20080913 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20080604

Mill Creek Restoration Plan
Randolph County, North Carolina
Prepared for: NCDENR - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capital Blvd, Suite lH 103
Raleigh, NC 27604
osstem
ERIc'11 ?'UIICIIL
YKSI[:KAM
FINAL REPORT
Baker Project Number 109664
March 2008
Mill Creek Restoration Plan
Randolph County, North Carolina
Prepared for NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1r-
Us Apem
Ekairemen
PROGRAM
Design Report Prepared by Baker Engineering
Baker Engineering NY, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway
Suite 200
Cary, North Carolina 27518
Phone: 919,463,5488
Fax, 919.463.5490
Ward Elis
Project Manager
Kevin Tweedy, PE
Project Engineer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) proposes to restore approximately
983 linear feet (LF) of stream, enhance approximately 4,859 LF of stream, and preserve
approximately 15,802 LF of stream along four separate reaches of the mainstem of Mill Creek, five
unnamed tributaries to Mill Creek, two unnamed tributaries to the Uwharrie River, and one ditch that
flows directly into the Uwharrie River that are all located within the project boundaries (Table ES 1).
In total, approximately 21,644 LF of stream will be permanently protected through a conservation
easement within the Mill Creek project boundaries. In addition, the project will also create 1.1 acres
of riverine wetlands from prior constructed livestock watering ponds.
The landowners of the Mill Creek site have expressed an interest in protecting the property through
multiple conservation measures. All practices proposed in this design report are being funded
completely through NCEEP funds. However, additional funding has been provided by a Randolph
County Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQUIP) grant and with support from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
for a native prairiegrass restoration project to occur within formally farmed/grazed portions of the
property outside of the NCEEP Mill Creek project boundaries. As a result, ongoing coordination will
be necessary between NCEEP, Baker Engineering, the NCWRC, and the landowners as portions of
the property are converted from a prior agricultural/livestock farm to actively managed native
prairiegrass fields with perpetually protected riparian buffers located along the existing onsite
waterways.
The Mill Creek site is located in Randolph County, approximately 11 miles southwest of the City of
Asheboro, North Carolina. The site occurs within the eight-digit hydrological unit code (HUC)
03040103, and within the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub-basin 03-07-09 of the
Yadkin Valley River Basin (Exhibit 1.1 and 1.2).
Mill Creek is a moderate-sized, perennial stream with a drainage area of approximately 1.3 square
miles at its confluence with the Uwharrie River (Exhibit 1.3). Historically, the downstream portion of
the site (west of Lassiter Mill Rd - SR 1107) has been used for agriculture and livestock production.
Livestock have been removed and the area has become fallow open land, areas used for hay
production, or areas recently planted and undergoing active burning by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) as part of an ecosystem restoration initiative for the entire
property. Prior livestock activity has compromised the riparian buffer along many of the project
reaches. The upstream portion of the project area (east of Lassiter Mill Rd) is primarily forested.
Riparian vegetation in this area is comprised mainly of mature deciduous trees.
In addition to Mill Creek, three unnamed tributaries and one ditch (two tributaries to Mill Creek -
UT4 and UT5 and one tributary and one ditch to the Uwharrie River - UT 2 and UT1, respectively)
occur within the enhancement/restoration project area (area located west of Lassiter Mill Rd). These
tributaries and ditch are small systems with drainage areas of 0.08, 0.06, 0.08, and 0.05 square mile,
respectively. These tributaries and ditch (verified during site visit with USACE) originate on the
project site and terminate at their confluence with either Mill Creek or the Uwharrie River. These
reaches drain pastures and wooded areas. UT2, UT4, and UT5 are considered intermittent in their
upper reaches and perennial in the lower reaches, while UT1 is considered ephemeral throughout its
length.
Stream preservation encompasses eight stream reaches with existing riparian buffers that will be
protected. Seven of the eight reaches lie east of Lassiter Mill Road and are directly upstream of the
lower Mill Creek reach (MCI). The eighth reach (UT9) is located in the southern portions of the site.
UT9 originates off-site on an adjacent parcel west of Lassiter Mill Rd and drains directly into the
Uwharrie River downstream of the Mill Creek-Uwharrie River confluence (Exhibit 1.4). The
BAKER ENGINEERING
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
preservation reaches are currently hydrologically, geomorphically, and geometrically functioning as
stable reaches.
Two small, breached ponds located west of Lassiter Mill Road provide an opportunity for wetland
creation and with it the associated water quality improvements which will result. Wetland creation
consists of grading the breached dams, planting a variety of native wetland plants and trees, and
allowing for overbank flooding of the channel that will flow through the created wetlands.
Mill Creek stream activities are shown in Exhibit 1.4. The proposed stream restoration, enhancement,
and preservation areas, as well as the wetland creation areas, will provide numerous ecological
benefits within the Mill Creek watershed in addition to portions of the Uwharrie River adjacent to and
immediately downstream of the property boundaries. While many of the benefits are limited to the
project area, others, such as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have more
far-reaching effects. Expected improvements to water quality, hydrology, and habitat are outlined
below as project goals and objectives.
Goals
• Improve water quality within the UT2 and Mill Creek watersheds by reducing sediment and
nutrient inputs, increasing dissolved oxygen concentrations, improve stream stability, and
wetland filtering
• Improve water quantity within the UT2 and Mill Creek watersheds by improving ground
water recharge, restoring hydrologic connections, and reconnecting channels with floodplains
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat within the UT2 and Mill Creek watersheds by
improving substrate and in-stream cover, reducing water temperature by increasing shading,
improving terrestrial habitat, and improving overall aesthetics
• Increase animal and vegetation biodiversity within the site by connecting the riparian buffer
improvements associated with the NCEEP's Mill Creek project with an NCWRC native
piedmont prairiegrass restoration project located outside of the NCEEP's conservation
easement boundaries.
Objectives
• Permanently protect 21,644 LF of stream channel through a conservation easement
• Restore 938 LF of perennial stream channel
• Enhance 4,859 LF of perennial and intermittent stream channel
• Preserve 15,802 LF of perennial channel
• Create 1.5 acres of wetland
• Restore UT2 to its original drainage path to the Uwharrie River below the breached dam
• Create a new channel below UT5's breached dam that flows along the fall of the valley to
reduce the toe-of-slope erosion on the left bank
• Improve floodplain functionality by matching floodplain elevation with bankfull stage or by
creating a bench to open the floodplain in areas where the channel is incised
• Establish native stream bank and floodplain vegetation in the permanent conservation
easement
• Improve aquatic and riparian habitat by creating deeper pools and areas of re-aeration,
planting a riparian buffer, and reducing bank erosion.
BAKER ENGINEERING
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
TABLE ES 1.
Restoration Overview

d
Wetland 1 along UT2 0.9 AC 0.9 AC Creation - planting native vegetation and enhancing
hydrology.
Wetland 2 along UT5 0.2 AC 0.2 AC Creation - planting native vegetation and enhancing
hydrology.
Enhancement I - benching, sloping banks, installing
1,460 FT structures and planting native vegetation along 1,460' of
Mill Creek (MCI) 2,214 FT stream
754 FT Enhancement II - planting native vegetation along 754' of
stream.
Stream Reach UT1 1,799 FT 1,799 FT Filling the upper 600' of the agriculturally dug ditch.
875 FT Restoration - approx. 875' of new channel above and
Stream Reach UT2 1,703 FT below breached dam, while restoring original drainage
1,012 FT Enhancement II - planting buffer along 1012' of stream.
541 FT Enhancement II - planting buffer along approx. 541' of
Stream Reach UT4 2,350 FT stream
1,809 FT Preservation of buffer along approx. 1,809' of stream.
108 FT Restoration -approx. 108' of new channel below
Stream Reach UT5 289 FT
1 breached dam
'
, 250 FT Enhancement I - benching approx. 250
of stream
842 FT Enhancement II - planting buffer along 842' of stream.
Stream Reach UT6 954 FT 954 FT Preservation of buffer along approx. 954' of stream.
Stream Reach UT7 2,529 FT 2,529 FT Preservation of buffer along approx. 2,529' of stream.
Stream Reach UT8 2,003 FT 2,003 FT Preservation of buffer along approx. 2,003' of stream.
Stream Reach UT9 5,239 FT 5,239 FT Preservation of buffer along approx. 5,239' of stream.
Stream Reach MC2 998 FT 998 FT Preservation of buffer along approx. 998' of stream.
Stream Reach MC3 785 FT 785 FT Preservation of buffer along approx. 785' of stream.
Stream Reach MC4 1,485 FT 1,485 FT Preservation of buffer along approx. 1,485' of stream.
BAKER ENGINEERING
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction and Background ..............................................................................................1-1
1.1 Location and Project Description ........................................................................................1-1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ..............................................................................................1-2
1.3 Report Overview .......................................................................................... .......................1-3
1.4 Native Piedmont Prairiegrass Restoration Project ....................................... ....................... 1-3
2.0 S tream Restoration Background Science and Methods .............................. .......................2-4
2.1 Application of Fluvial Processes to Stream Restoration .............................. .......................2-4
2.2 Natural Channel Design Overview ............................................................... .......................2-8
2.3 Geomorphic Characterization Methodology ................................................ .......................2-9
2.4 Channel Stability Assessment Methodology ................................................ .....................2-10
2.5 Design Parameter Selection Methodology ................................................... .....................2-13
2.6 Sediment Transport Competency and Capacity Methodology ..................... .....................2-14
2.7 In-stream Structures ..................................................................................... .....................2-17
2.8 Vegetation ........................................................................ .................................................2-18
2.9 Risk Recognition .............................................................. .................................................2-20
3.0 Wetland Restoration Background Science and Methods ...................................................3-1
3.1 The Importance of Wetlands ............................................ ...................................................3-1
3.2 Hydric soils ...................................................................... ...................................................3-1
3.3 Wetland Vegetation .......................................................... ...................................................3-2
3.4 Wetland Hydrology .......................................................... ...................................................3-3
3.5 Wetland Hydrologic Analyses .......................................... ...................................................3-4
3.6 Assessment of Existing Wetland Areas ............................ ...................................................3-5
3.7 Reference Wetlands ............................................................................................ .................3-6
3.8 Wetland Restoration Techniques ........................................................................ .................3-7
3.9 Application of Fluvial Processes to Stream and Wetland Restoration ............... ...............3-10
4.0 Watershed Assessment Results ............................................................................ .................4-1
4.1 Watershed Delineation ....................................................................................... .................4-1
4.2 Surface Water Classification .............................................................................. .................4-1
4.3 Geology ...............................................................................................................................4-1
4.4 Soils ....................................................................................................................................4-2
4.5 Land Use and Boundaries ....................................................................................................4-2
4.6 Endangered/Threatened Species ..........................................................................................4-3
4.7 Cultural Resources ..............................................................................................................4-5
4.8 Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites ........................................................................4-5
BAKER ENGINEERING IV
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
4.9 Potential Constraints ............................................................................................................4-5
5.0 Existing Wetland Conditions ................................................................................................5-1
5.1 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................ ..5-1
5.2 Soils 5-2
5.3 Climatic Conditions ........................................................................................................... ..5-2
5.4 Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... ..5-3
6.0 Stream Corridor Assessment Results ................................................................................ ..6-1
6.1 Brief Reach Description .................................................................................................... ..6-1
6.2 Geomorphic Characterization and Channel Stability Assessment .................................... ..6-1
6.3 Bankfull Verification ......................................................................................................... ..6-5
6.4 Stream Reference Site ....................................................................................................... ..6-6
7.0 Stream Restoration .............................................................................................................. ..7-1
7.1 Restoration Benefits .......................................................................................................... ..7-1
7.2 Constraints ......................................................................................................................... ..7-1
7.3 Design ................................................................................................................................ ..7-2
7.4 Design Criteria Selection ................................................................................................... ..7-7
7.5 Sediment Transport ........................................................................................................... ..7-7
7.6 In-Stream Structures .......................................................................................................... ..7-9
7.7 Vegetation ......................................................................................................................... 7-10
7.8 Invasive Species Removal ................................................................................................. 7-14
8.0 Wetland Creation Design .................................................................................................... ..8-1
8.1 Potential for Wetland Mitigation ....................................................................................... ..8-1
8.2 Wetland Design ................................................................................................................. ..8-1
9.0 Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................. ..9-1
9.1 Stream Monitoring ............................................................................................................ ..9-1
9.2 Wetland Monitoring .......................................................................................................... ..9-3
9.3 Vegetation Monitoring ...................................................................................................... ..9-3
9.4 Reporting Requirements .................................................................................................... ..9-3
9.5 Maintenance Issues ............................................................................................................ ..9-4
10.0 References ............................................................................................................................. 10-1
BAKER ENGINEERING V
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
List of Exhibits
* All Exh ibits are located at the back of the report, immediately preceding the appendices.
Exhibit 1.1 Project Vicinity Map
Exhibit 1.2 Site Location Map
Exhibit 1.3 Watershed Map
Exhibit 1.4 Proposed Stream and Wetland Approach
Exhibit 2.1 Rosgen Stream Classification
Exhibit 2.2 Factors Influencing Stream Stability
Exhibit 2.3 Simon Channel Evolution Model
Exhibit 2.4 Restoration Priorities for Incised Channels
Exhibit 2.5 Channel Dimension Measurements
Exhibit 2.6 Design Criteria Selection
Exhibit 2.7 Modified Shields Curve
Exhibit 2.8 Examples of In-stream Structures
Exhibit 4.1 Soils Map - Mill Creek
Exhibit 5.1 Site Hydrology and Cross-sections Map - Mill Creek
Exhibit 6.1 NC Piedmont Regional Curves
Exhibit 6.2 USGS Stream Gauge Site
Exhibit 6.3 Stream Reference Site Location
Exhibit 6.4 Reference Site Watershed Map
Exhibit 6.5 Reference Site Soils Map
List of Figures
Figure 3.1 Typical Pattern of Restored Wetland Microtopography (Scherrer, 2000)
Figure 5.1 Hydrographs of the Groundwater Monitoring Wells on the Mill Creek Site
(October 2006 through June 2007)
BAKER ENGINEERING VI
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
List of Tables
Table ES 1 Restoration Overview
Table 2.1 Conversion of Bank Height Ratios to Adjective Ranking of Stability (Rosgen,
2001a)
Table 2.2 Conversion of Width/Depth Ratios to Adjective Ranking of Stability (Rosgen,
2001a)
Table 2.3 Functions of In-Stream Structures
Table 4.1 Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Table 4.2 Species Under Federal Protection in Randolph County
Table 4.3 Federal Species of Concern in Randolph County
Table 5.1 Comparison of Monthly Rainfall for Project Site and Long-Term Averages
Table 6.1 Reach Descriptions
Table 6.2 Geomorphic Data for Mill Creek and Tributaries
Table 6.3 NC Rural Piedmont Curve Equations
Table 7.1 Project Design Stream Types
Table 7.2a Existing Conditions and Design Parameters for Project Reaches
Table 7.2b Existing Conditions and Design Parameters for Project Reaches
Table 7.3 Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power for Existing and Proposed
Conditions of UT2 and UT5
Table 7.4 In-Stream Structure Types and Locations
Table 7.5 Proposed Bare-root and Live Stake Species
Table 7.6 Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
Table 7.7 NCWRC Native Prairiegrass Vegetation Species List
Table 8.1 Project Wetland Design Approaches
Table 9.1 Monitoring Procedures for Stream Restoration, Enhancement, and Preservation
Reaches
BAKER ENGINEERING VII
MILL CREE K RESTORATION PLAN
List of Appendices
Appendix A Mill Creek Project Photolog
Appendix B Cultural and Natural Resources Correspondence
Appendix C EDR Transaction Screen Map Report
Appendix D Wetland Delineation Data and Stream Forms
Appendix E Existing Conditions Summaries: Cross-Sections, Longitudinal Profiles, and Bed
Material Analyses
Appendix F Design Parameters
Appendix G Reference Reach Conditions Summaries: Cross-Sections, Longitudinal Profiles,
Bed Material Analyses, and Photographs
BAKER ENGINEERING VIII
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 Location and Project Description
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) proposes to restore approximately
983 linear feet (LF) of stream, enhance approximately 4,859 LF of stream, preserve approximately
15,802 LF of stream, and create 1.1 acres of riverme wetlands within the Yadkin Valley River Basin.
The Mill Creek mitigation site (35° 33' 21" N, 79° 58' 16" W) is located approximately 11 miles
southwest of the City of Asheboro in Randolph County, North Carolina. Exhibits 1.1 and 1.2 provide
an overview of the project site. The site occurs within the eight-digit hydrological unit code (HUC)
03040103, and within the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub-basin 03-07-09 of the
Yadkin Valley River Basin (Exhibit 1.1 and 1.2).
To get to the project site from Asheboro, NC, one must take Route 49 South (towards Charlotte).
After approximately seven miles make a hard left turn onto Mechanic Road. Turn right onto Lassiter
Mill Road. Travel approximately 7 miles and turn right onto High Pine Church Road. The entrance
to the project is on the left, 900' from the intersection. There is a yellow steel gate at the entrance.
Mill Creek is a moderate-sized, perennial stream with a drainage area of approximately 1.3 square
miles at its confluence with the Uwharrie River (Exhibit 1.3). Historically, the downstream portion of
the site (west of Lassiter Mill Rd - SR 1107) has been used for agriculture and livestock production.
Livestock have been removed and the area has become fallow open land, areas used for hay
production, or areas recently planted and undergoing active burning by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) as part of an ecosystem restoration initiative for the entire
property. Prior livestock activity has compromised the riparian buffer along many of the project
reaches. The upstream portion of the project area (east of Lassiter Mill Rd) is primarily forested.
Riparian vegetation in this area is comprised mainly of mature deciduous trees.
In addition to Mill Creek, three unnamed tributaries and one ditch (two tributaries to Mill Creek -
UT4 and UT5 and one tributary and one ditch to the Uwharrie River - UT 2 and UT1, respectively)
occur within the enhancement/restoration project area (area located west of Lassiter Mill Rd). These
tributaries and the ditch are relatively small stream systems with drainage areas of 0.08, 0.06, 0.08,
and 0.05 square mile, respectively. These tributaries and ditch (verified during site visit with
USACE) originate on the project site and terminate at their confluence with either Mill Creek or the
Uwharrie River. These reaches drain pastures and wooded areas. UT2, UT4, and UT5 are considered
intermittent in their upper reaches and perennial in the lower reaches, while UT1 is considered
ephemeral throughout its length.
Stream preservation encompasses eight stream reaches with existing riparian buffers that will be
protected. Seven of the eight reaches lie east of Lassiter Mill Road and are directly upstream of the
lower Mill Creek reach (MCI). The eighth reach (UT9) is located in the southern portions of the site.
UT9 originates off-site on an adjacent parcel west of Lassiter Mill Rd and drains directly into the
Uwharrie River downstream of the Mill Creek-Uwharrie River confluence (Exhibit 1.4). The
preservation reaches are currently hydrologically, geomorphically, and geometrically functioning as
stable reaches.
Two small, breached ponds located west of Lassiter Mill Road provide an opportunity for wetland
creation and with it the associated water quality improvements which will result. Wetland creation
consists of grading the breached dams, planting a variety of native wetland plants and trees, and
allowing for overbank flooding of the channel that will flow through the created wetlands.
BAKER ENGINEERING
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
Mill Creek mitigation activities are shown in Exhibit 1.4. The proposed stream restoration,
enhancement, and preservation areas, as well as the wetland creation areas, will provide numerous
ecological benefits within the Mill Creek watershed in addition to portions of the Uwharrie River
adjacent to and immediately downstream of the property boundaries. While many of the benefits are
limited to the project area, others, such as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial
habitat, have more far-reaching effects. Expected improvements to water quality, hydrology, and
habitat are outlined below as project goals and objectives.
Goals
• Improve water quality within the UT2 and Mill Creek watersheds by reducing sediment and
nutrient inputs, increasing dissolved oxygen concentrations, improve stream stability, and
wetland filtering
• Improve water quantity within the UT2 and Mill Creek watersheds by improving ground
water recharge, restoring hydrologic connections, and reconnecting channels with floodplains
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat within the UT2 and Mill Creek watersheds by
improving substrate and in-stream cover, reducing water temperature by increasing shading,
improving terrestrial habitat, and improving overall aesthetics
• Increase animal and vegetation biodiversity within the site by connecting the riparian buffer
improvements associated with the NCEEP's Mill Creek project with an NCWRC native
piedmont prairiegrass restoration project located outside of the NCEEP's conservation
easement boundaries.
Objectives
• Permanently protect 21,644 LF of stream channel through a conservation easement
• Restore 938 LF of perennial stream channel
• Enhance 4,859 LF of perennial and intermittent stream channel
• Preserve 15,802 LF of channel
• Create 1.5 acres of wetland
• Restore UT2 to its original drainage path to the Uwharrie River below the breached dam
• Create a new channel below UT5's breached dam that flows along the fall of the valley to
reduce the toe-of-slope erosion on the left bank
• Improve floodplain functionality by matching floodplain elevation with bankfull stage or by
creating a bench to open the floodplain in areas where the channel is incised
• Establish native stream bank and floodplain vegetation in the permanent conservation
easement
• Improve aquatic and riparian habitat by creating deeper pools and areas of re-aeration,
planting a riparian buffer, and reducing bank erosion
• Increase species habitation throughout the property and the surrounding land.
BAKER ENGINEERING 1-2
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
1.3 Report Overview
This report has been arranged and formatted to maximize its utility. Readers unfamiliar with stream
and wetland restoration science and methodology may wish to review the background material in
Sections 2 and 3. Those familiar with Baker Engineering's design processes and procedures may
wish to focus on Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the report, which are specific to the project site. These
sections cover the site assessment findings, selection and application of design criteria, and site
design. Section 9 summarizes post-construction monitoring and evaluation procedures. References
are provided in Section 10.
1.4 Native Piedmont Prairiegrass Restoration Project.
The Mill Creek stream and wetland restoration project is being coordinated with an ongoing native
piedmont prairegrass restoration project which is being conducted within portions of the property
located outside of the NCEEP's conservation easement boundaries. The prairegrass conversion is
being funded by a Randolph County Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQUIP) grant with additional support being provided by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC).
The prairiegrass restoration project within the Grissom property is a relatively large scale grassland
initiative which will convert approximately 100 acres of degraded fescue pasture previously used for
agricultural and livestock purposes into a naturally functioning piedmont prairegrass field planted
with native and locally grown grasses and wildflowers while removing introduced and exotic species
such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), kudzu (Pueraria montana), and Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica) which commonly occur throughout the property. Naturally occurring piedmont
prairies have been rapidly diminishing across central North Carolina due to continued development
and expansion into these native prairiegrass habitats.
While traditional stream and riparian buffer restoration projects typically only protect a targeted
waterway(s), the restoration of stream, riparian buffer, and prairiegrass habitats within this project
should provide an excellent opportunity to gain valuable experience in establishing and maintaining
distinctly different yet adjacent vegetative communities while providing vegetative connectivity and
increased ecological stability. Improving habitat quality within the riparian buffers should benefit
existing wildlife while restoring the prairiegrass habitat should offer opportunities for the re-
introduction of early successional wildlife species found and occurring in prairegrass fields such as
indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), eastern
meadowlark (Sturnella magna), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), and bobwhite quail
(Cohnus virgintanus).
Continued coordination between NCEEP, Baker Engineering, the NCWRC, and the landowners will
be necessary prior to construction and during construction to avoid confusion and delays that may
occur during the implementation of both projects. Long term management of the prairiegrass fields,
requires a fire management plan be developed to determine subsequent burnings and additional
maintenance issues. Vegetation within the NCEEP conservation easement boundaries is not subject
to burning so long term agreements regarding frequency of burns, fire lanes, etc. will be necessary
between the NCWRC and the NCEEP to insure the success of both projects. The concurrent
development of a stream/riparian buffer restoration project with a native piedmont prairiegrass
restoration project provides an excellent opportunity to explore an ecosystem restoration initiative not
usually seen with stream or wetland restoration projects.
BAKER ENGINEERING 1-3
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
2.0 STREAM RESTORATION BACKGROUND SCIENCE AND
METHODS
2.1 Application of Fluvial Processes to Stream Restoration
A stream and its floodplain comprise a dynamic environment where the floodplain, channel, and
bedform evolve through natural processes. Weather and hydraulic processes erode, transport, sort,
and deposit alluvial materials throughout the riparian system. The size and flow of a stream are
directly related to its watershed area. Other factors that affect channel size and stream flow are
geology, land use, soil types, topography, and climate. The morphology, or size and shape, of the
channel reflect all of these factors (Leopold et al., 1992; Knighton, 1998). The result is a dynamic
equilibrium where the stream maintains its dimension, pattern, and profile over time, and neither
degrades nor aggrades. Land use changes in the watershed, including increases in imperviousness
and removal of riparian vegetation, can upset this balance. A new equilibrium may eventually result,
but not before large adjustments in channel form can occur, such as extreme bank erosion or incision
(Lane, 1955; Schumm, 1960). By understanding and applying natural stream processes to stream
restoration projects, a self-sustaining stream can be designed and constructed that maximizes stream
and biological potential (Leopold et al., 1992; Leopold, 1994; Rosgen, 1996).
In addition to transporting water and sediment, natural streams provide the habitat for many aquatic
organisms including fish, amphibians, insects, mollusks, and plants. Trees and shrubs along the
banks provide a food source and regulate water temperatures. Channel features such as pools, riffles,
steps, and undercut banks provide diversity of habitat, oxygenation, and cover (Dunne and Leopold,
1978). Stream restoration projects can repair these features in concert with the return of a stable
dimension, pattern, and profile. The following sections provide an overview of the primary channel
forming process and typical stream morphology.
2.1.1 Channel Forming Discharge
The channel forming discharge, also referred to as bankfull discharge, effective discharge, or
dominant discharge, creates a natural and predictable channel size and shape (Leopold et al.,
1992; Leopold, 1994). Channel forming discharge theory states that there is a unique flow that
over a long period of time would yield the same channel morphology that is shaped by the
natural sequence of flows. At this discharge, equilibrium is most closely approached and the
tendency to change is minimized (Inglis, 1947). Uses of the channel forming discharge include
channel stability assessment, river management using hydraulic geometry relationships, and
natural channel design (Soar and Thorne, 2001).
Proper determination of bankfull stage in the field is vital to stream classification and the
natural channel design process. The bankfull discharge is the point at which flooding occurs on
the floodplain (Leopold, 1994). This flood stage may or may not be the top of the stream bank.
On average, bankfull discharge occurs every 1.5 years (Leopold, 1994; Harman et al., 1999;
McCandless, 2003). If the stream has incised due to changes in the watershed or streamside
vegetation, the bankfull stage may be a small depositional bench or scour line on the stream
bank (Harman et al., 1999). In this case, the top of the bank, which was formerly the
floodplain, is called a terrace. A stream with terraces at the top of its banks is considered to be
incised.
BAKER ENGINEERING 2-4
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
2.1.2 Bedform Diversity and Channel Substrate
The profile of a stream bed and its bed materials are largely dependent on valley slope and
geology. In simple terms, steep, straight streams are found in steep, colluvial valleys, while
flat, meandering streams are found in flat, alluvial valleys. Colluvial valleys have slopes
between two percent and four percent, while alluvial channels have slopes less than two
percent. A colluvial valley forms through hillslope processes. Sediment supply in colluvial
valleys is controlled by hillslope erosion and mass wasting, i.e., the sediments in the stream bed
originated from the hillslopes. Sediments reaching the channel in a colluvial valley are
typically poorly sorted mixtures of fine and coarse grained materials ranging in size from sand
to boulders. In contrast, an alluvial valley forms through stream and floodplain processes.
Sediments in alluvial valleys include some coarse gravel and cobble transported from steeper
upland areas, but are predominantly fine-grained particles such as gravel and sand. Grain size
generally decreases with valley slope (Leopold et al., 1992).
2.1.2.1 Step/Pool Streams
A step/pool bed profile is characteristic of steep streams formed within colluvial valleys.
Steep mountain streams demonstrate step/pool morphology as a result of episodic
sediment transport mechanisms. Because of the high energy associated with the steep
channel slope, the substrate in step/pool streams contains significantly larger particles
than streams in flatter, alluvial valleys. Steps form from accumulations of boulders and
cobbles that span the channel, resulting in a backwater pool upstream and plunge pool
downstream. Smaller particles collect in the interstices of steps creating stable,
interlocking structures (Knighton, 1998).
In contrast to meandering streams that dissipate energy through meander bends, step/pool
streams dissipate energy through drops and turbulence. Step/pool streams have relatively
low sinuosity. Pattern variations are commonly the result of debris jams, topographic
features, and bedrock outcrops.
2.1.2.2 Gravel Bed Streams
Meandering gravel bed streams in alluvial valleys have sequences of riffles and pools that
maintain channel slope and bed stability. The riffle is a bed feature composed of gravel
or larger size particles. During low flow periods, the water depth at a riffle is relatively
shallow and the slope is steeper than the average slope of the channel. At low flows,
water moves faster over riffles, and the resulting turbulence provide oxygen to the
stream. Riffles control the stream bed elevation and are usually found entering and
exiting meander bends. The inside of the meander bend is a depositional feature called a
point bar, which also helps maintain channel form (Knighton, 1988). Pools are typically
located on the outside bends of meanders between riffles. Pools have a flat slope and are
much deeper than the average depth of the channel. At low flows, pools are depositional
features and riffles are scour features.
At high flows, the water surface becomes more uniform: the water surface slope at the
riffles decreases and the water surface slope at the pools increases. The increase in pool
slope coupled with the greater water depth at the pools causes an increase in shear stress
at the bed elevation. The opposite is true at riffles. With a relative increase in shear
stress, pools scour. The relative decrease in shear stress at riffles causes bed material
deposits at these features during the falling limb of the hydrograph.
BAKER ENGINEERING 2-5
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
21.23 Sand Bed Streams
While gravel bed streams have riffle/pool sequences, with riffles composed of gravel-size
particles, sand bed channels are characterized by median bed material sizes less than two
millimeters in diameter (Bunte and Abt, 2001). Bed material features called ripples,
dunes, planebeds, and antidunes characterize the sand bedform. Although sand bed
streams technically do not have riffles, the term is often used to describe the crossover
reach between pools. We use "riffle" in this report as equivalent to the crossover section.
The size, stage, and variation of sand bedforms are formed by changes in unit stream
power as described below. These bedforms are symptomatic of local variations in the
sediment transport rate and cause minor to major variations in aggradation and
degradation (Gomez, 1991). Sand bedforms can be divided between low flow regimes
and high flow regimes with a transitional zone between the two. Ripples occur at low
flows where the unit stream power is just high enough to entrain sand size particles. This
entrainment creates small wavelets from random sediment accumulations that are
triangular in profile with gentle upstream and steep downstream slopes. The ripple
dimensions are independent of flow depth and heights are less than 0.02 meters.
As unit stream power increases, dunes eventually replace ripples. Dunes are the most
common type of sand bedform and have a larger height and wavelength than ripples.
Unlike ripples, dune height and wavelength are proportional to flow depth. The
movement of dunes is the major cause of variability in bed-load transport rates in sand
bed streams. Dunes are eventually washed out to leave an upper-flow plane bed
characterized by intense bedload transport. This plane bed prevents the patterns of
erosion and deposition required for dune development. This stage of bedform
development is called the transitional flow regime between the low flow features and the
high flow regime features (Knighton, 1998).
As flow continues to increase, standing waves develop at the water surface and the bed
develops a train of sediment waves (antidunes), which mirror the surface forms.
Antidunes migrate upstream by way of scour on the downstream face and deposition on
the upstream face, a process that is opposite of ripples and dunes. Antidunes can also
move downstream or remain stationary for short periods (Knighton, 1998).
2.1.3 Stream Classification
The Rosgen stream classification system categorizes essentially all types of channels based on
measured morphological features (Rosgen, 1994, 1996). The system presents several stream
types based on a hierarchical system. The classification system is illustrated on Exhibit 2.1.
The first level of classification distinguishes between single and multiple thread channels.
Streams are then separated based on degrees of entrenchment, width/depth ratio, and sinuosity.
Slope range and channel materials are also evaluated to subdivide the streams. Stream types
are further described according to average riparian vegetation, organic debris, blockages, flow
regimes, stream size, depositional features, and meander pattern.
Bankfull stage is the basis for measuring the width/depth and entrenchment ratios, two of the
most important delineative criteria. Therefore, it is critical to correctly identify bankfull stage
when classifying streams and designing stream restoration measures. A detailed discussion of
bankfull stage was provided in Section 2.1.1.
BAKER ENGINEERING 2-6
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
2.1.4 Stream Stability
A naturally stable stream must be able to transport the sediment load supplied by its watershed
while maintaining dimension, pattern, and profile over time so that it does not degrade or
aggrade (Rosgen, 1994). Stable streams migrate across alluvial landscapes slowly over long
periods of time while maintaining their form and function. Instability occurs when scouring
causes the channel to incise (degrade) or excessive deposition causes the channel bed to rise
(aggrade). A generalized relationship of stream stability proposed by Lane (1955) is shown as
a schematic drawing in Exhibit 2.2. The drawing shows that the product of sediment load and
sediment size is proportional to the product of stream slope and discharge or stream power. A
change in any one of these variables causes a rapid physical adjustment in the stream channel.
2.1.5 Channel Evolution
A common sequence of physical adjustments has been observed in many streams following
disturbance. This adjustment process is often referred to as channel evolution. Disturbance can
result from channelization, increase in runoff due to build-out in the watershed, removal of
streamside vegetation, and other changes that negatively affect stream stability. All of these
disturbances occur in both urban and rural environments. Several models have been used to
describe this process of physical adjustment for a stream. The Simon (1989) channel evolution
model characterizes evolution in six steps, including:
1. sinuous, pre-modified
II. channelized
III. degradation
IV. degradation and widening
V. aggradation and widening
VI. quasi-equilibrium.
Exhibit 2.3 illustrates the six steps of the Simon channel evolution model.
The channel evolution process is initiated once a stable, well-vegetated stream that interacts
frequently with its floodplain is disturbed. Disturbance commonly results in an increase in
stream power that causes degradation, often referred to as channel incision (Lane, 1955).
According to research summarized by the Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working
Group (FISRWG), incision eventually leads to over-steepening of the banks and, when critical
bank heights are exceeded, the banks begin to fail and mass wasting of soil and rock leads to
channel widening. Incision and widening continue moving upstream in the form of a head-cut.
Eventually the mass wasting slows and the stream begins to aggrade. A new low-flow channel
begins to form in the sediment deposits. By the end of the evolutionary process, a stable stream
with dimension, pattern, and profile similar to those of undisturbed channels forms in the
deposited alluvium. The new channel is at a lower elevation than its original form with a new
floodplain constructed of alluvial material (FISRWG, 1998).
2.1.6 Priority Levels of Restoring Incised Rivers
Though incised streams can occur naturally in certain landforms, they are often the product of
disturbance. High, steep stream banks, poor or absent in-stream or riparian habitat, increased
erosion and sedimentation, and low sinuosity are all characteristics of incised streams.
Complete restoration of the stream, where the incised channel's grade is raised so that an
abandoned floodplain terrace is reclaimed, is ideally the overriding project objective. There
may be scenarios, however, where such an objective is impractical due to encroachment into
the abandoned floodplain terrace by homes, roadways, utilities, etc. A priority system for the
BAKER ENGINEERING 2-7
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
restoration of incised streams, developed and used by Rosgen (1997), considers a range of
options to provide the best level of stream restoration possible for the given setting. Exhibit 2.4
illustrates various restoration/stabilization options for incised channels within the framework of
the Rosgen's priority system. Generally:
Priority 1 - Re-establishes the channel on a previous floodplain (i.e., raises channel elevation);
meanders a new channel to achieve the dimension, pattern, and profile characteristic of a stable
stream for the particular valley type; and fills or isolates existing incised channel. This option
requires that the upstream start point of the project not be incised.
Priority 2 - Establishes a new floodplain at the existing bankfull elevation (i.e., excavates a
new floodplain); meanders channel to achieve the dimension, pattern, and profile characteristic
of a stable stream for the particular valley type; and fills or isolates existing incised.
Priority 3 - Converts a straight channel to a different stream type while leaving the existing
channel in place by excavating bankfull benches at the existing bankfull elevation. Effectively,
the valley for the stream is made more bowl-shaped. This approach uses in-stream structures to
dissipate energy through a step/pool channel type.
Priority 4 - Stabilizes the channel in place using in-stream structures and bioengineering to
decrease stream bed and stream bank erosion. This approach is typically used in highly
constrained environments.
2.2 Natural Channel Design Overview
Restoration design of degraded stream reaches first involves accurately diagnosing their current
condition. Understanding valley type, stream type, channel stability, bedform diversity, and potential
for restoration is essential to developing adequate restoration measures (Rosgen, 1996). This
combination of assessment and design is often referred to as natural channel design.
The first step in a stream restoration design is to assess the reach, its valley, and its watershed to
understand the relationship between the stream and its drainage basin and to evaluate the causes of
stream impairment. Bankfull discharge is estimated for the watershed. After sources of stream
impairment are identified and channel geometry is assessed, a plan for restoration can be formulated.
Design commences at the completion of the assessment stage. A series of iterative calculations are
performed using data from reference reaches, pertinent literature, and evaluation of past projects to
develop an appropriate stable cross-section, profile, and plan form dimensions for the design reach.
A thorough discussion of design parameter selection is provided in Section 2.5. The alignment
should avoid an entirely symmetrical layout to mimic natural variability, create a diversity of aquatic
habitats, and improve aesthetics.
Once a dimension, pattern, and profile have been developed for the project reach, the design is tested
to ensure that the new channel will not aggrade or degrade. A discussion of sediment transport
methodology is provided in Section 2.6.
After the sediment transport assessment, additional structural elements are then added to the design to
provide grade control, protect stream banks, and enhance habitat. Section 2.7 describes these in-
stream structures in detail.
Once the design is finalized, detailed drawings are prepared showing dimension, pattern, profile, and
location of additional structures. These drawings are used in the construction of the project.
Following the implementation of the design, a monitoring plan is established to:
• Ensure that stabilization structures are functioning properly
BAKER ENGINEERING 2-8
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
Monitor channel response in dimension, pattern and profile, channel stability
(aggradation/degradation) particle size distribution of channel materials, and sediment
transport and stream bank erosion rates
• Determine biological response (food chains, standing crop, species diversity, etc.)
• Determine the extent to which the restoration objectives have been met.
2.3 Geomorphic Characterization Methodology
Geomorphic characterization of stream features includes the bankfull identification, bed material
characterization and analysis, and stream classification.
2.3.1 Bankfull Identification
Correct identification of bankfull is important to the determination of geomorphic criteria such
as stream type, bank height ratios, width to depth ratios, and entrenchment ratios. Baker
Engineering's field techniques for bankfull identification are as follows:
• Identify the most consistent bankfull indicators along the reach that were obviously
formed by the stream, such as a point bar or lateral bar. Bankfull is usually the back of
this feature, unless sediment supply is high. In that case, the bar may flatten and bankfull
will be the front of the feature at the break in slope. The indicator is rarely the top of the
bank or lowest scour mark.
• Measure the difference in height between the water surface and the bankfull indicator.
For example, the indicator may be 2.2 feet above water surface. Bankfull stage
corresponds to a flow depth. It should not vary by more than a few tenths of a foot
throughout the reach, unless a tributary enters the reach and increases the size of the
watershed.
• Go to a stable riffle. If a bankfull indicator is not present at this riffle, use the height
measured in the previous step to establish the indicator. For example, measure 2.2 feet
above water surface and place a flag in both the right and left bank.
• Measure the distance from the left bank to the right bank between the indicators.
Calculate the cross-sectional area.
• Obtain the appropriate regional curve (e.g., rural Piedmont, urban Piedmont, Mountain,
or Coastal Plain) and determine the cross-sectional area associated with the drainage area
of the reach.
• Compare the measured cross-sectional area to the regional curve cross-sectional. If the
measured cross-sectional area is not a close fit, look for other bankfull indicators and test
them. If there are no other indicators, look for reasons to explain the difference between
the two cross-sectional areas. For example, if the cross-sectional area of the stable riffle
is lower than the regional curve area, look for upstream impoundments, wetlands, or a
mature forested watershed. If the cross-sectional area is higher than the regional curve
area, look for stormwater drains, parking lots, or signs of channelization.
It is important to perform the bankfull verification at a stable riffle using indicators from
depositional features. The cross-sectional area will change with decreasing stability. In some
streams, bankfull indicators will not be present due to incision or maintenance. In such cases, it
is important to verify bankfull through other means such as a gauge station survey or reference
bankfull information that is specific to the geographic location. The gauge information can be
BAKER ENGINEERING 2-9
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
used, along with regional curve information, to estimate bankfull elevation in a project reach
that lacks bankfull indicators.
2.3.2 Bed Material Characterization
Baker Engineering typically performs bed material characterization using a modified Wolman
procedure (Wolman, 1956; Rosgen, 1996). A 100-count pebble count is performed in transects
across the streambed, with the number of riffle and pool transects being proportional to the
percentage of riffles and pools within the longitudinal distance of a given stream type. As
stream type changes, a separate pebble count is performed. The median particle size of the
modified Wolman procedure is known as the d50. The d5o describes the bed material
classification for that reach. The bed material classification is shown on Exhibit 2.1 and ranges
from a classification of 1 for a channel d50 of bedrock to a classification of 6 for a channel d50 in
the silt/clay particle size range.
The modified Wolman pebble count is not appropriate for sand bed streams. When working in
sandbed systems, a bulk sampling procedure is used to characterize the bed material. Cores
(2" - 3" deep) are sampled from the bed along the entire reach. These cores are taken back to a
lab and dry sieved to obtain a sediment size distribution. This information is used to classify
the stream and to complete the sediment transport analysis.
2.3.3 Stream Classification
Cross-sections are surveyed along stable riffles for the purpose of stream classification. Values
for entrenchment ratio and width/depth ratio, along with sinuosity and slope, are used to
classify the stream. The entrenchment ratio (ER) is calculated by dividing the flood-prone
width (width measured at twice the maximum bankfull depth) by the bankfull width. The
width/depth ratio (w/d ratio) is calculated by dividing bankfull width by mean bankfull depth).
Exhibit 2.5 shows examples of the channel dimension measurements used in the Rosgen stream
classification system.
Finally, the numbers associated with each bed material classification used are used to further
classify the stream type. For example, a Rosgen E3 stream type is a narrow and deep cobble-
dominated channel with access to a floodplain that is greater than two times its bankfull width.
2.4 Channel Stability Assessment Methodology
Baker Engineering uses a modified version of stream channel stability assessment methodology
developed by Rosgen (2001). The Rosgen method is a field assessment of the following stream
channel characteristics:
• Stream Channel Condition
• Vertical Stability
• Lateral Stability
• Channel Pattern
• River Profile and Bed Features
• Channel Dimension Relations
• Channel Evolution.
This field exercise is followed by the evaluation of various channel dimension relationships. The
evaluation of the above characteristics leads to a determination of a channel's current state, potential
for restoration, and appropriate restoration activities. A description of each category is provided in
the following sections.
BAKER ENGINEERING 2-10
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
2.4.1 Stream Channel Condition Observations
Stream channel conditions are observed during initial field inspection (stream walk). Baker
Engineering notes the following characteristics:
• Riparian vegetation - concentration, composition, and rooting depth and density
• Sediment depositional patterns - such as mid-channel bars and other depositional features
that indicate aggradation and can lead to negative geomorphic channel adjustments
• Debris occurrence - presence or absence of woody debris
• Meander patterns - general observations with regard to the type of adjustments a stream
will make to reach equilibrium
• Altered states due to direct disturbance - such as channelization, berm construction, and
floodplain alterations.
These qualitative observations are useful in the assessment of channel stability. They provide a
consistent method of documenting stream conditions that allows comparison across different
sets of conditions. The observations also help explain the quantitative measurements described
below.
2.4.2 Vertical Stability - Degradation/Aggradation
The bank height and entrenchment ratios are measured in the field to assess vertical stability.
The bank height ratio is measured as the ratio of the lowest bank height divided by a maximum
bankfull depth. Table 2.1 shows the relationship between bank height ratio (BHR) and vertical
stability developed by Rosgen (2001).
Table 2.1
Conversion of Bank Height Ratio (Degree of Incision) to Adjective Rankings of Stability (Rosgen, 2001)

Stable (low risk of degradation) 1.0-1.05
Moderately unstable 1.06-1.3
Unstable (high risk of degradation) 1.3- 1.5
Highly unstable > 1.5
The entrenchment ratio is measured as the width of the floodplain at twice the maximum
bankfull depth. If the entrenchment ratio is less than 1.4 (+/- 0.2), the stream is considered
entrenched (Rosgen, 1996).
2.4.3 Lateral Stability
The degree of lateral containment (confinement) and potential lateral erosion are assessed in the
field by measuring the meander width ratio (MWR) and the Bank Erosion Hazard Index
(BEHI) (Rosgen, 2001). The MWR is the meander belt width divided by the bankfull channel
width, and provides insight into lateral channel adjustment processes depending on stream type
and degree of confinement. For example, a MWR of 3.0 often corresponds with a sinuosity of
1.2, which is the minimum value for a stream to be classified as meandering. If the MWR is
less than 3.0, lateral adjustment is probable. BEHI ratings along with near bank shear stress
estimates can be compared to data from monitored sites and used to estimate the annual lateral
stream bank erosion rate.
BAKER ENGINEERING 2-11
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
2.4.4 Channel Pattern
Channel pattern is assessed in the field by measuring the stream's plan features including radius
of curvature, meander wavelength, meander belt width, stream length, and valley length.
Results are used to compute the meander width ratio (described above), ratio of radius of
curvature to bankfull width, sinuosity, and meander wavelength ratio (meander wavelength
divided by bankfull width). These dimensionless ratios are compared to reference reach data
for the same valley and stream type to assess whether channel pattern has been impacted.
2.4.5 River Profile and Bed Features
A longitudinal profile is created by measuring and plotting elevations of the channel bed, water
surface, bankfull, and low bank height. Profile points are surveyed at prescribed intervals and
at significant breaks in slope such as the head of a riffle or the head of a pool. This profile can
be used to assess changes in river slope compared to valley slope, which affect sediment
transport, stream competence, and the balance of energy. For example, the removal of large
woody debris may increase the step/pool spacing and result in excess energy and subsequent
channel degradation. Facet (e.g., riffle, run, pool) slopes of each individual feature are
important for stability assessment and design.
2.4.6 Channel Dimension Relations
The bankfull width/depth ratio provides an indication of departure from reference reach
conditions and relates to channel instability. A greater width/depth ratio compared to reference
conditions may indicate accelerated stream bank erosion, excessive sediment deposition, stream
flow changes, and alteration of channel shape (e.g., from channelization). A smaller
width/depth ratio compared to reference conditions may indicate channel incision and
downcutting. Both increases and decreases in width/depth ratio can indicate evolutionary shifts
in stream type (i.e., transition of one stream type to another). Table 2.2 shows the relationship
between the degree of width/depth ratio increase and channel stability developed by Rosgen
(2001).
Table 2.2
Conversion of Width/Depth Ratios to Adjective Ranking of Stability (Rosgen, 2001a)
,r .Cl
Very stable 1.0
Stable 1.0-1.2
Moderately unstable 1.21-1.4
Unstable > 1.4
While an increase in width/depth ratio is associated with channel widening, a decrease in
width/depth ratio is associated with channel incision. For incised channels, the ratio of channel
width/depth ratio to reference reach width/depth ratio will be less than 1.0. The reduction in
width/depth ratio indicates excess shear stress and movement of the channel toward an unstable
condition.
BAKER ENGINEERING 2-12
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
2.4.7 Channel Evolution
Simon's channel evolution model (introduced in Section 2.1.5) relies on a qualitative, visual
assessment of the existing stream channel characteristics (bank height, evidence of
degradation/aggradation, presence of bank slumping, direction of bed and bank movement,
etc.). Establishing the evolutionary stage of the channel helps ascertain whether the system is
moving towards greater stability or instability. The model also provides a better understanding
of the cause and effect of channel change. This information, combined with Rosgen's (1994)
priority levels of restoration aids in determining the restoration potential of unstable reaches.
2.5 Design Parameter Selection Methodology
Baker Engineering uses a combination of approaches to develop design criteria for channel
dimension, pattern, and profile. These approaches are described in the following sections. A flow
chart for selecting design criteria is shown in Exhibit 2.6.
2.5.1 Upstream Reference Reaches
The best option for developing design criteria is to locate a reference reach upstream of the
project site. A reference reach is a channel segment that is stable-neither aggrading nor
degrading- and is of the same morphological type as the channel under consideration for
restoration. The reference reach should also have a similar valley slope as the project reach.
The reference reach is then used as the blueprint for the channel design (Rosgen, 1998). To
account for differences in drainage area and discharge between a reference site and a project
site, data on channel characteristics (dimension, pattern, and profile), in the form of
dimensionless ratios, are developed for the reference reach. If the reach upstream of the project
does not have sufficient pattern, but does have a stable riffle cross-section, only dimension
ratios are calculated. It is ideal to measure a reference bankfull dimension that was formed
under the same environmental influences as the project reach.
2.5.2 Reference Reach Searches
If a reference reach cannot be located upstream of the project reach, a review of a reference
reach database is performed. A database search is conducted to locate known reference reaches
in close proximity to the project site. The search includes streams with the same valley as the
project reach and stream type as the design. If references are found meeting these criteria, the
reference reach is field-surveyed for validation and comparison with the database values which
may have been originally collected and provided by a third party. If a search of the database
reveals no references which meet the appropriate criteria, a field search is performed locally to
identify a reference reach which has not yet been surveyed.
Potential reference reaches are identified by first evaluating U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
topographic quadrangles and aerial photography for an area. In general, the search is limited to
subwatersheds within or adjacent to the project watershed. In certain cases, a reference reach
may be identified farther away that matches the same valley and stream type as the proposed
design of the project site. In such a case, care is taken to ensure that the potential reference
reach lies within the same physiographic region as the project reach. Potential reference sites
identified on maps are then field-evaluated to determine if they are stable systems of the
appropriate stream and valley type. If appropriate, reference reach surveys are conducted.
When potential sites are located on private property, landowner permission is acquired prior to
any survey work being conducted.
BAKER ENGINEERING 2-13
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
2.5.3 Reference Reach Databases
If a reference reach is not found in close proximity to the project site, a reference reach
database is consulted and summary ratios are acquired for all streams with the same valley and
stream type within the project's physiographic region. These ratios are then compared to
literature values and regime equations along with ratios developed through the evaluation of
successful projects.
2.5.4 Regime Equations
Baker Engineering uses a variety of published journals, books, and design manuals to cross-
reference North Carolina database values with peer-reviewed regime equations. Examples
include Fluvial Forms and Processes by David Knighton (1998), Mountain Rivers by Ellen
Wohl (2000), and the Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects (Copeland et al., 2001)
by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The most common regime equations used in
our designs are for pattern. For example, most reference reach surveys in the eastern United
States show radius of curvature divided by bankfull width ratios much less than 1.5. However,
the USACE manual recommends a ratio greater than 2.0 to maintain stability in free-forming
systems. Since most stream restoration projects are constructed on floodplains denude of
woody vegetation, we often use the USACE-recommended value rather than reference reach
data. Meander wavelength and pool-to-pool spacing ratios are examples of other parameters
that are sometimes designed with higher ratios than those observed on reference reaches, for
similar reasons as described for radius of curvature.
2.5.5 Comparison to Past Projects
All of the above techniques for developing ratios and/or regime equations are compared to past
projects built with similar conditions. Ultimately, these sites provide the best pattern and
profile ratios because they reflect post-construction site conditions. While most reference
reaches are in mature forests, restoration sites are in floodplains with little or no mature woody
vegetation. This lack of mature woody vegetation severely alters floodplain processes and
stream bank conditions. If past ratios did not provide adequate stability or bedform diversity,
they are not used. Conversely, if past project ratios created stable channels with optimal
bedform diversity; they will be incorporated into the design.
Ultimately, the design criteria are selections of ratios and equations made upon a thorough
evaluation of the above tasks. Combinations of approaches may be used to optimize the design.
The final selection of design criteria for the restoration site is discussed in Section 7.0.
2.6 Sediment Transport Competency and Capacity Methodology
Stream restoration designs must be tested to ensure that the new channel dimensions (in particular,
the design bankfull mean depth) create a stream that has the ability to move its sediment load without
aggrading or degrading over long periods of time. The ability of the stream to transport its total
sediment load is quantified through two measures: sediment transport competency and sediment
transport capacity. Competency is a stream's ability to move particles of a given size and is a
measurement of force, often expressed as units of pounds per square foot (lbs/ftZ). Sediment transport
capacity is a stream's ability to move a quantity of sediment and is a measurement of stream power,
often expressed as units of watts/square meter. Sediment transport capacity is also calculated as a
sediment transport rating curve, which provides an estimate of the quantity of total sediment load
transported through a cross-section per unit time. The curve is provided as a sediment transport rate
in pounds per second (lbs/sec) versus discharge or stream power.
BAKER ENGINEERING 2-14
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
The total volume of sediment transported through a cross-section consists of bedload plus suspended
load fractions. Suspended load is normally composed of fine sand, silt, and clay particles transported
in the water column. Bedload is generally composed of larger particles, such as course sand, gravels,
and cobbles, which are transported by rolling, sliding, or hopping (saltating) along the bed.
2.6.1 Competency Analysis
Median substrate size has an important influence on the mobility of particles in stream beds.
Critical dimensionless shear stress (i*ci) is the measure of force required to initiate general
movement of particles in a bed of a given composition. At shear stresses exceeding this
critical value, essentially all grain sizes are transported at rates in proportion to their presence
in the bed (Wohl, 2000). i*ci can be calculated for gravel-bed stream reaches using surface
and subsurface particle samples from a stable, representative riffle in the reach (Andrews,
1983). Critical dimensionless shear stress is calculated as follows (Rosgen, 2001):
1. Using the following equations, determine the critical dimensionless shear stress required to
mobilize and transport the largest particle from the bar sample (or subpavement sample).
a) Calculate the ratio d50/d^50
Where: d50 =median diameter of the riffle bed (from 100 count in the riffle or pavement
sample)
d^50 = median diameter of the bar sample (or subpavement)
If the ratio d50/d^50 is between the values of 3.0 and 7.0, then calculate the critical
dimensionless shear stress using Equation 1.
i *ci = 0.0834 050/dA50)-0.872
(Equation 1)
b) If the ratio d50/D^50 is not between the values of 3.0 and 7.0, then calculate the ratio of
di/d50.
Where: di = Largest particle from the bar sample (or subpavement)
d50 = median diameter of the riffle bed (from 100 count in the riffle or the
pavement sample)
If the ratio di/d50 is between the values of 1.3 and 3.0, then calculate the critical
dimensionless shear stress using Equation 2.
i *ci = 0.0384 (di/00)-887
2.6.2 Aggradational Analysis
(Equation 2)
The aggradation analysis is based on calculations of the required depth and slope needed to
transport large sediment particles, in this case defined as the largest particle of the riffle
subpavement sample. Required depth can be compared with the existing/design mean riffle
depth and required slope can be compared to the existing/design slope to verify that the
BAKER ENGINEERING 2-15
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
stream has sufficient competency to move large particles and thus prevent thalweg
aggradation. The required depth and slope are calculated by:
d = 1.65-c%id (Equation 3)
Se
Sr = 1.65i*C1d (Equation 4)
de
Where: dr (ft) = Required bankfull mean depth
de (ft)= Design bankfull mean depth
1.65 = Sediment density (submerged specific weight)
= density of sediment (2.65) - density of water (1.0)
i *ci = Critical dimensionless shear stress
di (ft) = Largest particle from bar sample (or subpavement)
sr (ft/ft) = Required bankfull water surface slope
se (ft/ft) = Design bankfull water surface slope
The aggradation analysis is used to assess both existing and design conditions. For example,
if the calculated value for the existing critical depth is significantly larger than the measured
maximum bankfull depth, this indicates that the stream is aggrading. Alternately, if the
proposed design depth significantly differs from the calculated critical depth and the analysis
is deemed appropriate for the site conditions, the design dimensions should be revised
accordingly.
2.6.3 Competency Analysis using a Modified Shield's Curve
As a complement to the required depth and slope calculations, boundary shear stresses for a
design riffle cross-section can be compared with a modified Shield's curve to predict
sediment transport competency. The shear stress placed on the sediment particles is the force
that entrains and moves the particles, given by:
r = yRs (Equation 5)
Where, i = shear stress (lb/ft)
y = specific gravity of water (62.4 lb/ft3)
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
s = average channel slope (ft/ft)
The boundary shear stress can be estimated for the design cross-section and plotted on a
modified Shield's curve, as shown in Exhibit 2.7. The particle size that Shield's curve
predicts will be moved is compared to the D, of the site subpavement. Shield's curve predicts
whether the design conditions will have enough shear stress to move a particle larger than the
largest subpavement particle found in the creek and prevent aggradation.
2.6.4 Sediment Transport Capacity
BAKER ENGINEERING 2-16
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
For sand bed streams, sediment transport capacity is much more important than competency.
Sediment transport capacity refers to the stream's ability to move a mass of sediment past a
cross-section per unit time in pounds/second or tons/year. Sediment transport capacity can be
assessed directly using actual monitored data from bankfull events if a sediment transport
rating curve has been developed for the project site. Since this curve development is
extremely difficult, other empirical relationships are used to assess sediment transport
capacity. The most common capacity equation is stream power. Stream power can be
calculated a number of ways, but the most common is:
w = y QS/Wbkf, where (Equation 6)
w = mean stream power in W/mz
y = specific weight of water (9810 N/m3). y = p g where p is the density of the water-
sediment mixture (1,000 kg/m3) and g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2)
Q = bankfull discharge in m3/s
S = Design channel slope (meters per meter)
Wbkf = Bankfull channel width in meters
Note: 1 ft-lb/sec/ft2 = 14.56 W/mz
Equation 6 does not provide a sediment transport rating curve; however, it does describe the
stream's ability to accomplish work, i.e., move sediment. Calculated stream power values are
compared to reference and published values. If deviations from known stable values for
similar stream types and slopes are observed, the design should be reassessed to confirm that
sediment will be adequately transported through the system without containing excess energy
in the channel.
2.7 In-stream Structures
There are a variety of in-stream structural elements used in restoration. Exhibit 2.8 illustrates a few
typical structures. These elements are comprised of natural materials such as stone, wood, and live
vegetation. Their shape and location works with the flow dynamics to reinforce, stabilize, and
enhance the function of the stream channel. In-stream structures provide three primary functions:
grade control, stream bank protection, and habitat enhancement.
2.7.1 Grade Control
Grade control pertains mainly to the design bed profile. A newly excavated gravel stream bed
with a slope greater than 0.5 percent is seldom able to maintain the desired slopes and bed
features (riffles, runs, pools and glides) until a pavement/subpavement layer has been
established. Stone and/or log structures installed at the bed elevation and at critical locations in
the plan view help to set up the new stream bed for long-term vertical stability. Over time, as
the new channel adjusts to its sediment transport regime and vegetative root mass establishes
on the banks, the need for grade control diminishes.
2.7.2 Bank Protection
Bank protection is critical during and after construction as bank and floodplain vegetation is
establishing a reinforcing root mass. This vegetation establishment lasts for several years, but
vegetation is typically providing meaningful bank protection after two to four growing seasons.
Bank protection structures generally provide both reinforcement to the stream banks and re-
direction of flow away from the banks and toward the center of the channel.
BAKER ENGINEERING 2-17
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
2.7.3 Habitat Enhancement
Habitat enhancement can take several forms and is often a secondary function of grade control
and bank protection structures. The flow of water over vanes and wing deflectors creates scour
pools, which provide diversity of in-stream habitat. Boulder clusters form eddies that provide
resting places for aquatic species. Constructed riffles and vane structures encourage
oxygenation of the water. Root wads provide cover and shade, and encourage the formation of
deep pools at the outside of meander bends.
2.7.4 Selection of Structure Types
Table 2.3 summarizes the names and functions of several in-stream structures.
Table 2.3
Functions of In-stream Structures
Cross Vane 1 1 2
Single Arm Vane 1 2
J-Hook Vane 1 2
Constructed Riffle 1 1 2
Log Weir 1 2
Wing Deflector 2 1 1
Step Pool 1 1 2
Boulder Cluster I
Root Wad 1 I
Brush Mattress 1 2
Cover Log I
The selection of structure types and locations typically follows dimension, pattern, and profile
design. In some situations, structure installation comprises the main, or possibly only, effort
required to restore a stream. More often, structures are used in conjunction with grading,
realignment, and planting in an effort to improve channel stability and aquatic habitat.
2.8 Vegetation
The planting of additional and/or more desirable vegetation is an important aspect of the restoration
plan. Vegetation helps stabilize stream banks, creates habitat and a food source for wildlife, lowers
water temperature by stream shading, improves water quality by filtering overland flows, and
improves the aesthetics of the site.
The reforestation component of a restoration project typically includes live dormant staking of the
stream banks, riparian buffer plantings, invasive species removal, and seeding for erosion control.
The stream banks and the riparian area are typically planted with both woody and herbaceous
vegetation to establish a diverse streamside buffer. Establishing vegetation along the stream banks is
a very desirable means of erosion control because of the dynamic, adaptive, and self-repairing
qualities of vegetation. Vegetative root systems stabilize channel banks by holding soil together,
BAKER ENGINEERING 2-18
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
increasing porosity and infiltration, and reducing soil saturation through transpiration. During high
flows, plants lie flat and stems and leaves shield and protect the soil surface from erosion. In most
settings, vegetation is more aesthetically appropriate than engineered stabilization structures.
Stream banks are delineated into four zones when considering a planting scheme:
1. Channel bottom - extending up to the low flow stage. Emergent, aquatic plants dominate
bank range, extending from the low flow stage to the bankfull stage.
2. Lower bank - frequently flooded, extending from the low flow stage to the bankfull stage. A
mix of herbaceous and woody plants including sedges, grasses, shrubs and trees.
3. Upper bank - occasionally flooded, but most often above water. Dominated by shrubs and
small trees.
4. Riparian area - infrequently flooded, terrestrial, and naturally forested with canopy-forming
trees.
The most appropriate source of plant material for any project is the site itself. Desirable plants that
need to be removed in the course of construction should be salvaged and transplanted as part of the
restoration plan. The next best alternative is to obtain permission to collect and transplant native
plants from areas nearby. This transplant process ensures that the plants are native and adapted to the
locale. Finally, plants may need to be purchased. They should be obtained from a nearby reputable
nursery that guarantees that the plants are native and appropriate for the locale and climate of the
project site.
2.8.1 Live Staking
Live staking is a method of revegetation that utilizes live, dormant cuttings from appropriate
species to cheaply, and effectively establish vegetation. The installation of live stakes on
stream banks serves to protect the banks from erosion and at the same time provide habitat,
shade and improved aesthetics. Live staking must take place during the dormant season
(November to March in the southeast US). Live stakes can be gathered locally or purchased
from a reputable commercial supplier. Stakes should be at least '/2 inches in diameter and no
more than 2 inches in diameter, between 2 and 3 feet in length, and living based on the
presence of young buds and green bark. Stakes are cut at an angle on the bottom end and
driven into the ground with a rubber mallet.
2.8.2 Riparian Buffer Re-Vegetation
Riparian buffers are areas of perennial vegetation adjacent to rivers and streams and are
associated with a number of benefits. Buffers are important in nutrient and pollutant removal
in overland flow and may provide for additional subsurface water quality improvement in the
shallow groundwater flow. Buffers provide habitat and travel corridors for wildlife populations
and are an important recreational resource. It is also important to note that riparian buffer areas
help to moderate the quantity and timing of runoff from the upland landscape and contribute to
the groundwater recharge process.
Buffers are most valuable and effective when comprised of a combination of trees, shrubs, and
herbaceous plants. Although width generally increases the capacity of riparian buffers to
improve water quality and provide greater habitat value, even buffers less than 85 feet wide
have been shown to improve water quality and habitat (Budd et al., 1987). An estimated
minimum width of 30 feet is required for creating beneficial forest structure and riparian
habitat.
In stream and wetland restoration, where buffer width is often limited, the following design
principles apply:
BAKER ENGINEERING 2-19
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
• Design for sheet flow into and across the riparian buffer area
• If possible, the width of the riparian buffer area should be proportional to the watershed
area, the slope of the terrain, and the velocity of the flow through the buffer
• Forest structure should include understory and canopy species. Canopy species are
particularly important adjacent to waterways to moderate stream temperatures and to
create habitat
• Use native plants that are adapted to the site conditions (e.g., climate, soils, and
hydrology). In suburban and urban settings riparian forested buffers do not need to
resemble natural ecosystems to improve water quality and habitat.
2.9 Risk Recognition
It is important to recognize the risks inherent in the assessment, design, and construction of
environmental restoration projects. Such endeavors involve the interpretation of existing conditions
to deduce appropriate design criteria, the application of those criteria to design, and, most
importantly, the execution of the construction phase. There are many factors that ultimately
determine the success of these projects and many of the factors are beyond the influence of a
designer. To compile all of the factors is beyond the scope of this report. Further, it is impossible to
consider and to design for all of them. However, it is important to acknowledge those factors such as
daily temperatures, the amount and frequency of rainfall during and following construction,
subsurface conditions, and changes in watershed characteristics, that are beyond the control of the
designer.
Many restoration sites will require some post-construction maintenance, primarily because newly
planted vegetation plays a large role in channel and floodplain stability. Stream restoration projects
are most vulnerable to adjustment and erosion immediately after construction, before vegetation has
had a chance to become fully established. Risk of instability diminishes with each growing season.
Streams and floodplains usually become self-maintaining after the second year of growth. However,
unusually heavy floods often cause erosion, deposition and/or loss of vegetation in even the most
stable channels and forested floodplains.
Maintenance issues and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and documented in the
as-built and monitoring reports. Factors that may have caused any maintenance needs, including any
of the conditions listed above, shall be discussed.
BAKER ENGINEERING 2-20
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
3.0 WETLAND RESTORATION BACKGROUND SCIENCE AND
METHODS
3.1 The Importance of Wetlands
Wetlands are unique landscape features that can provide numerous benefits to ecosystems. They are
usually delineated based on three components: hydric soils, wetland hydrology, and hydrophytic
vegetation. Natural wetlands are generally formed when the geology and hydrology of an area allow
for surface or groundwater to accumulate near the soil surface. Wetlands offer unique habitats for
flora and fauna, remove nutrients and other contaminants, allow for surface water storage, and
recharge groundwater aquifers. Wetlands help to reduce the impacts of floods, improve water quality,
and provide aesthetic and recreational benefits (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000; King, 2000). The
functions performed by wetlands are site-specific, depending on the location in the ecosystem and
environmental conditions.
Many natural processes or anthropogenic activities can impact wetlands. Wetland restoration seeks to
restore wetland functions to areas that currently possess hydric soils but no longer support wetland
hydrology or vegetation. Wetland restoration design must take into consideration each of the three
components of wetlands (soils, hydrology, and vegetation). The following sections will provide an
overview of the restoration process used by Baker Engineering.
3.2 Hydric soils
Hydric soils are defined as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long
enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper horizons (Federal
Register, July 13, 1994). Soil development is directly affected by the hydrology of an area, as well as
by its climate, parent material, time, soil organisms, and topography. Anaerobic conditions result in
specific soil biogeochemical processes, such as the retention of organic matter, the chemical reduction
of nitrogen (NOA iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), sulfur (S), and carbon (Q. When a soil is saturated,
aerobic microorganisms deplete the remaining oxygen in the system. As oxygen becomes more and
more limiting, anaerobic organisms begin to utilize oxidized soil components that are further reduced
(Mausbach and Richardson, 1994). The first reaction that occurs under anaerobic conditions is the
reduction of nitrate. As the oxidation-reduction (redox) potential continues to decrease, manganese is
reduced, then iron, and finally, sulfur and carbon. The soil pH, temperature, and mineral content are
all important factors in the rates of transformation (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000). These reduction
processes result in characteristic hydric soil indicators, such as the retention of organic matter, gleyed
soils, soils with low-matrix chromas, sulfur odor, etc.
There are two main types of hydric soils: organic soils and mineral soils. Organic soils, or Histosols,
are soils that have more than 30% organic matter to a depth of 40 centimeters and that develop under
nearly continuous saturation or inundation (Buol et al, 1989). These soils are also called peat or
mucks. All organic soils are considered to be hydric except for Folists, which occur on dry slopes.
Hydric soils with less than 30% organic matter are classified as mineral soils. When saturated or
inundated for extended periods of time, mineral soils develop characteristic indicators, which are a
result of depletion of oxygen within the soil (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000; US Department of
Agriculture (USDA), 1996). The reduction of nitrogen, iron, and manganese forms hydric soil
indicators that are referred to as redoximorphic features (Vepraskas, 1996). Redoximorphic features
include, but are not limited to: gleyed soils, soils with low-matrix chroma, redox concentrations,
oxidized rhyzospheres, and iron and manganese concretions.
BAKER ENGINEERING 3-1
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
Wetlands are commonly referred to as the kidneys of the landscape (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000).
The analogy is applicable because wetlands filter the water that flows through them, trapping
sediment and sequestering nutrients, including carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorous (Craft and Casey,
2000). Wetland soils may be factors in changing the global cycles of nitrogen, sulfur, methane, and
carbon dioxide. Wetland soils help to return excess nitrogen to the atmosphere through
denitrification. The use of fossil fuels has greatly increased the amount of atmospheric sulfate. When
these sulfates are washed out of the atmosphere into wetlands, they can be reduced and even removed
permanently from the sulfur cycle (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000). Carbon can be sequestered into
wetland soils, helping to reduce carbon dioxide concentrations.
When hydric soils are converted to agriculture, changes to the soils' chemistry and structure often
occur. Once drained, wetland areas are typically graded smooth to improve surface drainage, a
process that removes much of the sites' natural topographic variability. The organic content of the
soils often decreases due to the oxidation caused by aeration. Concentrations of major and micro-
nutrients are often increased due to the application of fertilizers. "Loose" soil structures of many
wetland soils are typically converted to more blocky and massive structures, due to years of
mechanized equipment traffic. Plow pans, or layers of highly compacted soil, are often present
approximately 12 to 18 inches below the surface.
Assessment of on-site hydric soils begins with collected soil survey data from the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS). Since soil survey data are collected on a regional scale, on-site
investigations begin by evaluating the accuracy of NRCS mapping. Soil borings are conducted across
the restoration site to confirm the presence of hydric soil series and the boundaries. Soil profiles are
recorded for each location. For hydrologic analysis purposes, measurements of in-situ saturated
hydraulic conductivity are also conducted. Under high water table conditions, the auger hole method,
as described by van Beers (1970), is used. Under lower water table conditions, a constant head
permeameter (amoozemeter) is used. Measurements are made at representative locations across the
site to determine the variability in hydraulic conductivity across the site.
3.3 Wetland Vegetation
Wetland hydrology and hydric soils create what can be considered a harsh environment for many
biotic organisms. Since many wetlands are only periodically inundated or saturated, water levels may
not be consistently high or low. Many aquatic plants are not able to flourish when wetlands
temporarily dry, and many xeric species are not able to adapt to conditions that are periodically wet.
Wetland plants have adapted to life in this unpredictable environment.
Wetland plants, also referred to as hydrophytic vegetation, possess a range of adaptations that enable
them to tolerate or avoid water stress. The three major types of adaptations are morphological,
physiological, and reproductive. Morphological adaptations enable plants to increase the oxygen
supply, either by growing into aerobic environments or by allowing oxygen to penetrate the anoxic
zone (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000). Various morphological adaptations that vascular plants may
exhibit are buttressed tree trunks, adventitious roots, shallow root systems, floating leaves,
hypertrophied lenticels, and/or multi-trunks.
Physiological adaptations to wetland environments include oxidized rhizospheres, changes in water
uptake, nutrient absorption, and respiration. Some species are capable of transferring oxygen from
the root system into the adjacent soil, producing oxidized rhizospheres surrounding the root. Under
saturated conditions, many hydric plants have no change in their nutrient uptake, whereas flood-
intolerant species lose the ability to control nutrient absorption (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000).
Reproductive adaptations allow wetland vegetation to establish and grow within inundated soil
conditions. Some of these adaptations include prolonged seed viability (including production of a
large seed bank), timing of seed production in the non-saturated season, production of buoyant seeds,
BAKER ENGINEERING 3-2
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
flood-tolerant species, and germination of seeds while fruit is attached to the tree. These
reproductive, morphological, and hydrophytic adaptations allow wetland plants to flourish in
relatively harsh environments and create communities of plants adapted to wetland conditions.
Plant communities generally exist along a topographic gradient. Hill tops or southwest-facing slopes
tend to have the most xeric vegetation, whereas bottomlands tend to have the most mesic species.
These topographic gradients tend to have plant communities directly associated with them. It should
be noted that some species will be found in both xeric and mesic community types. Plant
communities are based on species assemblages and not on individual species. Hydrophytic
vegetation is defined by the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual as "the sum total of macrophytic
plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation
produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling
influence on the plant species present" (USACE, 1987). According to the manual, species that have
an indicator status of Obligate Wetland Plants (OBL), Facultative Wetland Plants (FACW), or
Facultative Plants (FAQ are considered to be typically adapted for life in wetlands or anaerobic soil
conditions. Typically, a wetland plant community contains more than 50 percent of the dominant
species as OBL, FACW, or FAC species.
When restoring wetlands, Baker Engineering utilizes native plants to approximate the community that
would naturally live within that physiographic community type. Species selection is based on
reference wetland vegetation analyses, professional knowledge of availability and viability of specific
plants, and expected post-restoration hydrologic conditions. Special emphasis is placed on re-
creating a community type that is adapted to the conditions of the restoration site. The re-creation is
accomplished by planting hard mast tress, lightly-seeded trees, and various understory or midcanopy,
woody species. The utilization of hard mast species creates additional wildlife food sources and
allows for late, successional species to become established. The utilization of lightly-seeding species
allows for the faster development of wildlife cover and habitat. The planting of understory species
helps to ensure a more diverse plant community that will provide long-term benefits to wildlife.
3.4 Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology is often sited as the primary driving force influencing wetland development,
function, and persistence (Gosselink and Turner, 1978; Sharitz et al., 1990) and also one of the
hardest variables to assess and predict accurately. Hydrology drives the development of hydric soil
characteristics, water and soil chemistry, and hydrophytic plant communities. Most functions
commonly attributed to wetlands (water filtering, nutrient cycling, sediment trapping, ecosystem
diversity, etc.) are a direct result of the hydrologic characteristics of wetland systems. For these
reasons, Baker Engineering places significant emphasis on the correct assessment of wetland
hydrologic conditions, under both pre- and post-restoration conditions.
Assessment of wetland hydrology begins by touring the project site to observe hydrologic conditions.
When possible, site tours are conducted during dry times (several weeks following the last rainfall
event) and wet times (immediately following large rainfall events). Evaluation of site conditions
during dry periods provides valuable evidence about existing site function and indicates the
hydrologic variability across the site. Wetland hydrology assessments during dry periods focus on the
following key questions:
1. Are there areas that are currently exhibiting wetland hydrology? These areas require special
attention and will likely be subject to regulatory permit conditions.
2. Where are the areas of the site that appear especially dry? These areas will likely require the
greatest attention to restore wetland hydrology.
3. What are the sources of water on the site that can be manipulated during restoration?
Sources may include groundwater discharge, run-off, surface water flows, and stream flows.
Various design techniques are available for storing more water within the restoration site to
BAKER ENGINEERING 3-3
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
increase wetness. The primary source of water available will directly affect the type of
design that will be most effective at restoring wetland hydrology.
Evaluation during wet periods allows for observations regarding runoff patterns, areas of ponding and
water storage, flow routing, and surface flow interactions. Wetland hydrology assessments during
wet periods focus on the following key questions:
1. How is runoff currently being routed across the site? Most degraded sites have been
topographically manipulated to direct runoff to a drainage outlet as quickly as possible.
Restoration must reduce the loss of water from the site and restore water storage functions of
natural wetland sites.
2. Are there any surface water sources that could be used in the restoration design? Sources
may include ephemeral and intermittent ditches, drainage swales, and overland flow.
3. If stream flow or overbank flow is believed to have once contributed to wetland hydrology,
can these sources be restored? Evaluation of stream channels primarily involves the
evaluation of bankfull stage in relation to existing bank heights, whether streambed elevations
can be altered, and hydrologic trespass.
When necessary for accurate assessment of existing hydrologic conditions, monitoring wells are
installed to document local water table conditions. Wells are installed to a depth of approximately 40
inches, following the procedures outlined under USACE's Wetland Research Program (WRP)
Technical Note ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02 (July, 2000). Monitoring wells are typically installed as
combinations of automated and manually-read wells. Automated wells are installed in areas where
precise measurement of hydrologic conditions is necessary. Such areas may include areas near
drainage features, where the prediction of the drainage effect is needed, areas where the hydrologic
functioning is difficult to predict through visual assessments, and areas where the hydrologic status of
an area is questionable (i.e., does wetland hydrology exist?). Manually-read wells are typically read
on a monthly basis and are used to supplement the data collected with automated wells. Manual wells
are typically installed in areas where the hydrologic status is predictable based on visual assessments,
but measured data will allow for more conclusive evaluation of pre- and post-restoration conditions.
Manual wells, installed as piezometers, can also be installed in nests to determine the direction of
groundwater movement.
Accurate site mapping is essential to the evaluation of site hydrology and restoration design.
Topographic maps of the site are produced using either ground or aerial survey methods. Digital
elevation models (DEMs) are developed that include topographic contours (typically 1.0 foot
contours or less), locations of all drainage features and outlets, structures, existing wetland areas, and
monitoring well locations. DEMs are used to visually depict the hydrologic features of the site,
develop hydrologic model inputs, and evaluate proposed restoration practices.
3.5 Wetland Hydrologic Analyses
Hydrology data collected at the proposed restoration site is essential for documenting the hydrologic
conditions of the site at the time of collection; however, data collected over several months to a year
are limited for evaluating the site's long-term performance under varying rainfall and climatic
conditions. Existing condition data alone also provides little insight into how the site will perform
once restoration activities are completed. For these reasons, hydrologic modeling is often used to
further evaluate the potential restoration site.
The most common hydrologic model used by Baker Engineering to evaluate wetland hydrology is
DRAINMOD (version 5.1). DRAINMOD has been identified as an approved hydrologic tool for
assessing wetland hydrology by the NRCS. DRAINMOD was developed by NC State University for
the study and design of water management systems on poorly-drained, shallow water table soils. A
BAKER ENGINEERING 3-4
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
combination of methods is used in the model to simulate infiltration, drainage, surface runoff,
evapotranspiration, and seepage processes on an hour-by-hour, day-by-day basis. DRAINMOD was
modified by Skaggs et al., (1991) for application to wetland determinations by the addition of a
counter that calculates the number of times the water table rises above a specified depth and remains
there for a given period during the growing season. For more information on DRAINMOD and its
application to high water table soils, see Skaggs (1980).
DRAINMOD is used to develop hydrologic simulation models to represent conditions at a variety of
locations across the proposed restoration area. Model parameters are selected based on field
measurements and professional judgment about site conditions. Rainfall and air temperature
information are collected from the nearest automated weather station. If automated weather stations
are too far away, automated rain gauges may be installed on site. Soil parameters are determined
from on-site evaluations of soil stratification and in-situ-measured hydraulic conductivity.
Measured field parameters are entered into the model, and initial model simulations are compared
with observed data collected from monitoring wells. To calibrate the model, parameters not
measured in the field are adjusted within the limits typically encountered under similar soil and
geomorphic conditions, until model simulations most closely match observed well data.
It is important to note that DRAINMOD uses simplifying assumptions to estimate water table depths.
When applied to a site with complex hydrologic processes, the model can be used to assess overall
trends and relationships but is unlikely to offer exact predictions of water table hydrology.
Calibration of the model is aimed at matching the relative response of water table drawdown and the
overall depth that the water table reaches at different times during the year. Once these objectives are
met, the model is assumed to adequately reflect the hydrologic response of the site to varying
precipitation and climatic events.
Once model simulations are developed that reflect the existing conditions of the site, other
simulations may be developed to represent the hydrology of the site after restoration practices have
been implemented. Inputs that describe the drainage features of the site are altered to represent the
restoration conditions. Inputs typically include: drainage feature spacing (increased due to the
removal of ditches), drainage feature depth (typically decreased when restoring an associated stream
and raising the streambed or filling and plugging drainage ditches), surface storage (increased through
scarification practices), and crop inputs (conversion to trees instead of row crops). Model simulations
are used to predict the changes in water table hydrology as a result of the proposed restoration
practices.
DRAINMOD computes daily water balance information and develops summaries that describe the
loss pathways for rainfall over the model simulation period. To compare long-term results, the
amounts of rainfall, infiltration, drainage, runoff, and evapotranspiration estimated for the existing
condition can be compared with simulations run for the proposed restoration practices. Infiltration
represents the amount of water that percolates into the soil and is lost via drainage or runoff.
Drainage is the loss of infiltrated water that travels through the soil profile and is discharged to the
drainage ditches or to underlying aquifers. Runoff is water that flows overland and reaches the
drainage ditches before infiltration. Evapotranspiration is water that is lost by the direct evaporation
of water from the soil or through the transpiration of plants. Comparisons may include average
annual amounts, annual maximums and minimums, and even day-to-day comparisons of hourly water
table hydrographs.
3.6 Assessment of Existing Wetland Areas
Conditions across a potential restoration site will often vary dramatically. While much of the site
may be targeted for restoration due to lack of wetland hydrology and functions, there may be areas of
BAKER ENGINEERING 3-5
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
the site that still support wetland hydrology and wetland functions to some degree. These areas
require special consideration as part of a proposed restoration design.
The proposed project area is reviewed for the presence of wetlands and waters of the United States in
accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 11990, the Clean Water Act, and subsequent
federal regulations. Wetlands have been defined by the USACE as "those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas" [33 CFR
328.3(b) and 40 CFR 230.3 (t)]. Within the project area, locations that display one or more wetland
components are reviewed to determine the presence of wetlands using hydrophytic vegetation,
permanent or periodic inundation or saturation, and hydric soils.
Following an in-office review of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NRCS Soil Surveys,
and USGS Quadrangle maps, a pedestrian survey of the project area is made to investigate suspect
areas and to delineate all wetlands and waters of the U.S. The project area is examined utilizing the
jurisdictional definition detailed in the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual. Supplementary
information to further support wetland determinations is found in the National List of Plant Species
that Occur in Wetlands: Southeast (Region 2) (Reed, 1988).
Baker Engineering collects data on the three wetland components and completes USACE wetland
determination field sheets for each identified wetland area. These sheets document the wetland
conditions that were observed on-site, including the presence of hydrophytic (wetland) vegetation,
hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. The wetland systems are also classified using the Classification
of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation, by Schafale and Weakley
(1990). This classification system includes descriptions of all the natural community types in North
Carolina (112 types and subtypes), including vegetation, soils, physical environment, dynamics,
distinguishing features, examples, and associated rare plants. Wetlands are also classified using the
Hydrogeomorphic Classification of Wetlands (HGM) by Brinson (1993). Since HGM subtypes are
still being developed for North Carolina, HGM principles are used to describe the geomorphic setting,
water sources, hydrodynamics, and functioning of identified wetland systems.
Where jurisdictional wetlands are identified, the wetland boundary is flagged with marking tape, at
intervals of 25 to 50 feet. Baker Engineering follows the USACE Wilmington District procedures for
survey and recordation of wetland boundaries. Surveys of wetland boundaries are conducted with
either sub-meter accuracy Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment or total station survey
equipment. A professional land surveyor (PLS) oversees any detailed land surveys. Wetland
drawings are prepared using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and/or computer aided design
and drafting (CADD) applications and submitted to USACE and the NCDWQ for jurisdictional
determination and verification when required.
3.7 Reference Wetlands
Reference wetlands are natural wetland systems that are similar in function and geomorphic setting to
the proposed restoration site. Reference wetlands can be used as templates for the proposed
restoration design. Data collected from reference wetland sites, including vegetation communities,
hydrologic characteristics, and topographic features, can provide valuable information for the
evaluation of proposed restoration practices. Analysis of the vegetation communities within the
reference site is used as a tool for developing the planting plan for the restoration site. Reference
wetlands can also be used for comparison purposes to determine whether the restored wetland site is
on a trajectory for success during the required monitoring period.
The reference wetland site should be located as close to the proposed restoration site as possible. The
reference wetland should be of the same hydrogeomorphic classification as the proposed restoration
BAKER ENGINEERING 3-6
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
site, and generally located within the same climatic, physiographic, and ecological region. Soil
characteristics should closely match those of the proposed restoration site. Fully functioning wetland
systems appropriate for reference sites may be difficult to locate in some areas; as a result, reference
sites are often located some distance from the restoration site.
Once a potential reference site is located, Baker Engineering secures landowner permission to further
evaluate the area as a potential reference site. On-site evaluations are similar to those previously
described for jurisdictional wetland areas on restoration sites and include the documentation of
vegetation communities, soil series, and visual observations regarding wetland hydrology. USACE
wetland determination field sheets are completed for the reference wetland.
If the reference site is found to be appropriate for the restoration project, several groundwater wells
are installed across the reference site to capture the range of hydrologic conditions. Automated and
manual wells are generally installed in combination, with automated wells installed at the wettest and
driest extremes of conditions and manual wells installed in more average conditions. This approach
allows for accurate documentation of the hydrologic range of conditions across the site. Well data are
downloaded monthly throughout the required monitoring period.
3.8 Wetland Restoration Techniques
Restoration techniques will vary by the type of wetland to be restored and the goals of the restoration.
The purpose of this section is to describe some of the techniques that Baker Engineering commonly
uses to restore lost functions and values on wetland restoration sites.
3.8.1 Restoration Techniques for Wetland Hydrology
The restoration of appropriate hydrology is the cornerstone of any wetland restoration project.
Without the appropriate hydrology, all other wetland functions will be compromised. Several
commonly used techniques are described below.
Restoration of Stream Channels - Many wetland restoration sites will contain stream channels
that have been channelized and straightened. Channelization of streams lowers the baseflow
water elevation in the channel, lowers the adjacent water table, increases the loss of water from
the site through both increased surface and subsurface drainage, and decreases the frequency
and severity of flooding events on adjacent lands.
The restoration of stream channels to restore wetland hydrology involves raising the streambed
elevation such that the stream is reconnected to the abandoned hydric floodplain (i.e.,
agricultural fields). This process raises the local water table by raising the elevation of the
drainage outlet, and restores a natural flooding regime to the site. For more information on
stream restoration practices, see Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.5.
Filling and Blocking of Drainage Features - Drainage features may include ditches, channels,
swales, and subsurface drains. Ditches are the most common drainage feature encountered on
agricultural sites. Ditches are generally constructed on parallel spacings that are based on the
drainage characteristics of the soils. Ditches and subsurface drains provide an outlet for
subsurface drainage that is often several feet lower than the surrounding ground elevation. The
effect is that groundwater moves toward the ditches where it is discharged, thus lowering the
water table elevation.
Filling and blocking of drainage features removes the drainage effect they provide. The choice
between partially blocking and completely filling the drainage features is primarily driven by
the amount of soil that must be disposed of during construction. When there is an excess of soil
to be disposed of, ditches and swales are completely filled. When the quantity of soil for
disposal is limited, ditches and swales are blocked by partially filling, or plugging, the features
BAKER ENGINEERING 3-7
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
at specific locations. Plugs are at least 50 to 100 feet in length, and soil material placed for the
plugs is compacted with heavy equipment, used on site during construction. The actual length
of the plugs will be based on the predicted hydraulic conductivity of the compacted fill
material. The spacing between plugs will vary, depending on the slope of the site and the
amount of soil for disposal.
Once ditches have been filled in or plugged, additional fill material will be piled over the filled
ditch to a height of no more than 6 inches, to allow for subsidence and settling of the fill over
time. Without additional material, settling of the fill could cause the drainage feature to
partially reform over time and affect the hydrology of the site.
Subsurface drains, such as tiles and plastic pipe, are located and excavated so that they no
longer function. Once drains have been removed, excavated soil material is placed back in the
excavated trench and compacted.
Run-off Diversions - In some areas, it is beneficial to construct shallow diversions and swales
to direct surface water run-off into the site. This practice is commonly used when restoration
areas are adjacent to long hill slopes, where significant amounts of run-off may be produced
during large rain events. The diversions are used to direct the run-off to areas of the restoration
site where the additional water inputs are most needed.
Shallow Depressions and Floodplain Pools - To increase the diversity of hydrologic conditions
across the site, shallow depressions and floodplain pools can be excavated or created by leaving
sections of ditches only partially filled in certain areas. The depressions are constructed to
mimic the function of natural sloughs and pools commonly found across many wetland
ecosystems. These areas provide increased surface storage of precipitation and floodwaters,
improve biotic diversity, and provide breeding areas for a number of amphibian and reptile
species.
Depressions and pools are generally constructed to be less than 1 foot deep. The size of
depressions can vary, depending on the site; however, depressions 200 feet by 100 feet are
typical of many sites. The depressions are designed to hold water for extended periods, ranging
from several weeks to many months. For many amphibian species, it is crucial that the pools
dry up completely during the late summer months. These ephemeral pools are typically
constructed in higher elevation areas away from the active stream channel. For other species,
pools that retain some degree of ponded water throughout the year are most beneficial. These
features, which represent backwater sloughs, oxbow ponds, and floodplain pools, are typically
constructed near the active stream channel, where the high water table conditions and frequent
flooding will maintain water levels in the pools.
Restoration of Microtoporaphy - In order to improve drainage and increase agricultural
production, farmed wetland soils are often graded to a smooth surface and crowned to enhance
run-off Microtopography contributes to the properties of forest soils and to the diversity and
patterns of plant communities (Lutz, 1940; Stephens, 1956; Bratton, 1976; Ehmfeld, 1995).
The introduction of microtopography also increases surface storage on the site, reducing run-off
and erosion and enhancing infiltration.
Microtopography is established on the restored site after design grades have been achieved,
using the procedures described by Scherrer (2000). The equipment should leave a furrow
approximately 7 feet wide and 6 inches deep, and a corresponding mound approximately 7 feet
wide and 6 inches high. The equipment should be run in parallel lines approximately 25 feet
apart, and then over the same area in "figure 8" patterns to create a random pattern of
interconnected and isolated furrows and ridges, as shown in Figure 3.1. The actual distance
BAKER ENGINEERING 3-8
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
between furrows and mounds and the height of the mounds can be adjusted depending on the
targeted amount of surface storage to be restored.
Figure 3.1
Typical Pattern of Restored Wetland Microtopography (Scherrer, 2000)
-1
Y &I uD
3.8.2 Restoration Techniques for Wetland Soils
10
Soil Scarification and Tillage - Disking and tillage practices commonly used in agriculture can
be used to break the plow pan and reduce compaction of the soil caused by years of agricultural
production. Tillage practices will also be used to remove any field crowns, restoring a more
natural topography to the site. When necessary, rippers will be used to till to depths of 12 to 18
inches to break any compacted pan layers.
Soil Amendments - Samples of top soil from the site can be collected and tested to determine
soil fertility and chemical properties. If necessary, soil amendments (fertilizer, lime, etc.) will
be applied at rates appropriate for the target vegetation. For land which has been in agricultural
production for a number of years, it is likely that soil fertility will be high and amendments will
not be necessary.
3.8.3 Restoration Techniques for Wetland Vegetation
Tree Planting Techniques - Under typical conditions, bare-root tree species will be planted
within all areas of the site conservation easement. Bare-root vegetation is typically planted at a
target density of 680 stems per acre, or an 8 by 8 foot grid. Experience has shown this density
to be favorable for overall survival of at least 320 planted stems at the end of 5 years, which is a
common success criterion for mitigation sites. Planting of bare-root trees is conducted during
the dormant season, which lasts from late November to early March for most of the state.
Species selection is based on reference wetland vegetation analyses, professional knowledge of
availability and viability of specific plants, and expected post-restoration hydrologic conditions.
Species selection for revegetation of the site will generally follow those suggested by Schafale
and Weakley (1990) and tolerances cited in the USACE Wetland Research Program (WRP)
Technical Note VN-RS-4.1 (1997). Tree species selected for restoration will generally range
from weakly tolerant to tolerant of flooding. Weakly tolerant species are able to survive and
grow in areas where the soil is saturated or flooded for relatively short periods of time.
Moderately tolerant species are able to survive on soils that are saturated or flooded for several
BAKER ENGINEERING 3-9
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
months during the growing season. Flood tolerant species are able to survive on sites in which
the soil is saturated or flooded for extended periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997).
Observations are made during construction of the site regarding the relative wetness of areas to
be planted. Planting zones are determined based on these assessments, and planted species will
be matched according to their wetness tolerance and the anticipated wetness of the planting
area.
When feasible, trees are transported to the site from the nursery and stored on-site in a
refrigerated cooler prior to planting. If on-site refrigeration is not available, trees are planted
within two days of being transported to the site. Soils across the site are sufficiently disked and
loosened prior to planting. Trees are planted by manual labor, using a dibble bar, mattock,
planting bar, or other similar method. Planting holes for the trees are made sufficiently deep to
allow the roots to spread out and down without "J-rooting." Soil is loosely compacted around
trees once they have been planted to prevent them from drying out.
Permanent Seed Mixtures - Permanent seed mixtures are applied to all disturbed areas of the
project site. Different mixtures may be specified for different areas of the site, depending on
the wetness and degree of stabilization required at the site. Mixtures will also include
temporary seeding to allow for application with mechanical broadcast spreaders and rapid
ground cover following application. Temporary seeding is applied to all disturbed areas of the
site that are susceptible to erosion, including constructed streambanks, access roads, side-
slopes, spoil piles, etc.
3.9 Application of Fluvial Processes to Stream and Wetland Restoration
A stream and its wetland floodplain (referred to here as the riparian area) comprise a dynamic
environment where the floodplain, wetland areas, channel, and bedform evolve through natural
processes. Weather and hydraulic processes erode, transport, sort, and deposit alluvial materials
throughout the riparian system. The size and flow of a stream are directly related to its watershed
area. Other factors that affect channel size and stream flow are geology, land use, soil types,
topography, and climate. The morphology, or size and shape, of the channel reflects all of these
factors (Leopold et al., 1992; Knighton, 1998). The size and flow of the stream channel also
influence the size and functioning of wetland areas adjacent to the channel. The result is a dynamic
equilibrium in which the stream maintains its dimension, pattern, and profile over time, and adjacent
wetland areas evolve with the meandering of the stream across its floodplain. Land use changes in
the watershed, including increases in imperviousness, removal of riparian vegetation, and drainage of
adjacent wetlands can upset this balance. A new equilibrium may eventually result, but not before
large adjustments in channel form can occur, such as extreme bank erosion or incision (Lane, 1955;
Schumm, 1960). These adjustments in channel form often have negative effects on associated
wetland areas, as processes of channel incision increase drainage of adjacent areas. By understanding
and applying the processes of riparian form and function to stream and wetland restoration projects, a
self-sustaining riparian system can be designed and constructed that maximizes ecosystem function
and potential.
In riparian systems, wetland functions cannot be restored without also addressing the restoration of
stream functions; therefore, it is crucial that the degraded stream system be restored to the appropriate
dimension, pattern, and profile while allowing the stream access to the abandoned floodplain and
associated wetland areas. In this way, the stream becomes one of the primary sources of water and
nutrient inputs to the wetland system. As such, the development of stream and wetland design
components becomes an iterative process.
BAKER ENGINEERING 3-10
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
4.0 WATERSHED ASSESSMENT RESULTS
4.1 Watershed Delineation
Watershed boundaries for the targeted project reaches were determined by delineating the existing
watersheds on the USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle (Eleazer quad). The site occurs within
the eight-digit hydrological unit code (HUC) 03040103, and within the NC Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) sub-basin 03-07-09 of the Yadkin Valley River Basin (Exhibit 1.1 and 1.2). The total
drainage area of all project reaches at the outlet of the project area is estimated to be approximately
1.95 square miles. Exhibit 1.3 shows the watershed boundaries for the project.
4.2 Surface Water Classification
The NCDWQ designates surface water classifications for water bodies such as streams, rivers, and
lakes, which define the best uses to be protected within these waters (e.g., swimming, fishing, and
drinking water supply). These classifications carry with them an associated set of water quality
standards to protect those uses. All surface waters in North Carolina must at least meet the standards
for Class C (fishable/swimmable) waters. The other primary classifications provide additional levels
of protection for primary water contact recreation (Class B) and drinking water supplies (WS). Class
C waters are protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation
and survival, agriculture and other uses suitable for Class C. Classifications and their associated
protection rules may also be designed to protect the free flowing nature of a stream or other special
characteristics.
The project will involve Mill Creek, five unnamed tributaries to Mill Creek (UT4, UT5, UT6, UT7
and UT8), and three unnamed tributaries to the Uwharrie River (UT1, UT2 and UT9). Mill Creek
flows through the entire site and is a tributary to the Uwharrie River. Mill Creek and the Uwharrie
River in this area are classified as "C" waters, indicating that the systems are considered to support
aquatic life and secondary recreational uses (NCDWQ, 2000). The stream and wetland approaches
described in this plan will reduce the amount of sediment and nutrients being discharged directly to
Mill Creek, thus improving the overall water quality in the Uwharrie River along the property
boundaries and directly downstream of the project.
4.3 Geology
The Mill Creek site is located in southwestern Randolph County in the Piedmont physiographic
region of North Carolina. The underlying geology of the project area is within the Carolina Slate
Belt, Cid, and Uwharrie formations that consists of Cambrian age felsic metavolcanic rock,
specifically metamorphosed dacitic to rhyolitic flows and tuffs, which are interbedded with mafic
metavolcanics as well as metamudstone (Geologic Map of North Carolina, NC Geological Survey,
1998). Outcrops found within the project area likely belong to the Uwharrie Formation. The vicinity
topography is characterized by gently rolling hills and alluvial valleys. Local relief within the project
site to be constructed is 78 feet.
The Cid formation consists of thin to thick bedded metamudstone and meta-argillite interbedded with
metasandstone, metaconglomerate, and metavolcanic rock. The Uwharrie formation consists of
metamorphosed dacitic to rhyolitic flows and tuffs.
BAKER ENGINEERING 4-1
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
4.4 Soils
Soils types at the site were determined using Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil
Survey data for Randolph County (USDA, 1995), along with on-site evaluations to identify areas of
hydric soils. A map depicting the boundaries of each soil type is presented in Exhibit 4.1 and the
major soil types are shown in Table 4.1. The majority of the site is mapped as the Badin-Tarrus
complex. The Badin-Tarrus complex consists of well drained with moderately permeable soils.
Slopes range from 8 to 15 percent and are moderately erodable. Badin-Tarrus soils are typically
found in ridges and hillslopes and in the western part of the county. Flooding is infrequent on these
soils.
The Dogue, Georgeville, and Mecklenburg series are mapped on small areas of the site. Dogue soil is
found on the northwestern corner of the project. These soils are moderately well drained and have a
moderately slow permeability. They are typically found in low terraces. Georgeville soils are found
in a small area in the northwest section of the project area and in a large area in the eastern section of
the project. This is a well drained soil with moderate permeability. They are typically found in
ridges and hillslopes. Mecklenburg soils area mapped in a small area in the northwestern section of
the project area. This is a well drained soil with slow permeability. They are typically found in broad
ridges. No areas of hydric soil were identified in the project area.
Table 4.1
Project Soil Types and Descriptions (from Randolph County Soil Survey, USDA-NRCS, 1995)

Badin-Tarms Ridges and - Well drained and moderately permeable with slopes from 8 to 15
hillslopes percent
Dogue Low terraces - Moderately well drained soils and moderately slow permeability
with slopes from 2 to 6 percent
Georgeville Ridges and - Well drained soil with moderate permeability with slopes from 8
hillslopes to 15 percent
Mecklenburg Broad - Well drained soil with slow permeability with slopes from 8 to 15
ridges percent
4.5 Land Use and Boundaries
Land use within the project area consists of historic cattle pastures, agricultural fields, forested areas,
and fallow fields being converted to native prairiegrass fields by the NCWRC. The Mill Creek
watershed is rural with adjacent land uses that include crop land, open land, forested areas, and some
residential property. High Pine Church Rd (SR 1143) bounds the project site on the northern portion
of the property. The western portion of the site is bounded by the Uwharrie River. The eastern
portion of the site is bounded by forested land and the Uwharrie National Forest bounds the project
area to the south. Lassiter Mill Rd (SR 1107) which runs north to south through the site, crosses
through the project area and passes over Mill Creek and UT4. An unpaved farm road crosses UT1
through a culvert.
BAKER ENGINEERING 4-2
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
4.6 Endangered/Threatened Species
Some populations of plants and animals are declining either as a result of natural forces or their
difficulty competing with humans for resources. Plants and animals with a federal classification of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under the provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Federally classified species listed for Randolph County, and any likely impacts to these species as a
result of the proposed project construction, are discussed in the following sections.
Species that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list under federal protection for Randolph
County as of August 11, 2006 are listed in Table 4.2. A brief description of the characteristics and
habitat requirements of these species follow the table, along with a conclusion regarding potential
project impact.
Letters were sent to USFWS and NCWRC in October of 2006, requesting each agency comment on
the proposed project. No comments were received from the USFWS. NCWRC responded that they
"do not anticipate the project to result in significant adverse impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
resources." Correspondence regarding Endangered/Threatened species is provided in Appendix B.
Table 4.2
Species Under Federal Protection in Randolph County

Vertebrate
Cyprinidae Notropis Cape Fear E 9-15-1987 E No /No effect
mekistocholas Shiner
Vascular Plants
Asteraceae Helianthus Schweinitz's E 5-7-1991 E No/No Effect
schweinitzii Sunflower
Notes:
E An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the state's flora or
fauna is determined to be in jeopardy.
T Threatened
4.6.1 Federally Protected Species
4.6 ]J Vertebrates
Cape Fear Shiner
The Cape Fear shiner is a small minnow, rarely exceeding 2.4 inches in length. It is a
pale silvery yellow with a black stripe along each side. The fins are yellow and pointed,
the upper lip is black, and the lower lip has a thin black bar along its edge.
BAKER ENGINEERING 4-3
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
Water willow (Justicia americana) beds in flowing areas of creeks and rivers appear to
be an essential element of the species' habitat. The Cape Fear shiner is found in clean,
rocky streams over gravel, cobble, and boulder substrate, and is known to inhabit pools,
riffles, and slow runs. Juveniles are often found in slack water, among mid-stream rock
outcrops, and in side channels and pools.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
While the Cape Fear shiner is found in Randolph County, it is found in the Cape Fear, not
the Yadkin/Pee-Dee Basin. No suitable habitat exists for the Cape Fear shiner within the
proposed restoration area. Based upon the NHP's database, checked on October 24,
2006, no populations of this species have been reported in the project area. Therefore,
the proposed project is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact to this species.
4.61.2 Vascular Plants
Schweinitz's Sunflower
Schweinitz's sunflower, usually 3 to 6 feet tall, is a perennial herb with one to several
fuzzy purple stems growing from a cluster of carrot-like tuberous roots. Leaves are 2 to 7
inches long, 0.4 to 0.8 inch wide, lance-shaped, and usually opposite, with upper leaves
alternate. Leaves feel like felt on the underside and rough, like sandpaper, on the upper
surface. The edges of the leaves tend to curl under. Flowers are yellow composites, and
generally smaller than other sunflowers in North America. Flowering and fruiting occur
mid-September to frost. This plant grows in clearings and along the edges of upland
woods, thickets and pastures. It is also found along roadsides, powerline clearings, old
pastures, and woodland openings. It prefers full sunlight or partial shade, but is intolerant
of full shade.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Potential habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower occurs along roadsides, power line right-of-
ways, and field edges throughout the project area. The project study area was evaluated
for potential Schweinitz's sunflower habitat and extensive field surveys were performed
on October 3, 2006, during the blooming season for the species. No populations were
found within the area of potential impact. No populations of this species have been
reported in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in
an adverse impact to this species.
4.6.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Status
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Table 4.3 includes FSC species listed for
Randolph County and their state classifications. Organisms that are listed as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the NHP list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are
afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of protection given to state-listed
species does not apply to NCDENR EEP activities.
Table 4.3
Federal Species of Concern in Randolph County
BAKER ENGINEERING 4-4
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
Alasmidonta varicosa Brook Floater FSC E
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic Pigtoe FSC E
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow Lampmussel FSC E
Toxolasma pullus Savannah Lilliput FSC E
Villosa vaughaniana Carolina Creekshell FSC E
Lotus helleri Carolina Birdfoot-trefoil FSC SR-T
Etheostoma collis Carolina Darter FSC SC
4.7 Cultural Resources
Baker Engineering sent a letter on October 4, 2006 requesting that the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (HPO) review the potential for cultural resources in the vicinity of the Mill Creek
restoration site. A response was received on November 7, 2006 indicating that the HPO had reviewed
the proposed project and was not aware of any historic resources which would be affected by the
project. A copy of the HPO correspondence is included in Appendix B.
4.8 Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites
Baker Engineering obtained an Environmental Data Resources (EDR) Transaction Screen Map
Report that identifies and maps real or potential hazardous environmental sites within the distance
required by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Transaction Screen Process (E
1528-00). A copy of the report with an overview map is included in Appendix C. The overall
environmental risk for this site was determined to be low. Environmental sites including Superfund
(National Priorities List, NPL); hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities; the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Information System
(CERCLIS); suspect state hazardous waste, solid waste or landfill facilities were not identified by the
report in the proposed project area.
EDR did identify one leaking underground storage tank (LUST) on the Incident Management
Database (IMD) on the project site. A Notice of Violation (NOV) was not issued for this incident.
However, a Notice of Regulatory Requirements (NORR) was issued for this incident. According to
EDR, the removal of a home heating oil underground storage tank (UST) was completed. The EDR
report indicates that groundwater contamination was not detected, however soil contamination was
confirmed.
Ruth Ann Grissom (the current landowner) confirmed that there were three USTs, located on the
property and all were removed in 2004. One UST for heating oil was located on the southwest side of
the house. Two USTs, one for gasoline and one for diesel were located north of the outbuilding near
the pasture. All contaminated soil was removed from the site.
It is concluded that the Mill Creek restoration project would not be adversely affected by the incident
due to the proximity of the soil contamination to the construction limits or the conservation easement.
4.9 Potential Constraints
The Mill Creek project site was accessed in regards to potential fatal flaws and site constraints. No
constraints or fatal flaws have been identified during project design development.
BAKER ENGINEERING 4-5
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
4.9.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
NCEEP has entered into an Agreement for the acquisition of a conservation easement with the
landowner of the Mill Creek Project: Amy Grissom and Amy Grissom, LLC. The conservation
easement (Exhibit 1.2) has been recorded at the Randolph County courthouse in Asheboro, NC.
The Agreement allows NCEEP to proceed with the project and to restrict future land-use and
development within the project corridors in perpetuity.
4.9.2 Hydrologic Trespass
Based on 2008 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapping, the project area
bounded by the Uwharrie River is classified in Zone AE, and designated as a special flood
hazard area inundated by the 100-year flood. Base flood elevations have been determined for
Zone AE areas. The areas affected by Zone AE are:
• Mill Creek from upstream of Lassiter Mill Road to the confluence with Uwharrie River
• All of UT1
• UT2 from the wetland area to the confluence
• UT5 around the confluence
• UT4 from Lassiter Mill Road to the confluence
The surrounding unnamed tributaries are classified in Zone X, which are designated as areas
with minimal flooding.
4.9.3 Site Access
Temporary access during construction for haul roads will need to be coordinated with the
NCWRC to avoid areas currently planted with native prairiegrass. Discussions with
representatives with the NCWRC indicate additional vegetative plantings will be discontinued
until construction activities are completed. Permanent access to the stream corridors for post-
restoration monitoring should occur along existing NCDOT road right-of-ways (High Pine
Church Rd and Lassiter Mill Rd). Permanent access routes to UT2, UT8, MC3, and MC4 will
have to be determined from continuing conversations with the landowner.
4.9.4 Utilities
No known utilities will be affected during construction activities.
4.9.5 Threatened and Endangered Species
Rare, threatened, and endangered species occurrences were examined as part of the existing
conditions survey. It is anticipated that no rare, threatened, or endangered species will be
affected by this project.
4.9.6 Cultural Resources
No known cultural or archaeological sites are recorded within the property boundary. It is
anticipated that this project will have no impact on such sites.
4.9.7 Farm Operations
The Grissom parcels are not currently being used for agricultural purposes.
BAKER ENGINEERING 4-6
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
4.9.8 Soils
Soils have been investigated and no constraints or fatal flaws were identified.
BAKER ENGINEERING 4-7
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
5.0 EXISTING WETLAND CONDITIONS
5.1 Wetlands
The proposed project area was reviewed for the presence of wetlands and waters of the United States
in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 11990, the Clean Water Act, and subsequent
federal regulations. Wetlands have been defined by the USACE as "those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas" (33 CFR
328.3(b) and 40 CFR 230.3 (t)). The project area was reviewed to determine the presence of wetlands
by determining if the site exhibited one or more of the following wetland characteristics:
1. Prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation.
2. Permanent or periodic inundation or saturation.
3. Hydric soils.
5.1.1 Jurisdictional Wetland Findings
Following an in-office review of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map, Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey, and United States Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangle
map, a field survey of the project area was made to investigate the suspect areas and to delineate all
wetlands and waters of the U. S. The project area was examined utilizing the jurisdictional definition
further detailed in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory,
1987). Supplementary information to further support wetland determinations was found in the
National List ofPlant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Southeast (Region 2) (Reed, 1988).
During initial site investigations, two potential jurisdictional wetlands were located on the project site.
On September 20, 2006, Baker Engineering staff delineated the two potential wetland areas. Both
areas exhibited hydrological and vegetation characteristics of a wetland; however, the areas did not
exhibit characteristics for wetland soils. Primary indicators of wetland hydrology observed included
inundation, saturated soils, water marks, and drainage patterns. Secondary indicators noted included
oxidized root channels, water-stained leaves, and positive facultative species (FAC)-neutral results.
The percentage of hydrophytic vegetation at the site ranged from 60 to 68 percent, indicating a
wetland system. Soils at the site were listed by the Soil Survey of Randolph County as Mecklenburg
clay loam and Badin -Tarrus complex. Wetland delineation forms (provided in Appendix D) were
completed for both areas and were field reviewed by the USACE. The USACE representative found
that the two potential areas did not exhibit hydric soils and therefore were not classified as
jurisdictional wetlands. The following paragraphs describe the two areas investigated within the
project area that will be proposed creation sites, as described in Chapter 8.
Wetland Creation Site I
Wetland creation site 1 is located within the bottom of a small breached pond in an agricultural
field. It is located on UT2, and is drained by a ditch that bypasses the natural drainage of the
valley and is connected to Mill Creek above the confluence with the Uwharrie River. Water
coming from upstream splays out across the area, resulting in long periods of inundation and
soil saturation. Vegetation within the area has been impacted by past cattle grazing. The
primary tree species in the area is willow oak (Quercus phellos), with herbaceous and
understory vegetation including arrow arum (Peltandra virginica), golden rod (Solidago sp.),
BAKER ENGINEERING 5-1
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
sedge (Carex spp.), and soft rush (Juncus effusus). During field assessments, the percentage of
hydrophytic vegetation was 60 percent. The soils were clay loams and were dark brown, with
light reddish-brown mottles. There were no hydric soil indicators present within the area.
Wetland Creation Site 2
Wetland creation site 2 is located on UT5 in the bottom of a small breached pond, and therefore
is similar to creation site 1. Herbaceous vegetation in the area is dominated by the same
species listed for creation site 1; however, there are no tree species within creation site 2. The
percentage of hydrophytic vegetation at the site was 68 percent. Soils were very dark brown
clay loams, with dark yellowish-brown mottles. There were no hydric soil indicators present
within the area.
5.2 Soils
Based on information from the county soil survey, the primary soils found in the proposed wetland
creation areas are Badin-Tarrus complex and Mecklenburg clay loam. The Badin-Tarrus complex
consists of well drained and moderately permeable soils found on slopes ranging from 8 to 15
percent. Badin-Tarrus soils are typically found on ridges and hillslopes in Randolph County and
flooding is rare. Mecklenburg clay loam soils are found on piedmont uplands, along broad ridges.
This series is very well drained and has slow permeability. Neither Badin-Tarrus nor Mecklenburg
soils are considered hydric soils, and no hydric indicators were noted during on-site assessments.
5.3 Climatic Conditions
The average growing season (defined as the period in which temperatures are maintained above 28
degrees Fahrenheit under average conditions) for Randolph County is 248 days long, beginning on
March 16 and ending November 18. Randolph County has an average annual rainfall of 42.62 inches
(MRCS, 2007). Rainfall data were collected for the monitoring period from the nearest automated
weather station, located in Asheboro (Asheboro 2 W, NC COOP: 310286). Monthly precipitation
amounts from January 2006 through June 2007 are compared with Randolph County WETS table
average monthly rainfall in Table 5.1. These data indicate that over the monitoring period, rainfall
was well below normal except during June and November 2006, when conditions were wetter than
average, due to several large storms that passed through the area.
Table 5.1
Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site and Long-Term Averages
Month-Year Observed Monthly Precipitation
w Table Monthly
' Deviation of Observed

Averme CID)
Jan-06 2.6 4.44 -1.84
Feb-06 1.39 3.71 -2.32
Mar-06 1.76 4.27 -2.51
Apr-06 4.52 3.49 1.03
May-06 2.37 4.25 -1.88
Jun-06 7.85 3.97 3.88
Jul-06 2.38 4.12 -1.74
Aug-06 2.3 8 4.26 -1.88
Sep-06 2.42 4.31 -1.89
BAKER ENGINEERING 5-2
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
Oct-06 3.33 3.59 -0.26
Nov-06 6.03 3.16 2. g7
Dec-06 2.15 3.26 -1.11
Jan-07 0.67 4.44 -3.77
Feb-07 3.36 3.71 -0.35
Mar-07 2.6 4.27 -1.67
Apr-07 3.66 3.49 0.17
May-07 0.71 4.25 -3.54
Jun-07 3.09 3.97 -0.88
Sum 53.27 67.96 -17.69
5.4 Hydrology
The hydrology of sections of UT2 and UT5 has been altered through the prior construction of a dam
on each waterway (Exhibit 5.1). The dams were constructed to create ponds to provide drinking
water to livestock. Although the dams have been breached, years of standing water has promoted the
establishment of hydrophytic vegetation within each former pond.
UT2 is located between UT1 (ditch) and UT5 in the northwestern portions of the property. The
waterway flows southwesterly across the site, passing through wetland creation site 1. UT2 exits the
pond and drains into a manmade constructed ditch through the adjacent floodplain before entering
directly into Mill Creek near the Uwharrie River confluence. The UT2 watershed is located entirely
within the property. UT5 originates between a former silage storage area and Lassiter Mill Rd. The
waterway flows southwest through wetland creation site 2 until its confluence with Mill Creek. The
UT5 watershed is also located entirely within the property.
During October 2006, two groundwater monitoring wells were installed to monitor water table depth
in the breached pond sites. Well 1 was installed within creation site 1, and Well 2 was installed
within creation site 2 (locations are shown in Exhibit 5.1). The wells were located in areas where
hydrology appeared to have been affected by water ponded upstream of the breached dams.
Water table data were collected from the wells from October 2006 through June 2007. During March
2007, the well logger for Well 2 malfunctioned and data collected after this period is unreliable.
During the period of monitoring, monthly rainfall amounts were well below normal.
During most of the dormant season and early growing season, both well locations exhibited near
constant saturation with surface ponding and little fluctuation in water levels. This is due to the
depressional nature of the areas, and water which is held back by the breached dams. During May
2007 on creation site 1, low rainfall and increased evapotranspiration losses resulted in increased
water table depth and more fluctuation in the local water table in response to rainfall events. Visual
observations of conditions at creation site 2 indicate that near constant saturation has continued at this
site through June 2007, most likely due to the increased drainage area that drains to creation site 2
relative to creation site 1.
BAKER ENGINEERING 5-3
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
Figure 5.1
Hydrographs of the Groundwater Monitoring Wells on the Mill Creek Site (October 2006 through
June 2007).

4
R
#4 -sp
-
0
c
Q -4
N
0
-
2 -g
CU
-
(D -12

16
-
Well #1 Well #2

-20
10/15/06 11/14/06 12/14/06 1/13/07 2/12/07 3/14/07 4/13/07 5/13/07 6/12/07
Date
BAKER ENGINEERING 5-4
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
6.0 STREAM CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT RESULTS
6.1 Brief Reach Description
For analysis and design purposes, Baker Engineering divided the Mill Creek project into twelve
reaches. Eleven reaches are located in the northern portions of the site and one reach is located in the
southern portion. The reach locations are shown in Exhibit 1.2 and project lengths are provided in
Table 6.1. The reaches were numbered sequentially from west to east, with an "UT" designation for
"Unnamed Tributary" (to either Mill Creek or the Uwharrie River) or as "MC" for sections of the
mainstem of Mill Creek. Livestock had access to UT1, UT2, UT4, UT5, UT6, and wetland creation
sites 1 and 2 before their removal.
One ditch (UT1) and two UT's (UT2 & UT9) drain directly into the Uwharrie River. UT1 enters the
property from the north along High Pine Church Road, flows southwesterly across the property
passing through a culvert before emptying into the Uwharrie River. UT2 begins on the property to
the southeast of UT1; it also flows southwesterly across the property, passing through a prior
constructed pond. The waterway exits the pond and flows into a constructed ditch that empties into
Mill Creek near its confluence with the Uwharrie River. UT9 originates on an adjacent parcel, flows
in a general northwesterly direction, passing underneath Lassiter Mill Rd, and drains directly into the
Uwharrie River downstream of the Mill Creek-Uwharrie River confluence.
Mill Creek originates east of Lassiter Mill Rd. Mill Creeks' headwaters are located on an adjacent
parcel east of the project boundaries. Mill Creek flows in a general westerly direction across the
property before passing through a culvert underneath Lassiter Mill Rd. Three UT's enter Mill Creek
before it passes underneath Lassiter Mill Rd. UT6 is a headwater stream that flows north to south,
passing through a constructed pond before entering Mill Creek. UT7 and UT8 are also headwater
streams that originate within the property boundaries. Both waterways flow south to north before
their respective confluences with Mill Creek. UT4 originates west of Lassiter Mill Rd, the waterway
flows in a general south to north direction, passing underneath Lassiter Mill Rd, before its confluence
with Mill Creek. UT5 originates just west of Lassiter Mill Rd, flows southwesterly across the
property, and passes through a constructed pond before entering Mill Creek.
Based on the USGS topographic map, Mill Creek throughout the project area is depicted as a
perennial blue-line stream. UT4, UT6, UT7, UT8, UT9 and the lower reaches of UT 2 and UT5
below the breached ponds are depicted as intermittent blue-line streams. UT1 and the sections of
UT2 and UT5 located above the constructed ponds are not designated on the USGS topographic map.
Based on field evaluations of intermittent or perennial status, the stream channels were evaluated to
determine if they were perennial streams (based on a minimum score of 30 for perennial streams and
the presence of biological indicators), using the NCDWQ Determination of the Origin of Perennial
Streams guidelines, the results are listed in Table 6.1, with stream forms presented in Appendix D.
The total current length of streams to be restored, enhanced and preserved on the project site is 983
LF, 4,859 LF, and 15,802 LF, respectively.
6.2 Geomorphic Characterization and Channel Stability Assessment
Baker Engineering performed general topographic and planimetric surveying of the project site and
produced a contour map based on survey data in order to create plan set base mapping. Watershed sizes
were calculated at the terminus of each reach and are summarized in Table 6.1. Geomorphic surveys
were conducted on preservation stream reaches. Cross-section surveys of the stream reaches were also
performed to assess the current condition and overall stability of the channels. Cross-section locations
BAKER ENGINEERING 6-1
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
are shown on Exhibit 5.1. The following subsections summarize the survey results for all project
reaches that are subject to either stream restoration or stream enhancement activities. Table 6.2
summarizes geomorphic data for project reaches that will be enhanced or restored. Appendix E
contains summaries of existing condition parameters, cross-section survey results and bed material
distribution graphs for the site.
Table 6.1
Reach Descriptions

MCI 2,214 1.32 38.5 -perennial
MC2 998 1.10 41.25 - perennial
MC3 785 0.79 31.25 - perennial
MC4 1,485 0.53 30.25 - perennial
UT1 1,799 0.05 6.75 - ephemeral

UT2 1,012
875
0.08 22.75 - intermittent
32.75 - perennial
UT4 1,809
541 0.08 20 - intermittent
28.5 - intermittent

UT5 580

620
0.06 19.25 - intermittent

30.2 - perennial
UT6 954 0.06 7.75 - ephemeral
UT7 2,529 0.17 25.75 - intermittent
UT8 2,003 0.08 17.25 - ephemeral
UT9 5,239 0.49 30.75 - perennial
6.2.1 MCI Reach
MCI is the portion of Mill Creek located between Lassiter Mill Rd and the Uwharrie River
(Exhibit 1.2). As Mill Creek emerges from the culvert underneath Lassiter Mill Rd, the
waterway surface drops approximately two and a half feet onto bedrock, due to a perched 72-
inch concrete culvert. The upper reach of MCI is mostly a cobble bed stream with a
moderately defined riffle pool sequence. However, riffles appear to dominate the upper reach
of MCI. A large amount of bedrock is present in this area, which prevents the stream from
down cutting. The channel is moderately incised and riparian vegetation is comprised mostly
of large to small trees along the banks. Bank erosion throughout upper MCI is low to moderate.
The riparian vegetation zone is narrow on both sides of the stream. Upper MCI flows through a
former cattle pasture with a high, steep bank on the north side of the reach. The south side of
upper MCI is relatively flat and low, the south side serves as the active floodplain for the upper
BAKER ENGINEERING 6-2
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
reach of Mill Creek. MCI is classified as a B3c/1 stream type (Rosgen, 1994). The d50 of
the channel bed material is small cobble.
The lower reach of MCI is mostly a cobble to gravel bed stream, with a finer substrate
dominating near the confluence with the Uwharrie River. Lower MCI has a moderately
defined riffle pool sequence. A moderate amount of bedrock is present, preventing the stream
from further incision. The lower reach of MCI also occurs in abandoned cattle pastures.
Lower MCI is moderately incised near UT5 and becomes highly incised as the waterway
approaches the Uwharrie River. Stream bank erosion throughout the lower reach of MCI is
moderate. Riparian vegetation is comprised of large to small hardwood tree species and
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). The riparian buffer on the north side of the stream is
narrow (-5 to 15 ft) while the buffer on the southern side of lower MCI is moderate (-20 to 50
ft).
According to cross-sectional measurements, MCI is incised with an average bank height of 1.8.
This value falls into the highly unstable range in Rosgen's comparison of bank height ratio to
vertical stability ranking. Mill Creek is confined within the valley and displays low meander
geometry. These conditions generally lead to lateral instability over time; however, a low-flow
regime and herbaceous vegetation on the banks have served to maintain some stability along
this reach of MCI.
6.2.2 UTI Reach
UTI is a short, ephemeral, toe-of-the slope ditch with a relatively small drainage area. UTI is
situated between a low, flat floodplain to the west and a high steep slope immediately east of
the channel. UTI is forested to the east by mature deciduous tree species and by herbaceous
vegetated to the west. UTI lacks distinct riffles and pools and functions primarily as a drainage
ditch. Channel hydrology appears to be driven by rainfall and toe-of-the-slope drainage.
Increasing side slopes as the waterway approaches the Uwharrie River have led to moderate
bank erosion on the lower portion of the tributary. A culvert conveys the flow from the lower
portion of UTI into the Uwharrie River.
6.2.3 UT2 Reach
UT2 is a relatively short reach in a moderately sloped valley with a small drainage area. UT2 is
confined within the valley in the upper reach and exhibits a small defined channel below a
headcut that widens slightly throughout the reach until the channel enters a wetland area. The
channel fans out once it reaches the wetland and evenly flows to a low point where it enters a
breach in the old dam. Below the dam, the lower reach was diverted from its natural channel
and merged with a man-made drainage ditch that discharges into Mill Creek. The water source
appears to be surface and ground water drainage from the surrounding hill slopes. Both reaches
of UT2 flow through a grass covered valley with randomly distributed trees on the upper reach
of the tributary. The breached pond portion of UT2 is forested to the east and is grass covered
to the west. The upper portion of the upper reach is slightly incised, and has poor bedform with
undistinguishable riffles and pools. UT2 classifies as a B5/1 stream type (Rosgen, 1994). The
d50 of the channel bed material classifies as very coarse sand.
UT2 is incised with an average bank height of 1.7 in the surveyed cross-sections. This value
falls into the highly unstable range in Rosgen's comparison of bank height ratio to vertical
stability ranking. The stream is confined within the valley and displays low meander geometry.
These conditions generally lead to lateral instability over time; however, a low-flow regime and
herbaceous vegetation on the banks along the reach have served to maintain some stability
along the reach.
BAKER ENGINEERING 6-3
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
6.2.4 UT4 Reach
The enhancement section and lower reach of UT4 is the shortest reach in the project site. It is
an intermittent channel and is located in a moderately sloped valley with a small drainage area.
UT4 enters the project site through a culvert underneath Lassiter Mill Road. The channel is
moderately eroded at the culvert. Erosion decreases with distance from the culvert. The
channel follows the natural valley until it enters Mill Creek. Moderate bedform is found below
the culvert with moderate riffle and pool sequences. UT4 flows through a grass covered valley
with small riparian trees. UT4 classifies as an E4b stream type (Rosgen, 1994). The d50 of the
channel bed material classifies as very fine gravel.
UT4 is incised with a bank height of 1.8 in the surveyed cross-section. This value falls into the
highly unstable range in Rosgen's comparison of bank height ratio to vertical stability ranking.
The stream is confined within the valley and displays low meander geometry.
6.2.5 UT5 Reach
UT5 is an additional relatively short reach in a moderately sloped valley with a small drainage
area. The upper reach of UT5 exhibits a small defined intermittent channel below a headcut,
which widens slightly throughout the reach until the channel enters a breached pond area. The
channel is highly eroded with poor bedform above the breached pond area, as numerous
drainage ditches enter UT5 from the hill slopes on both sides of the valley. The upper reach
follows the low point of the valley until it enters a breach in the old dam. The channel enters a
steep slope below the dam. This change in elevation is halted by the channel contacting with
bedrock. The lower reach of UT5 (below the breached dam) is highly eroded and incised below
the dam until the channel merges with Mill Creek, at which point the erosion is reduced. Poor
bedform is found below the dam with poor riffle and pool sequences. All of UT5 flows
through a grass covered valley with a few small trees in the upper reach of the tributary. The
breached pond portion and the lower reach are composed of a relatively low number of large
and small trees along the channel. UT5 classifies as a B4/1 stream type, however the incised
lower reach of UT5 functions as a G channel (Rosgen, 1994). The d50 of the channel bed
material classifies as fine gravel.
UT5 is incised with an average bank height of 3.9 in the surveyed cross-sections. This value
falls into the highly unstable range in Rosgen's comparison of bank height ratio to vertical
stability ranking. The stream displays low meander geometry due to it being confined within
the valley.
BAKER ENGINEERING 6-4
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
Table 6.2
Geomorphic Data for Mill Creek and Tributaries'

Bankfull Width (Wbkf) 25.3 N/A 7.15 5.3 5.1 Feet
Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkf) 1.28 N/A 0.49 0.84 0.63 Feet
Cross-Sectional Area (Abkf)
27
6
N/A
3
49
4
48
3
20 Square
. . . . feet
Width/Depth Ratio (W/D
19
8 N/A 14
66 6
34 8
04
ratio) . . . .
Bankfull Max Depth (dmbkf) 1.9 N/A 1.06 1.28 1.16 Feet
Floodprone Area Width (WfPa) 36.7 N/A 12.05 21.5 19.65 Feet
Entrenchment Ratio (ER) 1.4 N/A 1.68 4.0 4.0
Bank Height Ratio (BHR) 1.8 N/A 1.7 1.8 3.91
Channel Materials
Very
Small Fine Fine
(Particle Size Index - d90) Cobble coarse gravel gravel
sand
dl6
9.82 N/A 0.1 0.8 0.7 Millimeters
d35 Millimeters
43.00 N/A 0.6 2.6 1.8
d50 Millimeters
90 N/A 1.0 4.0 7.1
d84 Millimeters
>2048 N/A 5.2 10.3 14.5
Millimeters
d9s
>2048
N/A
8.5
18.6
27.4
Water Surface Slope (S) .0090 N/A 02514 .0290 04324 Feet per
. . foot
Channel Sinuosity (K) 1.27 N/A 1.14 1.05 1.17
Rosgen Stream Type B3c/1 N/A 135/1 E4b 134/1
Notes:
1. No geomorphic data was obtained for the streams that are recommended for preservation.
2. More than one riffle cross-section was surveyed. Values presented are averages.
3. Limited survey data acquired; ephemeral channel will be filled in with excess material from site.
4. Water surface slopes along the sections to be restored.
6.3 Bankfull Verification
The bankfull stage on Mill Creek and the tributaries were identified in the field; the indicators were a
break in slope on a flat depositional feature, a high scour line, and the top of bank. Vegetation trends
were used as validation for this stage selection. These indicators are consistent with other North
Carolina rural Piedmont streams. Bankfull data for the project reaches are compared with the rural
BAKER ENGINEERING 6-5
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
North Carolina Piedmont Regional Curve in Exhibit 6.1. The project's bankfull cross-sectional areas
consistently fall within the 95 percent confidence intervals for the rural Piedmont Regional Curve,
indicating that bankfull stage was adequately identified. Regional curve equations developed from
the North Carolina rural Piedmont study are provided in Table 6.3.
One active USGS gauge is located near the project site: the Dutchman's Creek gauge (USGS Gauge
Number 02123567) is located approximately 10 miles downstream from the project site, as shown in
Exhibit 6.2. The watershed size at the gauge is 3.44 square miles. The gauge is located immediately
upstream of two 72-inch CMP culverts under River Road which likely cause backwater at the
bankfull stage. Due to this condition, the typical straight line projection of bankfull elevation through
the gauge was not used. Baker performed a survey at the gauge and prepared a HEC-RAS hydraulic
model using the survey data on a previous project for NCEEP (UT to Barnes). A hypothetical flow
corresponding to the bankfull elevation upstream of the gauge was routed through the gauge station
and related to the gauge plate height. Using the USGS gauge rating table, a discharge of 215 cfs was
established for the bankfull stage. The primary bankfull indicators at this site were a break in slope in
the bank and a bench feature.
The computer program PEAKFQ was used to perform a log-Pearson Type III flood frequency
analysis on the 18 years of peak flow record for the gauge. This flood frequency analysis indicated
that a 215-cfs event has a recurrence interval of approximately 1.3 years at this site on Dutchman's
Creek. This recurrence interval of 1.3 years is close to the average value of 1.5 years observed for
many streams and within the accepted range of one to two years.
The Dutchman's Creek discharge data were plotted on the regional curve along with the bankfull
discharges predicted using Manning's equation with the surveyed channel geometry for Mill Creek,
the unnamed tributaries, and the reference reaches. As shown in Exhibit 6.1, all of the values fall
within the 95% confidence limits of the rural Piedmont regional curve.
Table 6.3
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Equations.

Qbkf = 66.57 A,,, 0.89 R2= 0.97
Abkf = 21.43 A,,, 0.61 R2 =0.95
wbkf = 11.89 A,0.43 R2 =0.81
Dbkf = 1.5 A, 0.32 R2 =0.88
6.4 Stream Reference Site
The Mickey stream reference site is located in Surry County, approximately thirteen miles northwest
of the town of Elkin, North Carolina, and approximately eighty miles northwest of the project site
(Exhibit 6.3). The site is near the community of Devotion with a drainage area of 0.45 mil (Exhibit
6.4) and is a past stream restoration project that has been stable for almost five years. This system
and the streams to be restored both have steep slopes, small drainage areas, and flow into larger river
systems. The Mickey Reach is vertically and horizontally stable, has several points of aeration in the
form of riffles and rock and woody debris jams, and shows excellent habitat potential. The upstream
section of the Mickey Reach was restored within 20- to 30- year old forest and the downstream
section was restored within pastureland, which can be viewed on the reference site soils map (Exhibit
6.5). The vegetation along the entire Mickey reach is flourishing.
BAKER ENGINEERING 6-6
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
Field surveys of the reference site were conducted in early spring, 2002. The site has been surveyed
on a yearly basis since the original survey to evaluate any changes on the site. It was determined
during a site visit in December of 2006 that the site has had more than 10 bankfull events while
remaining stable and is therefore a viable reference site. Survey data were used to evaluate the
natural channel parameters describing the dimension, pattern, and profile of the stream. Natural
channel design parameters are summarized in Appendix F.
The reference stream is classified as a "B4" channel using the Rosgen Stream Classification System
(Rosgen, 1994). Longitudinal profile and cross-sections are presented in Appendix G. "B" type
channels are more typical of higher gradient cobble/gravel-bed stream systems that are found in
highly dissected fluvial valleys. "B" type streams typically form a series of steps with irregularly
spaced pools and do not transport a high amount of sediment. The "4" indicates that the stream is a
gravel-bed system. Median particle size of the bed material is approximately 35 mm (see Appendix
G for particle size distribution data). The reference reach stream has appropriate bed features for a
gravel-bed system, with shallow pools in the meander bends, and deeper pools formed by scour
features such as roots and debris jams.
6.4.1 Reference Stream Vegetation
The reference stream is well buffered along both stream banks, with tree species that include
sweet gum (Liquidambar styracifua), red maple (Acer rubrum), willow oak (Quercus phellos),
water oak (Quercus nigra), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), and green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica). The small tree/shrub layer is dominated by sweetbay magnolia (Magnolia
virginiana), American holly (Ilex opaca), sugarberry saplings (Celtis laevigata), giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), coastal doghobble (Leucothoe
axillaris), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), and
blackberry (Rubus spp.). The herb and vine strata contain false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica),
jewel-weed (Impatiens capensis), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), sensitive fern
(Onoclea sensibilis), green-briar (Smilax spp.), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia),
grape (ins spp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
BAKER ENGINEERING 6-7
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
7.0 STREAM RESTORATION
7.1 Restoration Benefits
The Mill Creek mitigation site provides a unique opportunity for a more comprehensive ecosystem
rehabilitation approach than is possible with "typical" stream and wetland restoration projects. In
addition to the 124.35 acres being protected by the NCEEP conservation easement, the EQUIP
Project will transform and protect approximately 100 additional acres of previously farmed or grazed
land which surrounds the NCEEP stream buffer easement boundaries. The inclusion of the EQUIP
native Piedmont prairie-grass restoration project will allow for the recreation of an almost extinct
North Carolina landscape form while protecting existing headwater streams systems.
The restoration component of the proposed project (the area located west of Lassiter Mill Rd) is
composed of approximately 79 percent perennial streams and 21 percent intermittent/ephemeral
streams, which is in line with current NCEEP guidelines regarding perennial/intermittent mitigation
credits generated from a potential stream site. However, due to, the inclusion of 15,802 linear ft of
stream preservation (located primarily east of Lassiter Mill Rd) the total perennial/intermittent ratio
for the site falls short of that typically required for mitigation sites (approximately 52/48
perennial/intermittent).
The preservation areas provide substantial linear feet of perennial as well as additional intermittent
and ephemeral streams that are not typically protected under current NCEEP guidelines. Besides the
acquisition costs for the conservation easement, the preservation areas do not require additional
resources be allocated for fencing, cattle crossings, vegetation plantings, stream design, construction,
etc. Stream credits generated in the preservation areas are acquired as a result of portions of the
property being placed under easement. Failure to take advantage of the opportunities presented by
this preservation opportunity to meet a 80/20 perennial/intermittent ratio requirement would miss the
opportunity to extend and protect the project limits and prevent future development within the
headwater areas of the Mill Creek project. The relatively low costs associated with the easements, in
addition to the significance of preserving such a large area, would appear to merit their inclusion in
the project no matter their affect on the stream ratios.
The combination of the NCEEP and EQUIP programs allows for more of the watershed to be
protected, increasing the habitat restoration opportunities that exist by removing the threat of
development within the uplands surrounding the NCEEP conservation easement boundaries. Water
quality benefits such as additional water retention, agricultural and nutrient pollutant removal will
also be achieved, as will the ecological benefits of increasing habitat diversity in the watershed. This
combination of stream restoration/enhancement, restored prairie, and preserved land will provide a
large, unfenced natural area with a complex habitat network that will be permanently protected
through conservation easements greatly enhancing the Mill Creek project as a NCEEP mitigation site.
7.2 Constraints
Potential obstacles to construction activities may be the location of temporary haul roads needed
during construction be located within the projects "limits of disturbance" because the property is also
in the process of being converted from fallow agricultural/livestock field to native prairiegrass fields.
A power line easement (Randolph EMC) runs along the NCDOT right of way on High Pine Church
Road and Lassiter Mill Road. The power line easements contain small feeder lines to individual
residential homes. Since the power lines and water lines are close to the road right of way and away
from the stream project, vegetation planted should not interfere with the power lines or the water
BAKER ENGINEERING 7-1
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
lines. Species planting may have to be modified around wires used to stabilize utility poles along
Lassiter Mill Rd and UT4. There are no other known or foreseen constraints at the site associated
with structure and/or infrastructure encroachments.
7.3 Design
After examining the assessment data collected at the site and exploring the site's potential for
restoration, an approach to the project reaches was developed. First, an appropriate stream type for
the valley type was selected. Based on the channel evolution sequence ascribed to the stream after
examination of existing conditions survey data and other field observations, as well as conditions
observed on reference streams under similar conditions the project design stream types were further
refined. Available belt width and channel incision were considered as well. The proposed stream
types and approaches for the project are summarized in Table 7.1. The existing conditions and design
criteria of the project reaches are provided in Tables 7.2a and 7.2b.
Table 7.1
Project Design Stream Types

MCI B3c/1 Enhancement I-benching, in-stream structures, and planting vegetation will alleviate some
of the stresses upon MC1's dimension; pattern will not change. The profile is bedrock
controlled and the pattern is confined within the valley. Benching in areas where bank
height ratios are highly unstable will lower the nearbank shear stresses.
Enhancement 11- planting riparian buffer will alleviate erosion along the upper portion of
MC 1.
UT1 N/A Reach is an agriculturally dug ditch at the toe of the slope. The top 600' of the ditch can be
filled with excess material from the excess fill generated from UT2 to reduce erosion at the
top of the reach
UT2 B5/1 Wetland Creation - old breached pond remains saturated throughout the year. The
breached dam will be excavated such that the wetland remains hydrologically connected.
Restoration - downstream of the wetland (-450') will be restored to a B stream type with a
functioning floodplain (Rosgen Priority Level 2 approach) and a shallow channel (-425')
will be cut through the wetland creation area to allow water to saturate the entire area
during the drier months of the year.
Enhancement 11- a riparian buffer will be planted upstream of the wetland.
UT4 E4b Enhancement 11- a riparian buffer will be planted.
UT5 B4/1 Wetland Creation - old breached pond remains saturated throughout the year. The breached
dam will be excavated such that the wetland remains hydrologically connected.
Restoration - below the wetland, -125' of stream will be restored to a B stream type with a
functioning floodplain (Rosgen Priority Level 2 approach).
Enhancement 11-benching (downstream of restoration), and planting vegetation (throughout
UT5) will alleviate erosion; and pattern will not change. The profile is bedrock controlled
and the pattern is confined within the valley. Benching in areas where bankheight ratios are
highly unstable will lower the nearbank shear stresses.
UT6 N/A Preservation-Approx. 954' of stream will be preserved.
UT7 N/A Preservation-Approx. 2,529' of stream will be preserved.
UT8 N/A Preservation-Approx. 2,003' of stream will be preserved.
UT9 N/A Preservation-Approx. 5,000' of stream will be preserved.
BAKER ENGINEERING 7-2
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
Table 7.1
Project Design Stream Types

MC2 N/A Preservation-Approx. 998' of stream will be preserved.
MC3 N/A Preservation-Approx. 687'of stream will be preserved.
MC4 N/A Preservation-Approx. 1,443' of stream will be preserved.
All
Reaches N/A Riparian buffers at least 50 feet in width will be established along all stream reaches. All
buffer areas will be protected by a perpetual conservation easement.
Table 7.2a
Existing Conditions and Design Parameters for Project Reaches

Stream Length (ft) 1,460 1,460 1,703 s 875
Drainage Area, DA (sq 1.33 1.33 0.08 0.08
mi)
Stream Type (Rosgen) B3c/1 B3c/1 B5/1 B5/1 Note 1
Bankfull Discharge,
Qbkf (cfs) 70.42 70.42 8.4 8.4 Note 2
Bankfull Riffle XSEC 27
6 27
6 27
6 F 27
6 3
5 3
5 3
8 3
8
Area, Abkf (sq ft) . . . . . . . .
Bankfull Mean Velocity, 2
6 2
6 2
4 2
2
Vbkf . . . . V=QA
Bankfull Riffle Width, 25
3 18
2 20
3 7
2 6
8 7
5
Wbkf (ft) . . . . . .
Bankfull Riffle Mean 1
3 1
4 1
5 0
5 0
5 0
6
Depth, Dbkf (ft) . . . . . . D=A/W
Width to Depth Ratio, 19
8 12
0 15
0 14
7 12
0 15
0
W/D (ft/ft) . . . . . . Note 3
Width Floodprone Area, 36
7 25 40 12
1 15 25
Wfpa (ft) . .
Entrenchment Ratio, 1
4 1
4 2
0 1
7 2
2 3
3
Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) . . . . . . Note 4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, 1
9 1
7 2
1 1
1 0
6 0
8
Dmax (ft) . . . . . .
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, 1
5 1
2 1
4 0
5 1
2 1
4 Note 5
Dmax/Dbkf . . . . . .
Max Depth @ tob, 3
4 1
7 2
3 1
8 0
6 0
9
Dmaxtob (ft) . . . . . .
Bank Height Ratio, 1
8 1
0 1
1 1
7 1
0 1
1 Note 6
Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) . . . . . .
Meander Length, Lm (ft) --- --- --- --- Note 7
Meander Length Ratio, --- Note 7
Lm/Wbkf
Radius of Curvature,
Note 7
Rc (ft)
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf --- --- --- --- Note 7
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) --- --- --- --- Note 7
BAKER ENGINEERING 7-3
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
Table 7.2a
Existing Conditions and Design Parameters for Project Reaches

Meander Width Ratio,
Note 7
Wblt/Wbkf
Sinuosity, K 1.27 1.27 1.14 1.14
Valley Slope, 0
0115 0
0115 0
0251 0 0251
Sval (ft/ft) . . . .
Channel Slope, 0
0090 0
0090 0
0140 0 0140
Schan (ft/ft) . . . .
Slope Riffle, --- 0
0099 0
0162 --- 0
0154 0
0252
Srif (ft/ft) . . . .
Riffle Slope Ratio, --- 1
1 1
8 --- 1
1 1
8 Note 5
Srif /Schan . . . .
Slope Pool, --- 0
000 1 0
0023 --- 0
0001 0
0035
Spool (ft/ft) . . . .
Pool Slope Ratio, --- 0
01 0
25 --- 0
01 0
25 Note 5
Spool/Schan . . . .
Pool Max Depth,
2
8
4
5
1
0
1
8
Dmaxpool (ft) . . . .
Pool Max Depth Ratio, --- 2
0 3
0 --- 2
0 3
0 Note 5
Dmaxpool/Dbkf . . . .
Pool Width, Wpool (ft) --- 20.0 30.5 --- 7.4 11.3
Pool Width Ratio,
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
5
Wpool/Wbkf . . . . Note 8
Pool-Pool Spacing, --- 27
3 101
7 --- 10
1 37
7
Lps (ft) . . . .
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, --- 1
5 5
0 --- 1
5 5
0 Note 5
Lps/W bkf . . . .
d16 (mm) 9.82 9.82 0.1 0.1
d35 (mm) 43.00 43.00 0.6 0.6
d50 (mm) 90.00 90.00 1.0 1.0
d84 (mm) >2048 >2048 5.2 5.2
d95 (mm) >2048 >2048 8.5 8.5
Fnntnnte,c
1. Denotes that UT4 only has Enhancement 11 (541) and Preservation (1, 809).
2. Reaches UT6 (954), UT7 (2,529), UT8 (2,003), UT9 (5,239), MC2 (998), MC3 (785), andMC4 (1,485)
are all Preservation Reaches.
3. Denotes thatMCl also has an Enhancementll Reach (754) that only consists of buffer planting.
4. Denotes that UT2 also has an Enhancement ll Reach (1,012) that only consists of buffer planting.
5. Existing channel is a toe of slope channel that drains into Mill Creek. The design is to restore the original
drainage back into Uwharrie River.
6 Denotes that UT5 also has an Enhancement ll Reach (842) that only consists of buffer planting.
7. The existing channel is the section that has breached the dam and is cutting into the hillslope. The design is
to restore the original drainage pattern with the valley.
Rationale Notes:
1. A B stream type is appropriate for steeply sloped channels (generally greater than 0.02), with steep
fluvially dissected valleys.
BAKER ENGINEERING 7-4
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
2. Bankfull discharge was estimated using Manning's equation.
3. A final W/D ratio was selected based on relationships of W/D ratio to slope in NC Piedmont reference
reach streams, in-house composite ratios, as well as sediment transport analyses.
4. Required for stream classification.
5. This ratio was based on past project evaluation of similar B type design channels.
6. A bank height ratio near 1.0 ensures that all flows greater than bankfull will spread onto a floodplain. This
minimizes shear stress in the channel and maximizes floodplain functionality resulting in lower risk of
channel instability.
7. Parameters were not derived since the channels are relatively straight (low sinuosity) and are confined
with in the valley.
8. Values were chosen based on reference reach database analysis and past project evaluation. It is more
conservative to design a pool wider than the riffle. Over time, the pool width may narrow, which is a positive
evolutionary step.
Table 7.2b
Existing Conditions and Design Parameters for Project Reaches

Stream Length (ft) 200' 125
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 0.06 0.06
Stream Type (Rosgen) 134/1 134/1 Note 1
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs) 9.6 9.6 Note 2
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 3.1 3.1 3.8 3.8
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 2.5 2.5 V=QA
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 4.9 6.8 7.5
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.6 0.5 0.6 D=A/W
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 7.8 12.0 15.0 Note 3
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 32.5 15 30
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 4.0 2.2 4.0 Note 4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 1.4 0.6 0.8
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 2.3 1.2 1.4 Note 5
Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft) 2.2 0.6 0.9
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.5 1.0 1.1 Note 6
Meander Length, Lm (ft) --- --- Note 7
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf --- --- Note 7
Radius of Curvature, Re (ft) --- --- Note 7
Re Ratio, Rc/Wbkf --- --- Note 7
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) --- --- Note 7
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf --- --- Note 7
Sinuosity, K 1.17 1.17
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0381 0.0381
BAKER ENGINEERING 7-5
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
Table 7.2b
Existing Conditions and Design Parameters for Project Reaches

Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0325 0.0325
Slope Riffle, Srif (ft/ft) --- 0.0358 0.0585
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan --- 1.1 1.8 Note 5
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft) --- 0.0003 0.0081
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan --- 0.01 0.25 Note 5
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft) --- 1.0 1.8
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf --- 2.0 3.0 Note 5
Pool Width, Wpool (ft) --- 7.4 11.3
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf --- 1.1 1.5 Note 8
Pool-Pool Spacing, Lps (ft) --- 10.1 37.7
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf --- 1.5 5.0 Note 5
d16 (mm) 0.7 0.7
d35 (mm) 1.8 1.8
d50 (mm) 7.1 7.1
d84 (mm) 14.5 14.5
d95 (mm) 27.4 27.4
Footnotes:
1. Denotes that UT4 only has Enhancement 11 (541) and Preservation (1, 809).
2. Reaches UT6 (954), UT7 (2,529), UT8 (2,003), UT9 (5,239), MC2 (998), MC3 (785), andMC4 (1,485)
are all Preservation Reaches.
3. Denotes thatMCI also has an Enhancement 11 Reach (754) that only consists of buffer planting.
4. Denotes that UT2 also has an Enhancement 11 Reach (1,012) that only consists of buffer planting.
5. Existing channel is a toe of slope channel that drains into Mill Creek. The design is to restore the original
drainage back into Uwharrie River.
6 Denotes that UT5 also has an Enhancement ll Reach (842) that only consists of buffer planting.
7. The existing channel is the section that has breached the dam and is cutting into the hillslope. The design is
to restore the original drainage pattern with the valley.
Rationale Notes:
1. A B stream type is appropriate for steeply sloped channels (generally greater than 0.02), with steep
fluvially dissected valleys.
2. Bankfull discharge was estimated using Manning's equation.
3. A final W/D ratio was selected based on relationships of W/D ratio to slope in NC Piedmont reference
reach streams, in-house composite ratios, as well as sediment transport analyses.
4. Required for stream classification.
5. This ratio was based on past project evaluation of similar B type design channels.
6. A bank height ratio near 1.0 ensures that all flows greater than bankfull will spread onto a floodplain. This
minimizes shear stress in the channel and maximizes floodplain functionality resulting in lower risk of
channel instability.
7. Parameters were not derived since the channels are relatively straight (low sinuosity) and are confined
with in the valley.
BAKER ENGINEERING 7-6
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
8. Values were chosen based on reference reach database analysis and past project evaluation. It is more
conservative to design a pool wider than the riffle. Over time, the pool width may narrow, which is a positive
evolutionary step.
7.4 Design Criteria Selection
Selection of natural channel design criteria is based on a combination of approaches, including review
of reference reach databases, regime equations, and evaluation of results from past projects, as
discussed in Section 2.5.
Selection of a general restoration approach was the first step in selecting design criteria for the
streams on the Mill Creek site. The approach was based on each reach's potential for restoration as
determined during the site assessment. After selection of the general restoration approach, specific
design criteria were developed so that each reach's plan view layout, cross-section dimensions, and
profile could be described for the purpose of developing construction documents.
7.4.1 Reference Reach Survey
As discussed in Section 6.4, a stream reference reach was identified and surveyed
approximately 80 miles northeast of the project site. The Mickey Reach site is an example of a
reference quality B4 channel under similar geomorphological conditions as the project site.
Specific natural channel parameters are provided in Appendix F.
7.4.2 Reference Reach Database
An internal reference reach database has been developed by Baker Engineering for the
evaluation of reference reach parameters from multiple sites within a geographic area. The
database includes three B type reference reaches, in addition to the Mickey reference reach, that
were surveyed in the Piedmont and have been used for design purposes on other projects.
Collectively, the data provide valuable information regarding the range of conditions
documented for similar stream systems.
7.4.3 Design Criteria Selection Method
Specific design parameters were developed using a combination of reference reach data, past
project experiences, and best professional judgment. The design philosophy at the Mill Creek
site is to use conservative values for the selected stream types and to allow natural variability in
stream dimension, facet slope, and bed features to form over long periods of time under the
processes of flooding, re-colonization of vegetation, and watershed influences.
7.5 Sediment Transport
Shear stress and stream power relationships were only generated for reaches that would be restored
(lower reaches of UT2 and UT5) within the project. UT2 and UT5 reaches have median particle sizes
that result in their classification as small gravel, and coarse sand bed streams, respectively. While
these median particle sizes indicate some diversity, the overall composition is fairly similar. Each of
the streams has 50% to 60% sand, 30% to 50% gravel, and less than 10% cobbleibedrock as bed
substrate. In isolated locations, coarse material and bedrock in riffles appears to control grade. The
streams also receive significant quantities of fine materials from both bank erosion and contributions
from the upstream catchment. While restoration of the channel will reduce localized bank erosion,
the channel will still need to transport the fine materials from upstream sources. In sand bed streams,
BAKER ENGINEERING 7-7
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
sediment transport capacity is a critical analysis, whereas in gravel bed streams, sediment transport
competency is a critical analysis. Since the design reaches must transport both sand and gravel sized
particles, both capacity and competency were analyzed.
Sediment transport capacity, measured as unit stream power (W/mZ) as discussed in Section 2.6, was
compared for the existing stream channels and the design conditions. Table 7.2 shows bankfull
boundary shear stress and stream power values for existing and design conditions. Stream power
values for the existing and design conditions all compare well to values for similar streams and valley
types described by Bledsoe et al (2002).
Sediment transport competency is measured in terms of the relationship between critical and actual
depth at a given slope and occurs when the critical depth produces enough shear stress to move the
largest (dloo) subpavement particle. As shown in Table 7.2, UT2 and UT5 have design depths greater
than the critical depth which may indicate the tendency to degrade. The concern for degradation will
be addressed by grade control structures which will be installed as discussed in Section 7.4. As a
second check of sediment transport competency, boundary shear stress was plotted on Shield's Curve
(as discussed in Section 2.6.3) to estimate the largest moveable particle. In both streams, as shown in
Table 7.3, the Shield's Curve predicts the mobility of particles larger than the dioo observed in the
subpavement. Both of these sediment transport competency analyses confirm the ability of the design
channel to transport the coarse sediment load.
Bankfull Discharge, Q (cfs) 8.4 8.4 9.6 9.6
Bankfull Area (square feet) 3.5 3.8 3.1 3.8
Mean Bankfull Velocity (cfs) 2.4 2.2 2.5 2.5
Bankfull Width, W (feet) 7.2 7.1 4.9 6.8
Bankfull Mean Depth, D (feet) 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6
Width to Depth Ratio, w/d (feet/ foot) 14.7 13.4 7.8 12
Wetted Perimeter (feet) 8.3 8.2 8.0 7.9
Hydraulic Radius, R (feet) 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5
Channel Slope (feet/ foot) 0.0251 0.0251 .0325 .0450
Boundary Shear Stress, ,r (lbs/ft2) 0.37 0.4 0.79 1.35
SubpavementDioo (mm) 20 20 25 25
Largest Moveable Particle (mm) per 60 - 80 60 - 80 100 - 150 150 - 202
Modified Shield's Curve
Critical Depth (feet) 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.10
Critical Slope (feet/ foot) .0050 0.0051 .0071 .0076
BAKER ENGINEERING 7-8
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
TABLE 7.3
Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power for Existing and Proposed Conditions of UT2 and UT5
TABLE 7.3
Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power for Existing and Proposed Conditions of UT2 and UT5
7.6 In-Stream Structures
A variety of in-stream structures are proposed for the project reaches. Structures such as root wads,
constructed riffles, cross vanes, rock vanes, step pools, and wing deflectors will be used to stabilize
the newly-restored and enhanced streams. Table 7.4 summarizes the use of in-stream structures at the
site.
Table 7.4
In-stream Structure Types and Locations

Root wads MCI
Constructed riffles UT2 and UT5
Cross vanes UT2 and UT5
Rock vanes MCI
Single wing deflectors MCI
Double wing deflectors MCI
Step pools UT2 and UT5
Cover logs MCI
7.6.1 Root Wads
Root wads are placed at the toe of the stream bank along the outside of meander bends for the
creation of habitat and for stream bank protection. Root wads include the root mass or root ball
of a tree plus a portion of the trunk. They are used to armor a stream bank by deflecting stream
flows away from the bank. In addition to stream bank protection, they provide structural
support to the stream bank and habitat for fish and other aquatic animals. They also serve as a
food source for aquatic insects. Root wads will be placed along Mill Creek.
7.6.2 Constructed Riffles
A constructed riffle consists of coarse bed material placed in the stream at the specific riffle
locations along the profile. The purpose of this structure is to provide grade control and
improve riffle habitat.
7.6.3 Cross Vanes
Cross vanes are used to provide grade control, keep the thalweg in the center of the channel,
and protect the stream bank. A cross vane consists of two rock vanes joined by a center
BAKER ENGINEERING 7-9
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
Stream Power (W/m?) 11.1 11.1 58.1 58.4
structure installed perpendicular to the direction of flow. This center structure sets the invert
elevation of the stream bed. Vanes are located just downstream of the point where the stream
flow intercepts the bank at acute angles.
7.6.4 Rock Vanes
Rock vanes are used for bank protection, and to keep the thalweg in the center of the channel.
A rock vane consists of an arm extending in a gentle downward upstream direction. The
upstream end of the structure sets the invert elevation of the stream bed. Vanes are located just
downstream of the point where the stream flow intercepts the bank at acute angles.
7.6.5 Single Wing Deflectors
Single wing deflectors are used for bank protection, and to keep the thalweg in the center of an
overly wide channel. A single deflector consists of two arms extending out from the bank with
another arm connecting the two arms together, which is parallel to the stream flow. The area
inside the arms is filling with stream alluvium. During low and normal flows, the wing
deflector redirects the flow of the channel away from the bank for which it is protecting. High
flows will overtop the structure. The wing deflector deepens and narrows the channel thalweg.
Wing deflectors allow an overly wide channel to have narrower base flow geometry (Nyman,
2003).
7.6.6 Double Wing Deflectors
Double wing deflectors are used for bank protection, and to keep the thalweg in the center of an
overly wide channel. A double deflector is two single wing deflectors within the same cross-
section. During low and normal flows, the wing deflectors redirect the flow of the channel
away from the banks for which it is protecting. High flows will overtop the structures. The
wing deflectors deepen and narrow the channel thalweg. Wing deflectors allow an overly wide
channel to have narrower base flow geometry (Nyman, 2003).
7.6.7 Step Pools
Step pools structures that are used for long term stability in steep gradient streams. Step pools
typically have stair-step profiles that are armored with boulder inverts (Knighton, 1998). The
steps are separated by plunge pools. Step pools effectively dissipate energy, transport sediment,
oxygenate the water, and provide stability within a high gradient system.
7.6.8 Cover Logs
A cover log is placed along the outside of a meander bend to provide habitat in the pool area. It
is most often installed in conjunction with rootwads. The log is buried into the outside bank of
the meander bend; the opposite end extends through the deepest part of the pool and may be
buried in the inside of the meander bend, in the bottom of the point bar. The placement of the
cover log near the bottom of the bank slope on the outside of the bend encourages scour in the
pool. This increased scour provides a deeper pool for bedform variability. Cover logs will be
used on Mill Creek; however, fewer will be placed in the small reaches because the habitat
value is not as great.
7.7 Vegetation
The vegetative components of this project include stream bank, floodplain, and headwater area
planting. In addition, any areas of the site that lack diversity or are disturbed or adversely impacted
BAKER ENGINEERING 7-10
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
by the construction process will be replanted. Bare-root trees, live stakes, and permanent seeding will
be planted within designated areas of the conservation easement. A minimum 50-foot buffer will be
established along all restored stream reaches. In many areas, the buffer width will be in excess of 50
feet. In general, bare-root vegetation will be planted at a target density of 460 stems per acre.
Planting of bare-root trees and live stakes will be conducted during the dormant season, with all trees
installed between the last week of November and the third week of March.
Selected species for hardwood re-vegetation are presented in Table 7.4 below. Tree species selected
for stream restoration areas will be weakly tolerant to tolerant of flooding. Weakly tolerant species
are able to survive and grow in areas where the soil is saturated or flooded for relatively short periods
of time. Moderately tolerant species are able to survive in soils that are saturated or flooded for
several months during the growing season. Tree species selected for the wetland restoration areas
will be tolerant of flooding. Flood tolerant species are able to survive on sites in which the soil is
saturated or flooded for extended periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997).
Once trees are transported to the site, they will be planted within two days. Soils across the site will
be sufficiently disked and loosened to a depth of 12" prior to planting. Trees will be planted by
manual labor using a dibble bar, mattock, planting bar, or other approved method. Planting holes for
the trees will be sufficiently deep to allow the roots to spread out and down without "J-rooting." Soil
will be loosely compacted around trees once they have been planted to prevent them from drying out.
Live stakes will be installed randomly two to three feet apart using triangular spacing-or at a density
of 968 to 1,452 stem per acre-along the stream banks, between the toe of the stream bank and
bankfull elevation. Site variations may require slightly different spacing.
Permanent seed mixtures will be applied to all disturbed areas of the project site. Table 7.5 lists the
species, mixtures, and application rates that will be used. A mixture is provided that is suitable for
streambank areas, floodplain and wetlands. Mixtures will also include temporary seeding (rye grain
or browntop millet) to allow for application with mechanical broadcast spreaders. To provide rapid
growth of herbaceous ground cover and biological habitat value, the permanent seed mixture
specified will be applied to all disturbed areas outside the banks of the restored stream channel. The
species provided are deep-rooted and have been shown to proliferate along restored stream channels,
providing long-term stability. Permanent seeding will be applied at a rate of 15 pounds per acre.
Temporary seeding will be applied to all disturbed areas of the site that are susceptible to erosion.
These areas include constructed streambanks, access roads, side slopes, and spoil piles. If temporary
seeding is applied from November through April, rye grain will be used and applied at a rate of 70
pounds per acre. If applied from May through October, temporary seeding will consist of browntop
millet, applied at a rate of 25 pounds per acre.
Bare-root trees and live stake species selected for re-vegetation of the restoration site are listed in
Table 7.5. Table 7.6 summarizes the permanent seed mixtures for the restoration site. Species
selection may change due to availability at the time of planting.
Through ongoing discussions with the landowner, representatives with the NCEEP, the NCWRC, and
Baker Engineering; the landowner has requested that vegetation planting within the NCEEP
conservation easement corridors be done in coordination with the NCWRC and the EQUIP program
grant. Conversion of the fields surrounding UT4, both east and west of Lassiter Mill Rd has been
initiated. Included in the NCWRC planting program are prescribed burns to aid in the growth and
establishment of the targeted vegetation species in addition to reducing the potential of invasive
species from establishing in the converted prairiegrass fields. Burning is not expected to occur within
the NCEEP easement areas.
A list of vegetation species planted to date within the prairiegrass fields has been provided (Table
7.7). To aid in the success of the prairiegrass conversion, the NCWRC has requested that the upper
portions (headwaters areas) of UT2, UT5, and along the buffer outer edges of MCI be planted with
BAKER ENGINEERING 7-11
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
selected early successional shrubs and herbaceous species from Table 7.6 to mimic their vegetation
species list provided in Table 7.7. Initial discussions indicate that this will be possible. Continued
coordination with the NCWRC is anticipated during planting of the easement areas and over the
course of the vegetation monitoring period.
Table 7.5
Proposed Bare-root and Live Stake Species

Stream Restoration Buffer
River Birch Betula nigra 15% 42 stems per acre
Sugarberry Celtis laevigata 5% 14 stems per acre
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10% 28 stems per acre
Black Walnut Juglans nigra 5% 14 stems per acre
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 20% 56 stems per acre
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 10% 28 stems per acre
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 8% 22 stems per acre
Northern Red Oak uercus rubra 7% 19 stems per acre
Persimmon Diospyros virginiana 10% 28 stems per acre
Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica 10% 28 stems per acre
Early Successional Shrubs and Trees
Coralberry Symphoricarpos orbiculatus 5% 9 stems per acre
Southern Arrowwood Viburnum dentatum 10% 18 stems per acre
Virginia Sweets ire Itea vir inica 5% 9 stems per acre
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 10% 18 stems per acre
Chicksaw Plum Prunus augustifolia 5% 9 stems per acre
Common Winterbe Ilex verticillata 10% 18 stems per acre
Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum 15% 27 stems per acre
Flowering Dogwood Cornus florida 15% 27 stems per acre
Eastern Redbud Cercis canadensis 10% 18 stems per acre
Swamp Rose Rosa palustris 10% 18 stems per acre
Parsley-leaf Hawthorn Crataegus marshallii 5% 9 stems per acre
Streambanks (Live Stakes)
Silky Willow Salix sericea 30% 1452 stems per acre
Black Willow Salix nigra 10% 484 stems per acre
Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum 40% 1936 stems per acre
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 20% 968 stems per acre
Wetland Plantings
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 20% 92 stems per acre
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 20% 92 stems per acre
Sugarberry Celtis laevigata 10% 46 stems per acre
BAKER ENGINEERING 7-12
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
Cottonwood Populus deltoidies 5% 23 stems per acre
Overcu Oak uercus l rata 15% 69 stems per acre
Tag Alder Alnus serrulata 15% 69stems per acre
Silky Dogwood Corpus amomum 15% 69stems per acre
Table 7.6
Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture

k?cre oleg
Streambank, Floodplain and Wetland Areas
Big bluestem Andro 0 on erardii - NC Ecotype 5% 0.8 FAC
Tick seed Bidens rondosa 8% 1.3 FACW
Ho sedge Carex lu ulina 5% 0.8 OBL
Shallow sedge Carex lurida 5% 0.8 OBL
Tussock sedge Carex stricta 5% 0.8 OBL
Fox sedge Carex vul inoidea 5% 0.8 OBL
River oats Chasmanthium lati olium 5% 0.8 FAC-
Lance leaf coreo sis Coreo sis lanceolata 5% 0.8 FACU
Virginia wild rye El mus vir inicus 15% 2.4 FAC
Purple love grass Era rostis s ectabilis 2% 0.3 FACU
Soft rush Juncus e usus 5% 0.8 FACW+
Pink Muhl grass Muhlenber is ca illaris 2% 0.3 FACU
Switch grass Panicum vir atum 10% 1.6 FAC+
Pennsylvania Smartweed Pol onum enns lvanicum 8% 1.3 FACW
Little bluestem Schizach rium sco arium - NC Ecotype 5% 0.8 FACU
Indian grass Sor astrum nutans - NC Ecotype 5% 0.8 FACU
Gamma grass Tripsicum dactyloides 5% 0.8 FAC+
Table 7.7
NCWRC Native Grassland Vegetation Species List

Native Prairie Grassland Areas -Currently Planted
Tick seed Bidens frondosa
Suther Indian grass Sor astrum nutans
Montgomery Little Bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium
Lance leaf coreopsis Coreopsis lanceolata
Narrow leaved Sunflower Helianthus an usti olia
BAKER ENGINEERING 7-13
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
Plains Coreo sis Coreo sis tinctoria
Large-flower tickseed Coreo sis randi ora
Blanket Flower Gaillardia pulchella
7.8 Invasive Species Removal
Invasive species including kudzu (Pueraria montana), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) have been noted in
most of the riparian areas of the channels within the project site. Invasive species will be removed by
grading operations and by hand cutting and treating with herbicides in areas that are to be planted. If
these or other invasive species re-establish and persist for more than three years after the stream
restoration has been constructed, hand cutting and herbicide treatment will be required. If any
invasive species are determined to pose potential problems within the first three years following
restoration, corrective actions may be taken earlier.
BAKER ENGINEERING 7-14
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
8.0 WETLAND CREATION DESIGN
8.1 Potential for Wetland Mitigation
On-site investigations and field reviews with the USACE determined that there are no jurisdictional
wetlands or areas of existing hydric soils located within the project area. Therefore, there is no
potential for wetland restoration or wetland enhancement practices. Two areas were identified that
currently exhibit wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation, but do not contain hydric soils.
These areas have developed upstream of two small farm pond dams which have both breached and
now only pond shallow water. Well data collected from the two areas indicate that they remain
inundated for extended periods during the dormant and early growing seasons, and that water levels
during these times fluctuate very little. An USACE representative commented during field reviews
that these areas would be appropriate for wetland creation practices for mitigation credit, since the
areas are not currently considered jurisdictional wetlands and are not underlain by hydric soils.
The proposed wetland mitigation approaches for the project are summarized in Table 8.1
Table 8.1
Project Wetland Design Approaches

Wetland Creation Site is not appropriate for restoration or enhancement because area is not a jurisdictional
Site 1 wetland and does not contain hydric soils. Site currently supports hydrophytic vegetation.
However, the site remains inundated for extended periods and water table depths fluctuate
little due to ponded water. Creation practices will seek to grade down the breached dam,
construct a more natural topography, and allow for more natural fluctuation of water levels
to support a broader diversity of hydrophytic vegetation.
Wetland Creation See discussion above for Site 1
Site 2
8.2 Wetland Design
The topography of the created sites will be patterned after natural floodplain wetland sites, and will
include the creation of minor depressions and tip mounds (microtopography) that promote diversity of
hydrologic conditions and habitats common to natural wetland areas. A shallow channel will be
constructed through the wetland creation areas to provide a hydrologic connection to upstream and
downstream stream channel improvements. The channel will also reduce periods of constant
inundation and provide for periodic overbank flooding. These techniques will be instrumental to the
improvement of site hydrology by promoting more diverse hydrologic conditions than are currently
found on the sites. Grading activities will focus on removing the breached dam structures and
providing a stabilized outlet to route wetland flows into the channel downstream.
Wetland creation will include re-vegetating the two sites with woody vegetation. Selected species for
wetland areas are presented in Table 7.4, and will be tolerant of flooded conditions. It is estimated
that these proposed practices will result in approximately 1.1 acres of wetland creation.
BAKER ENGINEERING 8-1
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
9.0 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Channel stability, vegetation survival, and wetland hydrology will all be monitored on the project site.
Post-restoration monitoring will be conducted for five years following the completion of construction
to document project success and will follow the most current NCEEP mitigation guidelines.
9.1 Stream Monitoring
Geomorphic monitoring of restored or enhanced stream reaches will be conducted for five years to
evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration practices. Monitored stream parameters include stream
dimension (cross-sections), pattern (longitudinal survey), profile (profile survey), and photographic
documentation. Specific monitoring requirements will vary according to the work that is performed,
as listed in Table 9.1. The methods used and any related success criteria are described below for each
parameter.
Table 9.1
Monitoring Procedures for Stream Restoration, Enhancement, and Preservation Reaches

Restoration Bankfull events, cross-sections, pattern, longitudinal profile, photo points
Enhancement Level I Bankfull events, cross-sections, longitudinal profile, photo points
Enhancement Level II Photo points
Preservation None
* Monitoring requirements are based on the USACE and NCDWQ Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April
2003.
9.1.1 Bankfull Events
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use
of crest gages and photographs. At least one crest gage will be installed along each monitored
stream reach. The crest gages will record the highest watermark between site visits and will be
checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred. Photographs will be
used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain
during monitoring site visits.
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the 5-year monitoring period. The two
bankfull events must occur in separate years; otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue
until two bankfull events have been documented in separate years.
9.1.2 Cross-sections
Two permanent cross-sections will be installed per 1,000 LF of stream restoration and
enhancement level I work, with one located at a riffle cross-section and one located at a pool
cross-section. Each cross-section will be marked on both banks with permanent pins to
establish the exact transect used. A common benchmark will be used for cross-sections and
consistently used to facilitate easy comparison of year-to-year data. The annual cross-section
survey will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, inner
berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the features are present. Riffle cross-sections will be
classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System.
BAKER ENGINEERING 9-1
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
There should be little change in as-built cross-sections. If changes do take place they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g.,
down-cutting or erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative
changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross-sections shall be
classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System, and all monitored cross-sections
should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
9.1.3 Pattern
Annual measurements taken for the plan view of the restoration site will include sinuosity,
meander width ratio, and radius of curvature. The radius of curvature measurements will be
taken on newly constructed meanders for the first year of monitoring only.
9.1.4 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile will be completed in years one, three, and five of the monitoring period.
The profile will be conducted for at least 3,000 LF of restored channel. Measurements will
include thalweg, water surface, inner berm, bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of these
measurements will be taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, run, pool, glide) and the
maximum pool depth. The survey will be tied to a permanent benchmark.
The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are remaining stable (i.e., they
are not aggrading or degrading). The pools should remain deep with flat water surface slopes,
and the riffles should remain steeper and shallower than the pools. Bedforms observed should
be consistent with those observed for channels of the design stream type.
9.1.5 Bed Material Analyses
Since the streams through the project site are dominated by sand-size particles, pebble count
procedures would not show a significant change in bed material size or distribution over the
monitoring period; therefore, bed material analyses are not recommended for this project.
9.1.6 Photo Reference Sites
Photographs will be used to document restoration success visually. Reference stations will be
photographed before construction and continued for at least five years following construction.
Reference photos will be taken once a year. Photographs will be taken from a height of
approximately five to six feet. Permanent markers will be established to ensure that the same
locations (and view directions) on the site are monitored in each monitoring period. Site
photographs are presented in Appendix A.
The stream will be photographed longitudinally beginning at the downstream end of the
restoration site and moving upstream to the end of the site. Photographs will be taken looking
upstream at delineated locations. Reference photo locations will be marked and described for
future reference. Points will be close enough together to provide an overall view of the reach.
The angle of the shot will depend on what angle provides the best view and will be noted and
continued in future shots. When modifications to photo position must be made due to
obstructions or other reasons, the position will be noted along with any landmarks and the same
position will used in the future.
Lateral reference photos. Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross-
section. Photographs will be taken of both banks at each cross-section. The survey tape will be
centered in the photographs of the bank. The water line will be located in the lower edge of the
BAKER ENGINEERING 9-2
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
frame, and as much of the bank as possible will be included in each photo. Photographers
should make an effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Structure photos. Photographs will be taken at each grade control structure along the restored
stream. Photographers should make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each
photo over time.
9.2 Wetland Monitoring
9.2.1 Wetland Hydrologic Monitoring
Groundwater-monitoring stations will be installed within the wetland creation areas to
document hydrologic conditions of the creation sites. Two groundwater monitoring stations
will be installed, both being automated groundwater gauges with one gauge located in each
creation area. Ground water monitoring stations will follow the USACE standard methods
found in WRP Technical Notes ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02 (July 2000).
In order to determine if the rainfall is normal for the given year, rainfall amounts will be tallied
using data obtained from the Randolph County WETS Station.
The objective is for the monitoring data to show the site is saturated within 12 inches of the soil
surface for at least 12 percent of the growing season. The creation site hydrology will be
compared to pre-construction conditions in terms of groundwater, frequency of overbank
events, and soil characterization.
9.3 Vegetation Monitoring
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a mitigation site is dependent upon active planting of
preferred canopy species and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. In order to
determine if the criteria are achieved, thirteen vegetation-monitoring plots will be installed across the
restoration site to capture three percent of the total conservation easement. The size of individual
quadrants will be 100 square meters for woody tree species. Vegetation monitoring will occur in
spring, after leaf-out has occurred. Individual quadrant data will be provided and will include
diameter, height, density, and coverage quantities. Individual seedlings will be marked to ensure that
they can be found in subsequent monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference
between the previous year's living, planted seedlings and the current year's living, planted seedlings.
At the end of the first growing season, species composition, density, and survival will be evaluated.
For each succeeding year, until the final success criteria are met, the restored site will be evaluated
between June and November. Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density on the
project site will be based on the recommendations from NCEEP and past project experience.
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320, 3-year-old,
planted trees per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period. The final vegetative success
criterion will be the survival of 260, 5-year old, planted trees per acre at the end of year five of the
monitoring period. While measuring species density is the current accepted methodology for
evaluating vegetation success on restoration projects, species density alone may be inadequate for
assessing plant community health. For this reason, the vegetation monitoring plan will incorporate
the evaluation of additional plant community indices to assess overall vegetative success.
9.4 Reporting Requirements
A restoration plan and an as-built report documenting both stream restoration and wetland creation
will be developed within 60 days of the completion of planting and the installation of wells on the
BAKER ENGINEERING 9-3
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
restored site. The report will include all information required by current NCEEP mitigation plan
guidelines, including elevations, photographs, well and sampling plot locations, a description of
initial species composition by community type, and monitoring stations. The report will include a list
of the species planted and the associated densities. The monitoring program will be implemented to
document system development and progress toward achieving the success criteria referenced in the
previous sections. Stream morphology, as well as wetland hydrology and vegetation, will be assessed
to determine the success of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken for 5 years, or
until the final success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer. Monitoring reports will be prepared
in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to NCEEP. The monitoring reports will include:
• A detailed narrative summarizing the condition of the restored site and all regular
maintenance activities
• As-built topographic maps showing location of monitoring gauges, vegetation sampling plots,
permanent photo points, and location of transacts
• Photographs showing views of the restored site taken from fixed-point stations
• Hydrologic information
• Vegetative data
• Identification of any invasion by undesirable plant species, including quantification of the
extent of invasion of undesirable plants by either stem counts, percent cover, or area,
whichever is appropriate
• A description of any damage done by animals or vandalism
• Wildlife observations.
9.5 Maintenance Issues
Maintenance requirements vary from site to site and are generally driven by the following conditions:
• Projects without established woody floodplain vegetation are more susceptible to erosion
from floods than those with a mature hardwood forest.
• Projects with sandy non-cohesive soils are more prone to short-term bank erosion than
cohesive soils or soils with high gravel and cobble content.
• Alluvial valley channels with wide floodplains are less vulnerable than confined channels.
• Wet weather during construction can make accurate channel and floodplain excavations
difficult.
• Local wildlife can impact the rate at which the native buffer can be established.
• Extreme and/or frequent flooding can cause floodplain and channel erosion.
• Extreme hot, cold, wet, or dry weather during and after construction can limit vegetation
growth, particularly temporary and permanent seed.
• The presence and aggressiveness of invasive species can affect the extent to which a native
buffer can be established.
Maintenance issues and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and documented in the
As-Built and Monitoring reports. Factors which may have caused any maintenance needs, including
any of the conditions listed above, shall be discussed.
BAKER ENGINEERING 9-4
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
10.0 REFERENCES
Andrews, E. D., 1983. Entrainment of gravel from naturally sorted river bed material, Geological
Society of America Bulletin, 94, 1225-1231.
Bledsoe, Brian P., C. C. Watson, and D. S. Biedenharn, 2002. Quantification of Incised Channel
Evolution and Equilibrium. JAWRA, vol. 38, No 3, 861-870.
Bratton, S. P. 1976. Resource Division in an Understory Herb Community: Responses to Temporal
and Microtopographic Gradients. The American Naturalist 110 (974):679-693.
Brinson, M.M., 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Waterways Exp. Stn, Tech. Rep. WRP-DE-4, Washington, D. C. 79 pp. +app.
Buol, S.W., F.D. Hole and R.J. McCracken, 1989. Soil Genesis and Classification. Iowa State
University Press, 446 pp.
Budd, WW, P.L. Cohen, P.R. Saunders and F.R. Steiner, 1987. Stream Corridor Management in the
Pacific Northwest: L Determination of Stream Corridor Widths. Environmental
Management.
Bunte, K. and S. Abt, 2001. Sampling Surface and Subsurface Particle-Size Distributions in
Wadable Gravel- and Cobble-Bed Streams for Analyses in Sediment Transport, Hydraulics,
and Streambed Monitoring. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-74. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 428 p.
Copeland, R.R, D.N., McComas, C.R. Thorne, P.J. Soar, M.M. Jones, and J.B. Fripp, 2001. United
States Army Corps of Engineers. Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects.
Washington, DC.
Craft, C.B., W.P. Casey, 2000. Sediment and Nutrient Accumulation in Floodplain and Depressional
Freshwater Wetlands of Georgia, USA. Wetlands, Vol. 20, No. 2, June 2000, pp 323-332.
Dunne, T. and L. B. Leopold, 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. New York: W. H. Freeman
and Company.
Ehmfield, J. G., 1995. Microsite Differences in Surface Substrate Characteristics in Chamaecyparis
Swamps of the New Jersey Pinelands. Wetlands 15(2):183-189.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG), 1998. Stream Corridor
Restoration: Principles, Processes and Practices. National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA.
Gomez, B., 1991. Bedload Transport. Earth-Science Reviews 31, 89-132.
Gosselink, J. G., and R. E. Turner, 1978. The Role of Hydrology in Freshwater Wetland Ecosystems.
In Freshwater Wetlands, 63-78. R. E. Good, D. F. Whigham, and R. L. Simpson, eds.
Burlington, Mass.: Academic Press.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart,
and R.E. Smith, 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina
Streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. Edited by: D.S. Olsen and
J.P. Potyondy. American Water Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Inglis, C.C. 1947. Meanders and their Bearing on River Training. Institution of Civil Engineers,
Maritime and Waterways Engineering Division, Paper No. 7, 54 pp.
King, R. 2000. Effects of Single Burn Events on Degraded Oak Savanna. Ecological Restoration
18:228-233.
BAKER ENGINEERING 10-1
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
Knighton, David, 1998. Fluvial Forms and Processes. Rutledge, Chapman, and Hall, Inc. New
York, NY.
Lane, E. W., 1955. Design of stable channels. Transactions of the American Society of Civil
Engineers. Paper No. 2776. pp. 1234-1279.
Leopold, L. B., M. G. Wolman and J. P. Miller, 1992. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. Dover
Publications, Inc. New York, NY.
Leopold, L.B., 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Lutz, H. J., 1940. Disturbance of Forest Soil Resulting from the Uprooting of Trees. Yale University
School of Forestry Bulletin No. 45.
Mausbach, M.J., J.L. Richardson, 1994. Biogeochemical Processes in Hydric Soil Formation.
Current Topics in Wetland Biogeochemistry, Vol. 1, 1994, pp 68-124.
McCandless, T. L., 2003. Maryland Stream Survey: Bankfull Discharge and Channel Characteristics
of Streams in the Allegheny Plateau and the Valley and Ridge Hydrologic Regions. US Fish
and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, MD.
Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink, 2000. Wetlands. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 920 pp.
Nyman, D.C., 2003. Aquatic habitat enhancements for Mad River and Beaver Pond Brook in
conjunction with reconstruction of I-84, Waterbury, Connecticut. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Lake Placid, New York, August,
2003.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 2000. Water Quality
Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina. Water Quality Section, July 2000.
Raleigh, NC. NCDENR website cited on April 25, 2007
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/swc.html.
North Carolina Geological Survey, 1998. Geologic map of North Carolina.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/maps/ncgs main maps_page.htmIgGeological%20and%2
OGeophysical%2OMaps
Reed, Jr., Porter B. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: National Summary.
US Fish & Wildlife Service. Biol. Rep. 88 (24). 244 pp.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, Colo.
Rosgen, D.L., 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. In: Wang,
S.S.Y, E.J. Langendoen, and F.D. Shields, Jr. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Conference on
Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. pp. 12-22.
Rosgen, D.L., 1998. The Reference Reach - a Blueprint for Natural Channel Design. Draft Presented
at ASCE Conference on River Restoration in Denver Colorado - March, 1998. ASCE.
Reston, VA.
Rosgen, D.L., 2001. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the Federal
Interagency Sediment Conference, Reno, NV, March, 2001.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley, 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, NCDEHNR, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Scherrer, E., 2000. Using Microtopography to Restore Wetland Plant Communities in Eastern North
Carolina. MS Thesis, Forestry Department, North Carolina State University.
BAKER ENGINEERING 10-2
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
Schumm, S.A., 1960. The Shape of Alluvial Channels in Relation to Sediment Type. US Geological
Survey Professional Paper 352-B. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC.
Shantz, R. R., R. L. Schneider, and L. C. Lee. 1990. Composition and Regeneration of a Disturbed
River Floodplain Forest in South Carolina. In Ecological Processes and Cumulative Impacts:
Illustrated by Bottomland Hardwood Wetland Ecosystems, 195-218. J. G. Gosselink, L. C.
Lee, and T. A. Muir, eds. Boca Raton, Fla.: Lewis Publishers.
Simon, A., 1989. A Model of Channel Response in Disturbed Alluvial Channels. Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms 14(1):11-26.
Skaggs, R. W. 1980. DRAINMOD Reference Report: Methods for Design and Evaluation of
Drainage-Water Management Systems for Soils with High Water Tables. US Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 329 pp.
Skaggs, R. W., D. Amatya, R. O. Evans, and J. E. Parsons, 1991. Methods for Evaluating
Wetland Hydrology. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI. Paper
No. 91-2590.
Soar and Thorne, 2001. Channel Restoration Design for Meandering Rivers. US Army Corps of
Engineers, Engineering Research and Development Center. Coastal and Hydraulics
Laboratory, ERDC\CHL CR-0 1-1. September, 2001.
Stephens, E. P., 1956. The Uprooting of Trees: a Forest Process. Soil Science Society of America
Proceedings 20:113-116.
US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Research Program (WRP), 1997. Technical Note VN-RS-4.1.
US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Research Program (WRP), July 2000. Technical Notes ERDC
TN-WRAP-00-02.
US Army Corps of Engineers. Environmental Laboratory, 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), 1996. Field
Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. G.W. Hurt, Whited, P.M., and Pringle, R.F.
(eds). USDA, NRSCS, Forth Worth, TX.
US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS ), 2007. Climate
Information for Randolph County North Carolina. National Water & Climate Center.
Beltsville, Maryland. Website cited on June 14, 2007,
http: //www.wcc.nres.usda.gov/cgibin/climchoice.pl?state=nc&county=3 7101.
US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS ), 1995. Soil Survey
of Randolph County, North Carolina.
http://soildatafnart.nrcs.usda.gov/Manuscn*pts/NC15 1/0/randolph.pdf
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2005. Watershed Assessment of River Stability
and Sediment Supply, v1.0. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/warsss/. Accessed July 12, 2007.
van Beers, W. F. J., 1970. The Auger-Hole Method: a Field Measurement of Hydraulic
Conductivity of Soil Below the Water Table. Rev. ed. ILRI Bulletin 1, Wageningen, 32 pp.
Vepraskas, M.J. 1996. Redoximorphic Features for Identifying Aquic Conditions. North Carolina
Agricultural Research Service.
Wohl, E.E. 2000. Mountain Rivers. Am. Geophys. Union Press, 320 pp.
Wolman, M.G. and L.B. Leopold., 1956. River Floodplains: Some Observations on their Formation.
USGS Professional Paper 282-C. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC.
BAKER ENGINEERING 10-3
MILL CREEK RESTORATION PLAN
Exhibits
Appendix A
Mill Creek Project Photolog
Appendix B
Cultural and Natural Resources
Correspondence
Appendix C
EDR Transaction Screen Map Report
Appendix D
Wetland Delineation Data and
Stream Forms
Appendix E
Existing Conditions Summaries: Cross-Sections,
Longitudinal Profiles, and Bed Material Analyses
Appendix F
Design Parameters
Appendix G
Reference Reach Conditions Summaries: Cross-
Sections, Longitudinal Profiles, Bed Material
Analyses, and Photographs
Appendix A
Mill Creek Photolog
Mill Creek Photo Log
Beginning of the Mill Creek section at Lassiter Mill Mill Creek downstream of culvert and above
Road. UT5 confluence.

Mill Creek where proposed Ford stream crossing
will be located.

Mill Creek, view is upstream.

t
Ir
.s. rryC?"M
a
Depositional bench forming on Mill Creek

Mill Creek at confluence with UT5, view is
upstream.
Mill Creek, view is downstream.
View upstream of the depositional bench.
Mill Creek, view is downstream.

girl .i I - 1, li „1 {4 ,? .[ ? ? i! a?+a.. , ' J
r
v` y+ + r' ari '
Bank erosion at the breached section of the
dam on UT2.
r
.: A
Old pond on UT2 that is proposed to be wetland
creation.
t
View of the proposed channel area below the old
dam.
View of Mill Creek above confluence with the
Uwharrie River. view is downstream.
View of UT1 where the upper 600 feet will be
filled in.
Outflow at the breached section of UT2, view is
upstream.
View of area of proposed wetland creation on UT2
View of the proposed channel area below the old
pond along UT2.
41
View of the old dam on UT2.
R ILL.
-y?'4-A M1 Tr_?_ CS+?
a ev
T 3.
Bank erosion below the UT5 dam.
Headcut on UT5 below the old dam, view is
downstream.

Beginning of UT5, view is downstream, proposed
preservation.
': al
UT5 channel above the conflunece with
Mill Creek, view is upstream.
View of the area where UT2 will tie into
the Uwharrie River, view is upstream.
View of the area where UT2 will tie into the
Uwharrie River, view is downstream.
UT5 channel at the old dam below the proposed
wetland creation.
Area below the old dam on UT5, view is
downstream.
Proposed wetland creation on UT5, view is
dowstream.
4X
i
r
Upper section of UT4, view is downstream.
. {l

Area above UT6 confluence with Mill Creek 2,
view is upstream.
Middle section of the UT4 channel, view is
upstream.
Outflow at the UT2 wetland dam, view is
upstream.
Lower section of the UT4 channel, view is
upstream.
Mill Creek 3 at driveway culvert, view is
upstream.
Mill Creek 2 channel, view is upstream.
Mill Creek 2 at property boundary, view is
upstream.
Mill Creek 3 below culvert, view is downstream.
upstream.
Mill Creek 3 mid-stream, view is upstream.
Mill Creek4 upstream of property boundary,
view is upstream.
Mill Creek 4 lower end of reach, view is
Mill Creek 4 at property boundary, view is
upstream.
UT6 upper pond spillway, view is downstream.
Upper pond at headwaters of UT6, view is east.
UT6 mid-stream, view is downstream.
Lower pond on UT6, view is downstream.
UT6 lower pond spillway above Mill Creek, view
is downstream.
?z
G ,

1` ? r

UT7 channel, view is upstream.
Lam' n. 11 UT7 channel mid-stream, view is upstream.
UT7 channel, view is upstream.
UT8 above Mill Creek, view is upstream.
UT8 channel, view is upstream.
UT8 upper end of reach, view is upstream.
UT8 at top of reach, view is upstream.
UT9 east of Lassier Mill Road culvert, view is
downstream.
UT9 west of Lassiter Mill Road culvert, view is
downstream.
Appendix B
Cultural and Natural Resources
Correspondence
gravel, cobble, and boulder substrate, and is known to inhabit pools, riffles, and slow
runs. Juveniles are often found in slack water, among mid-stream rock outcrops, and in
side channels and pools.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
While the Cape Fear shiner is found in Randolph County, it is found in the Cape Fear, not
the Yadkin/Pee-Dee Basin. No suitable habitat exists for the Cape Fear shiner within the
proposed restoration area. Based upon the NHP's database, checked on October 24,
2006, no populations of this species have been reported in the project area. Therefore,
the proposed project is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact to this species.
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower)
Federal Status: Endangered
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: May 7, 1991
Schweinitz's sunflower, usually 3 to 6 feet tall, is a perennial herb with one to several
fuzzy purple stems growing from a cluster of carrot-like tuberous roots. Leaves are 2 to 7
inches long, 0.4 to 0.8 inch wide, lance-shaped, and ustially opposite, with upper leaves
alternate. Leaves feel like felt on the underside and rough, like sandpaper, on the upper
surface. The edges of the leaves tend to curl under. Flowers are yellow composites, and
generally smaller than other sunflowers in North America. Flowering and fruiting occur
rnid-September to frost. This plant grows in clearings and along the edges of upland
woods, thickets and pastures. It is also found along roadsides, poweriine clearings, old
pastures, and woodland openings. It prefers full sunlight or partial shade, but is intolerant
of full shade.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Potential habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower occurs along roadsides, power line right-of-
ways, and field edges throughout the project area. The project study area was evaluated
for potential Schweinitz's sunflower habitat and extensive field surveys were performed
on October 3. 2006, during the blooming season for the species. No populations were
found within the area of potential impact. No populations of this species have been
reported in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in
an adverse impact to this species.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to
contact us with any questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,
Ken Gilland
Buck Engineering, A Unit of Michael Baker Corporation
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
ChaftngeUs.
Baker
Mr. Dale Suiter
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636
11/3/2006
Subject: Effects Concurrence for EEP Wetland and Stream mitigation project in
Randolph County.
Dear Mr. Suiter,
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that
might emerge with respect to threatened and endangered species from a stream
restoration project conducted on the subject site. The Mill Creel: site has been identified
for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel impacts.
Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded. A USGS map
showing the approximate. property lines and areas of potential ground disturbance is
enclosed.
This letter is a follow up to our October 4 correspondence which included a discussion of
the endangered species in Randolph County (see Table 1). On October 3, 2006, one of
our biologists conducted a site survey for Schweinitz's sunflower. Our biological
conclusions and supporting information are summarized below to assist in your
evaluation of the site.
Table L Federally Protected Species for Randolph
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status Biological Conclusion

Notropis mekistorholas Cape Fear Shiner F No Effect

HehanthuSSChAlelniL7li Schweirritz's Sunflower F No Effect
INDtes. E - Fnco! igered de )ores ? species III Clad ger of e_Xtilxtion thrOLIgI10L)t> T11 or a Sigrw'ican[ po-tloo <)f is
Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear Shiner)
Federal Status: Endangered
Animal Family: Cyprinidae
Federally Listed: September 26, 1987
The Cape gear shiner is a small minnow, rarely exceeding 2.4 inches in length. It is a
pale silvery yellow with a black stripe along each side. The fins are yellow and pointed,
the upper lip is black, and the lower lip has a thin black bar along its edge.
Water willow (Justicia americana) beds in flowing areas of creeks and rivers appear to be
an essential element of the species' habitat. It is found in clean, rocky streams over
ChallengeUs.
Cary, NC 27511,
Phone: [phone],
Email: kgillandCmbakercorp.com
cc:
Kristie Carson
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh. NC 27699
ChallengeUs.
Baker
Ms. Shannon Deaton 10/4/2006
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Subject: EEP Wetland and Stream Mitigation Project in Randolph County.
Dear Ms. Beaton,
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that
might emerge with respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with a potential wetland
and stream restoration project on the attached site (USGS site reaps with approximate
property lines and areas of potential ground disturbance are enclosed).
The Mill Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation
for unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. The project will involve the
restoration of Mill Creek and various unnamed tributaries in the Yadkin River Basin,
which include sections of channel that are identified as significantly degraded. Project
goals include the restoration or enhancement of approximately 6,035 linear feet of stream
and enhancement of approximately 1.5 acres of wetlands for the purpose of obtaining
stream and wetland mitigation credit in the Yadkin River basin.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to
contact us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance
associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Ken Gilland
Buck Engineering, A Unit of Michael Baker Corporation
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511,
Phone: [phone], Email: [e-mail]
cc:
Kristie Carson
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699

0 tie -
2
op.
ii
. ;jo
2

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
26 October 2006
Mr. Ken Gilland
Buck Engineering, A Unit of Michael Baker Corporation
8400 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
Subject: Mill Creek Wetland and Stream Mitigation Project, Randolph County, North Carolina.
Dear Mr. Gilland:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
information. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and North Carolina General Statutes
(G.S. 113-131 et seq.).
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program proposes to restore approximately 6,035
linear feet of Mill Creek and several unnamed tributaries in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin and 1.5 acres
of wetlands. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded. Specific details
regarding the proposed stream and wetland restoration project were not included.
There are records for the federal species of concern and state endangered Carolina creekshell
(Yillosa vaughaniana) and Atlantic pigtoe ffusconaia masonry; the state threatened Roanoke slabshell
(Elliptio roanokensis); and state special concern notched rainbow (Yillvsa constricta) in the Uwharrie
River downstream of the project site.
Stream and wetland restoration projects often improve water quality and aquatic habitat. We
recommend establishing native, forested buffers in riparian areas to protect water quality and aquatic
habitat and to improve terrestrial habitat and provide a travel corridor for wildlife species. Provided
measures are taken to minimize erosion and sedimentation from constructionlrestoration activities, we do
not anticipate the project to result in significant adverse impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. If you require further assistance, please
contact our office at [phone].
Sincerely,
_1JA 6-11,
Shari L. Bryant
Piedmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Renee Gledhill-Earley 10/4/2006
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Subject: EEP Wetland and Stream mitigation project in Randolph County.
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley,
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requests review and comment on any
possible issues that might emerge with respect to archaeological or cultural resources
associated with a potential wetland and stream restoration project on the attached site
(USES site maps with approximate property lines, areas of potential ground disturbance,
and locations of and photographs of structures (if applicable) are enclosed).
The Mill Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation
for unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. The project will involve the
restoration of Mill Creek and various unnamed tributaries in the Yadkin River Basin,
which include sections of channel that are identified as significantly degraded. Project
goals include the restoration or enhancement of approximately 6,035 linear feet of stream
and enhancement of approximately 1.5 acres of wetlands for the purpose of obtaining
stream and wetland mitigation credit in the Yadkin River basin.
No architectural structures or archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during
preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes. In addition, the majority of the
site has historically been disturbed due to agricultural purposes such as tilling. As the
enclosed aerial photograph shows, the majority of the area within the construction limits
of the site consists of farmland or straightened stream channel.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the
presence of any historic properties, Thank you in advance for your timely response and
cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with any questions that you may have
concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Ken Gilland
Buck Engineering, A Unit of Michael Baker Corporation
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511,
Phone: [phone], Email: [e-mail]
cc:
Kristie Carson
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699

d RM-,,4 lip
el F. Fasley, Governor
Micha
Lisbeth C. Evans, Seeretary
Jeffrey]. Crow, Deputy Secretary
November 2, 2006
Ken Gilland
Buck Engineering
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
Office of Archives and History
Division of Hisrorical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: EEP, Wetland and Stream Restoration, Mill Creek Site, Randolph County, ER 06-2622
Dear Mr. Gilland:
Thank you for your letter of October 4, 2006, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources that would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763, ext. 246. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Req- /? .
Peter Sandbeck At pill
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
state Historic Preservation Office
Ilerer B. Sandbeck, Adminisrrator
Location Mailing Address i uepnene/ r ax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Srrect, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Ser?icc Cenmr, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION 51.5 N. Blount Stree t, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699.4617 [919]733-65471715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mad Service Censer, Raleigh NG 27699-4617 (91'3)733.6545/715-4801
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Part 1: General Project Information
Project Name: Mill Creek Stream Restoration Project
Count Name: Randolph Count
EEP Number: D0701 OS
Project Sponsor: Buck Engineering, A Unit of Michael Baker
Project Contact Name: Ken Gilland
Project Contact Address: 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Project Contact E-mail: [e-mail]
EEP Project Manager: Kristie Corson
Project ¦- • •
The Mill Creek project site is located approximately 3.6 miles north of the Montgomery
County-Randolph County line, within cataloging unit 03040103 and NC Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub-basin 03-07-09 of the Yadkin River Basin.
The site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. The project will involve the
restoration of Mill Creek and various unnamed tributaries in the Yadkin River Basin,
which include sections of channel that are identified as significantly degraded. Project
goals include the restoration or enhancement of approximately 6,035 linear feet of
stream and enhancement of approximately 1.1 acres of wetlands for the purpose of
obtainin stream and wetland miti ation credit in the Yadkin River basin.
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
1-5-0-1 ? ?'_ 1.41 ?qg 0?\
Date Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
? Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
Dale For Division Administrator
FHWA
Part 2: All Projects
Regulation Question Response
Coastal Zone M na ement Act Z
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county? Yes
? No
2. Does the project involve ground-disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? No
NIA
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured? Yes
? No
NIA
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management Yes
Program? ? No
NIA
Comprehensive Environmental Re nse Compensation and Llabili Act C E R LA
1. Is this a "full-delivery" project? Yes
No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been Yes
designated as commercial or industrial? ? No
N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area? ? No
N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area? ? No
N/A
5. As a result of a Phase I I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous Yes
waste sites within the project area? ? No
N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan? Yes
? No
N/A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Yes
Historic Places in the project area? ? No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur? Yes
No
N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved? Yes
? No
N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Ac uisition Policies Act Uni for m Act
1. Is this a "full-delivery" project? Yes
? No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate? Yes
? No
N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed: Yes
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and ? No
* what the fair market value is believed to be? N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05
Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation Response
Arne c n Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of Yes
Cherokee Indians? No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians? Yes
? No
N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Yes
Places? ? No
N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? Yes
? No
I El N/A
Anti uities Act AA
1. Is the project located on Federal lands? Yes
? No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects Yes
of antiquity? ? No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
? No
NIA
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
NIA
Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? Yes
? No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? Yes
? No
NIA
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
NIA
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
NIA
Endangered Species Act ESA
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
? Yes
listed for the county? No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? Yes
p No
NIA
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical Yes
Habitat? ? No
NIA
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the species and/or "likely to adversely modify" Yes
Designated Critical Habitat? ? No
N/A
5. Does the US FWS/NOAA- Fisheries concur in the effects determination? Yes
No
N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination? Yes
? No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05
Executive Order 1 3007 (Indian Sacred Sites)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory" ? Yes
b the EBCI? ? No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed ? Yes
project? ? No
N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred Yes
sites? ? No
N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA
1. Will real estate be acquired? ? Yes
No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally ?? Yes
important farmland? ? No
N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS? ? Yes
? No
N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordins ti n MUM
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any ? Yes
water body? No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? ?? Yes
? No
I El N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public, Yes
outdoor recreation? ? No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? Yes
? No
N/A
Ma nuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Ac Essential Fish Ha bitat
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system? Yes
? No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species? Yes
? No
N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the Yes
project on EFH?
No
H N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? Yes
? No
N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred? Yes
? No
N/A
Maratory Bird-Treat Act MBTA
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA? Yes
? No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? Yes
? No
N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area? Yes
? No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining Yes
federal agency? ? No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05
Appendix C
EDR Transaction Screen Map Report
RO Environmental
Data Resources Inc
EDR LoanCheck®
Basic
with Geocheck®
Mill Creek
7795 High Pine Church Road
Asheboro, NC 27205
Inquiry Number: 1766930.1s
October 02, 2006
The Standard in
Environmental Risk
Management Information
440 Wheelers Farms Road
Milford, Connecticut 06461
Nationwide Customer Service
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Internet: www.edrnet.com
FORM-NULL-ERN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Executive Summary ES1
Overview Map 2
Detail Map 3
Map Findings Summary 4
Map Findings 6
Orphan Summary 9
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking GRA
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary A-2
Physical Setting SSURGO Soil Map A-5
Physical Setting Source Map A-14
Physical Setting Source Map Findings A-15
Physical Setting Source Records Searched A-19
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2006 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TC1766930.1s Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR).
The results of this search follow:
TARGET PROPERTY ADDRESS FEDERAL RECORDS STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS TRIBAL R EDR PROPRIET
ECORDS AIRY RECORDS
MILL CREEK

7795 HIGH PINE CHURCH ROAD
ASHEBORO, NC 27205

Elevation: 445 ft.
0 N
_j
o
0
EDR Inquiry Number: 1766930.1s > a a N N >
H w N
Of Of

0 0
w
TARGET PROPERTY Map ID a > ¢ N a 0 0 Z U Z u
i U
Direction 0
Z
U)
?
W
0
W
E
Of
J
D

a
SEARCH RESULTS
Distance Lu
Q
U)
(n
Q
U)

x o

v

n

z

z

z c
l
a u of U V of Q Q Q rn Of Z z cn a N a Q N N w
U) N 2 H H U w Q Q Q
Distance ft. o a of af af of of 0 z Lu 0 D CO 0 0
0
N
¢
J
Z
o
Q
2 v U)
?
N
N
0
a
z
z
z
0
L Z w w 0 0 0 of 2 rn
rn
N
2
o
u
i
H
°
U

2

a

?

7

D

of

of
Site Elevation ft. z a o z 0 0 0 of a a w x > > o a 0 a 0 a n a 2 2 v Of U) z U) O D Q ? > 0 Co z ? ? ? w
MILLIKAN PROPERTY 1
(DOROTHY) X X
7795 HIGH PINE CHURCH RO D TP
ASHEBORO, NC 27205
S106349322
TC1766930.1s Executive Summary 1
OVERVIEW MAP -1766930.1 S
Target Property
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
• Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
1 Manufactured Gas Plants
National Priority List Sites
Landfill Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 1/4 1/2 1 Mlles
0 Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
Oil & Gas pipelines Disposal Sites
0 100-year flood zone
0 500-year flood zone
0 National Wetland Inventory
0 State Wetlands
SITE NAME: Mill Creek CLIENT: Buck Engineering
ADDRESS: 7795 High Pine Church Road CONTACT: Ken Gilland
Asheboro NC 27205 INQUIRY #: 1766930.1s
LAT/LONG: 35.5604 / 79.9739 DATE: October 02, 2006 5:33 pm
00pyrlaht ® 2006 EDR, Inc. ® 2006 Tole Atlas Ral. 07/2005.
DETAIL MAP -1766930.1 S
Target Property 0 1/16 1!B 1/41Alleo
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property 0 Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
• Sites at elevations lower than ?
Disposal Sites
Oil & Gas pipelines
the target property
0
100-year flood zone
1 Manufactured Gas Plants ear flood zone
500-
r Sensitive Receptors y

L
Lj National Priority List Sites 0 National Wetland Inventory
- Landfill Sites 0 State Wetlands
Dept. Defense Sites
SITE NAME: Mill Creek CLIENT: Buck Engineering
ADDRESS: 7795 High Pine Church Road CONTACT: Ken Gilland
Asheboro NC 27205 INQUIRY #: 1766930.1s
LAT/LONG: 35.5604 / 79.9739 DATE: October 02, 2006 5:33 pm
00pyrlaht ® 2006 EDR, Inc. ® 2006 Tole Atlas Ral. 07/2005.
EDR LoanChecV Basic: Environmental Risk Review
Property Name 440 Wheelers Farms Road
Milford, CT 06460
MILL CREEK Phone:[phone]
7795 HIGH PINE CHURCH ROAD Fax:[phone]
ASHEBORO, NC 27205 Web:www.edrnet.com
October 2, 2006
(EDIR' Environmental
Data Resources Inc
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK LEVEL
To help evaluate environmental risk, the EDR Loan Checktasic provides an Environmental Risk Level,
based on a search of current government records requested to be searched by
Buck Engineering.
-XI ELEVATED RISK Based on the records found in this report, the environmental risk level for this
property is elevated.
LOW RISK Based on the records found in this report, the environmental risk level for this
property is minimal.
User Instructions
For more information regarding this Environmental Risk Level, please refer to page 2 and other supporting reports.
User Comments
Reports and Databases
The following reports an/or databases were requested by customer and were included in the Environmental
Risk Level where available:
• EDR Radius Map Report
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2006 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
1766930.1s Page 1
EDR LoanChecV Basic: Environmental Risk Review
FINDINGS CONTRIBUTING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISK LEVEL
The environmental ELEVATED RISK is based upon the findings listed below. For additional detail, click on the
records marked with "Detail" to turn to the corresponding page. To return to this page, press Alt + Left Arrow
on your keyboard or click the green arrow at the bottom of the window.
TARGET PROPERTY
Current Govt. Records Address Data Source Distance
MILLMAN PROPERTY -------------- 7795 HIGH PINE CHURCH ROA ______ LUST_________________________ TP_______________.Detail pg.3
(DOROTHY) IMD
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
Current Govt. Records
No records identified (if any) were determined to be of elevated risk.
1766930.1s Page 2
Map ID EDR LoanCheck Basic Environmental Risk Review
Direction
Distance
Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
1 MILLIKAN PROPERTY (DOROTHY)
Target 7796 HIGH PINE CHURCH ROAD
Property ASHEBORO, NC 27206
LUST S106349322
IMD N/A
LUST:
Actual: Facility ID: Not reported
447 ft. Incident Number: 30352 UST Number: WS-6883
Lat/Long: 35 33 38.16 79 58 6.54 Lat/Long Decimal: 35.5606 79.96849
Testlat: Not reported
Regional Officer Project Mgr: sbw
Region: Winston-Salem
Company: DOROTHY MILLIKAN
Contact Person: Not reported
Telephone: [phone]
RP Address: 7795 HIGH PINE CHURCH ROAD
RP City,St,Zip: ASHEBORO, NC 27205-
RP County: Not reported
Comm / Non-comm UST Site: NON COMMERCIAL
Risk Classification: U
Risk Class Based On Review: H
Corrective Action Plan Type: Not reported
Level Of Soil Cleanup Achieved :Not reported
Tank Regulated Status: Non Regulated
Contamination Type: Soil
Source Type: Leak-underground Product Type: PETROLEUM
Date Reported: 3/12/2004 Date Occur: 3/11/2004
NOV Issue Date: Not reported NORR Issue Date: Not reported
Site Priority: Not reported Phase Of LSA Req :Not reported
Site Risk Reason: Not reported Land Use: Not reported
Closure Request: Not reported # Of Supply Wells: 0
Close Out: Not reported
MTBE: No MTBE1: Unknown
Flag: No Flag1: No
LUR Filed: Not reported Release Detection: 0
GPS Confirmed: 7 Cleanup: 3/11/2004
Current Status: File Located i n House RBCA GW: Not reported
PETOPT: 4 RPL: No
CD Num: 0 Reel Num: Not reported
RPOW: Yes RPOP: No
Error Flag: 0
Error Code: N Error Type: Not reported
Submitted: 3/12/2004 Valid: No
Description: During removal of home heating oil UST, soil contamination was confirmed.
Ownership: Private
Operation Type: Residential Facility Type: 4
Location: Residence Site Priority: Not reported
Priority Update: Not reported PIRF/Min Soil: Not reported
Wells Affected: Unknown Wells Affected #: Not reported
Samples Taken: Yes Samples Include: Not reported
5 Min Quad: Not reported 7.5 Min Quad: Not reported
Last Modified: Not reported
Incident Phase: Response
NOV Issued: Not reported
NORR Issued: 4/1/2004
45 Day Report: Not reported
Public Meeting Held: Not reported
Corrective Action Planned: Not reported
SOC Sighned: Not reported
Reclassification Report: Not reported
1766930.1s Page 3
Map ID EDR LoanCheck Basic Environmental Risk Review
Direction
Distance
Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
MILLIKAN PROPERTY (DOROTHY) (Continued) S106349322
RS Designation: Not reported
Closure Request Date: Not reported
Close-out Report: Not reported
Comments: GPS recreational data entered, funding stopped norr issued
IMD:
Region: WS
Facility ID: 30352
Date Occurred: 3/11/2004
Submit Date: 3/12/2004
GW Contam: No Groundwater Contamination detected
Soil Contam: Yes
Incident Desc: During removal of home heating oil UST, soil contamination was confirmed.
Operator: Not reported
Contact Phone: [phone]
Owner Company: DOROTHY MILLIKAN
Operator Address:7795 HIGH PINE CHURCH ROAD
Operator City: ASHEBORO
Oper City,St,Zip: ASHEBORO, NC 27205-
Ownership: Private
Operation: Residential
Material: Not reported
Qty Lost 1: Not reported
Qty Recovered 1: Not reported
Source: Leak-underground
Type: Gasoline/diesel
Location: Residence
Setting: Not reported
Risk Site: Unknown
Site Priority: Not reported
Priority Code: Not reported
Priority Update: Not reported
Dem Contact: sbw
Wells Affected: Unknown
Num Affected: Not reported
Wells Contam: Not reported
Sampled By: y
Samples Include: Not reported
7.5 Min Quad: Not reported
5 Min Quad: Not reported
Latitude: 35.56055555
Longitude: -79.96833333
Latitude Number: 353338
Longitude Numbe r: 795806
Latitude Decimal: 35.5605555555556
Longitude Decimal: 79.9683333333333
GPS: 7
Agency: DWM
Facility ID: 30352
Last Modified: Not reported
Incident Phase: RE
NOV Issued: Not reported
NORR Issued: 4/1/2004
45 Day Report: Not reported
Public Meeting Held: Not reported
Corrective Action Planned: Not reported
SOC Sighned: Not reported
1766930.1s Page 4
Map ID EDR LoanCheck Basic Environmental Risk Review
Direction
Distance
Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
MILLIKAN PROPERTY (DOROTHY) (Continued)
Reclassification Report: Not reported
RS Designation: Not reported
Closure Request Date: Not reported
Close-out Report: Not reported
S106349322
1766930.1s Page 5
EDR LoanChecV Basic: Environmental Risk Review
TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
IMD: Incident Management Database
Groundwater and/or soil contamination incidents
Date of Government Version: 07/21/2006 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/01/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/23/2006 Last EDR Contact: 08/01/2006
Number of Days to Update: 22 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/23/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
LUST: Regional UST Database
This database contains information obtained from the Regional Offices. It provides a more detailed explanation
of current and historic activity for individual sites, as well as what was previously found in the Incident Management
Database. Sites in this database with Incident Numbers are considered LUSTs.
Date of Government Version: 06/02/2006 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/07/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 07/06/2006 Last EDR Contact: 09/07/2006
Number of Days to Update: 29 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/04/2006
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
1766930.1s Page 6
Appendix D
Wetland Delineation Data and
Stream Forms
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site: U T 2 1?a ?P w e -f /g "d ?w l ,
Applicant / Owner: Date: . ?I -Z6 -0
County: P'A n 6[ a l
Investigator: p h e 1,. kh. i& State: IV

Do normal circumstances` exist on the site? Yes ' No ? Comm" unity ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No ? Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? es No Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species) Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. hjAay oak ?I 4 Ck)- 9.
2. CLRa?r?, o 1$9a 05 L 10.
3. Gbj'r)??• rod G to?s Hull 11.
4. ?or6,rs . _±±Lg?X 12.: .
5. 6 E&i.,-oRC 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-).
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species r /are not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sampl Kof was taken...
HYDROLOGY
Y Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators,
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Prim a?Y Indicators:
Other C! inundated
_
No Recorded Data Available Saturated in Upper 12"
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth. of Surface Water: ___Q _(In.)
_
Secondary Indicators:
-- / Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: O (in.
) Water-Stained Leaves
ocal Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: _ on.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain In Remarks)
Remarks:

WETLAND DETERMINATION
Map Unit Name
1
(Series and Phase):__L)a f?
Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No: v`
Profile Description:,
Depth. Matrix Colors Mottle Colors, Mottle. Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
A ? Y y2 r? ? z_y Y,z ? A 1? ?? ? drgrP ??? N 10 r, t__

?
to-1g y to?

q
13 _ 7.5 LIP
z S R r ?Q ?7s ?Gy(? ,I
/6 iRI(k S(J'a

I: I v?o c?,?.?_c • u - 1. l h o cl arc
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon
- _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_
Sulfidic Odor, Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aquic Moisture Regime .Listed On Local Hydric Solis List
,'.Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes V- No_
Hydric Soils Present? Yes ' No
Remarks: Location (describe) i s jno cl assified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Velion Manual.

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
VEGETATION
Project/Site: U / 2 Hl???a? ?-l ?l?l0l 'Date: e-) - 24 -bg
Applicant /Owner: , County: ?a d, 9
Investigator: State: kIC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No V1,
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)?' Yes No V'
Is the area a potential problem area? 4es No L--' Community ID:
Transect ID:
Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed) -
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1.. 6 I e.., r-Gd sof ; ?A c ./6 Pa FAc 9.
2. lack - tabu c to ye AC- 10.
3. Arc > To 16 1)AL 11.
4. 12..
5. .13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are .OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding. FAC-).
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50%0 of the Plant Species are/ a not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample plot aken...
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other _ Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
Z'No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift'"Lines
Field Observations: - Sediment Deposits
- Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: -(in.). _ Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
- Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
V T Z- Q Ovi-d fi j0 l of ?. ? rp U •r1
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase):_ Merkle. Lb ? r1
^1 1o640%..-. Drainage Class: (ter (
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Description: -
Depth ; Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, .Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
?L A z. s Y? `i?g SY2 s/` io 9? Iq
Hydric Soil Indicators: -?
_i
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Solis
_ Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Je?_? Is the Sampling Point
Wetland. Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes_ No^
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks: Location (describe) is Uinion lassified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands D Manual.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/ Site: M ill Creek / U T5 2.I W? ,I-) 1,76- Cc
Date:
Applicant! Owner: -
County: _RApdo! pi,, .
Investigator: State: Me-
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No ? Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No ? Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes ? No Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1.. c v1(-c,c US I:AC 9.
2-7To-cowl,er,et ' fear;' ?ln9o CwL 10.
3. e 5 Is <I S AC 11.
4. 12.
5. .13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8, 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). i0fl'
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50%0 of the Plant Species r /are not
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample of was taken...
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology. Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other V Inundated

ZNo Recorded Data Available Saturated in Upper 12"
- Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Patterns In Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: Z (in,) Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) -V Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
_L--Water-Stained Leaves
- Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) -FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name -
(Series and Phase): sad -1, -_1 c rr 05 Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture„ Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munseli Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
Hz A YR W11- 16Y R S3 5? 90 r ?r a , as w,
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
?Sulfidic Odor 51;,,)?4, Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Solis List
Reducing Conditions fisted on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes V No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetland? Yes ? No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks: Location (describe)'" is not assified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands'D ation Manual.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: y t,?e4 1^ bv) ? Date: I -2e-GC
Applicant/ Owner:

Investigator: D. County:
an?°
State: IL, C_'

normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No V_ Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Y No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? es No Plot ID:
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator:
1.. 6 e "ro W,' SAG 9.
2. (doe ??.. 1 (L.?.... ae.V.old. JrAU 10.
3. Frs?,, `wU UPL 11.
4. 12..,
5. .13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). 00
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Present Based Upon Greater than 50% of the Plant Species ar are no
Classified as FAC-OBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. Sample plo aken...:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other Inundated

\/"','No Recorded Data Available -Saturated in Upper 12"
_ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns In Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Local Sol[ Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ FAC-Neutral Test
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
IFI/
U Ovid
SOILS
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Map Unit Name
-Ta
&Ai
w
,
(Series and Phase): rr" Drainage Class:
e
a
Taxonomy (Subgroup): pped Type? Yes_ No
Confirm M
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munseli Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-1i ?_ 2,SHI? ?l? r2 614 lb?1' cl?M
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_Sulfidic Odor _ Organic. Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Solis List
Reducing Conditions _Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks),
Remarks:
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? " Yes No Is'the Sampling Point /?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Within a Wetiand? Yes_ No/
Hydric Soils Present? ' Yes No
Remarks: Location (describe) i s no classified as a wetland based upon the criteria set forth in the 1987
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands D tion Manual.
Mil( Cc L,.CRA'- ???)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: 9/21/06 Project: Mill Creek Latitude:
Evaluator: D. Huneycutt Site: Mill Creek 1 Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: Randolph
if? 19 or perennial if? 30 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 ® 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes =
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = it
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes =
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 6)
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 ® 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 ® 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Sketch:
West of Lassiter Mill Road
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: 9/22/06 Project: Mill Creek Latitude:
Evaluator: D. Huneycutt Site: Mill Creek 2 Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: Randolph
if? 19 or perennial if? 30 41.25 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 3
7. Braided channel 0 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
9 a Natural levees 0 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes =
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = it
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 i 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes =
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 8.2d)
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 91 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 1
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ' 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: 10/3/06 Project: Mill Creek Latitude:
Evaluator: D. Huneycutt Site: Mill Creek 3 Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: Randolph
if? 19 or perennial if? 30 31.25 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes =
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 ® 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes =
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 8.75)
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: 10/3/06 Project: Mill Creek Latitude:
Evaluator: D. Huneycutt Site: Mill Creek 4 Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: Randolph
if? 19 or perennial if? 30 30.25 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 ® 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes =
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 11 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1
-. 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes =
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 7.75)
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ' 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ' 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: 9/20/06 Project: Mill Creek Latitude:
Evaluator: D. Huneycutt Site: UT 1 Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: Randolph
e.g. Quad Name:
if? 19 or perennial if? 30
pa I
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No =
Yes = 3
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = ")
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 11 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 19 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes =
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 3.25)
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 1 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: 9/20/06 Project: Mill Creek Latitude:
Evaluator: D. Huneycutt Site: UT 2 Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: Randolph
if? 19 or perennial if? 30 22.75 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No =
Yes = 3
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 ' 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 i 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes =
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 5.25)
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 1 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0 0.5 1
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: 2/19/06 Project: Mill Creek Latitude:
Evaluator: D. Huneycutt Site: UT 4 Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: Randolph
if? 19 or perennial if? 30 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 ® 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 IT 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No =
Yes = 3
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal =1)
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 11 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1
-. 3
16. Leaflitter [ 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 i 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No=0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 6)
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: 2/19/07 Project: Mill Creek Latitude:
Evaluator: D. Huneycutt Site: UT 4P Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: Randolph
e.g. Quad Name:
if? 19 or perennial if? 30
in I
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 ! 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 ® 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No =
Yes = 3
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal =1)
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 11 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1
-. 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No=0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 6.75)
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton ' 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. ' 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: 9/21/06 Project: Mill Creek Latitude:
Evaluator: D. Huneycutt Site: UT 5 Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: Randolph
if? 19 or perennial if? 30 19.25 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 ® 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 IT 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No =
Yes = 3
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 11 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1
-. 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No=0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 5.75)
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 1 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Sketch:
downstream
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: 7/11/07 Project: Mill Creek Latitude:
Evaluator: D. Huneycutt
Site: UT5 below dam Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: Randolph
if? 19 or perennial if? 30 36.5 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 17.5) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 ® 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 ® 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 -1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 f 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No =
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 7.5 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 11.5 )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 110
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
" Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
- Duck potato
- Caddisfly, beetle, 2 salamanders, left-handed snail
- Point taken on lower portion of UT5 from Mill Creek to
toe of slope of dam outfall.
Sketch:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: 9/21/06 Project: Mill Creek Latitude:
Evaluator: D. Huneycutt Site: UT 6 Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: Randolph
e.g. Quad Name:
if? 19 or perennial if? 30
pa I
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 IT 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No =
Yes = 3
Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = ill
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No=0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 3.25)
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 1 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Sketch:
Form location was above second pond
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: 9/22/06 Project: Mill Creek Latitude:
Evaluator: D. Huneycutt Site: UT 7 Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: Randolph
if? 19 or perennial if? 30 27.75 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 ® 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No =
Yes = 3
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 i 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No=0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 6.75)
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel ' 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ' 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: 9/28/06 Project: Mill Creek Latitude:
Evaluator: D. Huneycutt Site: UT 8 Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: Randolph
if? 19 or perennial if? 30 17.25 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 1 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 IT 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No =
Yes = 3
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = z?)
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No=0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 5.25)
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 1 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 1 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: 9/22/06 Project: Mill Creek Latitude:
Evaluator: D. Huneycutt Site: UT 9 Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: Randolph
if? 19 or perennial if? 30 30.75 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 11
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 ® 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2
5. Active/relic floodplain 0 1 2
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No =
Yes = 3
- Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes =
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 5.75)
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 91 1 0
22. Crayfish 0 0.5 ® 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ' 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus. 0.5 1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Sketch:
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Appendix E
Existing Conditions Summaries: Longitudinal
Profiles, Cross-Sections, and Bed Material
Analyses
Profile Graphs
Profile Chart MC1
395 .
390 - ------------------------ -----------------------
385- ---- -------------- - ----------------------
?TWG
---- ---- -- --------------------
c 380 ' ?? ?s?y? RTB
375 ?'?.;a.?.± ---------------- - LTB
w 370 - - ,' ?•'?i.? - - - - - -?,° WSF
365 a?yAt
360 1? • aMq.i?.yw?A
355
-10 490 990 1490 1990
Station
Profile Chart UT 2
415 -
410
405
400
c
0 395 -
390 -
w 385 -
380 -
375
370
990
------------------------------------- tTWG
---------------------------- WSF
LTB
RTB
1190 1390 1590 1790 1990 2190 2390
Station
Profile Chart UT 4
400
395
390-???
TWG
c RTB
15 w 385
w ? LTB
w
380 WSF
375 y?v
370
990 1090 1190 1290 1390 1490
Station
Profile Chart UT 5
440
430
ti.
420
410 ~??` ??..
o ` r
15 400 ---- ---------------
w 390 --------------- -----------
380
370
360
990
1190 1390 1590 1790 1990 2190 2390 2590 2790
Station
Cross-sections

Feature Stream
Type BKF
Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D BH
Ratio
ER BKF
Elev TOB
Elev
Bc 22.9 34.62 0.66 1.42 52.44 1 1.7 371.05 371.05
Cross-section X1
385
380
c
g 375
----- -- -------------------
w 370
365 0--- Bankfull -- o Flood prone
360
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Station

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth Max
BKF
Depth

W/D
BH
Ratio

ER
BKF
Elev

TOB Elev
F 32.3 27.65 1.17 1.59 23.67 2.1 1.2 371.83 373.63
Cross-section X2
388
386
384
382
g 380
378
376
w 374 ----------------------------------
372 -----------------------------
370 •••Q... Bankfull -••o Floodprone
368
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Station
Max
Stream BKF BKF BKF BKF BH BKF TOB
Feature Type Area Width Depth Depth W/D Ratio ER Elev Elev
Bc 3.5 7.15 0.49 1.06 14.66 1.7 1.7 390.14 390.89
Cross-section X3
398
397
396
395
g 394
393
392
w 391 ------------
390
389 --o--- Bankfull --- E) Floodprone
388
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Station
Max
Stream BKF BKF BKF BKF BH BKF TOB
Feature Type Area Width Depth Depth W/D Ratio ER Elev Elev
G 3.3 5.24 0.63 0.87 8.3 6.3 1.3 375.2 379.83
Cross-section X4
388
386
384
0 382
380
w 378
376 ----
374
372
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station ----0--- Bankfull ---m--- Floodprone
Max
Stream BKF BKF BKF BKF BH BKF TOB
Feature Type Area Width Depth Depth W/D Ratio ER Elev Elev
Eb 3.1 4.89 0.63 1.44 7.79 1.5 6.6 402.9 403.67
Cross-section X5
410
409
408
c 407
406
405
---------------------
w 404
403
402 E?• • • Bankfull -• •o Floodprone
401
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Station
Max
Stream BKF BKF BKF BKF BH BKF TOB
Feature Type Area Width Depth Depth W/D Ratio ER Elev Elev
Eb 4.5 5.33 0.84 1.28 6.34 1.8 4 387.36 388.34
Cross-section X6
398
396
394
c
°- 392
c?
390
w 388 ------------------------
386 m• • • Bankfull • • -m Floodprone
384
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station
Max
Stream BKF BKF BKF BKF BH BKF
Feature Type Area Width Depth Depth W/D Ratio ER Elev TOB Elev
Bc 27.6 13.7 2.01 2.67 6.81 2.4 1.4 365 368.69
Cross-section X7
374
372
370
c
368 --------------------
c?
366
--------------
w 364
362 Q--- Bankfull ---o--- Floodprone
360
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station
60 70 80 90
Sediment Particle Distribution by Layer X1- MC1
100

90

80

70

- - -
Pavement 'o 0?
/
so
Subpavemen t

50
a
40

30

20

10 ' •

0

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size -Finer Than (mm)
Sediment Particle Distribution by Layer X2- MC2
100

90

80
,
70

- - -
Pavement
60
Su bpavement
50

a
40

30

20

10

0 - -

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size -Finer Than (mm)
Sediment Particle Distribution by Layer X3-UT2
100
90

80
- - -Pavement
70 Subpavement

60 • •
,
c
50

a
40

30

20
- /

10,
10

0

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size -Finer Than (mm)
Sediment Particle Distribution by Layer X4- UT5
100
90

80

70

60 - - - Pavement
Sub pavement
50
a
a
40

30

20

10

0

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size -Finer Than (mm)
Sediment Particle Distribution by Layer X5-UT5
100
90

80

70 - - - - 2 L

- - Pavement ,
60
Subpavement
c
2 50
`w
a
40

30
,
20
0
10
- 0
?
,
0

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Finer Than (mm)
Sediment Particle Distribution by Layer X6- I
100
90

80
t
70 ?

- - - Pavement
so
Sub pavement
50

a ,
40

30

20 ,

10

0

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size - Finer Than (mm)
Appendix F
Design Parameters
Reference parameters used to determi ne design ratios

Parameter Mickey Reach
(See Appendix G) Composite Reference
Data from past projects
MIN MAX MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 0.45 0.45
Stream Type (Ros en) B4 B4
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (s ft) 5.3 11.2
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 10.8 14.9
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.4 1.0
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 10.4 40.1 12 15
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 35 40
Entrenchment Ratio, W a/Wbkf (ft/ft) 2.7 3.2
Riffle Max Depth bkf, Dmax (ft) 0.7 2.1
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.0 3.0 1.2 1.4
Max Depth tob, Dmaxtob (ft) 1.5 6.2
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1
Meander Length, Lm (ft) 70 280
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf * 4 16
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft) 28 47
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf * 2 3
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) 18 65
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf * 1 4
Sinuosity, K 1.13 1.13 1.1 1.2
Valle Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0396 0.0396
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0350 0.0350
Slope Riffle, Srif (ft/ft) 0.0110 0.1220
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 0.3143 3.4857
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft) 0.0000 0.0570
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.0000 1.6286
Slope Run, Srun (ft/ft)
Run Slope Ratio, Srun/Schan
Slope Glide, S glide (ft/ft)
Glide Slope Ratio, Sglide/Schan
Pool Max Depth, Dmax ool (ft) 4.4 5.3
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 3.5 4.2 2 3
Pool Area, A pool (s ft) 12.7 26.1
Pool Area Ratio, Apool/Abkf 1.5 3.2
Pool Width, W pool (ft) 8.0 13.7
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 0.6 1.1 1.1 1.5
Pool Length, L pool (ft) 3.5 19.1
Pool Length Ratio, Lpool/Wbkf 0.3 1.3
Pool-Pool Spacing, L s (ft) 5.9 114.6
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 0.5 7.7 1.5 5
d16 (mm) 5.75 5.75
d35 (mm) 18.15 18.15
d50 (mm) 40.45 40.45
d84 (mm) 118.81 118.81
d95 mm 197.44 197.44
Mill Creek Project MCl Existing
StreamValues MCl Design
StreamValues UT2 Existing
StreamValues UT2 Design
StreamValues UT5 Existing
StreamValues UT5 Design
StreamValues
Rationale
Parameter MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 1.33 1.33 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.06
Stream Type (Rosgen) 133c/l 133c/l 135/1 135/1 134/1 134/1 Note 1
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs) 70.42 70.42 8.4 8.4 9.6 9.6 Note 2
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 3.5 3.5 3.8 3.8 3.1 3.1 3.8 3.8
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.5 2.5 V=QA
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 25.3 18.2 20.3 7.2 6.8 7.5 4.9 6.8 7.5
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 1.3 1.4 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 d=A/W
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 19.8 12.0 15.0 14.7 12.0 15.0 7.8 12.0 15.0 Note 3
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 36.7 15 25 12.1 15 25 32.5 15 30
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 1.4 0.8 1.2 1.7 2.2 3.3 6.6 2.2 4.0 Note 4
Riffle Max Depth bkf, Dmax (ft) 1.9 1.7 2.1 1.1 0.6 0.8 1.4 0.6 0.8
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.5 1.2 1.4 0.5 1.2 1.4 2.3 1.2 1.4 Note 5
Max Depth tob, Dmaxtob (ft) 3.4 1.7 2.3 1.8 0.6 0.9 2.2 0.6 0.9
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.8 1.0 1.1 1.7 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.0 1.1 Note 6
Meander Length, Lm (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- Note 7
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf * --- --- --- --- --- --- Note 7
Radius of Curvature, Re (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- Note 7
Re Ratio, Rc/Wbkf * --- --- --- --- --- --- Note 7
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- Note 7
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf * --- --- --- --- --- --- Note 7
Sinuosity, K 1.27 1.1 1.3 1.14 1.10 1.20 1.17 1.10 1.20
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0115 0.0115 0.0251 0.0251 0.0381 0.0381
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0090 0.0090 0.0140 0.0140 0.0325 0.0325
Slope Riffle, Srif (ft/ft) --- 0.0099 0.0162 --- 0.0154 0.0252 --- 0.0358 0.0585
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan --- 1.1 1.8 --- 1.1 1.8 --- 1.1 1.8 Note 5
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft) --- 0.0001 0.0023 --- 0.0001 0.0035 --- 0.0003 0.0081
Pool Slope Ratio, S ool/Schan --- 0.01 0.25 --- 0.01 0.25 --- 0.01 0.25 Note 5
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft) --- 2.8 4.5 --- 1.0 1.8 --- 1.0 1.8
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf --- 2.0 3.0 --- 2.0 3.0 --- 2.0 3.0 Note 5
Pool Width, Wpool (ft) --- 20.0 30.5 --- 7.4 11.3 --- 7.4 11.3
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf --- 1.1 1.5 --- 1.1 1.5 --- 1.1 1.5 Note 8
Pool-Pool Spacing, Lps (ft) --- 27.3 101.7 --- 10.1 37.7 --- 10.1 37.7
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf --- 1.5 5.0 --- 1.5 5.0 --- 1.5 5.0 Note 5
d16 (mm) 9.82 9.82 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.7
d35 (mm) 43.00 43.00 0.6 0.6 1.8 1.8
d50 (mm) 90.00 90.00 1.0 1.0 7.1 7.1
d84 (mm) >2048 >2048 5.2 5.2 14.5 14.5
d95 (mm) >2048 >2048 8.5 8.5 27.4 27.4
*Existing stream values for UT2 and UT5 represent the entire reach and design values represent both reaches below the breached dam that are to be restored.
Notes:
A B stream type is appropriate for steeply sloped channels (generally greater than 0.02), with
steep fluvially dissected valleys.
z Bank-full discharge was estimated usingManning's equation.
3 A final W/D ratio was selected based on relationships of W/D ratio to slope in NC Piedmont
reference reach streams, as well as sediment transport analyses.
4 Required for stream classification.
s This ratio was based on past project evaluation of similar B type design channels.
6 A bank height ratio near 1.0 ensures that all flows greater than bank-full will spread onto a
floodplain. This minimizes shear stress in the channel and maximizes floodplain functionality
resulting in lower risk of channel instability.
Parameters were not derived since the channels are relatively straight (low sinuosity) and are
confined with in the valley.
8 Values were chosen based on reference reach database analysis and past project evaluation.
It is more conservative to design a pool wider than the riffle. Over time, the pool width may
narrow, which is a positive evolutionary step.
Appendix G
Reference Reach Conditions Summaries: Reach
Parameters, Longitudinal Profiles, Cross-Sections,
Bed Material Analyses, and Photographs
UTtrib to Mitchell River- Mickey Reach
XSEC1 was not measured due to debris
Existing Stream Design Stream Monitoring
2003 Monitoring
2004 Monitoring
2005 Monitoring
2006 Monitoring
2007
Parameter MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
Stream Type (Rosgen) B4 B4 B4 B4 B4 B4 B4 B4 B4 B4 B4 B4 B4 B4
Bankfull XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 13.1 16.2 13.1 16.2 7.4 13.6 11.6 13.1 7.5 11.7 9.1 12.2 5.3 11.2
Bankfull Width, Wbkf (ft) 11.7 21.7 11.7 21.7 11.5 27.0 10.0 18.0 8.5 23.7 8.8 19.7 10.8 14.9
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.6 1.3 0.6 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.6 1.3 0.5 0.9 0.5 1.1 0.4 1.0
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 10.1 30.4 10.7 17.0 12.3 53.7 7.8 34.2 9.7 48.1 7.7 34.3 10.4 40.1
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 18.0 410.0 20 410 35 410 35 40 35 40 35 40 35 40
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 1.1 32.0 1.7 32.0 2.2 3.7 1.9 3.5 1.7 4.1 2.0 4.0 2.7 3.2
Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 0.9 2.5 0.9 2.5 1.1 1.8 1.1 2.3 1.0 1.8 1.1 1.9 0.7 2.1
Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.3 1.9 1.1 3.1 1.5 2.4 1.4 2.9 1.4 2.6 1.6 2.7 1.0 3.0
Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft) 1.8 9.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.8 1.1 2.3 1.7 4.1 1.7 4.1 1.5 6.2
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 2.0 3.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Meander Length, Lm (ft) 70 280 70 280 70 280 70 280 70 280 70 280 70 280
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf 4.4 17.6 4.4 17.6 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16
Radius of Curvature, Re (ft) 19 47 28 47 28 47 28 47 28 47 28 47 28 47
Re Ratio, Rc/Wbkf 1.1 3.0 2.0 3.0 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) 18 65 18 65 18 65 18 65 18 65 18 65 18 65
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft) 1.1 4.1 1.1 4.1 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
Sinuosity, K 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.14 1.14 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396 0.0396
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0333 0.0333 0.0333 0.0333 0.0280 0.0280 0.0280 0.0280 0.0346 0.0346 0.0350 0.0350 0.0350 0.0350
Slope Riffle, Snf (ft/ft) 0.0057 0.0625 0.0057 0.0625 0.0276 0.0613 - - 0.0248 0.1010 0.0180 0.0720 0.0110 0.1220
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 0.2 1.9 0.2 1.9 1.0 2.2 - - 0.7 2.9 0.5149 2.0571 0.3143 3.4857
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft) 0.0000 0.0050 0.0000 0.0050 - - - - 0.0000 0.0190 0.0000 0.0580 0.0000 0.0570
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 - - - - 0.00 0.55 0.0000 1.6571 0.0000 1.6286
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft) 2.2 2.5 2.2 2.5 1.9 2.8 2.6 2.9 1.8 3.2 2.6 3.5 4.4 5.3
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 2.2 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.7 4.0 3.2 3.6 2.6 4.6 2.1 2.8 3.5 4.2
Pool Area, Apool (sq ft) 14.8 15.9 14.8 15.9 9.5 25.6 12.6 24.5 7.5 23.0 14.5 25.2 12.7 26.1
Pool Area Ratio, Apool/Abkf 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.9 2.3 1.0 2.0 0.7 2.3 1.4 2.4 1.5 3.2
Pool Width, Wpool (ft) 14.3 14.6 14.3 14.6 6.6 15.1 6.6 15.1 6.9 14.0 6.8 14.3 8.0 13.7
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 0.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.5 1.1 0.6 1.1
Pool Length, Lpool (ft) 13.0 18.0 13.0 18.0 5.0 25.0 - - 6.1 22.0 5.7 28.1 3.5 19.1
Pool Length Ratio, Lpool/Wbkf 0.8 1.1 0.8 1.1 0.3 1.5 - - 0.4 1.3 0.6 1.4 0.3 1.3
Pool-Pool Spacing, Lps (ft) 48.0 231.0 48.0 231.0 11.0 128.0 - - 11.0 105.0 9.0 121.3 5.9 114.6
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 3.0 14.5 3.0 7.0 0.6 7.5 - - 0.7 6.2 1.0 6.2 0.5 7.7
d16 (mm) 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 0.17 0.17 9.60 9.60 9.08 9.08 0.97 0.97 5.75 5.75
d35 (mm) 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 13.77 13.77 20.37 20.37 21.53 21.53 26.72 26.72 18.15 18.15
d50 (mm) 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.43 30.43 31.26 31.26 33.60 33.60 40.56 40.56 40.45 40.45
d84 (mm) 88.4 88.4 88.4 88.4 81.40 81.40 82.06 82.06 74.53 74.53 87.24 87.24 118.81 118.81
d95 (mm) 110.0 110.0 110.0 110.0 145.40 145.40 125.63 125.63 115.98 115.98 127.72 127.72 197.44 197.44
Mickey Reach
Longitudinal Profile
Station 0+00 to 5+00
500
495

VANE
490
XVANE
WA
485 XVANE
o XVANE
480

W A?
475

470

465

0 100 200 300 400 500
Distance (ft)
TW 2003 TW 2005 TW 2006 TW 2007
Mickey Reach
Longitudinal Profile
Station 5+00 to 10+00
480
XVA
LOG WIE
475

LOG V NE
VA
470
WANE
0
X2 6+68 Debris
W 465

XVANE
1 RO CK VANE
460

455

500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance (ft)
TW 2003 TW 2005 TW 2006 TW 2007
Mickey Reach
Longitudinal Profile
Station 10+00 to 15+00
460
NI WA
All, WANE
LOG WI R
455

ROCK VANE
a A,-
WAN E

X31 0+42
ANE
450
XVAN
0
XVANE
Ar'

W 445

x ANES
ANE
440

435

1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
Distance (ft)
TW 2003 TW 2005 TW 2006 TW 2007
Mickey Reach
Longitudinal Profile
Station 15+00 to 22+00
440
ANE
/
C
i
XVA
LO WEIR
435

X415 05 LO WEIR
1 WA

430 VANE
?
.? XVANF ,
o OG W EIR
W ANE
WA XV N E
425
W
C
KP
7 ANES
?
420

KP
X5 20+17 6 20+8 1
415

1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200
Distance (ft)
TW 2003 TW 2005 TW 2006 TW 2007
Mickey Reach
Cross Section 6+68 -- Pool
477
475
473 Ba kfull
0
a?
W 471
469
467
0 20 40 60 80
Distance (ft)
11/5/2002 3/31/2004 3/24/2005 3/29/2006 )K 3/15/1007
Mickey Reach
Cross Section 10+42 -- Riffle
466
464

462

w
460
Bankfull
W
458

456

454
0 20 40 60
Distance (ft)
11/5/2002 3/31/2004 3/24/2005 3/29/2006 )K 3/15/1007
Mickey Reach
Cross Section 15+05 -- Riffle
w
0
a?
W
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (ft)
11/5/2002 3/31/2004 3/24/2005 3/29/2006 X 3/15/1007
Mickey Reach
Cross Section 20+17 -- Pool
-
427
T
426
425
424 B nk ull
w
423
Wa2
422
421
420
419
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance (ft)
11/5/2002 3/31/2004 3/24/2005 3/29/2006 3/15/1007
Mickey Reach
Cross Section 20+81 -- Riffle
427
426
425 000,
424
00?
423
0
Oe,
422
W
421
420
419
418
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance (ft)
3/31/2004 11/5/2002 3/24/2005 3/29/2006 ?? 3/15/1007
2005 Sediment Particle Distribution by Layer
Mickey - XSEC3
100
90
80
70
60
L 50
d
a
40
30
20
10
.000 TA
T]]] [Hl [H T
- - Pavement
Subpavement
00
i
0-? 00
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
10000
Particle Size - Finer Than (mm)
2006 Sediment Particle Distribution by Layer
Mickey - XSEC3
100
90
80
70
60
L 50
d
a
40
30
20
10
T]]] T --T -I
- - Pavement
Subpavement '
.1 - 1. - ?? . - -.. 0
-ooo
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
10000
Particle Size - Finer Than (mm)
2007 Sediment Particle Distribution by Layer
Mickey - XSEC3
100
90
80
70
60
L 50
d
a
40
30
20
10
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
10000
Particle Size - Finer Than (mm)
2005 Sediment Particle Distribution by Layer
Mickey - XSEC4
100
90
80
70
60
50
L
d
a
40
30
20
10
Ile
T]]]
- - Pavement
Subpavement
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
10000
Particle Size - Finer Than (mm)
2006 Sediment Particle Distribution by Layer
Mickey - XSEC4
100
90
80
70
60
L 50
d
a
40
30
20
10
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
10000
Particle Size - Finer Than (mm)
2007 Sediment Particle Distribution by Layer
Mickey - XSEC4
100
90
80
70
60
L 50
d
a
40
30
20
10
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
10000
Particle Size - Finer Than (mm)
Sediment Distribution by Feature 2005
Mickey - Reach Wide Pebble Count
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
L 50.00
d
a
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Sediment Distribution by Feature 2006
Mickey - Reach Wide Pebble Count
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
L 50.00
d
a
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Sediment Distribution by Feature 2007
Mickey - Reach Wide Pebble Count
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
L 50.00
d
a
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Mickey Photo Log
r
4:. ?. f ??m s ^'s yr
?: r
VA
Y? ? . is q ? qtr
...
f?
?iF..bF. 4 2 y?l r 'M
003 PP1 220 Mar 05

m
aL..
t _Ty t .: iTn i ? ?

001 PP1 200 Dec 02
002 PP1 220 Mar 04
004 PP1 220 Mar 06
PP2 270 B4 restoration
la MO 1
Photo Lo

Y? 1F
?
5 7?

,
y
_
4
, 7
F-

OP
eI'

PP26F270 Mar 04

?
4 ?
p?
r r!' Yk?+-5,*,?
a •

`
?,

PP2 270 Mar 03
PP2 270 Mar 06
PP2 270 Mar 05
PP3 320 Dec 02
PP2 270 Mar 07
Mickey Photo Log
I yf AJ?i
aT Y
s?
_vie
'
?y C

I?

IL4
;ire
.ter w
:IX
Ift 1".
PP3 320 Mar 05
,4 a I iS?S ? .kk?
Ra ?K t n[4
r+ t:.? P ? F..,a
d ? ?TI S
? 4 ? kk

x i
qq f _
1? I f ? NjYfi7 e. p ?.ti 1
IW
i?M1
i ? P^ 1 t` J
/. L
PP3 320 Mar 04
PP3 320 Mar 07
PP3 320 Mar 06
PP4 325 Mar 04
PP4 325 Mar 03
Mickev Photo Lo
RR ? a.ti

f , .
+?pu
4 1C? a
h
i
i g
.. 41 t
SIC
y i i
PP5 350 Jan 03
PP4 325 Mar 07
PP4 325 Mar 06
PP5 350 Mar 03
PP5 350 Mar 04
PP4 325 Mar 05
rx
x
f
? r

r I?.

Photo Lo
d. ?a 4j
s?
la MO 1
s `. l

PP5 350 Mar 05
PP5 350 Mar 06
PP5 350 Mar 07
PP6 490 Dec 02
PP6 490 Mar 04
PP6 490 Mar 05
Mickey
'A X%g

ti
?r
Photo Lo
r ?i6
PP7 648 XSEC2 Mar 04
PP7 648 XSEC2 Dec 02
PP7 648 XSEC2 Mar 05
PP7 648 XSEC2 Mar 06
PP7 648 XSEC2 Mar 07c
PP8 675 XSEC2 Mar 04
la MO 1
ti.a 4a? 5
l ?

Photo Log
y

i

PP8 675 XSEC2 Mar 05
PP9 840 Dec 02
PP9 840 Mar 05
PP9 840 Mar 04
PP9 840 Mar 06
PP9 840 Mar 07
Mickev Photo Lo
im
.
?
s .
r I
I ?
„1_
.Y ? - 5!
51 Y:
t
n
lA 9 .+.. l 1

jw kw..

1 y i 1,5 ,°y. ,Q 1
..?? 1Y I I
., :
.4 Al
PP10 880 Mar 04
?3?"13 : ? ? .rE r
"°° L 7C r
! ) a
I

?i

4
L

G:v r r
,ate +' ,.? ••?,,?..
r<S. - ? aiA?.E
I ? A
I ?
x -+a a
PP10 880 Mar 05
1. 9 ,yk,? - -. A
rx.y ? Yf
7 .4

F°•ga. x.,6
X4
ylE%. N w
' T
PP10 880 Dec 02_c
PP10 880 Dec 02
PP10 880 Mar 06
PP10 880 Mar 07

Micke Photo Lo;
Al,
4 ,K J 4 #
d' VtV .
' 1 ,4a K1
a
^AEF-
P
9
7F, -'+R ?•..
' •
-
d
Wi,

y i ?yr Pik ?,- Ji?Y }
PP11 925 Mar 04

4: f-R
liow
l
? ,-
f ? ?E
r
yp ? ' H
4S`_9,`
PP12 1025 XSEC3 Mar 04
PP11 925 Dec 02
PP11 925 Mar 05
PP11 925 Mar 06
PP11 925 Mar 07

Mickey Photo Log
?J ? 7{.'i?' L F
i. Vl17
y.
rfi? 1 .. - _ k ?? x: r
?:_ +?a#..•e,.. sir ?a.r?

PP12 1025 XSEC3 Mar 05

p,s
Yk ? -
PP12 1025 XSEC3 Mar 07

PP12 1025 XSEC3 Mar 06

4. v
47.
. 4 __
* a

}

tRF r

PP13 1030 XSEC3 Mar 04
PP13 1030 XSEC3 Mar 05
PP13 1030 XSEC3 Mar 06
?.
. .4
<t ay n .
c # Y

4P JS .
.ig
,tT A
u ` ?A I ?
A

Micke Photo Lo
71
ii
.•?7 ? '?.?'' s ~?`''? ?` .ram ;
t ^4.
PP14 1051 Mar 05

dw P. .7.
mr
L r
5 y mar kz T? 5
F { iL ?"Y xl
?fY- ? G5 } f yrYk ? ?,ay y .. i , -
PP14 1051 Mar 07
PP 14 1051 Mar 04
PP14 1051 Dec 02
PP 14 1051 Mar 06
PP13 1030 XSEC3 Mar 07
k,

iFv
4W
r
PP15 1075 Mar 05_C
I7 S.?
fr
PP15 1075 Mar 07
Mickey Photo Log

s ,rr P. x

M .?

d rr
PP15 1075 Mar 04
PP15 1075 Mar 05
PP15 1075 Mar 06
PP16 1123 Dec 02
Mickev Photo Lo

y6 ? Irr :

1
r• ?Yy
MN ry?

drl?
f
I
y? e
try i ? ?? x.'.•??? -
! ?` Pik E ? }t K ? ?-?

PP16 1123 Mar 07

?,.
P, I ISM.
p
77-' 0
'
r F I
?
F
h L ....P i ?
Tr ±'i

PP 16 1123 Mar 04
PP16 1123 Mar 05
PP 16 1123 Mar 06
PP17 1225 Oct 03
PP17 1225 Mar 03
f

Mickev Ph
Now-
1
;!}y?y^?
11"4e t P'{.? ". h1; f7a Y Y y +. y, {Lby .. 4I`F .
? y $ ? i ?? 7? ?Y.? Yr * '}mss +r+l
J-A
yam-
s ®C`t d.'
c i
PP18 1382 B4 cxn July 02
i T
-4d May...
y ? J`MM Jry" ?fV ? a.
'k ti +e'?Sr'' y ?7.K "ems
PP18 1382 Dec 02
PP17 1225 Mar 04
PP17 1225 Mar 05
PP17 1225 Mar 06
PP17 1225 Mar 07
Micke Photo Lo
..y
?A
_ *• P .may,} '>: r I 1' i ..k, $A.
7 51
' r a+ +r
Wr-
?..
112-
tL. .6y?,,,? r }Y 4 rT?{ - ° .tea .-' ?1?? - 16? °? ?•,?
anFa.!R.twS i _. r<€:' SQL. f
PP19 1500 Mar 07

w of '
t°
!?;,'a??l... ,:'': °rl°{°:.'y v, t ;?? -t+•?: Jra?.?? C i?5'.fAs?'??I'Ch?4'?,?.
PP19 1500 B4 cxn July 02

4
.
IYa *
4
+

PP19a 1540 Mar 04

PP18 1382 Mar 06
PP 18 1382 Mar 05
44
I ti4
}4P f
Micke
Photo Lo
u , 1 `d
d ?.r f f fr 7P ? 11
'? r , d? l 1 9? k of t
( d ?
?
JS AL,
r
- .. Tai ''? •P'' ? _?'` xr''?,,
y P ?_4t
fwi,
PP20 2049 XSEC 6 Dec 02
?11f I f

.r
•5 + - l jW

PP20 2049 Mar 04

t
4. ilk,-
'F
P
T _ r
ry f
m y` °
f 'xf ,P
4j `
PP20 2049 Mar05
fs dt+?l f :.
555555 P,
PP19 1540a Mar 05
PP19 1540a Mar 06
PP19 1540a Mar 07
Mickey Photo Lo
r+r4y
,: 9,4. ??r `ea of }. 4' ?, j.. .. .. R???YY??! °y ?.r6 ip1's . ?'L', •x u.?: - ? p? ?5 I??+
??.'h f•- 'I t r Tall 4 Sr f y`'?.a :'??l?ay?i ?.
? • r?.r.? ^?r1 ..??sV? f T ,. irr s ??, ? f G ?R.r ?nry ° ?_ ?°? 'fir ? ?? ??-
? Y+'d19 „+P f ?? ??yS 4i
4
0 !7.
Y. ti •? s 1p ?
Y
. ii

PP20 2049 XSEC6 Mar05

X54:`. } f?' ,. ti r {?s ? 4 I r rY, ;
NXI
PP20 2049 Mar 06
Exhibits
311 i ,I ; I
N 66 i Gre r
?-
61
ee 1 Ja stown f
a
j h Point GUILFORD
COUNTY
r Pleasant arden
s A
62
r----- - ----- _ 62 - - 22
rch
h asville?
62
421
220 Lib
109 L (DU•nd n y?'?e
x I G D I r
Stally
VlD ON 1
I
Y -? 49
ti 64 fD rt? ville Siler City
eur
r r R OLPH
y a LINTY j
she o O 22
I
l ?.. ` CHATHAM
47 159 COUNTY
49
42
n e
n
s k 158

i
,Q!

t
R Project Site ve
k 902
'
m * 42

J }
I ti r.

5
4

r v

05
x 22
MONTGOMERY MOORE

" COUNTY 134 ? COUNTY ins
da .
40 109
Sr
0 2.5 5 10
8 Digit HUC - 03040103
X Miles
Ibemarle Bis o
Legend
County Boundary Exhibit 1.1
Project Vicinity Map
Mill Creek Site
ECOSySteITl
Randolph Co. NCDWQ Sub-basin
USGS H
drolo
ic Unit B.- Engin rimg NY, m.. S11. 2.
- '
R `ReM y
g s 31090
Map Prepared: July 23, 2007
Lp? %`yY

Nil

UT1
;I
ll UT2

Wet 1 UT5
y
rt
MC1 ,f.
Wet 2

'w , r .4l

,/ MC3 , ,.

t X11'! S I. ', ... r •., rr.L.; ..Y ' 1? ???.?1t ;'?"?$r.»

r UT7 MC4
J r UT 8

f ?
•f n?'ir ?._.rd 4 ~ *' }?1v ^Ir' KJtr1J +?lj y ill,fr ,} ,? fy n y '' '??,l r? ,?i?,
".
?? , C
l
` ?+
f1?+?'
r ' ?
'1rro
?4
1
Ji ?I ?? ? IJI r
y
t
r f ?
w`t,
Ak
i ? 7 ., -•d t "?? J/,gin 'th r? ?•..
UT9
r • : j r
r F'r, - r
? {r-Jr ?` ! • fi !1 '? f { ' iA / r T`. - ?r(,x•?2 r i 1
?! r Jy1? !?'A I / r I,f•/?Y .??? r/ ??'l?
? ,?,;rC??. ?,-
, t?r',
n. 4?`???•Y'
r ly dr r
•A _r
1
?
?cc
'
?
,` r, r ,,
yyy
Yyu?
'"#`a a r,? y ti''? S
..
?
.' A!4 }r
•rd '?y
" ?i4r ?? ?
{ry r ? }? } r . r A A? y+?,t`y. ??? r ?•r ? y ? i ?' 'A r I+???' ??y,?•
?? ?r ??,,,.
tY ?TT 7
71
v
' fl
'? i
?
'
Y ? y
'
f i 7'y'.! , .; •1:;
? tt ti'k? ?? r r" •.7 .
,.
Kr
.
f{y
..,-rI
'_
r • d ti 5. • t?}?,, w.r r? t , S ? e
. uI X
M. r
"1 r7, eC A.? ??!
?- ,
?
. t4 ` ?'r?A•f% r
?
.' IkIp . "
?
s
E r
?
,
,`
.
4r y; s ? "j ri Jr ;.;,
?• ?x ,? i :>W, r 1 .^ pr1.`'.. i 1 ?G.
'?` ?7'?' ,? ? ? ? ?,! r
?
. ? , yy
L
??? rS ? K T V , r ?
f i ? J
ir. . fj i J '.
'1
!?'? ir., rr
'? r .:
r ? ?
4
. .. ,
?!
p
r r4 y, k! r7
?+,?• 11 yr .y ;(F?i11 fj iy'•?e? ? f. r,.
'\ ' is LD^e
?+?'' } : '
'? ,?Yi? r
?f r1'r
9
• •1 ? y,
? ' !? k
{°
•r ?' ! ?
11
v J+P. y gr? .•
i 4.' ! .r
???? ??S 1 ?
Y
J r
x ? `
t
,
,?
,
r , `
4
,
n
tiwc ',. a ,Y n Fps jr .f?,; ter y'
r ?„ ti- rr, rrf? !? , r d?.• -pt?r
x
r r ? ; ? ; .1si /?i ',! . ,? r' ? ??.4 :. y?t? • ?. ,? ? ? rcr
? Y., b ,-y/;. 1'c
r4r.
••
?
?1.
}t!'I1
fs?
11
?,'
dr
kyr.
?,t
rj
r?1y
s1•
417 ?
,?
r ?
??'nyr,^?
,
?
.
?
? t
y
,( a'? ?7.{A' i .,. h?, 0? 750 11500

/??:'rs?J
r ??
? r ?
f ^ 3V
+ + Feet
?, .. '?; ,"!1 •?.. ., ? tit
.
7
?
i
7
q s ' t t,y \ ,trti .., tea; ,
Stream Corridor Boundaries/Conservation Easement Exhibit 1.2 - Site Location Map
Mill Creek Site
H
dro -Ri vers/Streams Hydrologic Unit (8 digit) = 03040103
y
Ecosystem Project Parcel Boundary DWQ Sub Basin = 03-07-09
I-y

h= 2 1111
.,
Map Prepared: July 23, 2007; Revised October 17, 2007
%
•.? ' 1 II '?..? i? v\ I ? I ?' _II 11 al ? - v +.::?. ??'?- ? .'1
- i :III I r `'1 t `
fY {'°v } ?? 1 ? 1}+ - -- ? '? I r? L j I
i? 'Soo
+ 0.05 m I '= ? - -'? ?• ?' + k r ' ? ???' T I _ - '
r},I ?- -. , f ? ?{ ? r-°' ilf i irf ?;??• ? '? + M ? icy:, ?, I 1?? ?, ?
.. { UT2z -r f ?IIlr'f --1I?I .? y+,!?I?lI I`4`5y ?5"yk
_ II r F XJY UT6.2
: 0.06 ml 0.06 ml IIti fy.- III ?? I rr 1 -
'AV ?l?y `. "- ?5 1.32 ml : ? "? I?? 1? ?? •'? ? 'I'li 'i v" ? :? 0.53 mi {..
o.08m12
r ? :J{:l,l ,, `•?/1 ki4 0.17 m12 ?rr ? 'a \? t? ? ?-?} +' ? -
;try
f Y? `1 ?? 111!!Y? i? r lit 1 4?1 , i {?! Ilr l ?Y / }
1: :A
- °?)l l 'I, i' X11 9e`
n ! 4t` 11ti I ( UT9 a5 ?` I'll :!! { + f'kx,? ! i+ .? i,
:
y 1 f 0.49 ml r . .?Iv f•r --? '°+?I i :' i 11 yll 1 '
: 1f
. ??M1 ' t 11 i !, (,?; , 1 ?,yr? , ? ? r ;?' ! I r ff' •° ?° 1 ? '?, I :s y , i ,I' I II ?' ' ._
IPI \ I' II I ITII' it I 1'' 5C' \ ,?" kx k k1 5 f '1 1Z? 'i ?i f / . ? I till I .ryv-
% 1 f?f? }-
I I 1 a l ? ? ? ?? ; t .IJ { :f
1 1 fly,+. ('J ,, \ I1J y .y
,? If11 I ?• { f} ? Y1 ? ,.? III I 7} ? ? r ??' ,. 1 , %: ,r ?-
if ff„ r11 !+°f 4"if[6
(, I 'lI II 'Y'j/ II ?r )
M1
1 141 ix ? YSI?' 11',?n5 ?'I t-? 1 .'y f'? k { 1 .'yl ff} 1 1
%y
* I 4v f yi ' I 15 I 'I? III`i ° h1 1 I 1'I°?l l? , #
'?. II 11
I Ei?r`?51 ,•{??f I I I ???5 _? 11Jllr +ff :'`ice I~
I'j
Tt
Iffy ? 7` `? ?:
f'
f( ,
4 y ? I ? ? ? ? ? y r {5'r I } l ? {' ?
c- lr l/? if !f,IfJ'III
%
k, 111. I 1 ?' •f I,.,fh ;.;' =r k, 0 750 1,500
4 , may:. IIII I -? li}L??_+?I r ff, ICI ?? Feet'
17
fill,
v 15 ` ?; I I J11 s i5 '. I 7 I.4 y II 1 .1 },\ x f a ?I?'
Watershed Boundary Stream Restoration Exhibit 1.3
?• Watershed Map
- Riparian Enhancement - Stream Enhancement I Mill Creek Site
Ecosystem 0 Filling In - Stream Enhancement 11 guoeROngineeringNVlnc.
o-YPa,-v
,RO R M Stream Preservation Wetland Creation 6,545
Map Prepared: July 23, 2007
N
Lkk Wet 1
MC1

UT4
-n dw

ga 4yI f
p aF +
'
S{ ry?f
C
]J?IIC?9
"!
F ?
• ?.1
" ti?
,?v?
?fJr? 4
ir
I
UT6
MC2
UT7
rt mvp
MC3
UT8
W ., .'1
MC4 A
A" A
1 {3 .§?? a ?,,.? b ? -?. .j'g FJd } . ? J ., }.'I} r Y? ?
m
`?' r?9 F. j y'? .;'r• ??f'r' 4°r
A m
e 1' Iry M4 •' ,4f
F
'r ' V l r i° w f ? ? Y {>...r°:
r a r
'?r y•
i

1r*?
rP ? .'.s ? ??
r?i
?# ?_ ??
}? '-•? .
•
?I' i ? ??. ?'a?r
.
j?
'y
'}?
m,
?
.
y? o- ?` .+'7?yyrj?y+ L -
7 !r ?h'F'° ?' m
Y + A 'em ?. ,r• k d °
r red 'rt ll. any ?'" F I
PPP
° ?
F
m .
7
, x ' r T P tp 4
k
9

? jl'r. r ?-, ry' v
? ?,?!
7,??ij??r f
r? }?f 4i R h 4
? 1P
'tip
.q .Y4 Wy?`?,S?i ..{?,??
'?' +.Y!??°? . ? ? ? +'I' r I. *• ^ ? tti ?y r
Yy ly
r 5,?r M. L °,}.'1° • •}r
? ?.r'. .. * * ,?:
.
e
,?
.*. i.+
+.
7
j
,
+'f '•aa!Rl'?r{
• I. ''g 4
?
?
?
,
y
Y
;
?
d?
Gi'f
4 r I
f
4 ,k17
r
? AS i+ ? tf ?L •.'?-.??Ry '? 4t •'f4{a a l
.
4 p
t
*
f? ?{+ a, 4
e Ag ?d r i / 5 ?1 "
" sJ s
r*
,`
myy
i
7 r - rs ! !' ??y?"` 7-!' ? y }'(
.? ,?. t? ?? "?? * (R ' ?
ra * a
y
!? '
e
F t ?IkS 4th. ,y V}far fr'
..+ ? I>F ?.!}k ?t?•
4 ?,.? ?
rF
m
! ?
J
'af
???i; i
i 2#1,%%, 3.
r,{
?x__ ?,?e
.
4 (yLyr i.' ,} 5y? fr },_ ?
*
m
.
Afm P _r 1'
I'Iq 5 .:. P•
4i
? W,' I
l .
5 ?
?S
'
4 ?
f p A
1 P? °
Y
Y
?
? 9
f hra
* ,t
Y}? /Jr
J e
, +
, h j
V_. •+ ?}'° r
a ?,
P
m
y }
F:?
?
?y
,
#
1
rM
* '°k R?'^a J ?a
0 750 1,500 'S
Feet °

Parcel Boun dary Stream Restoration Exhibit 1.4 - Proposed
r~ - Riparian En hancement - Stream Enhancement I Stream and Wetland Approach

Ecosystem Filling In -Stream Enhancement II °°
- Y a
.,
v?o??aM Stream Preservation Wetland Creation
Map Prepared: July 23, 2007
¦
Entrenchment
Ratio -
WidthlDepth Low moderate
Ratio width/depth ratio to High wle
Low Moderate Moderate
Sinuosity Sinuosity Sinuosity Sinuosity
(t1-2) {>1-7.) [11.2]
N Stream
Slope slop. range slope, range: slope range
a0-10 0.04- 0.02- X0.02 0.02- 10.02
slope r ncin
slope range
Fig. 7.12 - R.osgen`s stream classification system (Level 11).
In Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices, 10199.
Interagency Su a Restoration Working Group (FI5RWG)(i5 Federal agencies of the US).
Source: Rosgen, David L., Applied River Morphology, Wildland Hydrology, 1996
ept
slope range
(AO) (c4o)
Low Low-Hi
Sinuosity Sinuosity
? L) J Dq
slope. range= slope
.02- .001- :.001 1.005
Exhibit 2.1
Rosgen Stream Classification
Mill Creek Restoration Plan
widtlildepth ratio widt
[>12} (<I2
Moderate Very
Sinuosity Sinu,
(>l.7) [>l.`,
After: Lane, 1955
Exhibit 2.2
Factors Influencing Stream Stability
Class I. Sinuous, Premodified he = critical bank height
h<hc
direction of bank or
h bed movement
Class II. Channelized Class III. Degradation Class IV. Degradation and Widening
h<hc h<hc h>hc
floodplain terrace
i
I F I ?f
h 7)?L
slumped material
Class V. Aggradation and Widening
h>hc
terrace
t
h
slumped
material
aggraded material
Class I Class III
Class IV
Class VI. Quasi Equilibrium
h<hc r_
to k Class V
p ban
precursor 9e
nickpoint of direction Class VI
of ri ... MEN=
secondary
nickpoint
oversteepened reach aggradation zone aggraded material
Source: Simon, 1989; US Army Corps of Engineers, 1990.
Fig. 7.14 -- Channel evolution model..
In Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices, 10/98.
Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG)(15 Federal agencies of the US).
Exhibit 2.3
Simon Channel Evolution Model
Source: Simon, 1989
I- aggraded material
a) G to C conversion
A A'
;}Fill- - Pr
Pond -?? _ -
Filr From Pond
b) F to C conversion
Q
a
B B'
\ Cut Cut /
? r
\ New Floodplam /
Fill
c) F to C conversion
C C'
Cut Cut
New Flocdplain
\ r ?
Cross Section View

\
ti
6 ?
1
i
Plan View

r
i
I
s? \
Long Profile
Source: Rosgen, David L., "A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration
of Incised Rivers," Proceedings of the Conference on Management of
Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision, 1997
r r_
J /f
1\
d) G to B conversion

e) F to Bc conversion
cut Cut"j \\ --1.
f) Stabilize in place
Exhibit 2.4
Restoration Priorities for Incised Channels
Cross Section View
Channel Dimension Measurements
B
KFULL
a
z
M
rn
Incised Channel
'_FLOOD PR0NE_WIDTH
X
M
*-T©P QF BANK
,.k
NKF . ULL WIQ_TH__ ? BANKFULL
ELEVATION
(break in slope
indicator)
WATER SURFACE
THALWAG
Bankfull Elevation is associated with the
channel forming discharge. It is the point
where channel processes and flood plain
processes begin.
Bankfull width: the distance between the
left bank bankfull elevation and the right
bank bankfull elevation
Bankfull mean depth: the average depth
from bankfull elevation to the bottom of the
stream channel
Max_,-death (dmax): the deepest point within
the cross-section measured to the bankfull
elevation
Width to Depth Ratio: Bankfull width
Bankfull mean depth
Bank Height Ratio: Bank height (measured
from top of hank to the bottom of the
stream channel) : the max depth of the
bankfull elevation (dmax)
Flood Prone Width: Width measured at the
elevation of two times (2x) the maximum
depth at bankfull (dmax)
Entrenchment Ratio: Floodprone width
bankfull width
Exhibit 2.5
Channel Dimension Measurements
Design Criteria Selection
Is there a reference reach
upstream with a stable
riffle & same valley slope?
Yes> <No
Reference Reach Reference Reach Reference Reach
Survey Database Review Search
Ratios Reference Reach
Reference Reach survey if possible
Ratios as
design criteria
Regime/ Literature
review equations
Past Project
Evaluation
Ratios
Regime Equations
Select Design Ratios
and Equations
Review of
monitoring data
Regime Equations
& Ratios
Exhibit 2.6
Design Criteria Selection
1000
O Leopold, Wolman & Miller, 1964
d Leopold, Wolman & Miller, 1964 (upper outliers)
O
Trendline (Colorado Date + Upper outliers: Leopold,
Wolman & Miller, 1964)
Trendline (Leopold, Wolman & Miller, 1964)
100
a?
a?
E
E
a?
a?
E
T 10
a
a?
m
o.
CO
0
1
0.1 +-
0.001
Colorado Data + upper outliers:
Leopold, Wolman & Miller, 1964
Power Trendline
Dia.(mm) = 253.7 7co 9672
0010
R2=0.9511 / lO
Leopold, Wolman & Miller, 1964 /
Power Trendline
Dia.(mm) = 77.966 7 ' 042
R2 = 0.9336
0.0`1 0.1
T, = Critical Shear Stress ( Ibs / SgFt. )
1
From USEPA Watershed Assessment of River Stability & Sediment Supply (WARSSS) v1.0)
Exhibit 2.7
Modified Shield's Curve
Mill Creek Restoration Plan
10
J-Hook
Rock Vane

- kx
i
a
`4°
Exhibit 2.8
Examples of In-Stream Structures
Mill C reek Restoration Plan
Double Wing Deflector
Rock Cross Vane

N
o!
Soil Types
.? BaB - Badin-Tarrus complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes GbC- Georgeville silt loam, 4 to 15 percent slopes, extremely stony
Bac - Badin-Tarrus complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes GdE - Georgeville silt loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes, extremely bouldery
BaD - Badin-Tarrus complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes GeC2 - Georgeville silty clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded
.?

-
k BaE - Badin-Tarrus complex, 25 to 45 percent slopes
Bt132 - Badin-Tarrus complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderat
BtC2 - Badin-Tarrus complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes, modera
CfA- Chenneby silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flo
ChA- Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flood
DoB - Dogue sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, occasionally GoC- Goldston very channery silt loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes
ely eroded Mc132 - Mecklenburg clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded
tely eroded McC2 -Mecklenburg clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, moderately eroded
oded ShA- Shellbluff silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
ed StB - State silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
flooded W- Water
rtr? . }"?*r??
9h Ap?h? C ?.
Do6 h4r?h R
UT1 McB2
BtB2
ChA GeC2
McC2 GeC2 7.,

UT2
UT5 ?L

Wet 1 wl BtB2

Wet 2 L.

+?
,+ 14
MC1

r '`
`
?
+
y Bt C2 f d'r
l
r'
r?/
?
r
q
Y ,?.. {tl f}r
?
UT4 ' r*..
A -4
",.'a 5
e f 1 F
GoC r *?

em. }'yBaD
w.
GdE
r
F r "
v 4 I
r

W
ShA
* .
GbC;
r. BtB2 74
f

McC2
;`', ,•
,
- BtB2 X

StB 4 GdE
McB2
0 500 1,000
ShA
Do6 '
'
Feet
- Riparian Enhancement Stream Enhancement I Exhibit 4.1 - Soils Map for
r~
Filling In
-Stream Enhancement II
Mill Creek Stream Reaches
Fac?tem 0 Stream Preservation Wetland Creation , , y °°

h= 2 1111
. ,
Stream Restoration Parcel Boundary ."a«3s?Map Prepared: July 23, 2007

-now
UT1
FUT2 r+ M+
T
UT57

Wetland
Creation 2 ,
(0.2 ac)
e f
Y?
A

UT4 f.
VO,
Aid
13r p ? ?,G p' ? 16
0 500 1,000
* '* Feet
Exhibit 5.1
Parcel Boundary Cross Sections Site Hydrology & Cross-Sections Map
Wetlands • Monitor Wells Mill Creek Site
2 Bake Bngin P-I. NV, Inc.
Hydro - Rivers/Streams ° 899o9 wa,kww
Ecosystem
vn OGwntit Fxx:n91Y 4ti3549 as
Map Prepared: July 23, 2007
Map Prepared: July 23, 2007
N
North
( , aroIina
Reference Site
E en
Mikey Reach) e%y
c
? I Of I
SUR STOKES oneville
'F
COUNT
Dobs i COUNTY Danb Mayo an Oar
s ilot Mountain Madi Wentworth
ROCKINGHAM
I? COUNTY Reidsville
i
WILKES , Vadk Wain
al
COUNTY King 'E. EL461
!Elkin_ vJ - _
esville Boonville R ral Hall • ----__ __-_
Arlington East Bend Tobac ville FORSYTH 15tokesdale
COUNTY ummerfield t
YADKIN Bet ania V
a' ak Rid
COUNTY Walkertown
i Yadkinville
' - inston-Salem KernersA
NUnt? + Lewisville K Greensboro Gibsonvill
?'9 Cr apt SGlee Sedalia
°e1r---------- abet I FORD
Creek emmo s I COU
i
ove Valley ______I z Gte Jam town
'High Point
armon DA E Q?p'p? ' Pleasant Garden
COU
South Yad . River I - ` - -- -- - ?_ _
Mocksvill Thomasmille Archdale
IREDELL I I Trin
COUNTY Liberty
!+ Ccla'-te'emee \ DAVIDSON I Ran an
Statesville COUNTY Lexingt n C Stale
eland nklinville
Y _ ?Q m seur
Troutman Spencer Asheboro
iGtee? S isburyEast `mow +
lac ROWAN Denton ? RAN OLPH O
COUNTY Granite Quarry q i C NTY ma
?.
M ores II Faith
k Chi Grove Project Site 2•
j Landis Rockwell x
eagrove
---'------ Gold Hill ? -
Davi son -----. --- ----s-- - r
e ius Kan apolis C BARRU %
NT S chfe d A
O Y
ew London + k MOORE
bins
Huntersville oncor Mount PI saryt ST NLY Ba r M NTGOMERY, Star 'CO
ECKLENBURG, CO TY COUNTY
0 5 10 20 SFr Ibemarle? Troy Biscoe '
Miles
Loeusi Can or
Exhibit 6.3
r * Mill Creek Location J!i County Boundary Stream Reference Site Location
Reference Site Major Rivers/Streams Mill Creek Site
Ecosystem 0 Municipality Boundary 1ooeRg"e'yP",kw918'"`
lh-
Map Prepared: July 23, 2007
?" I , i I I I I k?mil" ? ?5
+ \ I s5 n ~} i y?
VA
f f I ?i ? 5 5 +, I ? 1 r? ?4
q n-
\5 +" 7h m p.70? \ il+ ?ti ~ - .._ - +f I k _ ' k 15,45 3
I V,
4 {
4 Mickey Reach
/ - 0.45 miz X151(1 x5 ..
01
??z
r ? ys t I }
NII
l?? I c }x i s I- u? 0 1,000 21000
{ I I :k 7 I 1 --`f Feet
Exhibit 6.4
?. Reference Site Watershed Map
Watershed Boundary Mill Creek Site
Ecosystem Mickey Reach Reference Site 0RE.nginc? Parkwen PI-NV Inc.
10,2y
.org Notln 111114125,9
arzo?2wt.? Pax n9?5 a8i 515088
Map Prepared: July 23, 2007
CwE
R. CsA I
w BbC
BbC' BbC BbD
xF
EcE
TCC
BbC BbD
BaC
EcD
wD

CwE

a.s CwD 4
Soil Types
BaC - Bandana-Tate-Nikwasi complex, 0-15% slopes, frequently flooded CxF - Cowee-Saluda-Evard complex, 45-90% slopes, rocky
_ BbB - Braddock fine sandy loam, 2-8% slopes EcD - Evard-Cowee complex, 15-25% slopes, stony
BbC - Braddock fine sandy loam, 8-15% slopes EcE - Evard-Cowee complex, 25-45% slopes, stony
_ BbD - Braddock fine sandy loam, 15-25% slopes TcC - Tate-Colvard complex, 0-15% slopes, frequently flooded
CsA- Colvard and Suches soils, 0-3% slopes, occasionally flooded W - Water
_ CwD - Cowee gravelly loam, 15-25% slopes, stony WoD - Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield complex, 15-25% slopes, stony
® CwE - Cowee gravelly loam, 25-45% slopes, stony
Exhibit 6.5
?.
0 1,000
2,000 Reference Site Soils Map
Mill Creek Site
Ecosystem

RO?awen Feet a00 eEn
r5ginee -NV Inc.
oe?oY Par??v
Cary. ""th c".I"" 27519
ax n8'19 aft'i.549088
Map Prepared: July 23, 2007

-
NORTH CAROLINA eean eua wear enawa a °Mpa Meert
r
7
1
Nc 1094 i 37
uw'HARRIE;"- ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

AT IlONAL
Lassiter RANDOLPH COUNTY
1 Wil

Miuseek
1 LOCATION: LASSHER MILL - OFF
i
T BLACK N(7N
P
E
AR
A HIGH PINE CHURCH ROAD
r ,
'?
,?? '? i F R E S T TYPE OF WORK: STREAM RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENT/PRESERVATION
WETLAND CREATION
A
;N UrA
ea
VICINITY MAP SHEET 11 79° 58'16" W
OAD
ItER M1?L R. 35° 33' 21" N
,ASS
INDEX OF SHEETS UT4
1 TITLE SHEET
1-A STREAM CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
/'
GENERAL NOTES, STANDARD
SPECIFICATIONS
AND SNEfT
8
,
VEGETATION SELECTION (
1-B CONVENTIONALSYMBOLS
2 TO 2-C TYPICAL POOL AND
I I
RIFFLE CROSS SECTIONS,
STRUCTURE DETAILS t
3 QUANTITIES AND CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE t
4 TO 11 PLAN VIEW OF PROPOSED AND
I
i EXISTING STREAM DESIGN UT5 t
12TO14 LONGITUDINAL PROFILES (tlr -MILL CREEK (
15 TO 18 REVEGETATION PLAN SHEET 9 I
EC-1 TO EC-13 EROSION CONTROL
SHEET 8 SHEET 7 1 1 Lu
I
I?
I
If

y I
UT2 I i
y
? t t
PO SNE? 5 .'/??

?V A 790 5832W
'
"
35 33
24
N
, (I
F ?l

PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DA TA PREPARED FOR TIM OFFICE OF. . PROJECT ENGINEER
Baker
:°x'1
40 20 0 40 BO EXISTING STREAM LENGTH = 21644 FEET
'N
- ® ?" auam+8
PROPOSED RESTORATION STREAM LENGTH = 983 FEET w
?
PLANS PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT STREAM LENGTH = 4
859 FEET KEVIN TWEEDY
PE

Q

40

20 0 40 80

PROPOSED PRESERVATION STREAM ,

LENGTH = 15,802 FEET

' ,
_
PWOJZCr
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR WNeT8aC17aN
PROPOSED RIVERINE WETLAND CREATION = 1.10 AC e m
09?y's
E
I?C
1t
S
E
8

0 PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) la ?
DAM WARD ELIS

4 PROGRAM axo/ssr AMM+ce1z
5 0 5 10
( CONTACT.• WATSON ROSS JOSHUA
WHITE
PG
PROFILE (VERTICAL) Pwpcrm4wom .
,
raojwrnuszwm stam7vas Pe
STREAM CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS GENERAL NOTES .. PROJECT ENGINEAU
SUPERCEDES SHEET 1B
0
00 ROCK J-HOOK -?- SAFETY FENCE
1. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL INSTREAM STRUCTURES USING PRELIMINARY PLANS
oO NOT USE FOR CONFTRUMON
A TRACK HOE WITH A HYDRAULIC THUMB OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO PLACE
aam ROCK VANE -TF- TAPE FENCE BOULDERS 5'X 4'X 3', LOGS, AND ROOTWADS.
OUTLET PROTECTION -FP- 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN 2. WORK IS BEING PERFORMED AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PLAN.
THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAKE ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REDUCE

ROCK CROSS VANE
-+
CONSERVATION EASEMENT SEDIMENT LOSS AND MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE OF THE SITE WHILE
PERFORMING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK
oker Ingi w" N$ Im.

DOUBLE DROP ROCK CROSS VANE
- - - - -
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
3. CONSTRUCTION IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN VNNTER 2007. eft
i ' o ?? aneir
4, CONTRACTOR SHOULD CALL NORTH CAROLINA "ON-CALL" BEFORE F
SINGLE WING DEFLECTOR - - - - - EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR EXCAVATION STARTS. (1.600.632-4949)
DOUBLE WING DEFLECTOR FOOT BRIDGE

TEMPORARY SILT CHECK ; TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
ROOT WAD Fug PERMANENT STREAM CROSSING STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
o LOG J-HOOK (D TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
o LOG VANE )K TREE REMOVAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL
® LOG WEIR 251 TREE PROTECTION DECEMBER 1993
LOG CROSS VANE DITCH PLUG
6.06 CONSTRUCTION. ENTRANCE
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE 6.62 SILT FENCE
oa o BOULDER CLUSTER 6.63 ROCK DAM

i' ROCK STEP POOL
"'NOTE; ALL ITEMS ABOVE MAY NOT BE USED ON THIS PROJECT
BARE-ROOT VEGETATION VEGETATION SELECTION
The following table lists bare-root vegetation selection for the project site. Species shall
be planted at a density of 460 stems per acre. Exact placement of species will be BARE-ROOT WETLAND VEGETATION
determined prior to site planting and based on apparent wetness of planting locations.
The following table lists bare-root vegetation selection for the project site. Species shall
P ercent be planted at a density of 460 stems per acre, Exact placement of species will be
Common Name Scientific Name Planted by Planting Density determined prior to site planting and based on apparent wetness of planting locations.
Species Green Ash Praxinuspennsylvanics 20% 92 stems per acre
Stream Restoration Buffer
Sycamore Plafanus occldentella 20% 92 stem a per acre
River Birch Betuis nigra 15% 42 stems per acre
Sugarberry Celtislaevlgate 5% 14 stems per acre Sugarberry COWS Isevigata 10% 40 stem a per acre
Green Ash Fraxlnuspennsylvanlca 10% 28 stems per acre Cottonwood Populusdeltoldies 5% 23 stems per acre
BIackWalnut Juglansnigra 5% 14 stems per acre Overcup0ak Quercuslyrata 16% 69 stems per acre
Sycamore Platenusoccidentalls 20% 56 stems per acre Tog A lder AInusserrulato 15% 69 stems per acre
Swamp Chestnut
Oak Quercusmichauxil 10% 28 stems per acre 89 stems acre
Silky Dogwood Cornusamomum 16% per
Willow Oak Quercusphellos 8% 22 stems per acre
Northern Red Oak Ouercus rubs 7% 19 stems per acre
Persimmon Diospyros virginiana 10% 28 stems per acre
Black Gum Nyssssylvatlcs 104E 28 stems per acre
Early Successional Shrubs and Trees LIVE STAKING
Symphorlcarpos 6% 9 stemaperacre
coralberry orbiculatus Live staking will be applied to all restored streambanks following the details In this plan
Southern 10% 18 stems per acre set and according to the construction specifications.
Arrowwood Viburnumdentafum
Virginia Sweetspire lteavirginica 6% 9 stems per acre
Common Elderberry SambucusCanadensis 10% 18 stems per acre s
1452stem
per acre
Se
li
x
serlcaa
30%

Chicksaw Plum
Prunussugustilolla
5%
9 stems per acre per acre
484
stems
Black Willow Sa
ll
nigra
10%
x
Common
10% 16 stems per acre Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum 40% 1936 stems per acre
W lnterberty Ilex vertfcillate Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 20% 968 stems per acre
Silky Dogwood Cornusamomum 15% 27 stems per acre
Flowering Dogwood Cornustlorlda 15% 27 stems per acre
Eastern Redbud Carciscanadenals 10% 18 stems per acre
Swamp Rose Rosa palusfris 10% 18 stems per acre
Parsely-leaf 6% 9 stems per acre
Hawthorn Crateagusmarshallii
TEMPORARY SEEDING
The following table temporary seed mix for the project site. All disturbed areas will be
stabilized using mulch and temporary seed.
Common Name Rate Dates
ANNUAL RYE (COOL SEASON) 70 LBSiACRE SEPTEMBER TO MARCH
MILLET (WARM SEASON) 25 LBSIACRE APRIL TO AUGUST
PERMANENT SEEDING
Permanent seed mixtures for the restoration site. Permanent see mixtures shall be
applied with temporary seed, as defined In the construction specifications.
Common Name Scientific Name Percent of Seeding Density Wetness
Mixture (lbdaae) Tolerance
Streembank Floodplain and Weiland Areas
Blgbluestem Andropogongsrardil 5% 0.8 FAG
Tick wed Bidensfrorrdosa 6% 1.3 FACW
Hop sedge Cerarlapulina 5% 0,8 OBL
Shallow sedge Cararturlde 5% 0.8 OBL
Tussock sedge Carey stride 5% 0.8 OBL
Fox sedge Carerwdplnoides 5% 0.8 OBL
River oats Chasnenthlumla0ralium 5% 0.8 FAC-
Lance led coreopals Corasafslanowlets 5% ae FACU
Virginiawildrye ElymusNrglnlcus 15% 2.4 FAC
Purple lovegrass Eregrodls4mutobllis 2% 0.3 FACU
Soft rush Juncusel/usus 5% 0.8 FACW+
Pink M uhly grass Muhlanaargiscaplllarls 2% 0.3 FACU
Switchgrass PanicumOrgatum 10% 1.8 FAC+
PennsylvaiaSmartweed Pdygonumpaarsylvaniaxn 8% 1.3 FACW
Littleblueelem Sixrlmrhyrlumsal-rium 5% 0.8 FACU
Indlangrass Sorgestrumnrnans 6% 0.8 FACU
Gamma grass Tripdoumdadylold- 6% 0.8 FAC+
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
*S•U.E = SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEER DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS BUILDINGS & OTHER CULTURE
ROADS fH RELATED ITEMS
Edge of Pavement .... ...... MINOR Recorded Water Line ..................... w w Buildings .......... ............. 923
Curb ... , .... ..... ...... Head & End Wall ....... .............. co?w1 Designated Water Line (S.U.E *) - .-- w- Foundations .......... f
Prop, Slope Stakes Cut Pipe Culvert ......... ` - - - Sanitary Sewer - - -... __mss-ss- Area Outline .. CM
Prop. Slope Stakes Fill ...................... _ _ _ Footbridge ........... - _ _ - - _ _? Recorded Sanitary Sewer Force Main .... ?ss_rss- Gate ........ ....... ....
Prop, Woven Wire Fence ....... e e Drainage Boxes ..... ........................ El CB Designated Sanitary Sewer Force Main(S.U.E, Gas Pump Vent or UG Tank Cap a
'?-rss-rss-
Prop. Chain Link Fence .... B B Paved Ditch Gutter Recorded Gas Line ... - . - - - - ??- Church
Prop. Barbed Wire Fence ... ...... 0 Designated Gas Line (S.U.E.•) School ........ ...... ..
Prop, Wheelchair Ramp © UTILITIES Storm Sewer........... ??- Park ........ .......
Curb Cut for Future Wheelchair Ramp . . . . . CEO
Exist. Guardrail .............. Exist. Pole Recorded Power Line ........................ ??- Cemetery ........ ? 7
- ? ? -r- ?- ? - .......
...... ' Designated Power Line (S.U.E.*) ...... _ .?_ -w_ _ Dam.... ......... .......
Prop, Guardrail Exist. Power Pole ..... ....... + Sig
Recorded Telephone Cable . . . . . -r-r- n
Equality Symbol .... ....... ? Prop. Power Pole ... ..... ... d P
_ Well ............................ ... ... o
Pavement Remove . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exist. Telephone Pole. . .... ............ Designated Telephone Cable (S U E) - - . - - -,- -r-
..... ? .....
Prop. Telephone Pole. Recorded l4G Telephone Conduit . ... . -,c-+c- Small Mine
----- ?- -
RIGHT OF WAY Exist. Joint Use Pole ..... ....... 4. Designated LVG Telephone Conduit S•U.E!
. & *( j - -+c- -fc- - Swimming Pool .... -..... .......
Baseline Control Point .... ? Prop, Joint Use Pole - - . -
Unknown Utility (S.U.E• )' -„m--mL-
.
Existing Right of Why Marker ............... Telephone Pedestal ®
. ? Recorded Television Cable ,r-,y- TOPOGRAPHY
Exist. Right of Way Line v?rMarker . . _ _ l1G Telephone Cable Hand Hold - Loose Surface ..... _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- ?- _
Cable TV Pedestal ------ © Designated Television Cable (S,U•E.*) -Irv- -TV-- Hard Surface
Prop.ItightofWay Line with Proposed LING TV Cable Hand Hold ................... Recorded Fiber Optics Cable ------- -ro-Fo-
in Road Surface .......
R(1N Marker Iron Pin & Cap) ..... © - Change Curb . .. . . .
?- UCG Power Cable Hand Hold. --- . *
Prop. Right of Way Line with Proposed Hydrant 0 Designated Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E. j __,o__Fa-
..... ......
....... 4 Exist. Water Meter
(Concrete or Granite) RNV Marker ......... Satellite Dish ....... ....... Right of Way Symbol ..... .... p1w
-?- YJ LAG Test Hole (S.U•E.')
Exist. Water Valve ...... ....... ........ (9 _ ............... 0 Guard Post --------- O GP
Exist. Control of Access Line .......... . . . . . . .. ?,- Sewer Clean Out + Abandoned According to UAG Record ... ,nw
Paved Walk
------- -_-----
Prop. Control of Access Line_ Power Manhole ...... - - - ... - © End of Information
Bridge ........ ...... ??
Exist. Easement Line .......... .. , ... Telephone Booth ... - . - m BOUNDARIES & PROPERTIES
Box Culvert or Tunnel ... . _ _ _ _ _ _
Prop. Temp, Construction Easement Line --E Cellular Telephone Tower ..................... J- - - - - - - j,
Water Manhole... State Line ....... Ferry Prop. Temp. Draina a Easement Line . . . . . Q ? ???????? ? --- ? ---
9 -ICE- Light Pole --- O County Line ....... ------- ----- Culvert
H .
..
Prop. Perm. Drainage Easement line ...... -PK- H-Frame Pole ...... Township Line ............. ..
-
Power Line Tower. ..... City Line Footbridge ....
HYDROLOGY Pole with Base. Reservation Line. ....... ...... Trail, Footpath _
Stream or Body of Water El Property Line.
- Gas Valve ..... ...... 4 Light House ........
River Basin Buffer..... .... - RBe- Gas Meter . .........-. Property Line Symbol... ......
If-
........
Flow Arrow... .... _ Telephone Manhole...-. 0 Exist Iron Pin ----- .... 9 VEGETATION
Disappearing Stream. ..... ...... Property Corner _... --... _ + Single Tree . ....... ......
- Power Transformer. ..... . . .
Spring ......... ......................... .. o,-...f Sanitary Sewer Manhole .. . Property Monument........ .............. Single Shrub ........ -.......-- o
01
Swamp Marsh
Property Number r? Hedge
m Storm Sewer Manhole . .................... ? ........ ..... r
Shoreline. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Tank; Water, Gas, Oil © Parcel Number 6 Woods Line..... .......L
E Falls, Rapids ............ . _ - - ...... ... - - i - - Fence Line ........ _X.
E, Water Tank With Legs. ..... VFW s isew Orchard Q. pp{p
Prop Lateral Tail Head Ditches Existing Wetland Boundaries ............. . - _WL8- _
Traffic Signal Junction Box. ®
<- High Quality Wetland Boundary -RO WLB- Vineyard ............. vwe,aao
Fiber Optic Splice Box _ - - ... p ? - -?
STRUCTURES Television or Radio Tower ..... Medium Quality Wetland Boundaries ..... -110 wLe- RAILROADS
.....
Low Quality Wetland Boundaries............ -Bo wre- Standard Gouge
MAJOR Utility Power Line Connects to Traffic Signal Lines Cut Into the Pavement ----. ?s rs Proposed Weiland Boundaries ...... -wBe- Si ?
Bridge, Tunnel, or Box Culvert cawc ] Existing Endangered Animal Boundaries _ EAe final Milepost
DID Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall Existing Endangered Plant Boundaries ...... - _ER9- _ Switch .......... ................. O
and End Wall ?CONC ww?
.................... . SMW
ri
TYPICAL STRUCTURE PLACEMENT TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 'll 4c
""°
PR
OJECT ENGINEER
STRUCTURE NOTES: NOTES.,
1,. GENERALLY D-WNG DEFLECTORR,,,FHOOKS, 1. COIR FIBER MATTING TO BE INSTALLED ON
ROOTWADS
YANES
CON87RUCTEDRIFFLE8 ALL RESTORED ST
E
B
,
,
R
AM
ANKS.
AFIO COIR FIBER MATTING WILL BE INSTALLED
IN THE LOCATION AND SEQUENCE AS SHOWN. 2..IFROOT WADS DONOTCOVER ENTIRE SLOPE ONOUTSIDE PRELIMINARY PLANS
OF MEANDER BENDS, COIR FIBER MATTING IS NEEDED.
2. ADDITIONALSTRUCNRESORCNANGES
00 NOT oeA FOR CONSTRUCTION
TO STRUCTURE LOCATIONS MAY BE MADE
BY THE DESIGN ENGINEER DURING
CONSTRUCTION.
PUBLIC ROAD
-------------------------
I ®MMF [nYlnwdnY NY, YN. I
r IOWPAWWd tlkNry
T(!:.• OF?ry,2NORINfARGlN1n611
Fc NPIL1.M4
001 X?6
MAT BANKS WITH COIR FIBER MATTING
(SEE SPECS)
ROOTWADS
(NUMBER AND
SIZE TO BE
DETERMINED
IN THE FIELD)
r
'?- TOP OFBANK "MAT BANKS WITH COIR FIBER MATTING
(SEE SPECS)
TYPICAL RIFFLE, POOL, AND BANKFULL BENCH CROSS SECTIONS
Wbkf ? I TOP OF TERRACE
?-VARIE9+?-- WEM 1. -YAfUES+I
DA1ax 4 Y A
'G
D-Max
7 1'
RIFFLE A-A

c
N
2
N
a
04Nmc y
A
H4iE@N
1, DURING CONSTRUCTION CORNERS OF DESIGN CHANNEL WILL BE
ROUNDED AND A THALWEG WILL BE SHAPED PER DIRECTION OF
ENGINEER
POOL B-B 2. PO
OLS SHOWN ABOVE ARE LEFT POOLS ONLY.
MILL CREEK U72ANDUT5 U12SWALE
RIFFLE POOL RIFFLE POOL RIFFLE
18.2 30.0 &8 10.0 6.5
1.9 4A 0.7 1.5 OA
12.0 12,2 120 10.1 15.0
27.0 73.5 &0 9.9 z0
10.5 3.5 3.0 1.0 3.7
~ (FT)
D-Max (FT)
WIDTH TO DEPTH RATIO
BANKFULL AREA (SQFT)
VA (FT)
Yb
RIFFLE WITH BANKFULL BENCH
TOP OF TERRACE
W)w
D4Aat
W4
POOL WTH BANKFULL BENCH
THICKNESS
?PUBLICROAD WA SSHED HED M CLASS A STONE
W
0 o D
FILTER FABRIC
NOTES
SPECIFICATION NO.O.08- CONSTRUCTION ACCESS 'N.C. EROSION AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL DECEMBER 1993-
A
EIDER ROCK
FLOW I
lm
SINGLE WING DEFLECTOR
PILL WITH ALLUVIUM AND
COARSE MATERIAL FROM
STAEAMBED
a'
BOTTOM WIDTH
( FOOTER
ROCK
PLAN VIEW
NOTE
BOULDERS MUST BE AT LEAST 4' X 3' X 2'.
FIRST ROCKTED INTO
STREAMBANK
A BAN ULL STAGE SZ
1130E BANKFULL
SECTION A-A'
112BANKFULLHEADER ROCK
FLOW-- 2% TO 4% SLOPE
STREAMBED
ELEVATION
FOOTER ROCK
ARM W PROFILE VIEW
NOTE: NO SLOPE FOR ARMS B SC
NO GAPS BETWEEN ROCKS
1/3
BOTTOM
WIDTH DP
. cueuuei
i FROJFa REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
PERMANENT FORD STREAM CROSSING
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION O
PR
JECT ENGINEER
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION AND ROOTMASS

- PRELIMINARY PLANS
r -
FIB

? DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION

CLASSASTONE
TOP
OF BANK
?
;Z=777
1FTMAX,
?I
i
? .BERM.. ERM
1 1 BINCHES THICK (IYP.) A
Bolter Engineering NY, Inc.
\ . J
2 ` 1 N200
ORM GAMkA 27511
¦ •
TOE OF BANK K
NItS.RR7
PLAN VIEW . . . .' . . . . . .
FILTER FABRIC
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION AND ROOTMASS DONOTDISTURB NATURAL

NOTES: CHANNEL BOTTOM.
1. EXCAVATE A HOLE IN THE BANKTO BE STABILIZED THAT WILL
TOP OF 87REAMBANK ACCOMMODATE THE SIZE OF TRANSPLANT TO BE PLACED,
BEGIN EXCAVATION AT THE TOE OF THE BANK

2. EXCAVATE TRANSPLANT UMNOAFRONT END LOADER.
EXCAVATE THE ENTIRE ROOT MASSANDASMUCH ADDITIONAL NQ1E

1. CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.
SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE IF ENTIRE ROOT MASS CANNOT BE 2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ON-SITE
r EXCAVATED IN ONE BUCKET LOAD, THE TRANSPLANT IS TOO LARGE BEFORE WORK BEGINS.
AND ANOTHER SHOULD BE SELECTED. 3. MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBA.NKS.
• I 3. PLACE TRANSPLANT IN THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED SO THAT DO NOT EXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM. COMPLETE ONE SIDE
VEGETATION IS ORIENTATED VERTICALLY. BEFORE STARTING ON THE OTHER SIDE.
4. FILL IN ANYHOLESMQUNDTHETPANSPLANTANOCOMPACT. 4. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING AT RIGHT ANGLE TO THE FLOW.
TOE OF BANK S: ANY LOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED. S. GRADE SLOPES TO A8:1 SLOPE. TRANSPLANT SOD FROM ORIGINAL
8. PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE TOGETHER SUCH THAT STREAMBANK ONTO SIDE SLOPES NOT COVERED WITH STONE.
. THEY TOUCH, S. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE ADJACENT
ROAD DOES NOT ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL
7. ASTABILIZED PAD OF CLASS A STONE, 6INCHES THICK,
_ i BOTTOM OF CHANNEL LINED WITH FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE SHALL BE USED OVER
THE BERM AND ACCESS SLOPES.
a. WIDTH OF THE CROSSING SHALL BE SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE
• THE LARGEST VEHICLE CROSSING THE CHANNEL
CROSS SECTION VIEW
STEP POOL CHANNEL ROCK VANE
1W3BOTTOM
WIDTH GF
CHANNEL FLOW
7.0
PLAN V! 1
PROFILE VIEW" FLOW READER ROCK
FL6W? ? A A
A.
POOL STEP < BACIGILL(ONSITEALLUVIUM)
'
N- STEP HEIGHT A
STEP j
TOP OF BANK COVER LOGS

A' .
(INSTALL COVER LOGS
AS DIRECTED BY THE _ T-OOTERROCK
FILTER FABRI
FOR DRAINAGE -
BANKFULL FILTERF
x PROJECT ENGINEER)

BOULDERS POOL
L 1fi MINMI
,
1
WELLGRADED MIX . SECTIONA • A^
OF CLASS AAND H•STEP HEIGHT

CLASS B STONE 1

SCOUR
POOL

WELL GRADED MIX SCOUR POOL (EXCAVATED)
OF CLASS AAND
CLASS B STONE PER DIRECTfON OF ENGINEER
B NO GAPS
TOP OF BANK E B. BETWEEN
I BOULDERS
_
COIR FIBER MAT TOP OF STREAMBANK
-3 ' PLAN VIEW HEADER ROCK
= I
D FT TO 2FT ROOTWADS FLOW ---?
4%TO A% SLOPE
`
(INSTALL ROO7
WADS
THE
M
J
N
D
I-; GINEER) EIEVAT
PRO
lOA
ECIE

"
I -- -ITI_? I
-
TT
? NOTES FOR ALL VANE STRUCTURES:
eACIffILL (ON-SITE ALLUVIUM)
?
'
•
r I
-
l. _. --`-• - FOOTER ROCK
If •
.? ?. 1)
= =
?LII-)C-,I
A 1. BOULDERS MUST BE AT LEAST4'X 3'%Z'..
FILTER PASRC 2. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE BEGINNING AT THE MIDDLE OF THE SCOUR POOL
HEADER ROCKS AND
QOM
E (EXCAVATED)
C
R086 SECTION S
B' STREAM CHANNEL OTER ROCK AND T
N UPSTREAM TOA MINIMUM OF TEN FEET.
FO PROFILE MEW
?
I 3. DIG A TRENCH BELOWTHE BED FOR FOOTER ROCKS AND PLACE FILL ON
UPSTREAM SIDE OF VANE ARM,. BETWEEN THE ARM AND STREAMBA NK
4. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER ROCKS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) ROCK
6. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS.
B• AN EILTRABOULDER CAN BE PLACED INSCOUR POOL FOR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT.
T. USE ON-SITE ALLUVIUM TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF BOULDERS TO THE
ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCK
S. START SLOPE AT 213 TO I TIMES THE BANKFULL STAGE..
PROJECT NFBRENCE NO. SNEEI N0.
EROSION CONTROL MATTING PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS
PROJECT ENOWEBL
PLACE COIR FIBER MATTING IN B INCH DEEP
TRENCH, STAKE BACKFILL, AND COMPACT
TOPOFSIREAMBANK
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCDOA
NOTES
1. PLANTBANEROOT BH
RUBBANDESTO THE WIDTH OF THE
TRE
g
R
??B,,??ULLFFE F
?
pp bOOo FEEOT eETM'fl
9PE
DEPENDING ON SIZE
EN
PLANTINGS
p
p
,
.
TOP OF BTREAIlMIK
B.
LOO
N COMP ACTE0 8QL
TOE OF SLOPE 9: PIANTINXOLES MADE BI'AMATTOCK dBBLE,PLANANO.BAR OR
p7ryER APPR04EDAIEMB.
Q PIANTINH
lE
D
HE 8
07
E
P
A
O
E EN
H

' G.
IN
O
B D
E
AN
V
8
D
OUG
0
OUT J JAO-RO
TO SPREAD OUT AND DOWN WITHOUT
WA

SU 11N0 0R VdJTINGTO PLANT
dKEEP ROOT SMQSTW11RE 01
BYME PP
4
$
U

LAROESTAKES WITT?AgyA$
,1
,
0
BMMFTIF IRAW. BHar EnBgXSNnRNY:lne.
7. HEFI1AM81NM018T8?LOR8t>US NOT PROMPTLY ?p ,F
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL PLANTED ANNA TO
PROLE SITE,
PON
i
TYPICAL SMALL MATTING STAKE • a , ORTHOAROUN,mu

PIACECOWABER MATTING AT TOE OF SLOPE..

THE WOOD STAKE SHALL BE THE NORTH AMERICAN Rgx91A1M.M9B
Fa 11aKda10
. SECUR..E MATTING. MTH LAHOE MATTINO.STAKE . GREEN ECO-STAKE OR APPROVED EQUAL WITH THE

FOLLOWING DIMENSIONS: BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
CROSS SECTION VIEW LEG LENGTH 11,00 IN 7,&C
HEAD WIDTH 1.261N .18C
S HEAD THICKNESS 0.40 IN 1.02 CM
;
NOTE LEGWIDTH 0.80 IN CM) frAPERED TO P01
BBEE
S
E
DED PRIOR TO
1. Pa? LEG THICKNESS 0:90 N 1.02 CM)
I
,E
N
PLACEMENT TOTAL LENGTH 12:00 N :9e CROSS SECTION VIEW OF BARE ROOT PLANTING
2. USE C•7MATTING
3. LARGE STAKES SHOULD NOT BE SPACED
FURTHER ULAN 18'APART.
4 PLACE CENTLARGE STAKES K ALONG O SEAMS

IN THE CENIEROFBANK; AND TOE OF SLOPE. 7.6 INCH ROOFING NAIL
:
NOTES

TRENCH
TRENCH 1. MEN PREPARING THE HOLE FOR A POTTED PLANT OR
SHRUB DIG THE HOLE -B • 12INCHES LARGER
TFWI THE DIAMETER OF THE POT AND THE SAME DEPTH

1 I {
1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 -TOP OF STREAMBANK AS THE POT,
2 AEMOVETHEPLANT FROM THE POT. LAY THE PLANT ON
TOP OF -- - -- - - -- - - - -` -
I
I
I
I SIFTHE EIPUMSR0 0 REOTSGROOWNG INA
L
D
M
T
S7REAMBANK
I 1 _ _
._ _
_ _
I I I I 67 I / I STAKES SPIRAL AROUN
THE ROOTBAl1I
AST VER
ICA
TOP OF STREANBANK CLRBWI A KNIFE OR8PAOEJUNTDEEPENOUGH TO
U LAT$.CROS CUTACRO STH
OFTHEBALL
BOTTOM
LARGE I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I PLACE THE PLANT HE HOLE.
FAIV:S FILL HALF OFF THE HOLEEWTHH SOIL(SAME SOIL
REMOVED FOR BACKFRL

1 I
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I II .
B THE REST OFIM ?T?iRE NNAND OIL
1 1 I 0 1 1 1 / 1 1 I 0 COIR FIBER MATTING TO BE
l/

EXTENDED TOT0E0FSLOPE
1 1
TYPICAL LARGE MATTING STAKE
0 oi
' I THE WOOD STAKE SMALL BE THE NORTH AMERICAN
GREEN ECOSTAKEORAPPROVED EQUAL WITH THE BOTTOM CHANNEL
FOLLOWING DIMENSIONS:
Usi PLAN VIEW LARGE LEG LENGTH 17700 IN (43.1a cm) rrAPERED
STAIff3 WIDTH 1.00 IN .64 CM) I
THICKNESS 1.00 IN 69 CM
CROSS SECTION VIEW OF CONTAINER PLANTING
LIVE STAKING ROOT WADS WITH COVER LOGS
ROOT WADS WITHOUT TRANSPLANTS ROOT WADS
CROSS SECTION VIEW PLAN VIEW
TOP OF STREAMBANK TOP OF NTS NTS
STREAMBAMK TOP OFSTREAMBANK
. :
COIR FIBER NUTTING

P I I
TOP OF BANK
FLOOD PLAN BERN (O.E T
HfE
N(S)
TOE OF SLOPE 1 I I - -
I E
Y
NOT TO EXTEND BEYOND
.
PLANT STAKES FROM TOP OF BANK LIMITS OF ROOT WADS'
1: 'I 1 I '- TO TOE OF BANK IN A DIAMOND SHAPED
.1. '1.-... .. STAGGERED PATTERN
l OPTIONAL
BANKFLL
E DOVER. LOG
BOTTOM OF QHANNEL I I i. I ',
TOEOFSLOPE t r SASEFLOW r 1:
...' '.: .:..' r 1O'OFtR00T MABS'H6IOHT - M' ANCHOR COVER LOG
CROSS SECTION VIEW PLAN VIEW iB eEq}Y BTlPA ep vM7H A BOULDER

10-16FEETLOM
?10'DIAMETER
ROOT VIM
TRANSPLANTS OR BOULDERS
SQUARE CUT TOP
BUDS FACING UPWARD ROOT WADS WITH TRANSPLANTS
01-6 SPACING LIVECUTT1NO
VECUp
N CROSS SECTION VIEW
M
TI
7.3'LENGTH NTS

2U'SPAC046 TRANSPLANTS
F BANK NOTES:
TOP
O
FLOOD PLAIN BERM (B.V MAX HL) GERM(S)
NOT TO EXTEND BEYOND TRENCHING METHOD:
LIMITS OF ROOT WADS. IF THE ROOT WAD CANNOT BE DRIVEN INTO THE BANK OR THE BANK
NEEDS TO BE RECONSMUCTED,THE TRENCHING METHOD SHOULD
ANGLE CUT BE USED. THIS METHOD REQUIRES THAT A TRENCH BE EXCAVATED
30.96 DEGREES BANKFULL FOR FOR THE LOG PORT10N OF THE ROOT VAWD.. ONE-THIRD OF THE
ROOT WAD SHOULD REMMN BELOW NORMAL BASE FLOW CONDITIONS.
LIVE STAKE DETAIL '1
7 BAsF
NO
i s NOTES:
LIVE
STAKES -.1N OR:RO6T MABq Nfii010' r 1: ?r •; ORNE POINT METHOD:
'
'
NOTES:
1. STAKES SHOULDBECUTANO INSTALLED ON THE SAME DAY, DRIVING
I®.B):,LQyY ?SHARPEN THE END OF THE LOG WITH A CNAJNBAW BEFORE
R INTO THE BANK ORIENT ROOT WADS UPSTREAM SO THAT THE STREAM
.• -.-. :•;• - .. FLOW MEETS THE ROOT WAD AT A 90-DEGREE ANGLE OEFTECTIND THE
ANK A TRANSPLANT OR BOUNDER SHOULD BE
WATER A
AY FROM THE
2, DO NOT INSTALL STAKES THAT HAVE BEEN SPLIT.
3
6TAIESMUST BE INSTALLED WITH BUDS POINTING UPWARDS W
B
E OF THE ROOT WAD IF A BACK EDDY
STAEAM MD
PLACED ON THE
OO
WN

PLAN VIEW .
.
4. STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO BANK BOULDER SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY
B FEET LONG TRUNK IS FORMED BY THE
OOT WAD, THE
R
-17OWMEER 9XSX2.
6. STAKES SHOULD BE 1Q T02 INCHES IN DIAMETERAND 2TO S FT LONG.
8. STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED LEAVING MIS OF STAKE ABOVE GROUND.
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET N0.
ROCK CROSS VANE TYPE 2 D ITCH PLUG 109-4564
FLOW TYPE 2 CROSS VANE FOR GRAVEUSAND BED STREAMS PROJECT ENGINEER
I WITH DRAINAGE ARIES LESS THAN 12MI'
1

x T
MIN
7I90FBOTTOM DTTCHTOBEPLUC1f#D
DTHOFCHANNEL PRELIMINARY PLANS
C CHANNEL BED CHANNEL BED DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUC1ION
B GRADE
POINT WELL GRADED MIX OF CP'°
CLASS 74 CUSS B,
AND 057 STONE

c FILTER FABIC
a 0

A
B MINIMUM
LATCH PLUG
r no R"rlrog NY, I
ne, 200 Pa?w
F O ¦ My; NNORTN WIOUIU 71518
A' SECTION A-A'
PhUN
F
"o'a
9•
VANE
ARM

HEADER ROCK
B.ANKFULL STAGE
?
STREAM BANK PLAN VIEW
? scau+ POOL I B B'
FLOWS
X TO EX PAYE AR0 SLOPE
4

SILL
?'?, f SILL STR€AMBED -

ELEVATION
FOOTER ROCK
NO GAPS UNCOMPACTED BACKFILL
VANE
VANE ANGLE BETWEEN
20'TO 3V BOULDERS I
PROFILE VIEW B - B' COMPACTED BACKFILL 1.B MINIMUM
C, VANE ARM

PLAN VIEW
FLOW .?? CROSS PANE NVERTR7RAOE POINT FINISH GRADE FINISH GRADE
NOTES FOR ALL VANE MUCTURES: FFLE
1. BOULDERS MUST BE AT LEAST 4'xTx2. i?%
1. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE BEGINNING AT THE MIDDLE OF THE HEADER
ROCKS AND EXTEND DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER ROCK
AND
THEN UPSTREAM TOAMINIMUMOF SIX FEET

OS DITCH INVERT
.
.
9. DIGATRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER ROCKS AND PLACE FILL ON UPSTREAM
SIDE AR BETWEEN STREA ?
????f?\\?/\ \ pppR vv--. \\1????\?
ICATIO
4 CONSTRUCT RUCT FOLLOWING OWING ANGLE NGLE AND SLOPE SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS
6. USE CUSS B§IONE TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF BOULDERS, AND
CLASS A STONE AND 067 STONE TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF CLASS B STONE. FILTER FABIC FOR DRAINAGE COMPACTEDBACKFILL
0. AFTER ALL STONE HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL NTHEUPSTREAM SIDE OFTHESTRUCTURE (SEE SPECIFICATIONS) PROFILEMEWC - C'
WITH ONSITEALLUVIUM TO THE ELEVATION OF ONE HALF THE HEADER ROCK NOS SECTION A- A'
COMPACT BACKFILL USING ON-SITE HEAVY EQUIPMENT
IN 10 INCH UFTS.
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE/PLUNGE POOL SEQUENCE DOUBLE WING DEFLECTOR
BOTTOM WIDTH
OF CHANNEL

TOP
OF BAN
? EROSION CONTROL
MATING
113 713 1J9
.
BOTTOM BOTTOM BOTTOM
WIDTH OF WIDTH OF WIDTH OF

' W
DmRx XC
d3 CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL is
?

B o a o B`
719Ommc
o

HEADER ROCK LL
a

BACKFILLWITH
WELL GRADED
B

o SEE CROSS VANE TYPE 2 ON HOW
°?

A

FLOW
CLASS A & B STONE

A'
(
P9 TO CONSTRUCT CROSS VANE
o. q, `>t 0 8
ff'
a8
° 24 'NOM. THICKNESS WELL GRADED MIX
S
O
o
co & OF CLASS B
TONE AND CLASS 2 STONE
SHOULD BE AS RIFFLE HEADER AND
w
BURIED 2-0 BELOW BED
' p a
SECTION B • B "
"

° e $8 , 20
T090 p
_ i' r
NO GAPS
BETWEEN
888 68e? M - ROCKS
888 d 8?g 8, 22 DEGREE ANGLE
$
88
8f
8 8 _` •le. ' '
?? .'M?
8
?
?
8f
A
d8
°?6?
0
88
888
}o
0 PLUNGE$,?gN$ "

8888e POO 888
L 24
NOM. THICKN
ESS WELL GRADED MIX
8 888800 00?$°
d
8888
88 OF CUSS B STONE AND CLASS 2 STONE
U
S R
E FOOTER FIRST
ROCK
8ao
b
o SHO
LD BE A
IFFLE HEAD
R AND
' ROCK BOULDER IES
T
INTO
REPEAT CONSTRUCTED BURIED 24
BELOW BED CLUSTER STREAMBANK
RIFFLE IV NOM. THICKNESS WELL GRADED MIX
HEAD OF RIFFLE OF CLASS A STONE AND CLASS B STONE,
PLAN VIEW A'7 STONE. PLAN VIEW
E
RIA'FLE
PLUNGE RIFFLE 12 BANKFULL HEADER ROCK

a
PLUNGE
0
R
IF

A

A' ?
FLE
POOL ,? 119 T01RBANKFULL FLOW -? 2%704%SL
FILTER o
FABRIC
STREAMBED
IV KOM. THICKNESS WELL GRADED MIX ELEVATION
OF CLASS A AND #57 STONE SECTION A - N
FOOTER ROCK
PROFILE A- A` ARM'X' PROFILE VIEW
(WITH REPETITION) NOTE:. NO SLOPE FOR ARMS Y &2
Reach UT2
rn
m
x
N
a
u
E
a
ff
B
y
m
r
a
m
1. Contractor shall contact North Carolina "One cell" Center (1.600.632.4949) before any excavation.
2. Contractor shall prepare stabilized construction entrances and haul roads as Indicated on plans,
3, The Contractor shall mobilize equipment, materials, prepare staging area(s) and stockpile ares(s) as shown on plans.
4. Construction traffic shall be restricted to the area denoted as "Limits of Disturbance" on the construction plans.
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
Reach Mill Creek and UT5
5. Clear and grub an area adequate to construct the UT2 stream channel operations,.
6. The Contractor shall Install temporary rock dams at locations Indicated on plans.
7. The Contractor shall Install temporary alt fence around the staging ares(e). Temporary slit fencing will also be placed around the
temporary stockpile areas as material is stockpiled throughout the construction period.
8. The Contractor shall install all temporary and permanent stream crossings as shown an plans In accordance with the NC Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. Ditches and stream reaches on site will be left open during the Initial stages of
construction to allow for drainage and to maintain site accessiblky.
9. Contractor shall begin construction on each stream reach and complete that stream reach before moving to the next stream,
10. Begin construction of stream channel at Station 28+87 and proceed In an upstream direction to Station 25+26, This section of channel
will be constructed o5lne and In the dry, since it will be excavated through the field to the Uwhante River.
11. Excavate channel to design grades, instal in-stream structures, grassing, matting, and transplants In this section, and ready the channel
to accept flow.
12. Simultaneously, the grading operator shall lower the pond dam to the design elevation, Stockpile excavated material In areas shown on
the plane and plug the drainage ditch at the toe of the dam, as shown an plane.
13, Excavated material from the stockpiles will be spread on the eroded hlllelope, used to plug drainage ditches, hauled to the silage pit near
the top of UT2, or hauled to the top of UT1; as shown on plane and per direction of engineer. Filling In the upper section of UT1 will be
the last option when dispersing the excavated material.
14, The section between station 20+00 and 24+30 requires the use of a temporary pump-around operation as noted In the Erosion Control
Plane. The Contractor shall Install temporary elk checks and pump-around operation for these sections. The portion of the channel
Isolated shall be dewatered and the removed water shell flow through a special stilling basin according to project special provisions. The
contractor 9IT11 setup the outflow of the pump-around near the breech in the old pond as shown on plans.
15, Begin construction of stream channel at Station 20+00 and proceed In an upstream direction to Station 24+30.
The contractor shall create the swele through the wetland creation area per direction of engineer,
15. Once construction In a pumpamund area has been completed, remove pump-around materials and turn the water Into the Wetland
creation area.
17. Use the excess material to plug the breech In the dam to design elevations and then remove the temporary stream crossing.
18. The section between station 24+30 and 25+25 requires the use of atemporary pump-around operation as noted In the Erosion Control
Plans. The Contractor shall Install temporary sift checks and pump-around operations for these sections. The portion of the channel
Isolated shall be dewatered and the removed water shall flow through a special stilling basin according to project special provisions. The
contractor shall setup the outflow of the pump-around near the breach in the old pond or the toe of slope drainage ditch.
19. Begin excavation of the stream channel at Station 24+30 and proceed In a downstream direction to Station 25+25.
20, Excavate channel to design grades, Install In-stream structures, grassing, matting, and transplants in this section, and reedy the channel
to accept low,
21. Once construction In a pump-around area has been completed, remove pump-around materials, and turn the
water into the new channel.
22. Once a stream work phase Is complete, apply temporary seeding, permanent seeding, and mulch to any
areas disturbed during construction. Apply permanent seeding mixtures, as shown on the vegetation plan.
Temporary seeding shall be applied In all areas susceptible to erosion (i.e. disturbed ditch banks, steep
slopes, and spoil areas) such that ground cover is established within 15 working days following completion of
any phase of grading. Permanent ground cover shall be established for all disturbed areas within 15 working
deye or 00 calendar days (whichever Is shorter) following completion of construction.
23. All areas should be seeded and mulched before leaving the project reach. Remove temporary stream
crossings and anyIn-stream temporary rock dams. All waste material must be removed from the project site.
24. The contractor shall treat areas of Invasive species along UT2 according to the plans prior to demobilization.
25. The contractor shall plant woody vegetation and live stakes, according to planting details and specifications.
They should complete the reforestation (bare root planting) phase of the project and apply permanent seeding
at the appropriate time of the year.
25. The contractor shell ensure that the site is free of trash and leftover materials prior to demobilization of
equipment from the she.
1 Contractor shall contact North Carolina "One Call" Center (1.800,632.4949) before any excavation.
2. Contractor shall prepare stabilized construction entrances and haul roads as Indicated on plans.
3. The Contractor shall mobilize equipment, materials, prepare staging area(s) and stockpile area(s) as shown on plane.
4. Construction treMc shall be restricted to the area denoted as "Limb of Disturbance" on the construction plans.
5. Clear and grub an area adequate to construct the MITI Creek stream channel operations.
e. The Contractor shall Install temporary rock dams for Mill Creek at locations Indicated on plans.
1PRELIMINARY PLANS
D? Ne7 U9a FOR CONBTRUCrioN
7. The Contractor shall Install temporary slit fence around the staging area(s). Temporary slit fencing will also be placed around the C6@
temporary stockpile areas as material Is stockpiled throughout the construction period. 8. The Contractor shall Install all temporary and permanent stream crossings as shown on plane In accordance with the NC Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. Ditches and stream reaches on site will be left open during the Initial stages of
construction to allow for drainage and to maintain site accessblity.
9. The section between station 16+00 and 32+00 requires the use oftemporary pump-around operations as noted In the Erosion Control
Plans, The Contractor shall Install temporary sift checks and pump-around operations for these sections. The potion of the channel
Isolated shelf be dewatered and the removed water shelf flow through a special stilling basin according to project special provisions.
10, Begin construction of MIII Creek channel at Station 32+00 and proceed In an upstream direction to Station 18+00.
11. Excavate channel to design grades, Install In-stream structures, grassing, matting, and transplants In this section, and ready the channel
to accept flow.
12, Once construction In a pump-around area has been completed, remove pump-around materials, and turn the water Into the new channel.
13. Once a stream work phase Is complete, apply temporary seeding, permanent seeding, and mulch to any areas disturbed during
construction. Apply permanent seeding mixtures, as shown on the vegetation plan. Temporary seeding shall be applied In all areas
susceptible to erosion (i.e. disturbed ditch banks, steep slopes, and spoil areas) such that ground cover Is established within 15 working
days following completion of any phase ofgreding, Permanent ground cover shall be established for all disturbed areas within 15
working days or 90 calendar days (whichever Is shorter) following completion of construction.
14, All areas should be seeded and mulched before leaving the MIII Creek reach. Remove temporary stream crossings and any in-stream
temporary rock dams. All waste material must be removed from the Project site.
15. Mill Creek construction should be completed and the contractor shelf focus an UT5 construction,
16. The Contractor shall Install temporary rock dams for UT5 at locations Indicated on plans.
17, The Contractor shall Install temporary silt fence around the staging area(s). Temporary slit fencing will also be placed around the
temporary stockpile areas as material Is stockpiled throughout the construction period.
18. The Contractor shell Install all temporary and permanent stream crossings as shown on plans In accordance with the NC Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Design Manuel. Ditches and stream reaches on site will be left open during the Initial stages of
construction to allow for drainage and to keep site accessible.
19. The section between station 22+50 and 28+99 requires the use of temporary pump-around operations as noted In the Erosion Control
Plans. The Contractor shelf Install temporary silt checlksand pump-around operations for these sections, The portion of the channel
Isolated shall be dewalered and the removed water shall flow through a special stilling basin according to project special provisions.
20. Clear and grub an area adequate to construct the UT5 stream channel operations.
Begin construction of UT6 channel at Station 28+99 and proceed In an upstream direction to Station 26+35.
21 Once construction In the pump-around area has been completed, remove pump-around materials and turn the water Into the downstream
UT5 area,
22 , Begin construction of UT6 channel at Station 25+80 and proceed In an upstream direction to Station 24+75.
23, The grading operator will lower the pond dam to the design elevation, stockpile excavated material In areas shown on the plans, and plug
the old channel below the dam, as shown on plane.
24 , Excavate channel to design grades, Install In-stream structures, grassing, matting, and transplants In this section, and ready the channel
to accept flow.
25 . Once construction In a pump-around area has been completed, remove pump-around materials, and turn the water Into the new channel.
28 . Once a stream work phase is complete, apply temporary seeding, permanent seeding, and mulch to any areas disturbed during
construction. Apply permanent seeding mixtures, as shown on the vegetation plan, Temporary seeding shall be applied in all areas
susceptible to erosion (i.e. disturbed ditch banks, steep slopes, and spoil areas) such that ground cover Is established within 15 working
days following completion of any phase of grading. Permanent ground cover shall be established for all disturbed areas within 15
working days or 90 calendar days (whichever Is shorter) following completion of construction.
27 , All areas should be seeded and mulched before leaving the project reach, Remove temporary stream crossings and any In-stream
temporary rock dams. All waste material must be removed from the project site.
2$. The contractor shall treat areas of Invasive species along MIII Creek and UT6 according to the plans prior to demobilization,
29 The contractor shall plant woody vegetation and live stakes, according to planting details and specifications. They should complete the
reforestation (bare root planting) phase of the project and apply permanent seeding at the appropriate time of the year.
30 The contractor shall ensure that the site is free of trash and leftover materials prior to demobilization ofequipment from the site.
Btlur
eaaowrNlxeer?ayxMwna NY. in.
we.rm
ae,NOnreaaoieureie
ra name.eaa
m BUCK PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO..
109664 4
PROJECT ENGINEER
N
1 1 PRELIMINARY PLANS
Oo NOT USE FOR CONMUC 7ON
I I
1 I
I 1
1 1
ew , , NY,, Inc.
SLft
C". NNOORM CAROUNA27618
I I r
l 1 Ph-91P:aRONe
I I FR 019.47.6m
kk-
1 I
I I
1 1
1 I
I I
1 1 BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT I
STA. 10-00.00
1 E I
GS BEGIN DITCH FILL,
S FILL DITCH IN THE DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION.
Izl
Iml
IIcI (oi
ICI 711m
10 1
V1 T 16+00s s"
C-) 14+00
?z 1
13+00
I 1
Ia?m _ END DITCH FILL HERE.
1 1 -
-01
1 0_
1 lQ
I 1
?1 11 -
1 I
Ir
c 1 1
m 1 1
c 1 I
a 1 1
E I I
a
P i t NOTE;
m 1 E START DITCH FILL AT 10+00 AND CONTINUE TO 16+00.
1 I
0
a
PLAN VIEW
m
0
40 20 0 40 80
CXD
oco
NO'
?m
SCALE (FT)
RUCK PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE POR CONSMUCI70N
® P?.NT, Inc.
P°aiKPIP./°llE!
am END CONSTRUCTION UT I 8"?"403LPIU """?°'°
STA. 227.9869
lio
28+00
r
29+00
4 I J A? m f
+00
21
2 i EXISTING, RCP
't:A -TO REMAIN- /
N:AC
to ? t
F
f
ID '
/
UR
a
rI l
/
/ rl
I/
a
r i
m
Q /
N /
9
a
r
PLAN VIEW
m
o°Dpco 40 20 0 40 80
an
?m
Q SCALE (FT)
BUCK PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE POR LVNSTRUMON
gi?pp,,
Baker
f0' ®Qq.BRTNCM0np.RY,6
¦ ww R1e.,"PeMr
¦ &ft 2W CWWRA.7f611
Ph-P1P40.UU
F¢S1IAN.P90
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT2
TA. /0.00.00
Iwo-
e
2? 490
14+00 r
1
t
x
ffoo
m y E
wo
20
CF -
n
N
90
',? ?C 40c?t
PEANT RIPARIAN BUFFER WTHIN
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
REFER TO SHEET i-A
m
9
(U
B
i
m
u
E
a
ID
N
a
i
n
u
a
PLAN VIEW
m
r,
cxD 40 20 0 40 80
IX
nm
?m
SCALE (FT)
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRULMON
Scloor Wft.j MY, Inc.
8508RW?
¦
SWU .y, NORTHCARCHINU 27518
¦ C
Ph-; 515463.6468
Fr 915.1835/55
PLUG BREECHED DAM
STABILIZE HILLSLOPE WTH EXCAVATED MATERIAL-
FROM DAM TO FILL ERODED POCKETS.
SEED WITH RIPARIAN MIX AND MULCH HILLSLOPE
PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
F 7.
=S ?r
ZN
J
119 ..
?. '` cL We"TIANC.a CREATION
-CREATE SWALE PER "PLANT
DIRECTION OF ENGINEER C WITHIN
REFER
ml
u
6
? PLANT RIPARIAN BUFFER WITHIN
CONSEVATION EASEMENT
?`. REFER TO SHEET 1-A
{
39
,.
*
na
OARNON m T
} I
s? `CREATE 10BENCH` La ?? ?, "? "`
I TIE BACK OF BENCH ?wrs ' "?'`?
PLUG DITCH ? AFRO EXISTING GROUND ?'
EXCAVATE BREECHED POND DAM
TO ELEVATION OF 38Y
WETLAND VEGETATION
WETLAND BOUNDARY
TO SHEET 1-A
NOTE:
1. USE 4X31122 BOULDERS TO CONSTRUCT STEP POOLS AND
CROSS VANES ALONG UT2 AND UT5.
2. EXCAVATED MATERIAL FROM DAM AND NEW CHANNEL
WILL BE USED TO STABILIZE HILLSLOPE, PLUG DITCHES,
HAULED TO SILAGE PIT NEAR TOP OF UT2,OR HAULED
TO THE TOP OF UTI,PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
W
W
PLAN VIEW
40 20 0 40 80
SCALE (FT)
c
m
m
i
m
n
F
v
P
B
l
c
O
a
c
T
PROTECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONFMUMON
ISTING
X FENCE
\ t? i ?, REM 4E MID-CHANNEL BAR
Emkor R
v am RI p-ft"
$uIW 200
W, NORTH CAROUNA21Iu
Avl A ?? 1 • OW
Ph- 91DA83.5461
I- 1119AMAM
?U,( ?\, PERMANEEMToOR 0
\\ a U W ?.
4 = f ,??
EN CONSTRUCTION T TA 28-99.0
CONFLUENCE MILL CREEK STA. 19.49.03
EXISTING 1 \\`
FEN'CE
PLANT RIPARIAN BUFFER WTHM y
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
REFER TO GHEL'I 1•A (PAS
??. FILL CHANNEL NTH EXCAVATED is ! ?f` Yf ?I I l 4.? i • _ N?
DAM MATERIAI,
E ' S-,5-
?< r ?r c
6
SAN . Q
!.
K47 {
?, ?' CE PLUG BREECHED DAM ^a,'?
m
p ,
r
R'
i
is
co -7
"' ? ?? ` . .' 244D6
=
t
CREATE VBENCH
RE BACK OF BENCH
INTO EXISTING GROUND
r
o
BEDROCK
c
EXISTING FENCE
PLAINT IA9TLAND VEOETAIIDN 1MTHW
1hET?iVND BOUNdARY REFER SHEET 1d
t
"c - , f I t ) Slf/aJ
EXCAVATE BREECHED POND DAM
?` ° , ' / f TO ELEVATION OF 397
1 4/1
/ r
r J
WETLAND 2- CREATION
r
t
NOTE
1. USE 411 BOULDERS TO CONSTRUCT STEP POOLS
AND CROSS VANES ALONG UT2 AND UTS:
2. EXCESS FILL MATERIAL FROM UTS DAM EXCAVATION WILL BE
SPREAD ON THE WESTERN SLOPE OF THE VALLEY AND TO PLUG
THE OLD CHANNEL PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
PLAN VIEW
40 20 0 40 SO
SCALE (FT)
ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
PLANT RIPARIAN SUFFER IA5TNIN
CONSERVATON EASEMENT
REFER SO MEET 5•A

'GOV...
6$
I ® Baker EnHNneARENT. Inc.
am ROW" per"
Su I
Sub 200 XOMOUXI, nNI
Ph-: YllA63.BM
rc 010,403A490 -4 ,
+
+
IF ?r
+
f r Uw ??` %+
+
r +
BEDROCK BANK AND
GROUND WATER SEEP
7
`rr
s.
1 +

f
i
/
f
r
f
l
r 1
f
f
r
+
f f

r r
f /
r r

r r

r r
? r
r T

PLAN VIEW
40 20 0 40 8
SCALE (FT)
M BUCK PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO..
m
109664 11
m
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR. CONRTRUCTION
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
A 10-00.00
Baker EnBRrMnp NY Inc,
6,Mc IN
1019.463.6400
r6 hv.ree.egc
Qj,q ` ?rl ? ? ' ?? 60
,oil
?.' Lp,SSI-M?IILI- ROAD
{?yam' \y .-w BJiVBTNVG PENCfl _. - ?r "/ i '? .
b 4 t
I h ??` ' I n
y \ I I.
GIN NSTR T10N
MILL CREAK sr.10•00.00 N?
END CONSTRUCTION T 4 STA,15-41.02
=
.? CONFLUENCE MILL CREEK S A.14• .5$
` ?x 1
?X A
KANT MPANAN BUFFER Will ? .
CONSERVATION EASEMENT +<<
REFER TO BHER ill `+ 1 ?..
`
,
2 \
u
E ?
0 `. 4 At
LCj
PLAN VIEW
o ?" .
i
Co 4? 20 0 40 8
m
t
M SCALE (FT)
BUCK FRoili 7 RE Hilit P40..
. Z .. .. ..
12
Q . UTI PROJECT EN61NEEE
F
J
U
+ ,

,q
? {
r

,

?
- I I ? I I I

W "r -
I i ' lp PRELIMINARY PLANS
C9 MM FLAB Mk CCNYMUC17OY

P

r

I. . ,.- I .>I +, 1 ?;
`- 4.
'

- , +c
1 I pgPEMIMPNnB NY, Inc.
¦ eaoePq+w w?tq
¦N0
wle

395

p
? •
e?:
, 1 I I 1
f

i
I
I
I alN
ouuPUne,e
91PMSMp
Fa9141a16{99
{ v
f , '' :III

8 .

-
C
,
+

I
} .P !
II
le 1
.
.1
e
8 $
r
-?
s N

.
dEd
4?
? g??
r

I
s
r ?mdmm 5

8
88
$
375 sW dd 8a $$ 48 8? 8
a a d 8
ggp
?
8 8m `
g g
? I
° ir

?

8-
8
Ia
f
h m m d
-4,
;,

385 SEE SHEET 4 FAIR ALAN : VIEW

10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 18+00 17+00 18+00 19+00

1
I 11' .. J

I
+•
I
i

I '
I: 12

? I

.,.. ,
,.I .. ,,,
385
_:.

d d k
? 8
4

$ .

6
$ B
I
dad:d
T? 8. g$ 888 W? Erl i
pt
375
.s m

J
r
8
R
.? .
m 8 8
'J J
d

385

I

d

d

I
r.
m
I I
,
I
d
I

. FOR PLAN VIEW
SEE SHEET 5
.
20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 28+00 27+00
4
r
a
rn
a
0
?T
BuCK "OUCT AE e"NCQ N0, NO.
.. ..
i
Il.i L. 1%, I i+ .+ 1I [ III II
L
j PRELIMINARY PLANS
r r :-1 ..... -
I'
4 J-41
E1
h
,
(?N - I. f
1° i 'I ! ?' bac warannnp Ml.lha.
A -.1
m:3 ! , 3 i{l'_ i+ _....I { ! I i 11 .i.?yll ?I G {.? i ?# r r ew.xn
§? I I i r • Fmrryals WCMauMYdN
t. 61 l:. i i? Finalam.w
420,
rr a
,I. LL { 1 J. - .t
7 ??
{d gg $? 8 [ 'I hi r
S g I,
410 qqd y $..I'
d ? S? q $ ? $ ? I IJ I ?I ? 1 i 111 G
p?p g
E ffid°' $ g4 ih 11
Ed
'1 7-111
a
40
m m
Saom g? $ sd as a? e s
sd z
id .
s ?m sE
d
Id d s $' B
? $$ym 8 ¢ sd ??
350 555 add dtl $ E $ Gg $ 8 8?
, I
-i dd :w m
370
SEE SHEET 6" FOR 'PLAN VIEW
10+00 11+DO 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00
UT2
420 J.
y. r
I
,
410
C s,
400
.. L _I, A? 'Ih r
41
..(n.
380 8 S $ 1, .. i
B
s g d o
4
sm
w d sm d d SQ.a?a sa. s s h .t." 4
d
s' S
350 $ z
K d $ daB K g W>
Id 4
Eg-$ 9a d m
t?dj! 370 ri rtild
8 380 d d 0. m ? ggm
? 4 d ° d ? $ 8e
Ld 6 is
y
I ,
SEE SHEET ? `F{]R PLAN VIEW.
x?
du -
20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 25+00
. BUCK PR01EO REFERENCE NO. SHEET Nd.
109664
UT5
I. e a 0 it !I
4111 d.
1 .. ' .i
Ili
PRELIMINARY PLANS
J.
D6 Nor uee Paa caNPraur•rtaN
{
V
I
i,..
S 8 .g i
I,
9
F ?
I I'
435 0
'..4 e.
m r d g. f &Yf EnplneeA q MY, lne.
$ $ d' Q$ $ rr.kp
. ? 3 ¦ • wr.eaxalcwlau+unne
$1g d g?
y ? ? V u1 I I.t hrnn.c4M1eW7
.. rT^
425 $d 8 A „r r
d jE d d 8? 80 8 ?d 7. W T g
Ed!! ?' g m m
??
TY
Bg
415 I m ?d d 83 8
8 d 1 ?? S ?
b ? $
ad .
x
T s
406 0.m m.?
1 f d d..? ? x $g $ s
395 s d $ d
?.
, x I
!I
385
,
I I
375 r 1' , 1T
SEE SHEET 8" FOR PLAN ' VIEW
365
10+00 11+00 12+0D 13+010 14+00 15+00 18+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00
UT5
1 ;.
435
J I I i'- L, I i I r
I I • L.1 I i ? III - ? .• . -L j ? I
425 i,
I
?I I ,' ?I f 1. I
415
y
1
Ild n 375. E-
8?gge
7Z 4
gg
gg
d$ : L
405 4. $ 1'' i1 E J'
8
q $m m p ?0 $ g$ g 8
Ed p (n
8
Odd $g $ e8 '
El.
395 ad' 2 ?•, g ;.. I
d d
w
g .
k g ad s
d
? ff g R m d ? j t
m
.,
$ Y;. s g s s d $?`
-
a? `
s LU
385 '- $d m°?d
' J
Q
a 1 J r.'I I r I l ?? w ..
i SB f
Edd mg ??, 4' i is
305 I d1+ .•?0
$$$a?$9$$$9 gxgffigA°gag?.• d"d sm;?
y I ?
y d d d d d d d m m' d d d ;i
TS
I ',< I ':7 ,
a it I
• ,
i.
. SEE SHEET 9 FOR PLAN VIEW
.m
20+00 21+00 22+00 23+GD 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00
I h
I!
TI
T /J
I
I I
/
ri
I I
I I
Ilja
/tl
? Z!
MATCHLINE SHEET 16
PROJECT ENGINENI
UTY
\ E8 UYN
PLANT RIPARIAN BUFFER INSIDE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT EXCEPT
FOR IN WETLAND AREA OF UCi
PLANT WETLAND VEGETATION
WITHIN. WETLAND BOUNDARY
REFER TO SHEET 1-A

f
?f
/ I
y?
,

07ATOTAL PROJEOT
RIPARIAN BIIFFLR = 16:86 AC.
NOTE
TOTAL PROJECT BUFFER PLANTING AND INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL
WETLAND PLANTING AREA = 1.10 AC.
SHALL BE DONE ON FOOT WHERE STREAM
RESTORATIONISTABILIZATION DOES NOT OCCUR.
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE POP CONSTRUCTION
Whir[nplnseft NY, Im.
= $WPAPxwwk.P
C+I.?NCAAODNP]7PIP
Ph- YinAN..Np
F- 612.463.&M
REVEGETATION
190 50 0 100 200
SCALE (FT'

I
I
I
I
I
I
------------J
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
PROJECT
------------------

?w
\
\
II
`
w
I I Ee aVN
\
II
? mow
I 1 w\. .
?9

``
?
II
II ?
' \
?.`\
w
II \ ~
II \ \?

II

11 \`?`\
TI

/ HAUL Roan
PLANT RIPARIAN BUFFER
INSIDE

dd'' .
CONSERVATION EASEMENT EXCEPT
FOR IN WETLAND AREA OF UT6
S11
PROTECT EXISTING MAPLE TREE \
l 1
D?? 1
2

1

11 I
l UT5
?
I 1 MII

I f CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
11

FIeLLeeTOe nw LANDOWNERS SPECIFICATIONS,
nernnu nr runiueeo ...
MATCHLINE SHEET 15
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUC10M
I ?BIIIR BDDIDIMDNA a
E/WIpYU/P.Ikm
9I
r ? e=UNA:n61!
4/IT 9
Fc111AW,MW
\
N=
BUFFER PLANTING AND INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL
SHALL BE DONE ON FOOT WHERE STREAM
RESTORATIONISTABWIATON DOES NOT OCCUR
MATCHLINE SHEET 17 100 50 0 100 200
TOTAL PROJECT
RIPARIAN BUFFER • 1885 AC.
SCALE (FI)
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONPPRUL'100N
r
a
0
E
ID
ID
ID
P
O1
N
u
a
r
m
TOTAL PROJECT
RIPARIAN BUFFER = 18,85 AC. NOTE' .
BUFFER PLANTING AND INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL
SHALL BE DONE ON FOOT WiERE STREAM
TOVTAL PROJECT PLANING AREA. = 1.10 AC. RESTORATIONISTABNJiATION DOES NOT OCCUR.
WbeP"p. fNY, Ino.
r elm Rpxae P=I=.ry
• , O=e: NORTH CAROUNR 77518
Pha 81e:4eeeue
F- 419.45&bw

REVEGETATION
100 50 0 100 200
SCALE (FT)
ii
fr
I?I
11 I
11
11
I l11
11
!fl
11?
h?Gy
\p?NF

CREEK
i
lool
PRESERVATIONS AREAS:
NO CONSTRUCTION WORK
WILL BE PREFORMED IN
THESE AREAS.
DASHED LINES ARE NOT ACTUAL STREAM
ALIGNMENT, USED ONLY FOR CONNECTIVITY
PRESERVATION AREAS
400 200 0 400 S00
SCALE (FT)
cc\cy

PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR OONETRUETION
I
I ? lhl- .R= mN my6l?
r
B.ft 200
¦ I c19483.aM mete
Ph- FtRie§
F. 010,4615M
UT9
MIL' CREEK
"
PROJECT STANDARDS
NORTH CAROLINA --- SAM rMNCT No m"
NO, '
Tom: FOLLOWING ROADWAY ENGLBSH STANDARDS AS THEY APPEAR IN THE NC 109664 EC
-1 1
"ROADWAY STANDARD DRAWINGS" - ROADWAYARUNIT - N.C. Y 2DEPARTMENT TM LATEST
TRANSPORTATION - RALEIGH, N.C. DATRD JANUARY 20,,2002 AM ND THE LATEST ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
REVISION TIIERETO ARE APFUCASLE TO THIS PROJECT AND BY REFERENCE
HEREBY ARE CONSIDERED A PART OF THESE PLANS
STD. NO. DESCR1P170N SYMBOL
EROSION CONTROL PLAN
6
60
TFh1P0RARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS .. ..
6.60 TEAPORM SEDRIENT TRAP
6.62 SHIT FENCE ... ........ - LOCATION: LASS17ER MILL - OFF
&63 T
1
'O HIGH PINE CHURCH ROAD
RARY POCK DAM ... ....
E
fl
TYPE OF WORK: STREAM RESTORATIONIENHANCEMENT
WETLAND CREATION
a 58 2Q" W
MILL SHEET Er-10 3
a r n
SSI O
5
SHED Ec-9
sHeEr EG
7

rr
-
!t
r?
SHEET EC-8 I !
SHEET EC-5 SHEET EC-e
I t
I
II

Ii
SNP E? , ?f
f
EGa r 79a 58'32" W
sNE 35a 33'24" N
?J

V PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF. ECT ENGINEER
PRO
GRAPHIC SCALES NY
Ine
Baker n J

,
.
o
0004n?pogra1r04r
8vft
ay. NNOONTH Oa10UNN 21014
THIS PROJECT CONTAINS "'""

On4e0eR0
Fm
EROSION CONTROL PLANS KEVIN TWEEDY
PE
30 15 0 30 60 FOR ALL PHASES OF
CONSTRUCTION. ,
PROJECT M m am
PRELIMINARY PLANS
Da NCR USE FOR CUNOTAUa720N
PLANS SUMMER WARD ELLS
aerTRTC naax. : PROJECT AIANACRR
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA =17.00 Acres
JOSHUA WHITE, PG
L PROJECT ?dSRiAER P.R:
A L JIONAii/RRr
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.

PROJECT ENGINEER
TEMPORARY SILT FENCE TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO N&r USE FOP CONSTRUCTION
PUBLIC ROAD

Im En
q?wHnB NY, ha

PLO-
e' wmn

R-4O ?RMO' 810200

¦ CNy. NORTH CAROU 27511
®
Ph- 010.403.15,11111
DAUM
PacfliAnllli7

z
0 3

o
Tr MIN
FILTER FABRIC
NOTES
FILTER FABRIC
1. USE FILTER FABRIC AMINIMUM OF36"INWIDTH AND
FASTEN ADEQUATELY TO THE WIRE AS DIRECTED COMPACTED FILL
BY THE ENGINEER.
2 PROVIDEV STEEL POST OF THE SELF-FASTENER
PUBLIC ROAD
ANGLE STEELTYPE
-- - - -
•--1-I I I? I I I? I c l
III M
S CLASS ASiOSTO E
WASHED CLATHICKNESS OF

Vul
cyc NE
0
STEEL POST • ra DEPTH

EXTENSIONOF FABRIC
INTO TRENCH
FILTER FABRIC
NOTES:
SPECIFICATION NO.0.00- CONSTRUCTION ACCESS "N.C, EROSION AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL DECEMBER 1983"
TEMPORARY ROCK DAM
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING - WOOD MAT
FLOW
'
I
1
CON8TRVCTIDN AREA IMSTRPAM
WOOD MAT
CLASS 8STONE '
SE1llIHGBASIN 01 STONE
(3FT.NAA%ORPTNI J

`-- •?" I FlLT'BAFABIUC
C
.

-
? -
. .. •- `.. ?'
- CLASS 4 STONE
FILTER FABRIC COSTING CHANNEL
elm m

FLOWS

NODES,
-
, SANNFULL
MAXIMUMDEPTH
..
1. CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.
2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERLAS AND EQUIPMENT ON-SITE BEFORE WORK BEGINS.
3. MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION. OF STREAMBANKS. DO NOT EXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM.
4. LINE STPEAMBANKAND ACCESS RAMP AREA WITH NONWOVEN FILTER FABRIC.
S: INSTALL STREAM CROSSING AT RIGHT ANGLE TO THE FLOW. RSl STM FILTER FABRIC
S. TRANSPLANT SOD FROM ORIGINAL STREAMBA K ONTO SIDE SLOPES FOR LATER USE.
T. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOES NOT ENTER EJUSTING CHANNEL
8. STABILIZE ANACCESS RAMP OF.CLASS BSTONE TOTHE EDGE OF THE MUD MAT. FROSS SECTION
9. THE WOOD MAT SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE AND TMDTH TO SUPPORT THE LARGEST VEHICLE CROSSING THE CHANNEL
10. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN. APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING TO. EQUIPMENT UTILIZED, RECOMMENDED ATA
5:1 SLOPE.
c
m
v
N
m
W
E
E
a
m
m
m
i
n
0
a
e
m
m
0
CXD
C%D
W'
tm
vi
PROJECT ENGINEER
I I
?
I
II
1 I
1 I
1 1
I I

II II
I
1
I
1 E
I I ?^,4 C
`
Il_

?
0
7
v\-
C)
O1

I
1
1 `

1
IPRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONFTRUCI70N

TOE OF SLOPE DITCH
i
LIMjTSOFF DIMR8AN2E-.
1A+Oq
13+00
oAD
POWER. POLE y?,Ul R
I. ® WYrr MCOE NT,IDO.I
. lMRpNq'NArry
?. i ? X0ORIHCARMOUlIXA7Mt1
Phi ::VIVAUMU
Fa91Lk1.NW

5
7?

..r ...? . 1JMITS ! DI /
A
1 1 ?~ ?
I 1 ?YOIy `
1 1 -

1 l
1 l
I
I 1
l I

I 1

1 1
1
1 1
1 1
I 1 '11
,:
'
'
1 p,
1
-CI?

I 1
1 I
I ?

ROCK DAM
EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL
fi= I 40 20 0 40 AO
CONTRACTOR WILL WORK WITHIN LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE.
SCALE (FT)
PROJECT
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DD NOT USE FOR CON67RUMON
ftks IASSdnO NY. Mo.
i omoMne!Rnnq'
¦ 1 Cary, XNOXM'CM0UM2761!
Rx?.. MiAU.BM
P. S1PAM.01w
23+00
SE"
2+00,_
70
y r v j k J
fi

!/ /
dg?/`/
EISSTINO 21 RCP
%TO REMAIN` /
s A / n / r ' t
N
j
f
t
t
t
t
/ /
EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL
N= I 40 Y 0 40 8
CONTRACTOR WILL NARK WITHIN LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE,
SCALE (FT)
PROJECT ENOINEBE
A
,oo/
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT UNL FOR UONMUCTION Enql euooo%pp m NY, Inc.
Sub wa
¦ Ph NORIN3.6488 1N1
Fa nF4eaeuo
-Al i 0.611 -
n?
14+00
_
s
381] ?q
HAUL
24,
A AM ? ..4 \ 1 rc.`'? \ g\ rM1\ ? y
8g0 ,. ! ,
RAW. ROAO
O,
'R
N
O
U
W
U
E
NOM
CONTRACTOR HALL WORK WITHIN LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE.
EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL
40 20 0 40 80
SCALE (FT)
PRELIMINARY PLANS
UD NOT USE FOR CONSTRCCTION
U
W
WF
W
2
N
W
Z
I
F
a
C
C)
TEMPORARY ROCK DAM
PLUG BREECHED DAM
END UT2 PUMP-AROUND I INTO DITCH-
THAT DRAINS INTO MILL CREEK
TEMPORARY ROCK DAM
BEGIN UT2 PUMP-AROUNO 2

ROCK DAM
WOOD MAT CROSSING

% 196
( k9?
TOCK,, PILE
'I 1
I' ?I
II I
I? TI
L
III ? I
I ?
I' 'I
I?'I
N
CONTRACTOR WILL WORK WITHIN LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE,
no-" KY, Inc.
r
i c". K0M CAROLMA 215I5
ph- 919.03.5m
F-GIMS MW
EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL
40 20 0 40 80
SCALE (FT)
END UT2 PUMP-AROUND 2 INTO DITCH
THAT DRAINS INTO MILL CREEK
PROJECT ENGINEER.
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT UFR FOR CONMUCfION
r?

ina.
I ®C",WBR CARODy NY.16
r SMgnq Pk-y
¦ Na N6V1011(VTHI
ker f i r-
Fu 810.101.M10
•
14r 7 1&p - ti's
r 00 A'k ° RF1Dg. 29
,F 19+pD r-12+99 /? ..? - ?`;? . - - 1B?QU..... , ` f,• `-? ?.,o ?g`'ap J
- y. 1B+pp
alr
r- i
-BEGIN- ONSTRUCTION UT 5
i/ A.1 =0
%
r
NOTE:
1.BUFFER PLANTING AND INVASNESPECIES REMOVAL
SHALL BE DONE ON FOOT WHERE STREAM
RESTORATIONISTABILRATION DOES NOT OCCUR..
Z, CONTRACTOR WILL WORN WITHIN LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE.
EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL
40 20 0 40 80
SCALE (FT)
C3
4ru
TOJk$ y-

Ax \\
72NIPIDWY ROCK DAM
lirr, czTA 9R.ap(ld s
'A EK STA. 19,49D3

• ?. :. r AEOIN PiIMPlROUND ,

TBMPORMr ROCK DAM
BEGIN PIBAPAROUNO 7
5 - BEGIN FUMPlWCKlND-:3--,,l
.
%
n\ w iii '

r
PRELIMINARY PLANS
m Nor wall m CONFMIX-r CN
F,1R019NP 8 •.
?l 1
kRNT POND
sT?aai;?DaaazealP I' . ?'

1
ar, -H .//...,. -?
k TODK p}FI_
STASDEND
% ...
Baku rlnpl=,I Nr. Im,
rowlwnv?
lAWNn 7ilu
Play 150 Waal
Po-a•aaa.ano
?r
v?fi
BTDCKfIL$I
? r t a, a+, y.:'' BThOIHOARFA ?. +y'?: /+/?
oo?
.,, \ \ ?` --`I 1 , i 1 , If T(TOf(0pllE1 .. . rf ?./ END PUMPAROUND 1
rA
m
u
w
F
w
a
C
4
Q

1 f
\ j? I ?1 I(? Ir /i?' ,40
-r;?
?lllli ' j /ix
,
/ MAUL ROAA
SEDIMENT CONTROL
1 BUFFER PLANTING AND INVASFVE SPECIES REMOVAL
SHALL BE DONE ON FWT WHERE STREAM
RESTORATION STABILIZATION DOES NOT OCCUR.
2. CONTRACTOR WILL WORK VMTRIN LNAn Of Dr"LANCF.
/
PXGVh1E BAEECNEP FOND 6F11 46r
TO RIAVATTON OF E47 HAUL ROAD
MOSION AND
6614m4 B
SCALE {FT)
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONI'RUCKON

END PUMP-ARCIIHD 5
v
P
U
U
E
a
i
K)
a
m
"m
0
SON PUMP-MOUND E-l

SIM
Lit ? 1 1
9 `\ w? ?a ???• F r •C ?Jt? E PCHH y^
w STA{ PILE! / !? +?.? ..,1 fii P%'7•
STAGING AREA 4f o'? / EPW ?: / .
NMI llrml?ftg
NY,Na
am I
I ®oooWM'P?*v
r R
? ? pry;NMMCMOlN171610
Plme il1Aq.6N!
rrc ou?exeuo
HAUL ROAD /
-- •,.,, ?M??'ffi?TllRBA1VGEY.. :??Cr._
17 77"
-7 44 7 a rusrRUcrroN
^_•iN u ' w ? MILL CREEK 577-327M /i
ww ? w
`* w
? 514 ?i @r?ID -DAR?LL? ? p¢ , ,-: • , ,?; w //

Zr-
END PUMP.AROUND 4
? y
y" _y KkUL ROAD
r .. TEMPORARY YYOOO MAT
TEMPORARY ROOK OAH
BEGIN PUMP-AROUND t-

?J q w\w \ ///
? r
% a V w'; /
?x
8 30CK PILe
END PtIMPJAOUND B
!
fl !
EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL
1 4 20 0 40 80
CONTRACTOR WILL WORN WITHIN LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
SCALE (FT)
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONWMUCMON
_` }r
t
? I t
MILL
a
m
W
0
E
a
P
m
i
C
a
m
LASSITER MILL - _- ??
17,
? y' c?uI
"dd
ACE
UCTlON `\?? ?. ll f
VA. 10-00.00 END CONSTRUCTION UT
. \ `\ I CONFLUENCE MILL CREEK
qtr`\-?1.???
? -w\
f
%
",
MW Engi vino NY, Ina,
ww:2"Ptilnay
¦. ?NOMM COIOUNA21Ne
I F I N SI k3.6Wa0
saSSIW
oedt
NOTE.
1. BUFFER PLANTING AND INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL
SNAIL. BE DONE. ON FOOT WHERE STREAM
RESTORATIONISTABILIZATION DOES NOT OCCUR
2. CONTRACTOR WALL WORK WITHIN LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE,
EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL
40 20 0 40 80
SCALE (FT)
MATCHLINE SHEET EC-12
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANE
m NOT UOR TOR CONeTRUMON
eeA?
nry,NOenir?nowaarne
Brow nv,wt:TVu
hewxsun
at?!
iF
i,

v
U
W
u
E
V
to
C'
P.
E
6
fr.
l
CT

HAUL ROADS
NOTE: 1 5 0 100 200
BUFFER PLAWRIp AND INYA9VV$ SPECIES REMOVAL _
SHALL 9E DOME ON FOOT MERE SCREAM
RESTORATION! STABRIZATION DOES NOT CIC". SCALE ??
i
I
m
N
u
w
U
E
v
(D
P
m
m
n
a
r
m
1 /
I!/
ll
ll
ll
I
EXISTING. ASPHALT DRIVEWAY
PROTECT EXISTING MAPLE TREE
I / PORA8.Y G AVEF AD AROUND-
! ! E CA••N>4TRUC IO CE DETAIL)
)
I
I
)
CO d10N
USE
r
A/ I
Q I
/! r
I
/ /
I1
-------------?
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
li
iI 1 1
If
rr
r/
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
MATCHLINE SHEET EC-11
HAUL ROAD

r ?
SILAGE `
PIT Al
MATCHLINE SHEET EC-13
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NDT U8n POR CONSTRUCTION
SNar l7pl= NY, Inc.
eooo=P.I..T
• ary, NN
C ORTR CAROUKA 77618
Ph- GHOMOAM
F- MAGUM
UT4
h9m
BUFFER PLANTING AND INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL
SHALL BE DONE ON FOOT WHERE STREAM
RESTORATION/ STABILIZATION DOES NOT OCCUR.
HAUL ROADS
100 50 0 100 200
SCALE (FT)
MILL CREEK I
fr
` p rr,
hWT61 JV SM
EC-13
PIOMa ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT UAR rOR MNOTRUMOM
iekefEfglnwMg IFYnko,
r e]00IIP0n 1Pt'Mny
&f?i00
¦ ¦ c.,e,nanPl rw,auw,rme
Pant nu.eexew
ru PUMSWO
5yelp
X?l ,r
54
UT6
MATCHLINE SHEET EC-12

MAfi+f,I.IN.
sh'L?ET EC.r2
V
I
CREEK S
FORD
co aVN
C MILL CREEK I
HAM ROAD ; ?. 3.
TEMPORARY WOOD MAT
w
U
E
C
a
A
HAUL ROAD
1
I?
\ 1.1 13?
R
NE
134?,
N
BUFFER PLARTtNG AND INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVW.
SHALL BE OONE ON FOOT WHERE STMEAM
RES•EORATIOWSTABILVATION DOES NOT OOGUR.
HAUL ROADS
100 50 0 100 2
11111 t
SCALE {Ff}