
048
-415%
16
1 107815
10776
-055
531
741
395%
059
1 16
966%
15
107811
107792
-019
433
344
-206% '
04
025
-375%
14
107751
107725
-026
668
701
49%
095
1 02
74%
13
107778
107743
-035
411
481
170%
035
044
257%
12
107772
107563
-209
416
10 74
158 2%
035
256
6314%
11
1,07774
1076 21
-1 53
295
555
884%
017
06
2529%
10
1077 67
107546
-221
334
757
1266%
021
121
1 4762%
9
107767
107548
-2'19
214
54
1523%
009
057
1 5333%
11

Table 14 - 10 -YR Storm Event Hydraulic Comparison
River
Station
EX. W.S.
Elevation
PR. W.S.
Elevation
Change
W.S.
Elevation
EX.
Channel
Velocity
PR.
Channel
Velocity
Change
Channel
Velocity
EX.
Channel
Shear
Stress
PR.
Channel
Shear
Stress
Change
Channel
Shear
Stress
8
10756
10746
-1
1102
838
-240%
281
1 54
-452%
7
10751
107477
-033
522
568
88%
058
064
103%
6
107513
107481
-032
352
392
114%
025
032
280%
5
107404
107462
058
83
543
-346%
162
061
-623%
4
107429
10731
-1 19
571
1012
772%
071
233
228 2-%
3
107411
107351
-06
525
523
-04%
062
053
-145%
2
10732
107332
012
692
528
-237%
1.09
058
-468%
1
107286
107286
0
616
616
00%
082
082
00%
Table 15 - 100 -YR, Storm Event Hydraulic Comparison
River
Station
EX. W.S.
Elevation
PR. W.S.
Elevation
Change
W.S.
Elevation
EX.
Channel
Velocity
PR.
Channel
Velocity
Change
Channel
Velocity
EX.
Channel
Shear
Stress
PR.
Channel
Shear
Stress
Change
Channel
Shear
Stress
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft/S)
(ft/s)
(%)
(lb /sq ft)
(Ib /sq ft)
(%)
19
108054
108048
-006
636
649
20%
079
083
51%
18
108002
10797
-032
79
941
191%
123
169
374%
17
107986
107929
-057
773
859
11 1%
1 18
1 34
1136%-
16
107994
107947
-047
568
69
21 5%
061
09
475%
15
1 107987
107955
-032
499
425
-148%
1 047
035
-255%
14
107908
107864
-044
867
941
8 °5%
146
1 7
164%
13
107834
107774
-06
788
1056
34 0%
123
208
691%
12
107815
10778
-035
801
933
165%
1 27
168
32' 3%
11
107819
107785
-034
589
706
199%
066
09
364%
10
107762
107,698
'-064
806
958
189%
124
1 77
427%
9
107765
107675
-09
509
798
568%
049
1 17
1388%
8
107695
107,67
-025
944
744
-212%
1 9
1 06
-442%
7
1075 99
107588
-011
888
934
52%
1 59
1,63
25%
6
107604
107603
-001
6'25
625
00%
076
075
-1'3%
5
107588
10752
-068
711
1038
460%
1 07
214
1000%
4
107555
107505
-05
81
94
160%
1 33
175
316%
3
107526
107488
-038
768
793
33%
121
1 15
-50%
2
107454
10745
-004
821
816
-06%
1 39
1 29
-7 =2%
1
107403
107405
002
831
826
-06%
1 39
1 37
-14%
3 Results
The hydraulic analysis indicates that the proposed stream restoration project will reduce the
water surface elevation, channel velocities and channel shear stress at several cross
sections, while several cross sections show increases in water surface elevation, channel
velocities and channel shear stresses
12

These increases are attributed to the geomorphological changes of the spacing stream
features (pools and riffles; etc ) along with stream meander geometry changes from the
existing to the proposed conditions and do not reflect any adverse changes to the
proposed reach The, proposed channel velocities and shear °stresses are non - erosive for
the proposed stream restoration bed material and channel stability The stream
restoration project will focus on the addition of'rnvenne structures and grade controls to
prevent future degradation and provide habitat for aquatic species Implementation of a
vigorous, native landscaping and limitation of access by adjacent agricultural use will
greatly improve the ascetics and prevent any future degradation of`this reach Flooding
risks,to landowners are not increased by the stream restoration project
IV. Channel Morphology and Stability Assessment
A. Rationale
Stream stability is morphologically defined as the ability of the stream to
maintain, over time, its dimension, pattern and profile in such a manner'that it is
neither aggrading or degrading and is able to effectively transport the flows and
sediment delivered to it by its watershed Morphologic stability permits the full
expression of natural stream characteristics.
Stream potential is defined as the best condition, based on quantifiable
morphological characteristics, for a given stream type. Streams functioning at full
potential exhibit a desired or preferred set of stability or condition characteristics
that may be quantitatively described in terms of channel size and shape, bed
stability /vertical control, and bank stability /lateral control - low bank erosion
potential and gradual lateral migration rates
Stream classification as a morphologic stream assessment technique permits a
quantitative analysis of the. degree to which existing conditions differ from an
accepted range of morphological values documented for different stable stream
types. The degree of departure for an existing stream condition from its full
stable operating potential can be determined in a number of ways including
comparisons to: 1) geomorphologic databases,, 2) historical photography or
surveys of the same reach; and 3) stable reference reaches of the same stream
type at different points in the watershed or adjacent watersheds
B Assessment Methods
1 Verifying Bankfull Channel Field Indicators
Updated regional regressions for bankfull channel dimensions developed for use
in the rural Piedmont Region of North Carolina (NCSU and NRCS, 2006) were
utilized to verify field indicators associated with the bankfull channel in
conducting the geomorphic stream assessments along Big Creek.
13

2. Level II - Morphological Description.
The reaches along Big Creek in the project area were classified into specific
categories of stream types (i e , 134c, C4, F4, etc.) utilizing the standard field
procedures recommended by Rosgen (1996).
3. Level III - Assessment of Stream Condition
The geomorphic features of Big Creek were mapped and the overall stability
assessed The reaches along Big Creek were assessed-for stream channel
condition and influencing factors including riparian vegetation, meander pattern,
depositional pattern, debris and channel blockages, sediment supply, vertical
stability, and lateral stability.
Lateral stability was evaluated using the bank erosion hazard index (BEHI), near
bank stress (NBS), width /depth ratio state, and meander /width ratio. Vertical
stability was evaluated using a measurement of the degree of incision or bank
height to bankfull ratio and a sediment entrainment analysis.
C. Findings of Channel Morphology and Stability Assessment
Utilizing the data collected from the Level II stream classification 'and Level III
channel condition assessment the current condition of Big Creek and the degree
to which the existing condition of the reaches differ from an accepted range of
morphological values documented for similar stable stream types was evaluated_
This analysis indicates that widely varying conditions exist along the project
reaches. The following is a summary of the findings of that analysis as it relates
to the existing conditions within the project study area:
Reach 1
The overall condition of the upper reach is characterized by lateral erosion, high
sediment supply, severely undercut trees and fallen trees, large debris jams,and
vertical instability (aggradation).
Fine sediment deposition, lateral and mid- channel bars are evident throughout.
Although the banks support scattered trees and shrubs, localized bank erosion
was evident throughout.V Bank height ratios range from a low of 1, 1 to greater
than -2.1 1,n some areas. The results of the stability analysis indicate that the
38,8% of the'banks along this reach have BEHL scores,and /or Near Bank Stress
ratings in the high to extreme, category. It is estimated that this reach undergoes
1261.7 cubic feet of erosion annually contributing 160.8 tons of sediment per year
14

`� .ice ��� `� �.�;fi• ;(•
r �\ -.. � •r =� .. r' ` . :.yam•. .
Ala—
lb
•'tea._, /.Id: f,d- .+� � Ire �. : ;a„•, :� - '

Io Mi.
MW )POPP-
• and Debris jams
40,.
I

Reach 2
The overall condition of the lower reach is characterized by lateral erosion, high
sediment supply, severely undercut and fallen trees, large debris jams, and
vertical instability (aggradation). Fine sediment deposition, large point, lateral
and mid - channel bars are evident throughout. Although the banks support
scattered trees and shrubs, localized bank erosion was evident throughout.
Numerous livestock trails are contributing to overall streambank instability along
the reach. Bank height ratios range from a low of 1.0 to greater than 2.2 in some
areas. The results of the stability analysis indicate that the 46.7% of the banks
along this reach have BEHI scores and /or Near Bank Stress ratings in the high to
extreme category. It is estimated that this reach undergoes 4556.5.7 cubic feet
of erosion annually contributing 219.4 tons of sediment per year.
Fig. 6 — Debris jam
17

Fig. 7 — Transverse bar forcing flow against opposite eroding bank
•e
Fig. 8 — Looking upstream at eroding bank
18

- T �
�Y
1 7
�s
SIX -

Fig 11 - Transverse bar forcing flow against opposite eroding bank
V. Restoration Design
A. General Approach
As pointed out in the Findings of Channel Morphology and Stability Assessment
Section, Big Creek has been affected by alterations in watershed hydrology and
sediment supply associated with agricultural practices, roads and development in
,the upper watershed In addition, direct impacts to the channel and adjacent
riparian area have occurred as a result of straightening and channelization,
clearing of riparian vegetation, and unrestricted livestock grazing.
The restoration objectives for Big Creek and its tributaries include
1. Overall channel geometry and slope will be modified to improve sediment
transport capacity This will be accomplished by reconstructing unstable G4
and F4 reaches along the mainstem as stable 134c channels. Unstable C4
reaches along the main stem Big Creek will be reconstructed as stable C4.
2 Lower reaches of the tributary and its confluence will be reconstructed to
eliminate vertical stability problems in,these areas
20

I Reach, hes with high width /depth ratios will be reconstructed with a narrower
baseflow and bankfull channel to improve habitat ;as well as sediment
transport This will be accomplished by constructing bankfull benches along
the channel margin.
4. High, vertical banks on the outside of the meander bends as well as the
adjacent flood'plain will be excavated and graded to establish a better,angle of
repose on the'banks, increase floodprone area, and lower the bankfull to
bank height ratio Particular emphasis will be placed on grading 'those'banks
lacking woody vegetation and preserving those banks that are well vegetated
with trees and shrubs.
5 Meander geometry will' be modified, to increase radii' of curvature on ,bends
Where the radii of curvature are extremely low„ that is smooth out the tight
bends. This will reduce the backwater effect and sediment deposition caused
by these tight bends and increase the overall channel gradient and sediment
transport capacity
6. Log /boulder J- hooks, toe wood, and log /boulder step- pools,will'be installed at
key locations along the tributary and the main stem Big Creek to reduce near -
'bank stress, provide grade control, dissipate energy, and create habitat
7. Long -term bank stabilization and lateral control will be provided by planting
native grasses, trees, and shrubs on the lower and upper stream banks.
8. The existing ford crossing, will be stabilized to prevent future problems. The
existing damaged culvet pipe on `the tributary will be removed and replaced
with a new pipe sized to carry storm flows from the watershed draining to it.
The restoration approach presented above is illustrated in the design drawings
,(i.e., plan view, profile, and cross- sections) attached tothis report. The design
criteria are summarized in the Appendix, to "this report:,
B. Design Criteria
1. Reference Reach Data
After determining the targeted stream types (i.e., stable form for the reaches to
be restored)'for Big Creek, dimensionless ratios were taken from a reference
'reach data base developed from stable B4c and C4 streams in the Piedmont and
Mountain Regions ,of North Carolina The dimensionless ratios are presented in
the Appendix to this report.
21

2 Design Discharges
As noted in the Hydrology section of this report, three methods were used to
develop bankfull discharge estimates. These included 1) updated regional
regression equations developed in North Carolina (NCSU and NRCS, 1999),
2) TR -20 Hydrologic Model, and 3) Manning's equation and field data.
Based on this analysis it was determined that utilizing the Rural Regional
Regression estimates provided a reliable method for estimating bankfull
discharge for the proposed project design.
The bankfull discharges used during the design process for design points 1, 2,
and 3 were 236.0 cfs, 238.4 cfs, and 241 8 cfs, respectively These flows as well
as the peak discharge estimates for the 1 -, 2 -, 1;0 -, 507, and 100 =year storm
events developed using the TR -20 model provided input for'the'HEC =RAS
hydraulic model.
3. Channel Geometry
Since aggradation is an on -going problem along Big Creek, one mayor objective
of the restoration project was to improve sediment transport competency and
capacity This ,can generally be accomplished by adjusting channel cross -
sectional dimensions and channel slope The design criteria included
maximizing the overall channel gradient for a given reach while maintaining a
stable plan form.
The preliminary channel plan form layout was developed during several site
walks and sketched on the base maps. After the plan form was developed
general concepts for the layout of the longitudinal profile and the location of bed
features were developed.
After °the proposed channel plan form and longitudinal profile were completed,
preliminary channel dimensions were developed utilizing the updated Bankfull
Discharge and Hydraulic Geometry Regional Regressions for the Rural Piedmont
Region of North Carolina (NCSU and NRCS, 2006) to determine channel cross -
sectional area (A) based on the drainage,area to a given reach. The calculated
,A and W/D ratios from our reference reach database were used to determine
bankfull width Wbf = 4(Wbkf / dbkf) (Abkf) and bankfull mean depth Dbf = Wbkf /
(Wbkf / dbkf).
The proposed slope, bankfull cross - sectional area, width, depth and width /depth
ratios were adjusted for each reach using an iterative process that included
multiple sediment entrainment analyses After each adjustment the latest
channel dimensions and profile were checked against ratios from the reference
reach database
22

4. Sediment Entrainment Analysis
In restoration design, entrainment analysis is utilized to verify that the proposed
channel generates the shear stress needed to entrain and transport the sediment
expected to be moving through the project reach under bankfull flow conditions
Sediment data gathered from riffle ,pavement/,subpavement and point bar
samples along the ,Big Creek project reaches was utilized in the entrainment
analysis to verify that the project channel dimensions and profile are appropriate
to maintain the competency of the restored reaches
a Sediment Entrainment Analysis Procedures
Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress Calculations
Using the following equations, the critical shear stress required to mobilize and
transport the largest particle from the bar sample is determined.
Determine ratio Dso /Dso"
Where. Dso = bed material D50 of riffle
Dso^ = Dso of bar
If ratio is 3.0 — 7.0, calculate the critical shear stress using.
Tci = .0834 (Dso /Dso") - 0 872
If ratio D5o /D50^ is not 3.0 — 7.0, calculate the ratio of Di /D50
Where. D, = largest particle from bar or riffle subpavement
D50 = bed material 050 of riffle (100 count' in riffle)
If ratio of Di /D50 is 1 3 — 3.0, calculate the critical shear stress using:
Tci = .0384 (Di /D50) - 0 887
b Big Creek Project Reaches
Bulk sediment samples were collected along Big Creek. This effort included the
collection of point bar samples. Based on our experience on other design
projects and an analysis of the sediment sampling database those samples
determined to be most representative of Big Creek sediment transport conditions
were used in the sediment entrainment analysis to verify the competency of the
proposed channel.
23

1. Calculate ratio of D5o /D50"
D50 = 45.7 mm (bed material D50)
D50^ = 13.1 mm (bar sample D50)
D5o /D50^ = 45.7/13 1 = 3.5
If ratio is 3.0 — 7.0, calculate the critical shear stress using-
Tci = .0834 (D5o /D50") - 0 872
Calculate critical shear stress (Tci)
Tci = 0834 (D5o /D50 ^) - 0 872
Tci = .0834 (45 7/13.1) -0872
Tci = 0 028
a Existing Conditions
They critical shear stress values- developed in these analyses were compared to
the critical shear stress values calculated for riffle cross - sections along the
existing channels
b. Proposed Conditions
During the design phase of the project, the critical shear stress developed in
these analyses was utilized to verify that the project' channel dimensions and
profile are appropriate to maintain the competency of the restored reaches.
24