20050597 Ver 1_Complete File_20050408

O?O? W AT F9QG
(DWa -I
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
June 20, 2005
Ms. Tara Disy Allen
EBX Neuse - I, LLC
220 Chatham Business Drive
Pittsboro, NC, 27312
Subject Property: Cox Site Wetland and Stream Restoration
Mill Creek, 27-52-(8.5), Class WSIV NSW
Alan W. Klimck, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
DWQ Project # 05-0597
Johnston County
Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification and Authorization Certificate per the Neuse River
Buffer Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0233) with Additional Conditions
Dear Ms. Allen:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to clear 0.75
acre of wetlands and impact 170,300 square feet of protected Meuse Buffers in order to restore/enhance
6,229 feet of streams at the subject property, as described within your application received by the N.C.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on April 8, 2005, and in additional correspondence received May 17,
2005. The impacted Neuse Buffers are to be subsequently restored/replanted as part of the restoration
work on the site. After reviewing your application, we have decided that the impacts are covered by
General Water Quality Certification Number(s) 3495 (GC3495). The Certification(s) allows you to use
Nationwide Permit(s) 27 when issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). This letter shall
also act as your approved Authorization Certificate for impacts to the protected riparian buffers per 15A
NCAC 2B .0233. In addition, you should obtain or otherwise comply with any other required federal,
state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Erosion and
Sediment Control, Non-discharge, and other regulations. Also, this approval to proceed with your
proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your application shall expire upon
expiration of the 404 Permit.
This approval is for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If the property is sold,
the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for
complying with all conditions. If total fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre of
wetland or 150 linear feet of stream, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A -
NCAC 2H.0506 (h). This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification and any additional conditions listed below.
The Additional Conditions of the Certification are:
1. Impacts Approved
The following impacts are hereby approved as long as all of the other specific and general
conditions of this Certification (or Isolated Wetland Permit) are met. No other impacts are
approved including incidental impacts:
401 Oversight/Express Review Permits Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
No One
iCarolina
Naturally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycledl10% Post Consumer Paper
Cox Site Wetland and Stream Restoration
Page 2 of 3
June 20, 2005
Amount Approved (Units) Plan Location or Reference
Wetlands (clearing) 0.75 (acre) Wetland Impact Site #1
Wetlands (restoration) 41.9 (acres) Restoration plan
Buffers (impact
followed by
restoration 170,300 (square feet) PCN form item X
Stream (restoration and
enhancement 5,500 (feet) Stream Impact Site #1, 2 ,
2. Erosion & Sediment Control Practices
Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications
governing the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices in order to protect surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control
measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and, Erosion Control Manual. The devices
shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrodr sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects,
including contractor-owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Surface Mining Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
3. No Waste, Spoil, Solids, or Fill of Any Kind
No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond
the footprint of the impacts depicted in the Pre-Construction Notification. All construction
activities, including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of sediment and erosion
control Best Management Practices, shall be performed so that no violations of state water quality
standards, statutes, or rules occur.
4. No Sediment & Erosion Control Measures w/n Wetlands or Waters
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum
extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters
is unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within six months of the date
that the Division of Land Resources has released the project.
5. Vegetation
Vegetation within the buffer and wetland areas shall be planted such that monotypic plant species
stands are not created. No single tree species should account for greater than 20% of the tree
community, and no single herbaceous species should account for greater than 35 % of the herbaceous
community upon planting. The ratios are likely to change over successive years as survivability will
vary among species.
}
i
Cox Site Wetland and Stream Restoration
Page 3 of 3
June 20, 2005
6. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable
Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return the attached
certificate of completion to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650.
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification and may result in
criminal and/or civil penalties. The authorization to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct
impacts to waters as depicted in your application and as authorized by this Certification shall expire upon
expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this Certification (associated with the approved wetland or
stream impacts), you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that
you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of
the North Carolina General, Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act and the Neuse riparian buffer protection rule as described within 15A NCAC 213 .0233. If you have
any questions, please telephone Cyndi Karoly in the Central Office in Raleigh at 919-733-9721 or Eric
Kulz in the DWQ Raleigh Regional Office at 919-571-4700.
AWK/cbk
Enclosures: GC 3495
Certificate of Completion
cc: USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
DLR Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Sincerely,
( ?? Y't't
Alan W. Klimek, E.
Filename: 050597Cox(Johnston)401
W/ Le I.y/
APR 8`_ 2005 PAYIVIEN ?
DENR- I % -vL-i v LU
WATER Qy I ,,.
'
Of w AND ST0RM1"f R BR qXH
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
J 0 7
(1f any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: WOC#3495 and NWP 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Tara Disy Allden
Mailing Address: EBX Neuse - 1, LLC
220 Chatham Business Drive
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Telephone Number: 919-545-2929 Fax Number:
E-mail Address:_ _tara i ,ebxusa.com
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:_ Kevin Tweedy, PE
Company Affiliation: Buck Enpineerinu, PC
Mailing Address:8000 Reuency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
Telephone Number: 919-463-5488 Fax Number: 919-463-5490
E-mail Address: KtweedynaBuclient!ineerin2.com
Page 5 of 12
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: The Cox Site Wetland and Stream Restoration Project
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 2518-54-4024, 2518-55-8059, 2518-53-8209,
2518-64-2656 and 2518-51-3083.
4. Location
County: Johnston County Nearest Town: Bentonville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Take I-40 to HWY 96, take a
left onto HWY 96. Take a rip_ht at the T intersection, a right at the flashin! lip-ht and
thetas station. Turn right at T intersection onto Devils racetrack and a left onto
Westbrook low grounds road. The project is off to the right of this road.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 34°60'00"N / 79°75'00"W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): Work area totals approximately 46 acres.
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Mill Creek
8. River Basin: Neuse River
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 6 of 12
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Property has recently been in agricultural production.
The existinu conditions are further described in the attached restoration plan.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Site will be restored as a NCEEP full delivery project, as described in the attached Cox
Site Wetland and Stream Restoration Plan. Work to he conducted with pans, dozers,
track-hoes, and other equipment typically used for restoration proiects.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work:
Perform work totaling 7,263 linear feet (LF) of stream restoration, enhance 285 LF of
stream and restore 28.7 acres of riverine and 16.9 acres of non-riverine wetlands along
an unnamed tributary to Mill Creek
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
Restoration Plan was submitted to and approved by NCEEP in March 2005.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 7 of 12
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The proposed impacts are temporary
impacts necessary to restore wetland hydrololly and stream functions to areas that were
historically wetlands. The area will be replanted with hardwood trees consistent with the
rest of the restoration site.
1. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Located within
100-year Floodplain**
es/no Distance to
Nearest Stream
linear feet
Type of Wetland***

1 Clearing for
Restored Stream
Channel
0.75
Yes
15 ft
Forested headwater
wetland

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://wNvw.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.88
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.75
2. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
linear feet
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
leasespecify)
1 Restoration 5,944 UT to Mill Creek 7 feet perennial
2 Enhancement 285 UT to Mill Creek 7 feet perennial

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uses.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topazone.coin,
www.mapqucst.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 6,229
Page 8 of 12
3. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres
Name Wate)
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Proposed impacts are required to restore wetland and stream functions. as described in
The Cox Site Wetland and Stream Restoration Plan. Project will result in 7.263 linear feet
(LF) of stream restoration, enhance 285 LF of stream and restore 28.7 acres of riverine and
16.9 acres of non-riverine wetlands and an overall increase in stream lenp'th on the site
from 5,944 feet to 7,263 feet.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
Page 9 of 12
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
httn://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
See attached restoration plan; The Cox Site Wetland and Stream Restoration Proiect.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wM/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 10 of 12
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ? No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 213 .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ® No ? If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 102,200 3
2 68,100 1.5
Total 170,300
* Zone i extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
Page 11 of 12
Wetland and Stream mitigation is exempt from the Buffer Rules. Impacted areas will be
replanted as part of the proposed restoration work.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
l 4e2d, -
r / 2-c= S-
Applicant/AgenN Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
WAT?9?G
DW 4.' -i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Debbie Edwards
FROM: Amanda Mueller
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
SUBJECT: Cox Site Wetland and Stream Restoration Plan, Johnston County, North Carolina
DATE: April 22, 2005
Upon review of the "Cox Site: Wetland and Stream Restoration Plan, Johnston County, North
Carolina, there were a few questions or comments that arose:
1. (p. 4-9) The plan notes that the parcel is still actively farmed and that the project must
not interfere with farm needs, and that it will need to incorporate stream crossings,
fencing, and field access. It appears as this will include a farm path elevated two feet
above the rest of the site and a culverted permanent stream crossing for cattle. The
yearly monitoring reports should include explicit information on these two features
(e.g. the sustainability and impacts they are having on the stream and wetlands).
2. (p. 8-10) The plan notes that herbicides will be used for invasive species. Herbicide
treatments should meet all guidelines for herbicide applications (John Dorney should
have the reference for that information).
3. Success criteria need to be established to account for potential monotypic vegetation
communities on the site (e.g. No one tree species will account for greater than 20% of
the tree community, no one herbaceous species will account for greater than 35% of
the herbaceouse community, etc.)
4. This plan was approved by the EEP in March of 2005 and reports are being submitted
to EEP. Should plans also be submitted to DWQ for review or is that not necessary
since it will be reviewed by EEP?
I hope these comments are helpful, please contact me if I can be of further assistance.
401 Oversight/Express Review Permits Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone]/ FAX [phone]/ Internet: httn://h2o.cnr.state.naut'ncµctlands
N rthCarolina
Naturally
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer-50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
05/53/2505 12:15 19194635490 BUCK EfIGIIJEERIrIG C S _ D ? 0? -1 PAGE Ell
U.S. ,ARMY CORPS OF ENGT
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. 200520756
County: Johnston U.S.G.S. quad: Newton Grove North
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETE INA ION
Property Owner/Agent: Ruck Engineering
Address: George Buchholz
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 2751.
Telephone No.:
Property description:
Size (acres) 136 Nearest Town Ne ton Gro •e
Nearest Waterway Uttnitmed trio. to Mill Creek River Basin Ne ire
USGS HUC 03020201 Coordinates N. 60622.52 W 191702.87
Location description Cox full Deliver Miti tine Site located off of SR 1198: rl acent to an annamcd
Mill Creek north of Newton Gr ve in Johnston Count North Carolhta.
Indicate Wbich of the Following Apply:
Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described ropetty. We strongly suggest you liavc
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) j isdictiom To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process( Reference 33 CF Part 331).
There are Navigable Waters of the United States wi.tbin the above described prop rty subject to the pernut requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Ac . Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not o exceed five years from the date of this
notification. i
N There ate wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirer>jXents of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our publishe regulations, this determination may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due o the size of your property aud/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this tivetland delincati. u in a titrely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any del neation must be verified by the Corps.
X The waters of the U.S. including wetland on your project area have been del heated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. pon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an a curate depiction of all areas subject to
CW A jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the la or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the la v or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the ate of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
pcmiit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not toe teed five years from the date of this
notification.
The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washir
their requirements.
Page 1 of 2
the Coastal Area Management Act
NC, at [phone] to determine
I
MAY-3-2005 TUE 10:45 TEL:[phone] NAP1E:DWQ-1,1ETLANDS P. 2
05/03/2005 12:15 19194635490 BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 03
Action ID:
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you 1 ave any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact John Thom c at 19 876-8441.
Basis For Determination: There are stream cha nely within ' ur pro ect site will c) arc ri mtaries of tiTill Creek whirl
flnws Into the 1Neuce Rlver nnd_ he Atlantic Ocean.
Remarks; J'k
Corps Regulatory Official.:
Date 0,1120/2005 Expiration Date 04176/2010
Corps Regulatory Official (Initial):
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
A plat or sketch of the property and the wetland data form must he attached i
• A copy of the "Notification Of Administrative Appeal Options And Process
transmitted with the property owner/agent copy of this form.
• If the property contains isolated wetlands/waters, please indicate in "l
"Isolated Determination Information Sheet" to the file copy of this fo
Page 2 of 2
the file copy of this form.
kid Request For Appeal" form must be
section and attach the
MAY-3-2005 TUE 10:'6 TEL:[phone] NAHE:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 3
05/03/2005 12:15 19194635490 BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 04
r _r y t }
+kt 14S f? q s ,
4 t?ii' N& t
A a >licarit: Buck Engineering File Number: 200520756 Date: 04/26/2005
Attached is- See Section below
A
INITIAL PROFFERED PE"11T (Standard Permit or Letter of
I
ei- ission)
PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter of
PERMIT DENIAL
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
At INITIAL PROFFERED VERMIT. You may accept or o
ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and r
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you tvay accept the LOP
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in i
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations
OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of Bert
may request that the per nut be modified accordingly. You must complet
the form to the district engineer. Your objections must be received by tl
the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal the permit
letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) mi
concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (
detennined that the permit should be issued as previously written. Aftei
district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideratic
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Pcunit, you may sign the permit document and t
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in i
pernit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or L(
conditions therein, you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps
Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to t1-
be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this nc
to the permit.
B
C
D
E
turn it to the district engineer for final
nd your work is authorized. Your signature
entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
ysoci.ated with the permit.
in terms and conditions therein, you
Section II of this form and rettim
district engineer within 60 days of
n the future. Upon receipt of your
dify the permit to address all of your
) not modify the perni t having
evaluating your objections, the
n. as indicated in Section B below.
urn it to the district engineer for final
d your work is authorized. Your signature
entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
sociatcd with the permit.
1) because of certain terms and
PEngineers Administrative Appeal
division engineer. This form must
ice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the orps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form o the division engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this otice.
MAY-3-2005 TUE 10:46 TEL:[phone] NANE:DWQ-WETLANDS P, 14
05/03/2005 12:15 19194635490 BUCK ENGI
PAGE 05
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accep or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JA. Failure to tz tify the Corps witkzin 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and Nvaive all rights t appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you way appeal the approved JD ut der the Corps of Engineers Adnunistrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this fornn and sending the form to the divisi n engineer. This form nnust be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not iced to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you vish, you may request ail approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction, Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for I ppealing the decision or your
objections to ail initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You ma, attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the adL?ttinistrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the aninistrative record, the Corps
memorandurn for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may pro ide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is alrcak in the administrative record.
t:"#*'ii' 111. 1,?'' DI't til:l1;:?"?i'???1?5???1 s.
If you have questions regarding this decision if you only bave quAlfa ns regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you tray contact: may also contact: 13o /r
Mr. Athur-ILAdW Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-ET-CO-R
U.S. Army Corps of E,igineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia 303 3-8501
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Co s of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during he course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of azay site investigation, and will have the pportunity to participate in all site
investigations.
Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
DIVISION ENGINEER:
Commander
U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic
60 Forsyth Street, Room 91MI5
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3490
MAY-3-2005 TUE 10:47 TEL:[phone] NAME: DWO-WETLANDS P: 5
05/03/2005 12:15
r
19194635490 BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 06
DATA FORM FEB 2.3 2005
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination anual)
' RALEIGHBE(?ULATURYFIELIy-0 i!If;?`
Project/Site: S i
Applicant / Owner: ? Date: t
County:
Investigator; Stato:
Do normal circumstances exist on tho site? Yes„^y,!t- No Community ID:
Is tho site significantly disturbed (Atypical s(tuatlon)? Yes tic, t?p
v Transect ID:
Plot ID
t
Is the aroa a potential problem aroa? Yo-tla ^
p_
(explain on roverso if needed)
vt= t ; F= rn'r'I r) N
t S rotes Stratum Indlcstor
i
D
t Pl Dornindnt a v a ieS Stratum Indic?-itor
nan
om
in
AA 1) ALV-
2 E&!

4. .• yU + a 4!-t,ret.iffi iffift FACE
g, •r
G.
{[l [ lC? f
13.
14.
^ 15
7. . --
t3. U 1 r c rl??-?t?,r et ct<t'? i V r 5
Percent of Dominant Species that aro OBL, FACW, or FAC excludin g FAC-).
Remarks: Wetland Vegetation Preseat 13ased Upon Greater than 509/a of the . Ptaut Species ardare not
Classificd as FAGOAL in the National List of Plant Speciz.s that Occur ita Wetl ands. Sample plot was taken...
? '?,? ?. rtrh '?'t3'? 6f • tit ?,?
HYDROLOGY

Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland F{ydrol gy Indlcators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Inds ators:
Other Inun
=V ilsatut? ated
ated in Upper 12'
No Rocorded Data Availablo
- - Waf
Drift r Marks
Lines
Field Observations: ^ Sed
Drat ment Deposlis
age Patterns In Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: Secondary I ndicators:
OKI ized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Wat r-Stained Leaves

Depth to Saturated Soil: -oc
FA I Soil Survey Data /
-tleutral Test //a, S
s
_./Ot(t r(Explain in Remark
Remarks:
4
Ck o rye rp cot 4e f C ill Ca q OV'L ,+ "z
i
HAY-3-2005 TUE 113:48 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P: 6

05/03/2005 12:15
SOILS
19194635490
N.
EUCK ENGINEERING
PAGE 07
Map Unit Name
y
Drainago
(Series and Phase): Class:
ciz0?SS5.?oM - ?(,U?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ?fA Confirm 1 4appod Typo? Yes__ _ No
rrofl[e P4-.Criot10nti
Depth MetrtX Colors Mottle Colors Mottla Texture, Concretlons,
(inctjeq] Horizon fMunsel(NloJst) (Mu9seR FJolst)__ Abundance/Co trait Structure, eto,
Wawa
qAq_
f A??

?a
r
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Hlstosol Concretions
Hls(Ic Epipedon High Organic Cont©
S
O
i
St
I
ki
I(tdi
Od it In Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
S
S
d
il
c
rgan
c
roa
___
ng
U
or an
o
y
s
Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hy ric Soils List
_Reducing Conditions Listed on National ydric Soils List
_!,?,Ieyed or Low-Chroma Colors Otlhpr (Explain In R marks)
Remarks:

t 1 cum, ,, (? , ?vG1? t .9wu p W ?j ats?r? N?
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytle Vegetation Present? Yes No Is.the Sa mpling Point
Wetland Hydrology present? Yes ?.+ No Within Wotland? . Yes -0 No_
Hydric Soils Present? Yes _ No
Remarks: Location (describe) is/is not classified as a wetlaad based upon the criteria set fortb in the 1987 '
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delbacation Manual.

I'IAY-3-2005 TUE 10:48 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS
P. 7
05/03/2005 12:15
Project / Site: 1
"-
- Date. t
County:
un
Appllcant /Own State:
lnvestlgator.
Do normal circumstances exist on the slte7 Ycs_.LC'tto
v' Community ID:
Transect ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No
No
'
Y
?' _
Plat ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? cs
.
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
D nn t Plant S c P4 ZEELIL Indicator ominant :+ t 5 e tes Strzwrn Indicator
2. +
?? Ib,

5.n 11. _
13.
?
6. 14.
7. ` -? 15.
y_ 16.
Percent of Dominant Specios that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excludlr? cd FAC.).
Remarks: Wetland VcgetatiQ a j'resent Based Upon Greater than 50% of
Classified as FAGOBL in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in We Plant Species ardare not
'lands. Sample plot was taken...

HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Rematks): Wetland Hydrol gy Indicators
Stream, Lak©, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs Primary Ind catom:
_
Other Inu
1_9atu dated
rated in Upper 12"
No Recorded Data Available
- Waf
?
Drif er Marks
t Linos
_
Sec lmant Deposits
Field Observations: _Y
Dr inago Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: ?(Ln•) Secondary ndicators:
Oxi ized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: _J4 n.) Wa or-Stained Leaves

IF(
Depth to Saturated Soil: _I in.) o
_ Fa
-
i al Soil Survey Data
Neutral Test Cu i S/?
o
_/Otl r (Explain in Remarks
Remarks:
4
1
" t
l
, h 0-v1
'
i
e (e o
2f rt rp 0 Q?.
l i °
?' "
0V L
C a
1 t Ak
+ Y
Arm
FIRY-3-2005 TUE
10:49 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS
19194635490 BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 08
?. DATA FORM FEB 2.3 2005
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination actual)
R,UtIGH RMUTORY PIELD'OP?1011
P: 8

05/03/2005 12:15
SOILS
19194635490
ev
BUCK ENGINEERING
PAGE 09
Map Unit Name
(Serles and Phase), Dralnago Glass:_
" ?z0.SSS.?4 ? :f ILv
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ^` - ?AaW? k's Confirm
a.ppud Type? Yes,____ No -
Pronto Doscripfion:
Dopth Matrix Colors Mottle Colora Mottle
Textum, Concretions,
flnclisgl _ Horizon (Man-hell Moistl (Mansell Moistl AbundanrnlCo
AIA t . g Structure otcl.

?.

Hydric Soil lndlcators:
Histosoi _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _High Organic Cant nt in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
?Sul6dic Odor organic Streaking i Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regimo Listed On Local Hy ?ria Soils LIst
-Reducing Conditions Listed on National W ydrlc Solis List
?Gleyed or Low-Chrotna Colors _Other (Explain in R marks)
Remarks:
L1 (?? ' 61
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegotatian Present? Yes No Is tho Sampling Point
Wotiand Hydrology Present? Yes No Within Wetland?. Yes• No_
Hydric foils Present? Yes _,. No
Remarks: Location (describe) islis not classified as a wetland based upo?t the criteria set forth in the 1987
Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Defteation Manual

HAY-3-26105 TUE 10:49 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-HETLANDS P. 9
95/03/2905 12:15 19194635490 BUCK ENGINEERING PAGE 01
5/-5Ibs
TD', 'DCN -t w?J
?w©
rA)(? X33?(? ??3
F`RnW. 5w1 ?1CKS
clo BUCK.
A c is Qo C f BAST u-nwJ A-(-,
om .
-9-- O?0 5q
MAY-3-2005 TUE 10:45 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P.' 1
RE: DWQ 05-0597 Cox restoration site
Subject: RE: DWQ 05-0597 Cox restoration site
From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 00:19:02 -0400
To: "Cynthia Van Der Wiele" <[e-mail]>, "Cyndi Karoly"
<[e-mail]>, "Amanda Mueller" <[e-mail]>
Cythia & Cyndi:
I was satisfied with the first two comments because they basically required
proof in the monitoring reports that cattle and herbicides were not negatively
impacting the restored areas or the waters included.
I am also struggling with one of their responses. I suggested possible wordings
to ensure that monotypic tree and herbaceous vegetation communities were
not established. They stated that neither EEP or Corps guidance cited using
this type of success criteria, and that they had received 401 permits on
numerous projects over the past several months that have not included these
success criteria.
I thought the Corps used the tree criteria and possibly had it in their guidance(i.e.
no one tree speices will account for greater than 20% of the tree community).
I couldn't find it in their guidance either. I have a call into Mickey
Suggs at the Corp to see, and Ed is trying to get me some information about
the EEP guidance to compare.
Even if EEP and the Corps don't have it in their guidance, does that mean
that we can't either? I am also at a loss how to answer the previous projects
not requiring it. I feel that the tree requirement is quite important, the
herbaceous vegetation by no means needs to say 35%, I just suggested a number.
Even a comment saying that the dominant herbaceous vegetation will consist
of more than one species, would suffice.
I think this also suggests that it is important to get a list of guidance
for our success requirements out as well. At least to the office staff,
or on the web site as well.
Sorry if I rambled, I have just been struggling with that issue for a week.
So
Cynthia, thanks for asking
Let me know what you think I/we should do,
Amanda
-- Original Message --
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 18:06:15 -0400
From: Cynthia Van Der Wiele <cynthia.vanderwieleoncmail.net>
To: Cyndi Karoly <Cyndi.KarolygNCMail.Net>,
Amanda Mueller <amanda.muellergncmail.net>
Subject: DWQ 05-0597 Cox restoration site
Hey Cyndi,
I'm not sure what Amanda thought of their response to our request for
more info, but they seemed to side-step our ?'s by stating that they've
never had to provide that info on previous projects, or simply state
that they're using previous project experience...
The questions I raised were items that Dave Rosgen deemed important in
our stream class...
Anyway, I'm a little at a loss as to what to do...proceed and time will
1 of 2 6/7/2005 12:43 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL BANC & EXCHANGE, LLC 10055 Red Run Boulevard, Suite 130
Owings Mills, MD 211174860
Management, Banking & Trading of Environmental Rights 410 356-5159 FAX [phone]
"Finding Environmental Solutions through Economic Incentives"
May 11, 2005
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
NC Division of Water Quality - Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Ms. Karoly:
220 Chatham Business Drive
Pittsboro, NC 28503
919-545-2929
www.ebxusa.com
?UnA?'? n
a
7
MAY I 7 ?Or.S
iLq EAN' srgur,tii?L 11,
The purpose of this letter is to respond to comments received in the May 4, 2005 letter for request for
more information concerning the Cox Site Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site. DWQ comments are
listed in order with responses following each issue.
DWQ Comment: Please provide details on the existing conditions including the longitudinal
profile and cross-sections.
Response: Existing conditions data are summarized by reach in Table 6.2 on pages 6-3 and 6-4 of the
Restoration Plan. The existing conditions cross sections are attached to this response letter. A
longitudinal profile survey was not conducted on the existing stream channel due to the fact that this
would not provide any additional information useful to the design process. The project consists entirely
of a Priority I restoration approach, with the exception of a short enhancement reach at the upstream
end. The existing channel will be completely filled as a result of the restoration activities. Valley slope
information and design stream slope are obtained from the detailed basemapping for the site.
DWQ Comment: Which equation was used to derive Manning's n and why?
Response: Manning's n was estimated based on past project experience for each reach. The Manning's
n estimate was also checked for each reach using Limerino's n equation with dune height substituted for
D84. Discharge was calculated for each cross section and then averaged to obtain a discharge estimate
for the entire reach.
DWQ Comment: Please provide BEHI and NBS data on the 5 reaches to be restored.
Response: This information was not collected as part of the existing conditions assessment. The
channel stability analysis by reach provided in Section 6.2.1 of the Restoration Plan in combination with
the existing conditions photographs should provide the information necessary to assess the general
DNVQ Response - 5/16/2005 - page 1
Page 2 of 3
degraded condition of each existing reach. This information has not been requested on past projects and
was not considered necessary to document the degraded conditions of the project stream channel.
DWQ Comment: Was sediment transport validation performed?
Response: Section 2.6 of the Restoration Plan discusses the background science behind the sediment
transport analysis performed for the project. Section 8.3 describes the results of the sediment transport
analysis. Stream power and shear stress were compared between the existing channel, the design
condition, and sand bed reference reaches in the NC Coastal Plain including the project reference reach.
Sediment transport capacity is more important than competency in sand bed systems to determine
whether the stream has the ability to move a certain volume of sediment. Stream power describes the
stream's ability to accomplish work (i.e. move sediment).
DWQ Comment: If you ran PowerSed, please provide this information.
Response: Powersed was not used as a sediment transport model for this project for several reasons. In
order to fully run the Powersed model, bedload and suspended load samples must be collected at a
bankfull flow. These samples are very difficult and very costly to collect due to the uncertain nature of
when a bankfull event will occur. Secondly, Powersed uses dimensionless sediment rating curves
developed on cobble bed streams in Colorado. While these curves have been shown to be applicable for
North Carolina cobble and gravel bed streams, they have not been proven to be useful in accurately
predicting sediment yield in sand bed streams. Without bankfull bedload and suspended load
measurements and applicable dimensionless sediment rating curves, Powersed is only useful as a
qualitative assessment tool to compare unit stream power between different reaches. This analysis was
performed for the project as discussed above.
DWQ Comment: Please provide a Summary of Stability Conditions Categories for the reaches.
Response: This information is provided and discussed in section 6.2.1 of the Restoration Plan.
DWQ Comment: Instead of providing basic diagrams like Exhibit 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5,
please provide the longitudinal profile and the cross-sectional information.
Response: The exhibits listed are provided as background information for readers who are less familiar
with the science and are not intended to substitute for project specific information. The existing
conditions cross sections are attached to this response letter. A longitudinal profile survey was not
conducted on the existing stream channel due to the fact that this would not provide any additional
information useful to the design process, as discussed above in the response to Comment #1.
DWQ Comment: (p.4-9) The plan notes that the parcel is still actively farmed and that the
project must not interfere with farm needs, and that it will need to incorporate stream crossings,
fencing and field access. It appears as this will include a farm path elevated two feet above the
rest of the site and a culverted permanent stream crossing for cattle. The yearly monitoring
reports should include explicit information on these two features (e.g. the sustainability and
impacts they are having on the stream and wetlands). Please provide this information.
DNVQ Response - 5/16/2005 - page 2
Page 3 of 3
Response: The farm paths will only be elevated for short sections around the stream crossings as shown
in the cross sections on sheets 6 and 9. These paths will be fenced off from the rest of the project site.
Field fencing will be used around the entire upper end of the project site to keep cattle away from the
wetland and stream restoration areas (The lower end will adjoin stream and wetland restoration sites on
both sides so fencing is not needed.). Channel stability will be assessed and reported throughout the
monitoring period for the sections of channel below the culverts. Other than this potential problem area,
the farm paths and ongoing adjacent farming activities should have no impact on the project site. Any
problems that do arise will be addressed and reported in the monitoring reports.
DWQ Comment: (p.8-10) The plan notes that herbicides will be used for invasive species.
Herbicide treatments should meet all guidelines for herbicide applications, please confirm this
information.
Response: Further site assessment indicates that no significant populations of invasive species exist. It
is not likely that any herbicide treatments will be required. In the event that invasive species become a
problem during the monitoring period, herbicide treatment will be considered. If herbicides are needed,
chemicals will be used that are certified for use in and around waterways, and applied by those trained in
their proper use.
DWQ Comment: Success criteria needs to be established at account for potential monotypic
vegetation communities on the site (e.g. No one tree species will account for greater than 20% of
the tree community, no one herbaceous species will account for greater than 35% of the
herbaceous community, etc), please provide the needed success criteria.
Response: In developing the monitoring and success criteria, we reviewed EEP and USACE guidance
on monitoring. Neither of these sources cites establishing success criteria as mentioned above. In
addition, we have received 401 permits on numerous projects over the past several months that have not
included these success criteria. We request further clarification on why these criteria are being
requested on this project.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions at 919-463-5488. We look forward to continuing to
work with DWQ on this and other restoration projects.
Respectfully,
'Tara Disy Allden
Southeast Regional Manager
John Hutton, Project Manager
Buck Engineering
DWQ Response - 5/16/2005 - page 3
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 21.9 8.9 2.5 3.4 3.6 1.5 3.6 96.8 98.5
Reach 1 Cross Section 1 Pool
102
100 -----------------------------
c 98
0
..........
`a 96 -
a?
w
94 -
92
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft) - - a - • Bankfull - - o- _Floodprone-l
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle G5c 16.0 9.8 1.6 2.3 6.0 2.2 2.0 96.5 99.2
Reach 1 Cross Section 2 Riffle
0
1
2
100
c 98
0
:.
> 96 -

w
94 -
92

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
_
Station (ft) - - o - Bankfull - - a - • Floodprone
Stream BKF BKF Max BI<F
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E5 14.9 6.8 2.2 2.7 3.1 2.3 2.6 96.9 100.5
Reach 2 Cross Section 3 Riffle
i
2
10
100
-----
-----
98
0
> 96
a?
w
94
92

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft) ?a - • Bankfull - - o. Floodprone
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle G5c - E5 12.7 6.7 1.9 2.3 16 1.3 2.2 96.3 96.9
Reach 2 Cross Section 4 Riffle
102
100
0 98
`a
> 96
a?
w
94
92 -?
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Station (ft) - - a - Bankfull - - a - • Floodprone
Stream BKF BKF Max BIKE
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E5 10.7 6.4 1.7 2.2 3.8 1.0 >6.1 98.5 98.5
Reach 2 Cross Section 5 Riffle

101 -------------------------------------------•--------------------- --o
100

c 99
0
•-------
ca
>
98
?
w
97

96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Station (ft) - - a - • Bankfull • - a - • Floodprone?
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E5 18.3 11.1 1.7 2.3 6.7 1.0 >4.1 98.6 98.2
Reach 3 Cross Section 6 Riffle

102
101 ---- ------------------------------------------------------------o
100
0 99
r -
:
> 98 ----.......
a)
w 97
96 -

95
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft) - - O - - Bankfull - - a - • Floodprone
Stream BKF BKF Max BIT
Feature Type BArea Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E5 17.5 11.7 1.5 1.7 7.8- 1 2.5 2.1 98.0 100.5
Reach 3 Cross Section 7 Riff le
101

100
------
--------
v
99
C
98- ..................

°' 97
w
96
95

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Station (ft) I- . O - • Bankfull - - a - - Floodprone
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 16.9 8.6 2.0 2.2 4.4 1.8 1.5 97.4 99.2
Reach 4 Cross Section 8 Pool

101
100
99 -
0 98 -
> 97 -
Q
w 96 -
95 -
94
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Station (ft) - - a - • Bankfull - - o - • Floodprone
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle G5c 17.2 11.4 1.5 1.8 7.6 2.6 1.2 97.0 100.0
Reach 4 Cross Section 9 Riffle
1
1
0
100 -- o
F 99 ------------
0 98
r
:
> 97 ............

W 96 _
95
94

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft) - - 0 - - Bankfull - - o - • Floodprone
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 17.0 12.3 1.4 2.3 8.9 1.8 1.8 96.7 98.5
Reach 5 Cross Section 10 Pool

102
100
v

C . ... . .. ......... . .. . . ... .. .... . . .
98 -

w 96
94
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Station (ft) - - a - • Bankfull - - o - • Floodprone
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BArea Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E5 11.8 9.9 1.2 2.3 8.3 1.7 2.6 96.7 97.4
Reach 5 Cross Section 11 Riffle
101

100
99- ................................... ..
0 98
> 97

w 96 -
95
94

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Station (ft) - - a - • Bankfull - - a - • Floodprone

W ATE9P Michael F. Easley, Governor
?0 ^ G William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
UJ North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
O .? Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
May 4, 2005
DWQ Project # 05-0597
Johnston County
Page 1 of 2
CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Tara Disy Allden
EBX Neuse-I, LLC
220 Chatham Business Drive
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Subject Property: Cox Site Wetland and Stream Restoration Project
Mill Creek
REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION
Dear Mrs. Allden:
On April 8, 2005, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received your application dated April 8, 2005 to
impact 0.75 acres of wetlands, 6,229 feet of stream and 170,300 square feet (ft) of protected riparian
buffers to construct the proposed restoration site. The DWQ has determined that your application was
incomplete and/or provided inaccurate information as discussed below. The DWQ will require additional
information in order to process your application to impact protected wetland, streams and/or buffers on
the subject property. Therefore, unless we receive the additional information requested below, we will
have to move toward denial of your application as required by 15A NCAC 21-1.0506 and 2B .0233(8) and
will place this project on hold as incomplete until we receive this additional information. Please provide
the following information so that we may continue to review your project.
Additional Information Requested:
Stream Restoration:
Please provide details on the existing conditions including the longitudinal profile and cross-
sections.
2. Which equation was used to derive Manning's n and why?
3. Please provide BEHI and NBS data on the 5 reaches to be restored.
4. Was sediment transport validation performed?
5. If you ran PowerSed, please provide this information.
6. Please provide a Summary of Stability Condition Categories for the reaches.
401 Oversight/Express Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone]/ FAX [phone] / Intemet: http://h2o.enr.state.ncnds/h2o.enr.state.ncnds
None o?hCarolina
Natundif
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Tara Disy Allden
Page 2 of 2
514105
7. Instead of providing basic diagrams like Exhibit 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5, please provide the
longitudinal profile and the cross-sectional information.
Wetland Restoration:
(p. 4-9) The plan notes that the parcel is still actively farmed and that the project must not interfere
with farm needs, and that it will need to incorporate stream crossings, fencing, and field access. It
appears as this will include a farm path elevated two feet above the rest of the site and a culverted
permanent stream crossing for cattle. The yearly monitoring reports should include explicit
information on these two features (e.g. the sustainability and impacts they are having on the stream
and wetlands). Please provide this information.
2. (p. 8-10) The plan notes that herbicides will be used for invasive species. Herbicide treatments
should meet all guidelines for herbicide applications, please confirm this information.
3. Success criteria needs to be established to account for potential monotypic vegetation communities on
the site (e.g. No one tree species will account for greater than 20% of the tree community, no one
herbaceous species will account for greater than 35% of the herbaceous community, etc.), please
provide the needed success criteria.
Please respond within three weeks of the date of this letter by sending this information to me in writing
and Mike Horan of the DWQ Raleigh Regional Office. If we do not hear from you within three weeks,
we will assume that you no longer want to pursue this project and, we will consider the project as
withdrawn.
This letter only addresses the application review and does not authorize any impacts to wetlands, waters
or protected buffers. Please be aware that any impacts requested within your application are not
authorized (at this time) by the DWQ. Please call Ms. Debbie Edwards at 919-733-9502 if you have any
questions regarding or would like to set up a meeting to discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
Cyndi Karoly,
401 Oversight/Express Permitting Unit
CBIUdae
cc: Mike Horan,-DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
File Copy
Central Files
Filename: 050597CoxRestoration(Johnston)hold
imap://[e-mail]:143/...
Subject: Re: Cox Site Wetland & Stream Restoration]
From: Cynthia Van Der Wiele <cynthi a.vanderwiele@ncmail. net>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 16:12:29 -0400
To: Debbie Edwards <[e-mail]>
Hey Debbie,
I'm not sure if you're leaning towards putting the project on hold or not given
Amanda's comments. I'm sure Buck does a fine job with stream restoration, but they
don't provide too many details in the package that was submitted.
Instead of providing basic diagrams like Exhibit 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5, I'd
like them to provide the longitudinal profile and some x-sectional information.
Also:
1. Please provide details on the existing conditions including the long. profile and
x-sections.
2. Which equation was used to derive Manning's n and why?
3. Please provide BEHI and NBS data on the 5 reaches to be restored.
4. Was sediment transport validation performed? 5. If you ran PowerSed, please
provide this information.
6. Please provide a Summary of Stability Condition Categories for the reaches.
Debbie Edwards wrote:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Cox Site Wetland & Stream Restoration
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 07:14:46 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: "Debbie Edwards" <[e-mail]>
Hi Debbie:
I reviewed the monitoring plan, and I had a couple of comments or concerns.
They are written in the attached memo. Please let me know what the answer
is to the last question if you know or if you find out, I am curious.
In general the plan looks good. Actually, if you know of anyone who wants
a good review of wetland science, most of it is in there.
I will be in the office next Tuesday and I'll return the information to your
box then. Let me know if you need anything else.
Thanks,
Amanda
-- Original Message --
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:17:00 -0400
From: Debbie Edwards To: "amanda.mueller" CC: Cyndi Karoly Subject: Cox Site
Wetland & Stream Restoration
Amanda,
Last week Cynthia and I put this restoration plan in your box, I'm not sure of
your schedule but when you have the time to review could you please send comments
to me. I will either be issuing or placing on hold, whatever your professional
opinion is
thanks,
debbie
1 of 2 5/4/2005 5:42 PM
y
- .t
?F
T_ _T
f-yy?
A.?
Mr. Kevin Yates
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Department of the Army
Raleigh District, Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Managers, Bankers and 11aders of Environmental Rights
'Finding Environmental Solutions through Economic IncentiveS"
rs-
ff ? l
April 8, 2005
Ms. Debbie Edwards
NC Division of Water Quality
401/Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Re: Cox Site Wetland and Stream Restoration Project
401/404 Pre-Construction Notification Application
Dear Mr. Yates and Ms. Edwards:
10055 Red Run Boulevard. Suite 130
Owings Mills. MD 21117-4860
410 356-5159 FAX [phone]
8000 Regency Parway, Suite 200A
Cary, North Carolina 27511
919 459-9039 I'AX 919 463-5490
www.ebxusa.cont
10 d09
F71
l LJ"I-i
Enclosed for your consideration and approval is the Pre-Construction Notification for the US Army Corps
nationwide permit 27 and the Division of Water Quality's general certification 3495 for stream restoration,
enhancement and stabilization and wetland and Riparian Restoration and Creation activities for the Cox Site
wetland and stream mitigation project. Also enclosed are copies of the Cox Site Wetland and Stream
Restoration Plan for your reference in reviewing the PCN application. Please note that we have requested
the application be reviewed before June 2005 to enable site preparation to take place so that the wetland
plant species may be planted during the appropriate dormant season at the end of this year. Thank you in
advance for your assistance.
If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Very truly yours,
tirara Disy Allden
Enclosures
APR $' 2005
DENR - YJATER QUALITY
V,,E WDS AND STORt MATER BRANCH

Regency Parkway
WW
-
U C 200
UK
Cary.
Cary, North Carolina 27511
Phone: [phone]
1 N t 1 I I 1 ? I\ Fax: 919.46].5490 (l ! a I( ",,
www.buckengineering.oom

TO:
ATTENTION:
DATE:
NC Division of Water Quality RE:
Parkview Building
2321 Crabtree Blvd
Raleigh, NC 27604
Debbie Edwards
ril 7. 2005
JOB NO
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
r
t
Permit Application for 401 permit for
Cox Site Restoration Project
214
We are sending via:
0 Fax Regular Mail ? Pick-up QX Hand Delivered
The following items:
Correspondence OX Plans ? Specifications OX Other as listed below:
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
5 Design Plans
5 Restoration Plan
5 PCN form
1 Fee $475.00

THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
eX For Approval As Requested B Approved As Submitted B Returned For Corrections
For Your Use RX For Permitting Approved As Noted Forward To Subcontractor
REMARKS:
Please find enclosed an application for DWQ's 401 Permit along with supporting
documentation for The Cox Site Wetland and Stream Mitigation Site in Johnston County.
If you have any questions, please give me call at [phone].
COPY TO: File SIGNED: Kevin Tweedy, PE
RAR WR IWR RWYCl7 m !aR 1vt.LL
cant
,1642 2- .?
19s 50

E B h?

N II ? . U S II ? , p I
L L C
A
I A
L A .C 0214R 1 25

N0
DATE CHECKED BY APP
OVED B

11111E AAA 111111111111111 9
J
lJ
AA 11LLAA ?L./ ?l
111111 .
R
Y
e
ae i 42/68/06 JOHN HOT70N KZV[N TWEEDY
g f N/68/68 JOHN HEf1TON KEVIN TWEWY
1113 `! ,. - loos L
?
?
5 ° JOHNSTON COUNTY

""'
!
a LOCATION: WEST OF GOLDSBORO
g
PROTECT
•1099 • OFF SR 1198 BASS ROAD
?

c 1
Ilse
TYPE OF
WORK STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION
?
\ 1197 fill'
IXN'? I19
9 YNE
m{I C
VICINITY MAP
INDEX OF SHEETS SHEET Is MD 11
1 TITLE SHEET
1-A STREAM CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
GENERAL NOTES, STANDARD
SPECIFICATIONS, AND
VEGETATION SELECTION
1-B CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
2 TO 2-B TYPICAL POOL AND SHEET a AND 20
RIFFLE CROSS SECTIONS,
STRUCTURE DETAILS
3 CONSTRUCTION SOUENCE,
EARTHWORK SUMMARY, QUANTITIES SHEET 11 1
4TO13 PLAN NEW OF PROPOSED AND SHEET 101 !
EXISTING STREAM DESIGN I ! SHEET ,: \
14 TO 15 GRADING PLANS
SHEET e
1

T
16TO19 PROFILES 1
20 TO 21 REVEGETATION SHEET
I ...
SHEET BI
I
1 ?
I I 1
I
I
'
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
-
-
--
-
- SHEET J 1
1__
I /
\
NZH TA 12+00
TG
X
B
R
A . 1 SHEET u
1 l ?
1 1
1
I END CONSTRUCTION
SHEET, COX BRANCH STA 67+49.70
SHEET 5 \

\
A
®
APR 8?-1005

° DENR - WATER
r QUAD
c1l urDS41?p STDR

o
Et?

I M,y??EI"Gf

GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN SUMMARY PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF: -Ilp
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF. PROJECT ENGINEER
EXISTING STREAM LENGTH =

50 0 50 100 PROPOSED DESIGN STREAM = 5,944 FEET

7263 FEET EBX NEUSE- I7 LLC
BUCK eooDa.wrn remnr s°rasoo
C.rc. N.M C. oI- 27511
91°1515,5e
PAax '
KNO NceeiNa Fu Rl"3}549e
RESTORATION LENGTH W • 10055 RED RUN BOULEVARD, SUITE 130
OWING MILLS, MD 21117

Ntto; PLANS PROPOSED DESIGN STREAM =
ENHANCEMENT LENGTH

50 0 50 100 EXISTING WETLAND ACREAGE = 285 FEET

0.88 ACRES '

T
220 CHATHAM BUSINESS DRIVE
KEVIN TWEEDY
•••V?V• ••••••••••• DO NOT VS9 POR CONMUCTION

PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) DESIGN WETLAND ACREAGE

RNERINE WETLAND =
0 5 10

5.88 ACRES PITTSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 27312
A`
1 +"-
,) EBX CONTACT. JULY '05 DANIEL TAYLOR
LETUNG DeM-
PROJECT DES7CAElt
NON-RNERINE WETLAND = 16.9 ACRES f
TARA DISY ALLDEN
- PROJECTIVANAGER
JOHN HUTTON

PROFILE (VERTICAL) J 1: PROJECT MA.wGEI¢
J7cwPURr•
STREAM CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS I GENERAL NOTES "'PROJECT ENGINEER
SUPERCEDES SHEET 1B
' 00 ROCK J-HOOK
ROCKVANE
OUTLET PROTECTION
ROCK CROSS VANE
DOUBLE DROP ROCK CROSS VANE
c SINGLE WING DEFLECTOR

DOUBLE WING DEFLECTOR
TEMPORARY SILT CHECK
ROOT WAD
oa LOG J-HOOK
® LOG VANE
-®- SAFETY FENCE
1. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL INSTREAM STRUCTURES USING
A TRACK HOE WITH A HYDRAULIC THUMB OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO MOVE
BOULDERS 3FTX 3FT X 2FT (APPROXIMATELY 1.5 TONS).
2. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE, AT A MINIMUM, TWO
OPERATORS AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW STREAM
CHANNEL. IN GENERAL, ONE OPERATOR WILL CUT THE NEW CHANNEL WITH
A TRACK HOE, WHILE THE OTHER OPERATOR FOLLOWS AND INSTALLS INSTREAM
STRUCTURES, BANK STABILIZATION PRACTICES, AND TRANSPLANTS.
DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW STREAM CHANNEL, THE CONTRACTOR
WILL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE TWO TRACK HOES AND ONE LOADER ON-SITE.
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUC[10N
O LOG WEIR
¢n LOG CROSS VANE
i CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
oa o BOULDER CLUSTER CLUSTER
ROCK STEP POOL
TF- TAPE FENCE
-FP- 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
-o- CONSERVATION EASEMENT
----- EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
----- EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
FOOT BRIDGE
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
ru--1 PERMANENT STREAM CROSSING
® TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
TREE REMOVAL
'b` TREE PROTECTION
TRANSPLANTS
"NOTE: ALL ITEMS ABOVE MAY NOT BE USED ON THIS PROJECT
3. CONSTRUCTION IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN JUNE 2005
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
aIM Reasnry ReMwry 9Wte god
H' can. xen 91"635.58
vnare: e
O A NO Q w. wBa6}S,Bo
EROSIONAND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL
DECEMBER 1993
6.60 TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP
6.06 CONSTRUCTION ACCESS
6.62 SILT FENCE
6.70 TEMPORARY (FORD) STREAM CROSSING
' VEGETATION SELECTION
STIR MBANK AND RNERINE WET LAND VEGETATION SELECTION LIST NOWRIVERINE WETLAND VEGETATION SELECTION LIST
BARE ROOTVEGETATION BARE ROOT VEGETATION
NOTE: BARE ROOT VEGETATION SHALL BE INSTALLED NOTE: BARE ROOT VEGETATION SHALL BE INSTALLED
RANDOMLY 8 TO 8 FEET APART FROM THE TOP OF THE RANDOMLY B TO 8 FEET APART FROM THE TOP OF THE
STREAMBANK OUT TO THE EDGE OF RIVERINE WETLAND STREAMBANK OUT TO THE EDGE OF RIVERINE WETLAND
REVEGETATION LIMITS. REVEGETATION LIMITS.
COMMONNAME SCIENTIFIC NAME P.-ritaga of Total Total Number COMMONNAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Percentage of Total Total Number
Blackgum Nyseuylvahce 10 2900 Swamp Tupelo NyaBa ayhah-vacbifl- 15 1800
Bbck Walnut Jugtens ngre 5 1450 Sycamore Platanus occidontalis 5 600
SwamP Chestnut Oak Ouemus micheuxil 15 4350 Swamp Chestnut Oak Ouemus mich.-ii 10 1200
Overcup Oak Guemus lyota 10 2900 Overcup Oak Ouemus tyrats 1D 1200
Willow Oak Ouemue PhePOS 20 58DO Willow Oak Ouemus PheAos 20 2400
Sycamore Platanus occaentalis 20 5800 Sugarberry Celtis Mevgan 2D 2400
River Bich BeNM ngre 20 5800 River Birch BeNM nigro 20 2400
TOTAL 100 29000 TOTAL 100 12000
TEMPORARY SEED MIX
LIVE STAKING
NOTE: ALL DISTURBED AREAS WILL BE STABILIZED USING MULCH AND TEMPORARY SEED MIX
NOTE: LIVE STAKES SHALL BE INSTALLED RANDOMLY 2 TO 3 FEE T APART ALONG
THE STREAMBANKS FROM THE TOE OF THE BANK TO THE TOP OF BANK. COMMONNAME RATE DATES
ANNUAL RYE (COOL SEASON) 130 LBSJACRE SEPTEMBER TO MARCH
COMMONNAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Pementage of Total Total Number MILLET (WARM SEASON) 45 LBSIACRE APRIL TO AUGUST
ELDERBERRY SAMSUCUS CANADENSIS 30 4500
_ SILKY DOGWOOD CORNUSAMMOMUM 40 6000 NONRIVERINE SEED MIX (PERMANENT)
SILKY WILLOW SALIX SERICEA 30 4500
TOTAL 100 15000 NOTE: WETLAND SEED MIX SHALL BE SEEDED AT A RATE OF
22 LB PER ACRE THROUGHOUT THE NONRIVERINE WETLAND
C
m TEMPORARY SEED MIX RESTORATION ZONE.
V
a NOTE: ALL DISTURBED AREAS WILL BE STABILIZED USING MULC H AND TEMPORARY SEED MIX COMMONNAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Percentage of Total
= Soft Rush Juncus eRusus 35
a COMMON NAME RATE DATES Fringed Sedge Cares crinata 25
ANNUALRYE(COOLSEASON) 130 LBS1ACRE SEPTEMBER TO MARCH Virginia Wild Rye Eymus vlrginicus 20
M MILLET (WARM SEASON) 45 LBSIACRE APRIL TO AUGUST Joe Pya Weed Eupatorium 8stulosum 20
rx
RIVERINE SEED MIX (PERMANENT)
N
v' a NOTE: RIVERINE SEED MIX SHALL BE SEEDED AT A RATE OF
X LB PER 1000 FT-ALONG THE STREAMBANKS FROM THE
-o• TOE OF THE BANK TO THE TOP OF BANK AND 22 LBS PER ACRE
i WITHIN THE RNERINE WETLAND RESTORATION ZONES.
C
O
COMMONNAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Pementage of Total
pe Swhchgmss Panicum virgatum 35
Fringed Sedge Ceres crinata 25
oQ Virginia Wild Rye Elymus virginicus 20
Joe Pye Weed Eupatorium Bstulosum 20
NO.
*S.U.E = SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEER
ROADS & RELATED ITEMS
Edge of Pavement ....................... ......
Curb ..................................... ......
Prop. Slope Stakes Cut .................. ......
Prop. Slope Stakes Fill ................. .......
Prop.Woven Wire Fence ............... ...... -6-9-
Prop. Chain Link Fence -------------- ----, _E3 E3-
Prop. Barbed Wire Fence ............... ......
Prop. Wheelchair Ramp ................ ......
Curb Cut for Future Wheelchair Ramp - - - - - cr
Exist. Guardrail ......................... ......
Prop. Guardrail .......................... ......
Equality Symbol ........................ ......
Pavement Removal ...................... .......
RIGHT OF IVAY
Baseline Control Point .................. ......
Existing Right of Way Marker ........... .......
Exist. Right of Way Line wiMarker ....... ...... - ?j- _
Prop. Right of Way Line with Proposed
R/W Marker (Iron Pin & Cap) ........ ......
Prop. Right of Way Line with Proposed
(Concrete or Granite) RAV Marker ..... ......
Exist. Control of Access Line ............. ......
.A?
Prop. Control of Access Line ............. ......
Exist. Easement Line ..................... ......
Prop. Temp. Construction Easement Line ...... -E
Prop. Temp. Drainage Easement Line ... ...... -roc-
Prop, Perm. Drainage Easement Line ... ...... _PM-
m
m
x
m
W
P
N
Q
a
C
HYDROLOGY
Stream or Body of Water ....................
River Basin Buffer .....
.
.
.......................
Flow Arrow ... -PBB-
.................................
Disappearing Stream ............
..............
Spring ........................................ 0--.?/
Swamp Marsh ................................. l
Shoreline -------
Falls, Rapids .................................... - - r - -
Prop Lateral, Tail, Head Ditches ..............
E- Iln
STRUCTURES
MAJOR
Bridge, Tunnel, or Box Culvert ---------------?oNC
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall
and End Wall ............................. JcoNC WN
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
MINOR
Head & End Wall
Pipe Culvert ...................................
Footbridge ..................................... .
Drainage Boxes ................................ ? CB
Paved Ditch Gutter
UTILITIES
Exist. Pole
.....................................
Exist. Power Pole ...............................
+
Prop. Power Pole .............................. b
Exist. Telephone Pole ..........................
Prop. Telephone Pole .......................... .o.
Exist. Joint Use Pole ............................ •i.
Prop. Joint Use Pole ............................ -&
Telephone Pedestal ............................ I7
U,G Telephone Cable Hand Hold...........
Cable TV Pedestal ............................ 19
UIG TV Cable Hand Hold ....................
UIG Power Cable Hand Hold----------------- El
Hydrant ......................................... .0
Satellite Dish ...................................
E
i
W
l YJ
x
st.
ater Va
ve ..............................
Sewer Clean Out .............................. 0
Power Manhole ................................
Telephone Booth ...............................
Cellular Telephone Tower ......................
Water Manhole ................................. 0
Light Pole ...................................... 4
H-Frame Polo............ 0-e
Power Line Tower ..............................
Pole with Base ................................
Gas Valve ..................................... 0
Gas Meter ..................................... O
Telephone Manhole ............................ (D
Power Transformer ............................ 0
Sanitary Sewer Manhole ....................... 0
Storm Sewer Manhole ................. . ..... . OS
Tank; Water, Gas, Oil .........................
Water Tank With Legs ......................... O
?^(
Traffic Signal Junction Box .....................
Fiber Optic Splice Box .........................
Television or Radio Tower .....................
Utility Power Line Connects to Traffic
Signal Lines Cut Into the Pavement........... - ,s S
Recorded Water Line .......................
Designated Water Line (S.U.E.*) ..............
Sanitary Sewer ................................ -SS ss
Recorded Sanitary Sewer Force Main ...... -rSS-rSS-
Designated Sanitary Sewer Force Main(S.U.E.* )-ns-?ss-
Recorded Gas Line
Designated Gas Line (S,U.E.*) ................ _ G G-_
Storm Sewer .................................. -s-s-
Recorded Power Line ......................... ?_ r
Designated Power Line (S.U.E.*) ............. _ P -r- _
Recorded Telephone Cable .................. -r-r-
Designated Telephone Cable (S.U.E.*) .......
__r--s- -
Recorded WG Telephone Conduit ------- -rc-rc-
Designated USG Telephone Conduit (S.U.E.*)
Unknown Utility (S.U.E.*) .................. __rc--rc--
-I,n.-sun-
Recorded Television Cable .................. -rr-rr-
Designated Television Cable (S.U.E.*) ....... __rr__rv__
Recorded Fiber Optics Cable ............... -ro-ro-
Designated Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.*) .....
Exist. Water Meter ........................... _-ro--ro-
0
WG Test Hole (S.U.E.*) .......................
Abandoned According to U/G Record........ jirru
End of Information ............................ E."
BOUNDARIES & PROPERTIES
State Line ...
County Line..,
Township Line
City Line ........................................ -----
Reservation Line ................................ _-_-_--
Property Line ...................................
Properly Line Symbol .......................... R
Exist. Iron Pin ..................................
Property Corner ................................
Property Monument ............................ 19
Property Number ..............................
Parcel Number ................................. 12]
6
Fence Line .................................... -x-x-x-
Existing Wetland Boundaries .................. r.1 [SSW
- -ne- -
High Quality Wetland Boundary .............. -"0 n.e-
„le wm "'
Boundaries Qual?i ty rrelland ........
-tq rlB-
Low Quality Wetland Boundaries ............. -co n8-
Proposed Wetland Boundaries ................ -WLB_
Existing Endangered Animal Boundaries...... - _ cae- _
Existing Endangered Plant Boundaries ........ - _EPB- -
BUILDINGS & OTHER CULTURE
Buildings ......................................
Foundations .................................... r-J

Area Outline ......................... -r
N
Gate .........................................
Gas Pump Vent or USG Tank Cap ............ D
Church ........................................ CL
School ......................................... C?=3
Park .......................................... ---
`-7
Cemetery ....................................... =y-
Dom .................................
Sign ............................................ o
Well . o
Small Mine .................................... k
Swimming Pool ................................
TOPOGRAPHY
Loose Surface ................................
Hard Surface .................................
Change in Road Surface .. .•...••••••••.
Curb ..........................
Right of Way Symbol -- .. • -- R/W
Guard Post .................................... 0CP
Paved Walk -------
Bridge .........................................
Box Culvert or Tunnel - - - - - -
Ferry .........................................
Culvert ....................................... ,.............,
Footbridge .....................................
Trail, Footpath ................................. .
Light House
VEGETATION
Single Tree .................................... Q
Single Shrub .................................. o
Hedge ......................................... Y,
Woods Line ............. N..1.?..,,
Orchard ....................................... 4bQ4Q4
Vineyard ...................................... (-VNEY
T Arr nn Ann
1U11L11LUl1L43
Standard Gauge ...............................
RR Signal Milepost ......................... o
?n
Switch .........................................
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
TYPICAL STRUCTURE PLACEMENT UZ14H

ROOT WADS WITHOUT TRANSPLANTS PROJECT ENGINEER
NTS
BERM DsMAx.HrBERMSNaTro

EXTEND BEYOND LIMITS OF ROOT WAD
ROOT WADS PRELIMINARY PLANS

STRU R NOTE
NOTES. B° NOT USE POX CONRTIffA'TION
FLOOD COIR FIBER
MATTING 1. GENERALLY LOG WEIRS, ROOT WADS, 1. COIR FIBER MATTING TO BE INSTALLED ON
PLAIN (
0. LOG VANES AND COIR FIBER MATTING
1MLL BE INSTALLED IN THE LOCATION RIFFLEIRUN SECTIONS BETWEEN BENDS.
`L AND SEQUENCE AS SHOWN. 2 IF ROOT WADS DO NOT COVER ENTIRE SLOPE ON OUTSIDE
TOP OF OF MEANDER BENDS, COIR FIBER MATTING IS NEEDED.
BANK 2 ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES OR CHANGES
B
PNKFULL STAGE TO STRUCTURE LOCATIONS MAY BE MADE
, BY THE DESIGN ENGINEER DURING

?f- OPTIONAL

COVER LOG CONSTRUCTION. !!4?„ SON Rgmy P.nr ry Swb 2W
tBliJf G?, NOT C?min?ii5f1
-

JI
4W
rT- 1"83-s9o
LNOIN CC111N0
Fn9?S7
VB'OF R007 MASSHri IS
_? :;. 9 LOW STREAIA BCp -
?. I LOG VANE TRANSPLANTS
.
__..

'
ANCHOR COVER LOG ®
®
MAT BANKS WITH COIR FIBER MATTING
(SEE SPECS) ®®
FOOTER LOG > 12
DIAMETER INSTALLED BELOW STREAMBED
(OPTIONAL PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER) \ UNDER FOOTER LOGS _
FEET LONG OR
OR 1MTH A BOULDER
>10, DIAMETER

CROSS SECTION NEW
??fp MAT BANKS W
\ (SEE SPECS) ITH COIR FIBER MATTING
G ROOT WAD / LO G WEIR
?r
11 CO
TRANSPLANTS OR
ROOT WADS WITHTRANSPLANTS BOULDERS MAT BANKS WTHCOIRFIBER MATTING
(SEE SPECS)
TUTS \ I, ?\
S`.
FOOTER LOG FOR
TRENCHING METHOD
BERM O S MA
H
I ONLY
T. BERM
X
S NOT TO
TRANSPLANT PLAN VIEW
NI
FL00 EXTEND BEYOND LIMITS OF ROOT WADS.
PLAIN /
O
X \
?
° I
TOP OF NOTES

BANK :
TRENCHING METHOD .gp0

ILA :
IF THE ROOT WAD CANNOT BE DRIVEN INTO THE BANK OR THE
BANK NEEDS TO BE RECONSTRUCTED
THE TRENCHING METHOD / °0000
,
SHOULD BE USED THIS METHOD REQUIRES THAT A TRENCH
Cf
177 AA?
! BE EXCAVATED FOR THE LOG PORTION OF THE ROOT WAD. IN
THIS CASE,A FOOTER LOG SHOULD BE INSTALLED UNDERNEATH °
°
p
0

.

I THE ROOT WAD IN A TRENCH EXCAVATED PARALLEL TO THE O
0 1 I
tlj ?F. ROOT'TRASS HE["
B RANK AND WELL BELOW THE STREAMS ED. ONE-THIRD OF THE
ROOT WAD SHOULD REMAIN BELOW NORMAL BASE FLOW CONDITIONS. 0
M0.T BANKS WT 1 V
H COIR FIBER MA
N

_
E LQW STREAM BED

(SEE SPECS)
TTI
G
y I /

NOTES;
FOOTER LOG > 17 DIAMETER INSTALLED BELOW STREAMBED DRIVE POINT METHOD:
(OPTIONAL PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER) SHARPEN THE END OF THE LOG WITH A CHAINSAW BEFORE 'DRIVING'
?- -?
R INTO THE BANK ORIENT ROOT WADS UPSTREAM SO THAT THE ROOTWADS
6 FEET LONG TRUNK STREAM FLOW MEETS THE ROOT WAD AT A 90-DEGREE ANGLE, (NUMBERAND
>17 DIAMETER DEFLECTING THE WATER AWAY FROM THE BANK A TRANSPLANT
DR BOULDER SHO SIZE TO BE
ULD BE PLACED ON THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF
THE ROOT WA TOP OF BANK DETERMINE

CROSS SECTION VIEW
D IF A BACK EDDY IS FORMED BY THE ROOT WAD.
THE BOULDER SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY 4'X 7X Z. D

IN THE FIELD)
MAT BANKS WITH COIR FIBER MATTING
(SEE SPECS)
TYPICAL RIFFLE, POOL, AND BANKFULL BENCH CROSS SECTIONS EROSION CONTROL MATTING
?+--•?YAH ?--?{ TOP OF TERRACE PL
IN
D INCH

I

-.ARIES YJM1 VARIES FILLILL ,
TREENCHNCH, , STAKE, , BAC BALKFT
AND
COMPACT

N TE
\ \ \ I TOP OF STREAMBANK i. BANKS
DD BE SEELO PRIOR TO

.
4
PLACEMENT
G
PLACECOIRFIBER MATTING ACCORDING TO

7 EC.
3, MATTIUNG STAKES SHOOMMENDATlONSULD BE PLACED
0.M IN A DIAMOND SHAPED PATTERN.
m
4
ros
TOE OF SLOPE

PLACE COIR FIBER MATTING IN B INCH DEEP THE WOOD STAKE SHALL BE THE NORTH AMERICAN
GREEN ECO-STAKE OR APPROVED EQUAL WTH THE
TRENCH, STAKE, BACKFlLL, AND CO MPACT FOLLOWING DIMENSIONS:

RIFFLE LEG LENGTH 11 OD IN 2754 CM

RIFFLE IMTHBANKFULLBENCH
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL HEAD WIDTH sSIN 7fec
HEAD THICKNESS 040 IN R02CM
LEG WDTH 060IN 152 CM TAPERED TO POIN
LEGTHICKNESS 40 1N
1.62 CR.
1
Wbld ?-?1
TOP OF TERRACE
. ;•..', .... ;'. .', '... •,'.. , ;'
.7 . - . .' . - . .' . ] TOTAL LENGTH 12001N 90480
I I
)SYARIESf?---?- WWf ?VARIESat CROSS SECTION VIEW TYPICAL MATTING STAKE

QMAt Ul

DMaz DITCH
1
I 1
0
1 1 1 I 1 DITCH
TOPOFSTREAMBANK
_
_
TTREA 1 _I _ 1 -j7
STREAMBANK _ _
14, - 1 1 1 / - _ 1 _/ _
_ 1 1 _1 _ 1 _1 1
_ _
/ 1 / 1 / 1 1 1

STAKES
1 1 1 / 1 1 / / 1 1 1
POOL POOL WTH BANKFULL BENCH
COX 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

RIFFLE
POOL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
117 ISO WOTH OF BANKFULL Imo) 1 1 1 1 / / / / 1 1 1 1 COIR FIBER MATTING TO BE
to
NOTES. 1.5 MAXIMUM DEPTH IOMmq
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EXTENDED TO TOE OF SLOPE
14D
1. DURING CONSTRUCTION CORNERS OF DESIGN CHANNEL WILL BE ROUNDED 121 WOTHTO DEPTH RATIO IWLMIDI
175
AND A THALWEG WILL BE SHAPED PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER 289 RANKFULL AREA(AyM)
BO
2 POOLS SHOWN ABOVE ARE LEFT POOLS ONLY. 5.4 BOTTOM WOTH
(WO)
PLAN VIEW
C
m
N
S
N
a
x
m
P
N
8
C
°
a
c
rn
o
m
PL
TOi
OFI
I
A
CONSTRUCTED LOG RIFFLE
v I Intw Ur Iilrttkl
HEAD OF
RIFFLE
BURY LOGS 2.4INCHES BELOW BED
4 ONSITE ALLUVIUM MATERIAL B INCHES MIX OF CLASSA
AND CLASS B STONE
J
B TOPPEO WDH 31NUHES
OF 957 STONE
FLOW+
151.2 FT
" h o RY'gE TAIL OF RIFFLE

A
SA
INCHES
MIX OF
AN

L
4?A?
S
8 STONE
D LUSSSTONE •
TOPPED WITH 3 INCHES
0
OF 357 STONE S I
8
TYPE 2 S
FILTER FABRIC
PROFILER-A' TYPE2 ---
FILTER FABRIC
EROSION
CONTROL
MATTING D.. 113 Dmn
ELEVATION POINT
_
(TAIL OF RIFFLE)
NOTCH I.
21NCHES BY 7 FOOT
SECTION B-B'
NOTES.
1. LOGS MUST BE AT LEAST 10 INCHES N DIAMETER AND 15 FEET LONG.
2. DIG ATRENCH BELO.VTHE BED FOR THE UPSTREAM FOOTER LOGS AND
STOCK PILE CUT MATERIAL
3. PLACE FOOTER LOGS FIRSTAND THEN HEADER (TOP) LOG.
1. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE ONLY ON THE UPSTREAM LOG BEGINNING
AT THE MIDDLE OF THE HEADER LOG AND EXTEND DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH
OF THE FOOTER LOG, AND THEN UPSTREAM TO A MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET.
5. FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE DF THE STRUCTURE V.ITH ON-SITE ALLUVIUM
TO ME ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER LOG.
6. UNDERCUT RIFFLE BETWEEN LOGS BY 8 INCHES BACKFILL
BETWEEN LOGS WIN A 6INCH MIX OF CLASS AFND B STONE
TOP WITH 21NCHES OF 557 STONE
OFTOP WTTDTH
B'
FL.
SCOUR
POOL
2T TO 30' NOGAPS -
BETWEEN
BOULDERS
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
1 113+0.12 71206 1H7/.88 771.71
2 11.55.95 111.53 11.7233 111.14
3 11196034 111.03 12.1459 110.76
5 12196.4 109.80 13+30.09 10945
5 1316920 109.31 15102.89 106.SD
8 14137.65 108.14 14,55.13 14.04
7 11193.10 107.85 15109.12 107 50
6 15"548 107.34 15+62.72 106.62
9 16111.00 108.61 18+2779 10655
10 7611187 106.54 16191.03 108.49
11 1713965 108.59 1715618 106.30
ROCK CROSS VANE
NOTES FOR ALL VANESTRUCTUI FS
1. BOULDERS MUST BE AT LEAST 7 K 7 A T.
2. 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
TO A MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET.
3. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER ROCKS AND PLACE FILL ON
UPSTREAM SIDE OF VANE ARM. BETWEEN THE ARM AND STREAMBED.
1. START AT BANKAND PLACE FOOTER ROCKS FIRST AND THEN HEADER(TOP)ROCK
5. CONTINUE VATH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS.
0. AN EXTRA BOULDER CAN BE PLACED IN SCOUR POOL FOR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT.
7. USE CLASS B STONETO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF BOULDERS,THEN CLASS A STONE
IN FRONT OF CLASS B STONE, AND 957 STONE TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF CLASS A STONE
B. AFTER ALL STONE HAS BEEN PLACED. FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE
STRUCTURE WITH ON-SITE ALLUVIUM TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCK
9. START SLOPE AT BANKFULL STAGE
C'
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION, ROOTMASS, AND SOIL MATERIAL
/ 1 1r_
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION, ROOTMASS, AND SOIL MATERIAL
- TOE OF BANK
CROSS SECTION VIEW
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION AND ROOTMASS
, In/
® ® q _®
® / \
PLAN VIEW
LOG WEIR
I-
I_
O
JJJ u:
CHANNELWIDTH
1.SX CHANNEL WIDTH-
( SCOUR
POOL
PLANVIEW
TRANSPLANTS
\ LOG WEIR
_I
PROJECT ENGINEER
IPRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT 1436 PUR OONSRUmoNr
EJUC ". 1009 R"_ P,-, 1,3+ 200
CAD. NomeMSm 21511
PA ms: 919.815185
[HO 6Ii 1113+0 Fa: 51"9.615190 I
yptre.
1. EXCAVATE A HOLE IN THE BAN( TO BE STABILIZED THAT VMLL
ACCOMMODATE THE SIZE OF TRANSPLANT TO BE PLACED.
BEGIN EXCAVATION AT THE TOE OF THE BANK
2. EXCAVATE TRANSPWlTUSING A FRONT END LOADER
EXCAVATE THE ENTIRE ROOT MASS AND AS MUCH ADDITIONAL
SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE IF ENTIRE ROOT MASS CAN NOT BE
EXCAVATE IN ONE BUCKET LOAD. THE TRANSPLANT IS TOO LARGE
AND ANOTHER SHOULD BE SELECTED.
3. PLACE TRANSPLANT IN THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED SO THAT
VEGETATION IS ORIENTATED VERTICALLY.
4 FILL IN ANY HOLES AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND COMPACT.
5. ANY LOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED.
S. PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE TOGETHER SLICK THAT
THEY TOUCR
TOP OF BANK
TOE OF BANK
TOP OF STREAMBANK
FLOW
SCOUR Pco-
HEADER LOG J/ BACKFILL (ON-SITE ALLUVIUM)
}ALTER FABRICFOR DRAINAGE
FOOTER LOG II ISEE SPECSF .
I 4 MINIMUM -'-?1
(SECTION A-K
C
PLAN VIEW
d
N
Y
MIN
TRANSPLANTS

NSPLA?
a
co 3 MM
F NOT-E$
w CHANNEL BED CHANN
EL BED 1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER RELATIVELY STRAIGHT

v
STONE -'-
BANKFULL STAGE CLASS A
HEADER ROCK - "
,
HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2 LOGS 12
IN

3+m
3+0.57 STONE
' 4
CHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE USED ALONE WITHOUT AN ADDITIONAL LOG.
FILTER FA13RIC SHOULD STILL BE USED TO SEAL AROUND LOG
L
a
a B
B DIF
WATER FLOW-? .?p
R ro / I17

CLASS BSTONE HEADER LOG 3. PLACE FOOTFR ID ES FIRST AND THEN HFADFR ITnrn LOG. SET Y°mE:R LOC
APPROXIMATLEY 3 INCHES ABOVE THE INVERT ELEVATION.
FOOTER LOG <. CUTA NOTCH IN THE HEADER LOG APPROXIMATLEY 60 PERCENT OF THE CHANNEL

FILTER FABRIC FOR DRNNAG
ll
(SEE SPECS) BOTTOMWDTH AND EXTENDING DOWN TO THE INVERT ELEVATION.
m f
.-
STREAM BED
5' MINIMUM
5. USE FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS

m
ELEVATION
FOOTER ROCK .
6. PLACE TRANSPLANTS FROM TOE OF STREAMBANKTO TOP OF STREAMBANK
°
r?_
CRANNELBED CROSS SECTION VIEW
PROFILE VIEW B-B
SECTION A - A
PLAN VIEW
PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS
NOTES:
1. PLANT BARE ROOT SHRUBS AND TREES TO THE WIDTH OF THE
BUFFER AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS
TOP OF STREAMSANK 'L ALLOW FOR B-10 FEET BETWEEN PLANTINGS, DEPENDING ON S2E
]. LOOSEN COMPACTED SOIL
4. PLANT IN HOLES MADE BY A MATTOCK DIBBLE. PLANTING BAR OR
OTHER APPROVED MEANS.
S. PUNT IN HOLES DEEP AND WIDE ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE ROOTS
TO SPREAD OUT AND DOWN WITHOUT J-RGOTING
R KEEP ROOTS MOIST WHILE DISTRIBUTING OR WAITING TO PUNT
BY MEANS OF WET CANVAS, BURLAP. OR STPAW
7. HEEL-IN PUNTS IN MOIST SOIL DR SAWDUST IF NOT PROMPTLY
PLANTED UPON ARRIVAL To PROJECT SITE
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
CROSS SECTION VIEW OF BARE ROOT PLANTING
.
NOTES
1. WHEN P IFG THE PARING THE HOLE FOR A POTTED r.F R
77 PLANT OR
SHRUB DIGTHEHOLE 0 - 12 A R
THAN THE DIAMETER OF THE THE POT AND THE THE SANE DEPTH
A THE POT.
2. REMOVE SIDE THE PLANT ARY THE POT. PLANT ON
ITS SIDE IF NECESSARY TO TO REMOVE REMOVE TH POT.
1 IF THE PLANT IS ROOTBOUND (ROOTS GROMNG INA
SPIRAL MOUND TILE R00! BA1LT MAKE VERTICAL
TOP OF STREAMBANK CUTS W1m A KNIFE OR SPADE JUST DEEP ENOUGH TO
CUT THE NET OF ROOTS. ALSO MAKE A
CRISSCROSS CUT ACROSS THE BOTTOM OF THE BALL
4. PUCE TH E PLANT IN THE HOLE
S. FILL HALF OF THE HOLE WITH SOIL (SAME SOIL
REMOVED FOR BACKF ILL1
e. WATER THE SOIL TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS AND FILL
THE REST OF THE HOLE WITH THE REMAINING SOIL
FARM PATH
Is

TOP WITH -6INCHES OF
157 STONE
VARIES
EARTH
SHEET
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE PoR CONSFRUCISON
u- ?A(? 8000 Rn" PaM1.Y Suit 2DD
a V,.. ,..< `c.ry,NW11 c.mYnN2.s11
LLii Pnon.: P I Dd6151
[NO HQQRINO Fv NRd615Aro
BURY ENO OF LOG 1' NOT"
BELOW M4II POOL DEPTH. 1. LOGS SHOULD RE AT LEAST INCHES IN DIAMETER. REUP.VELY STRAIGHT.
HARDWOOD. AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOG.
3. TRANSPLATS ARE PLACEDALONG THE TOP OF THE BANK OVER
PROFILEVIEW THE BURIENDLDG VANE TO PROTECT AGAINST EROSION DURING
HIGH FLOWS.
LIVE STAKING SPECIFICATION
SQUARE CUTTOP
BUDS FACINGUPNARD
LIVE CUTTING
MIN.IROA
2-r LENGTH
ANGLE CUT
30.45 DEGREES
LIVE STA (E DETAIL
o'
ff
m
PLAN VIEW
T-9 SPACING
Z-Y SPACING
TOP STREAMELANK TOP OF STREAMBANK

PLANT STAKES FROM TO
TO TOE OF BANK IN A DLA
STAGGERED PATTERN

TOE OF SLOPE .:.:. '..1.: .....1.: .:.: .1 ' . ,. .,
PLAN VIEW
CHANNELBLOCK I PERMANENT STREAM CROSSING
LOG BURIED
IN STREAMBANK
AT LEAST 5!
TRANSPLANTS J
In BKFL WIDTH
2/S PM WIDTH
LOG VANE
11
2d'?o
LOG BURIED
BELOWSTREAMBED
PLAN VIEW
CROSS SECTION VIEW TRANSPLANTS
FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE
(SEE SPECS)
TOP OF STREUIBANK
FLOW -?
STREAMBED
e
L
1'
\ EXISTING CNANNELTO BE DIVERTED
lQ NEWLY CONSTRUCTED
'L STREAM CHANNEL
O ?
OLD CHANNEL TO SE FILLED
COMPACTED
ROOT WI
NEW STREAMRANK SHALL BE
TREATED AS SPECIFIED IN PUNS
CHANNEL
FILTEF
FOR D
COVER FILL MATERJAL
CATTLE CROSSING CONSTRUCTED 1B
WITH 21 SIDE SLOPES
D FlDW
PLAN VIEW
NOTES,
1. STAKES SHOULD BE CUT AND
INSTALLED ON THE SAME DAY.
2 DO NOT INSTALL STAKES THAT
HAVE BEEN SPILT.
e. STAKES MUST BE INSTALLED WITH
BUDS POINTING UPWARDS.
1. STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED
PERPENDICULAR TO BANK
S STAKES T= BE 112 TO 2 INCHES
IN DlAMEER AND 2 TO D FT LONG.
R STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED LEAVING
150E STAKE ABOVE GROUND.
CROSS SECTION VIEW
PRO1ECr ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO SJOr USR FOR CONSBMM14
IMUC SOM Pp.,q Pa-y Sub 2M
C+'Y. NOM c'-"' 31511
Ptron: F1FJ515155
CMOINt[RINO F¢91Ra5Uw
Construction Sequence
The following construction sequence shall be used during implementation of the mitigation plan.
1. The Contractor will prepare construction accesses and stockpile areas as shown in the plans. If necessary, erect any safety fences, silt
fences, or barriers. Stockpile materials that will be needed during the initial stages of construction.
2. The Contractor shall maintain and use existing culverted stream crossings during the initial stages of construction. 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.
3. The Contractor will begin by excavating floodplain areas to design grades in all areas except within 10 feet of the top of existing stream
banks. The Contractor may fill ditches which do not contain any water during the grading operations. Along ditches with water or stream
reaches, excavated material should be stockpiled in areas shown on the plans. In any areas where excavation depths will exceed 1.0
foot, topsoil shall be stockpiled and placed back over these areas to a depth of eight inches to achieve design grades and create a soil
base for vegetation.
4. Contractor shall begin construction on each stream reach and complete that stream reach before moving to the next reach. Excavation of
new stream channels shall begin on the downstream end and work upstream to allow for drainage. The new channel sections shall be
left open on the downstream end to allow for drainage during rain events. A temporary sediment trap shall be installed at the
downstream end.
5. The upstream reach of Cox Branch shall be constructed first Once construction is completed through 34+50, construction of the
downstream reach will begin.
6. Contractor shall excavate new channel sections in the dry. When new channel sections cross existing ditches and streams, the
Contractor may excavate to within 10 feet of the existing channels, but Contractor shall not disturb existing channels until all other
sections of the new channel have been constructed and stabilized.
7. Once an excavated section of channel has been constructed to design grades and approved by the Engineer, in-stream structures,
matting and transplants shall be placed in that section per the direction of the Engineer and the channel made ready to accept water from
the old channel.
8. Disking and roughing of field areas adjacent to the stream channel shall be completed prior to turning water into the new stream channel
segments. Disking shall not be performed within 10 feet of the new stream channel banks. The Contractor shall NOT disk or rough any
areas where excavation activities have not been completed.
9. Once the new channels have been accepted by the Engineer, the temporary sediment trap at the downstream end shall be removed.
Water from the old channel stream channel may then be turned into the new stream channel. Apply stabilization practices to the area
where the water was turned, and immediately begin filling the old abandoned stream channels.
10. Once a section of new channel has been completed, the Contractor will apply temporary seeding, permanent seeding, and mulch to that
area as designated in the plans and specifications. Permanent seeding mixtures shall be applied 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 or 30 calendar days, whichever is shorter, 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.
11. The Contractor shall insure that the site is free of trash and leftover materials prior to demobilization of equipment from the site.
12. Plant woody vegetation according to planting details and specifications. Planting of woody vegetation should only occur during winter or
early spring.
C
m
ri
x
a
X
M
W
R
V
N
0
C
O
a
C
Construction Quantities Estimate - Cox Branch Site
Item # Description Quantity Units
C Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS
E Temporary Silt Fence 500 FT
F Temporary Seed (Rye Grain) 550 LBS
F Straw Mulch 300 BALES
G Permanent Seed (wetlands) 700 LBS
G Permanent Seed (access roads) 50 LBS
H Excavation, Fill, and Grading 6,500 CU YDS
H Roughing of Soil Surfaces 57 ACRES
H Clearing 6.5 ACRE
H Grubbing 2.5 ACRE
I Class B Stone 100 TONS
I Class A Stone 150 TONS
I Washed Stone (57) 100 TONS
J Root Wads 170 EACH
J Logs 60 EACH
J Filter Fabric, Type II Nonwoven 300 SQ YDS
K Permanent Culvert-48 inch 40 LINFT
K Permanent Culvert-24 inch 20 LINFT
L Coir Fiber Matting 9,500 SQ YDS
M Transplants 500 SQ YDS
N Live Stakes 15,000 STEMS
OPTIONAL BID ITEM
Item # Description I Quantity Units
P Tree Planting 41,000 STEMS
wuim.c nu. 1Ntti No.
0214R
eRaKr wcINEEx
v? ! / ?f ' J PRELIMINARY PLANS
W NM u3e rM CONTMUMON
,
0 WM9 P.-Y Sub
F
'n1 '?$s N M L F 375
CNO N[CRIMO
/
%
w ,
r/
J
M
.
S +^
1
/ l
/t
/
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION-
RI
STA 12+00.00 - \ \
13+Op'??.. .x..16+00 ?X
;I 1 / r y l ?? " t n
c
m
v
P
2
N
a
X
m
Li
P
N
m
a
{
i
i
r i
,
?V
'r
,'/fir ? ? •??,'?%/ ,??',r, ??{? ? ? ?? ?
p '
/
,
A
{
/ d
,
F ,
r
e
oO.
CO
\v
EM CHANNEL &DCK
COX SITE
30 0 30 60
SCALE (FT)
FIAD ?N"-f?-°
BUCK PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SNEET NO.
0214R
t 44 PROJECT ENGINEER
\ PRELIMINARY PLANS
? .. f W NOT USE POR OoNmtymoN
,
gwq C I_ smi.
`?. ?E11}}} 1E?, 1E?'(w[ IEAI?y; s000 R r00
`y E BUCEZ
NVtl C?min?lisll
tN0 N?@RINO F¢91946}5190
s \
1
r' a
4
4y
? o
N
co
h
co
Z
Z
hV
?Q
\ 4tn,,

t%
FILL EXKTINO CHANNEL

CHANNEL &XCR
COX SITE
30 0 30 60
SCALE (FT)
i
NAp 83
E 31 , / /?
DO ??
27+oo
cv 1 I . ,
,"
'?<<
co
4tj /??k,
LI SIDE STD°ES wr"m
?y PASS 8 RIP RAP EST. a i
SS TONS WITH 56 SY FF. j
m
i
a
m

EXISTING LATERAL DRCN To BEl
REAILIGNED AS showN ON SHEET m
CONSTRICT FARM PATH ACCORDING
TD DETAIL SHEET 2.8
°O
i (2) 43 •csP
'IIED STEEIJ
?0xo
0
O
E
`INSTALL PERMANENT
STREAM CROSSING
ACCOICING TD DETAIL
SHEET 2'8,
- w
REMOVE EXISITING DRAIN THE
AS DIRECTED Br PROJECT ENGINEER
i
NO.
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE Pm CONmUmom
BUCK P?Rp.:;P.l.y3ub705
c x. C-n-27511
P,ma: 91P 3.3.!!
[NO NttRINO Pv: 91"5354M
S? 3?k00 ??
slPF
ARMOR PIPE CROSSING
WITH A57 STONE
ARMOR UPSTREAM
CL AND DOWNSTREAM
EL=105.5 FACE OF FILL SLOPE
I WITH CLASS B RIP RAP
106.01
I I I
--r--r-- --rl - I I
-r--r--
'

107.¢3 I I I
--r r -- r -- - I
I
--r- --

.
_ =t=-L?? _ __L__L_
I
I I --T--T-
--r--r--r-? --r--r--
lca.la
0.00 I a.¢1 61.10
CL EL•100.6
EL=100.0
SECTION A-A'
COX SITE
' FLU EXISTING CHANNEL 30 0 30 60
SCALE (F1)
r _.
r
!tl
i
t?
}i
I
I
E?
9J
J
7
l
P?
l
o°
x
` 012X0
0
oc', !
PROJECT ENGINEER

v??4? pp
BUCK 90W RP.Mw?y SuX.}00
bry, Nwp Ca .y n511
Ht t R Pnww:
C i4-0-1 uw-evee
INO ? Em vie?eis,eo

DO
Ab 0 3?"00
v o `.
Gj o
c
01
Z
a
x
m
c
N
B
0
CL
c
' r
r,; r ....
t r` CJ
A ?
.t ?
t ?.
l

30 0 30 60
SCALE (FT)
h

PRELIMINARY PLANS
W NOT Ne FOR WN9Tl0[TION
FILL Ex15TrNG pH,wNE[
CHANNEL &U'X
ri (7X SITE
K PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET N!
0214R
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
W NOT ME POR CONSTICCTION
``11? g3
l`
m
m
x
c
w
N
B
C
C
O
a
m

Sy ?yC?N
q oFr s E
00

e%
?
r

B==-y RR A?/R .Sub 200
?i?Y? (y_=5--C- Clry. N21511
Poona: 11BJ5}SIBS
C NOI N EVER ` Fv:/11-45}pH
FILL EXISTING OMVEE
COX SITE
30 0 30 60
SCALE (FT)

NPv S3

syT ?/" N
STq pFT 8 F
00 00
V
P
x
N
a
m
d
N
m
c?
B
a
c

wM 16i 61dE
¢i0.1 n1 UGNS1rzFIY iKE Of
10010 HI.
I I I I I I
---I------T-- ,-----7--- ---
I I I I I I
---I---?--- -- - -----T--- ---
I I I I I
,180
0.01 10010 I1 6?S R0P0 12111
CL ¢snr
SECTION A-A'
BUCK PROJECI REFERENCE NO. SNEET NI
I
/ PROJECT ENGINEER

PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT 1 POR ODlITIRDRTON
` eooo Rape q P. mr sd. too
BUCK
cery,NMlCameluz1511
IMme Blwa?-s.ee
ENO NCE111N0 Ps 010x616190
?? ^O OO
CD

? ?r
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT VSB FOR CONSRVRTON

C
m
v
x
a
,.,
X
z?
?p
W

`??xo0 o
\ n
sWD R. N,M ? -27517W n
BI? I?/? ? 0
{ffYf Pf 1?F Cary, NOnl CwIiiu 11511 ?Pp
Mw F1F46]-SIRE
L NOIN [[111N0 A, F¢pip?ssSlW
Cox S=
30 0 30 60
SCALE (FT)
?ry
u?„t5 A,
O
x
he
.97

i
1
f1.
i
i
1
,F
(Z-
it
h rj?
J
?Wr
c
m
N
CII
X
[0
W
N
B
C
0
a
m
N f° f
f
F
i
Lp
0
FILL EVSMAO CnWNEL
m
x
a
X
W
v
N
B
O
x ,
00
lam.
1
curIFiu Lars _ . _ _ ?'. r? i? ? ,
J
/ j
W ,
7
CHANNEL &XK
FNL EXISTING CHANNEL
11 COX SITE
t 30 0 30 60
SCALE (FT)
? l .
I
' N, r i ---- __-_
77
, N
C
• ?? ,,,,,, „? '--,,,,. l""'. ? , . Yr ? ,•-- °sp / ? `. RfJiIGx Erminc ..... ..
,t
'k.
LATERAL orrcH INTO
t..
ZONE, AS SHOWN
1 .A
?t
,
1(
USE BENCH, CUT MATERIAL roR,i7SE ?r. L • ? ? .
FARO PATH. To APPAOXIMATLET 2.FEET 1 ? • +.,?+? "? "`R ' Jy ' I .v? /
r \
A90vf SUR/Ll1xDlAG GYUxO
f
77
USE R BENCH WATER CHANNEL CRT W TINTO TO HA EXRTnYG CHANNEL
AFTER WATER HAS BEEN TURNED INTO NEW CHANx£G
c
m
v
a
x
m
w
a
N
B
a
a
m
1 / ? ?? t k
r R
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
CHANNEL B=
/ 1 r f \\y
d v ??. v
GRADING PLAN
m
i
f ..
; .? \ 100 50 0 100 20
f, ...
„ .' . 4, ?' '. ,} ?; • , i ` •'• ""-_?.. !f ' ?? ? '\ .... ?? ?%
0214R
!
? , `\?'? _ / ( \.._ r<cOhQ ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
11 00 Norr us& POR CVNSRVCRUN
,
,
-
r ? J J j
r
t \? t 1
1
*' / - ...... _. <` •?\? J IN [?II?N 8000 ROpenq PrtMa*$Y51IW
<
<
i
/s
t?
S
?. r
F ?l
\
f "J
ASSIpnN NLfLt f Y PA lH • `?... ww•,>`'""' _?/ f? t
r f
t a t l1
?r a, c AxDMI H - , t
rJ uspg (y(ANx y
4 ,• ?r ? ''\ ?..-- F!`' / ire LAT RI N?,. FILL PAN
p. ?\ p
,
,
y ,
H ? ?a
r
f ( 'ly
` i USE BEACH CUT NATERLAL TO RAISE FARM PATH TO '
.
.
APPROXIYATIEY 2 FEET ABOVE SURRDUxDIAG G157uxD S .... % rf -=,,
i
USE BENCH AND CHANNEL CUT YATERLU. TO FILL EX6Tm ate- .
m CHANNEL AFTER WATER HAS BEEN TURNED INTO NEW CHANNEL J y«? ?. \, /
d
?/ •... ., . ,r ? .,, ? . ?. ?, ?' _ - - `.? f..,_,'?,.` aL `ems` ..
\
f _
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
,
CHANNEL BLOCK
i ... _
le !T i \
GRADING PLAN
t
100 50 0 loo 200
SCALE (Fl)
NO.
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT VPB POR CON%IRUenoN
tl
-
I a

i
,. J 1
W
a

. J .
w II
..

a II
J

W
i II
-

as II N
J

W It
a
.. .-
II -

J
W
....,..a.. M
.-

a ^ +
t'1

J
n
W ^
^

W +
-'

_
iY

J

W m
+

a M O
O +

t
W
a.,.. a.: .,? t'1
O

-
W

_
1

_ ON m

^

O .. m
N
O + tV Vl
ry O
°
M
O I

J

- N

O

? O r

M O

O N
t
N *

o _ m

P1,

: SWP RSOe PeIMPSulb 201
Cery,NOiplCvolne 27511
BUCK
. PPwle: %PJ57315a
a a a
w I I ?

- -•- --- -- --- --
w EL E
,
. -
- - - -
- - -
- - - -
- - ----

L

100 EL=103.0(Y
PI .T

100
EL:--102.07':- . .
1 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00

11O _:. BANKFULL PROPOSED GRADE
r p

ISTING.GRA E `
?.. . _»u... ?._ . ..
.
1 110
C
.
'
.
c
N
` N

N I
m ' N l? '

I r O

+
0
m N ^ V,

O P N
; ? O V
^ N a
+ O .
^
l? r V^
r r
t0 N
N
- m O
M

D)
_[ m
) r?

d° ?°

m

:

.
...o.....?.......?. ».-. ..:..,_ W -I»..4 O..'..,+ 0,... a W . ..'. - II ,
W J' o f f
.. _.. _..._ J

I O
II'
N
1 O
Q
JII'?, #..1w

It k
-:
_.. OCJ .-

.

_ V J
.- r N i
V
,:. .+ 0.
.• rn N

° .. ?: O I

vt. I N

, M t

r -

a -
II
W.
a N
1 _. Il J ? .. I JN _
.
. _ _
1 ... ..?
I
W 1 .a W; a W. _ .. t i I i W a. a W4 Ll
i it
EL N
W ti ry _
.?
" i I
..... ...:.........:. .. l.1 , 3
- - I .... ... _ - . 1 I f a W , a W u
E: J 3
f
7 J 1 •- - -_ f ?.
E
I
,'p a_
?
1 E ..-. ._.. ..
?
100
r
a

r

,
?

?
?

? : ? ? ?' •-!

i

?

I

i

r

:? 100
?_: __-' ?_.?.. ?.?_?° _ >
_ , ? 1 ?
? I ?

1 + O , h 0 N I` - -N

.....e.:,,.,,w,,,,,.,
,•.:., -e. _..,.._. _.»
.?...r,:...,.r.... :.... +:.......--»..,tlte ,.?.?...,_ d
_
.._
.,_..
.
•
.
:
W
:
1
II
I I .

_,.
.„....«--.
.,...-,.-......?
.,..
._'"_G
, e..s.
.
,,.:?
...- _
. _ _
a
-M

p

.

.
-

.. ..

I

,

i
-
:
-
-
A
!
j L

18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00
:..
+ { 4 BANKFULL!
E
. Q.:..

EXISjING? RADE J {
-
»,._?..,»-...».. ..-.., _... r . -
P -

CL W" e J .- P J r
N II -.
N m
. J .. j
?. N O O_ t
i n :N.m N
r F- i 47
(71

;
' t

?

_
m
'

? O
k
_
p e

_ 1

• I - a

f -.:
-a
W
..u
..
J
°. N
II

W

W
J
r
T
r
i
7
+
m

Q 1

m

- i
I i. t
I c r
I . i?
'a W m
a I .
'I
w
I T
w. ?. ... i m
n
1
c
• .
I
100

1 loo

I
.. . e
. i
1 .... .. _ .. , ...
t

A
_

7

X

9
3 y
i
;
v
a
I
t ,
¢
?
1
I-
: I
1
?

, .
C
D I

.
- -ol
m
?. -
LPRPOSED'GRADE NI
'
a
? I - -
^ , _
1
aw, ' ?J W
_ N I .- m m
a ...
d° 9D a
„
Li
i- I u
W o - :F
v ° W
p q I 90
?: 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00
34+00
_

i ( - -_ -

{ - BUCK PROJECT REFERENCE NO.
SNEET NO.

..

_

..-.
1
-. _. ...._

_

I
»».

....

_z

_ _ <._,._ _ _ 17
. -
i .. ..
r
' r
" PROJECT ENGINEER
110 ... , .
r
I
_

;
PRELIMINARY PLANS
W NOT UZZ POR CONTMUMON
. r
,
r 1
j " PROPOSED GRADE
BANKF
ULL EXISTING GRADE

[D o ,-
Yl m

rn m
o o' a

n_
.-...

?

V
m

J

O
Q
r
Q w
? m

rn
W N
J.
rn

_
O
n.
rn
r0 W
r
Q
II N R r
??

n, .._
m
N D

+
.m
O M
r
t o
rn

o

Q

` n
+ rn

p

'
m

M
A

N

m..m

V M
^
m

Q

! O

N
rn

[t

V
m

_

PP??II???
E? Rn? No* 7300
cam rY. NOM CrWn? 2i515i1

d
W
M II
d W
_ J
W rn
J N
_

R

it
W

J +
m

....
Il
M
11
J

t•,
J
r N
rn.

II
J +

m
m
W
N
m
rn O

_ 4
m O
M f
? n
i )
n rn co

N
m
n
m
Pion: 919463-5485

iac 41 9J61510

-
...
;.. a
, W

.o..,.

a

a

I

W

^ Al

J
CL W a a W Q W 1 w -' W
100
a

a

'
a
n rn
100
.? •. ice. ? • ? _ > .?... rovwa.,.,mQ.?+
.a
-
- - -
k
i a-
1
,
-
F
I
, .

1
34+00 35+00 36+00 37+00 38+00 39+00 40+00 41+00 42+00
-. -' j t j " BANKFOCL 1 'EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED
« _ 1
1-7

f

«
1 1 (
Y !
100 j m
u d m v_. . m.v, m _
' O - 8-• r n? __ l.._. . .-
q _ _
.
. .- i
?
• • 100
?... _ lU,... _ m _
W _.._.-.. N II. -? ?.. .._?
. - ... _.. »«.+
m . ..._. ...... .N.
?
I ?.
m • ,..._.., , _._,.._.m
i
4 ?_..... ;-?.._.
M ._ f
:- p W G
r-m«N.. i _. p O
--w.? N a.a- _ - O
_.. t? . - _ a1

_
v

o

_I

?,
fl _
a a w i rn w m ? Q
' m_: f m 1 Q l... I
n n
. ?., .. I d , a W
LLJ u o I^1.? m r o n

I 14
o-
W
is
t

- -- 1
-
-_
II
7
i

i 7, 7

T
_
I
I
r

r
90
nl
4;
I 90
?._..
..
_

h
c r

(p-
( V

m

rn

n

rn

n 1 t ' -

r 1

r
I

m
:. II

W

i

?

t?T
J
w f
r , ,a

..
°
J
N
t

_

.

?

o
r
o . it
1
I
.
_.
I
r
€
I
-
_.
b -
"` 50+00 51+00 52+00 53+00 54+00 55+00 56+00 57+00 58+00

r
BUCK 1 ERIN NO. NO.
SHEET
_. ..
' _. _ . .. - k- i
I PROJECT ENGINEER
100
'
BANKFULL EXISTING
GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE ?
-
-

PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT WE FOR CONSTRUCTION
J . ? } ?.. . .
a s W

-

W _ J

.
J

m
Luj N

: }

m ;

.
?.. .. I .. ..
..
m w _ w -J
FL =
- -
BUCK IMI RN?1'P?rkn;;'b;00
- Fu "5u Slue

90 t
90

m m '' o ? m v N w

a W
, II
- -I
W ? r m
11
J
: ry
?
J M
O
_
O
a
?
II II
W.

a
w _
w W
_... a a .
< I
:

58+00 59+00 60+00 61+00 62+00 63+00 64+00 65+00 66+00

t`
I

100
E I

r
100
©ANKFULL EXISTING GRADE PROPOSEDGRADE!
h i

`°
T cl?
.
° f
'

- .II W
a W i -o
.. _ i
W- L m
_.. _I1 J
W o
.,I f
J )- ! 1I?
J i :ID m?
II +
O ° m
.O rn
w } ? a
i m
p 1
m l io
f
N N f ro. I

1 I '
s
t
1 ?
r
'

IL Cc) I t L
r
.

?
}
'..}
m.

+ III
._...Jm
;N- i ?

. '. .. - i

°

fn__•

-

T - - °

17

a--
*

_
I

f o

... g

:_i

. °

I_i ..!
m rn ayi
__ I a W f '.3_ _., d + n Wp ID of-. .
to

66+00 67+00 68+00 69+00 70+00 71+00 72+00 73+00 74+00

sign\Plons\0214R.EBX_PFL.19.dgn

I ? ? i I I

1 I I..
d I
i
1

2 f r

,
,
r

i r i

I
d
,
I
l i l I i
t I
+ ? i`

, 7 7
- --
r t
e ,

'. l
,
I

t
r 9{ ,

I
,

J
t $ r

I I
,

•
77

• ? t

v,'2 Z
r
co
Qyy$ xz
1 gave Vf
9 it ?$

r
j • ?{ _ °yo \ _ ` _ p .. +.•!' PROJECT ENGINEER
- J
? t
8
PRELIMINARY PLAII
no Nor us& POR MNMUMON
•
- - -- ------- --
q Bucgc
,. -. \ .o ` - ?^ ("• 7\ a // LW.NwO Cantu
.,.n .- •...- p,-, Jj t? Pion: 9I9J6:
"
/
i
i
!
t .-
!
f /
ti
' r
? i
j ;
r„
AND GRUB A CORRIDOR OF
(i u% miN1WY wrDTH ADEOVETE TO ct.
r? ? `>'i / / GOYS AbCT'STREAY ? ?`
v
m
N
2
N
a
x
m
w
N
a
c
a
a
r
T
v/
t
? ; _ _ _ T prANNEL
HARVEST'ROOTWADS AND LDG5,
..,??,? ?r• t? /? J /P? 1 _ ?n? , I ,,,` .. ??
\ ? s FOR VANES AND WEIRS
r
%
I ?
' RNERINE WETLAND
APOWRIVERINE WETLAND
/r - W STREAM RESTORATION BUFfER
IZ/
6, A \
i ? „ \ .rte ? r \ ? ? -?':''v, \ __ / /% `?\ `• \ o ..
\ ! 50'STREAM ENHANCEMENT BUFFER
r / s+1, ,?, k, d% / A
M2LFj
SEE VEGETATION SELECTION TARLES
REVEGETATATON
SPECIES
a._ rr, / t i :' f/ ; 1 SHEET FA 10 DETERMINE
FR£hT
1 llWPOSITM D
r _. ` •' `AVA ?t :? . / PLANTING ZONE
100 50 0 100
It
le
?,
f.

r f, r. t L \
'r J 1
r( ti t ( ( .. 7 !6 J
c
m
v
N
2
N
a
X
co
w
a
N
m

ADN-RNERINE WETLAND
SO STREAM RESTORATION B,FFER
57STREAM ENHANCEMENT BIFFER
HARVEST ROOTWADS AND LOGS
FOR VANES AND WIERS
Km
?v [ ¢ y,.`. PRO1ECf ENGINEER
:
l
i PRELIMINARY PLANS
??? ... ? DO NOT USE FOR CONTTRUMON
t, F
BUCK 8?p??pl
i
f,o nYU>54eo
i
SEE VEGETATION SELECTION TABLES
SHEET FA TO DETERMINE SPECIES
COMPOSITION OF DIFFERENT
PLANTING ZONES
? t
,
J ,,J
1 -
w
j
./
\\ CLEAR AND CRIB A CORRIDOR OF
. - ... \\ ...
-- `l. /MINIWM WIDTH AX"TE' TD . -
CONSTADCT STREAM CHANNEL, \ ...._
`. HARVEST R,OOTWADS AND LOGS ^•\
i \ fOR VANES AND WIERS \• -.- {
r
f
f
Jll
\ 3 /i
REVEGETATION
100 50 0 100 200
0-7
Cox Site
Wetland and Stream Restoration Plan
Johnston County, North Carolina
Submitted by:
Q X\
,_
k •F rJ Lam.-`. ? .=i i L.. ..-_1 N s-= J
EBX Neuse-I, LLC
220 Chatham Business Drive
Pittsboro, NC 27312
March 2005

APR 8- 2005
DSAi,D TT PIA l
Llry
ew"Of
DRAFT REPORT
Cox Site
Wetland and Stream Restoration Plan
Johnston County, North Carolina
Prepared for EBX Neuse-I, LLC
IIE?

Design Report Prepared by Buck Engineering PC
U 8000 Regency Parkway
Suite 200
D-52)) Cary, North orth Carolina 27511
Phone: [phone]
F N( i 11`I 1 F. 11, 1 N C i Fax: [phone]
www.buckengineoring.com
K rfe? y, PE
cosy s Team Leader
March 2005
DRAFT REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Environmental Banc and Exchange Neuse-I, LLC (EBXN-1), proposes to restore 7,263 linear feet
® (LF) and enhance 285 LF of stream and restore 25 acres of riverine and 16.9 acres of non-riverine
wetlands along an unnamed tributary to Mill Creek. This unnamed tributary to Mill Creek will be
® referred to as Cox Branch throughout the restoration plan. The Cox Site is located in Johnston
County, south of Smithfield, NC, within cataloging unit 03020201, and NC Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) sub-basin 03-04-04 of the Neuse River Basin (Exhibits 1.1 and 1.2). The project site is
® located within targeted local watershed 03020201150050 and is immediately adjacent to the
Westbrook Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site that was developed as part of the Neu-Con Wetland
® and Stream Umbrella Mitigation Bank within the Neuse River Basin. .
Cox Branch is a moderate size, perennial stream with a drainage area of 1.8 square miles at the
downstream end of the site (Exhibit 1.3). Historically, the site has been used for agricultural
® production. Cleared areas in the upstream portion of the project area are currently used for livestock
® production. The riparian vegetation in this area is predominantly herbaceous, as it was once
maintained for hay production. This curtailed any efforts for native woody vegetation to establish
® along the stream banks. Fields in the downstream portion of the site are currently used for row crop
® agricultural production.
® Based on field evaluations of intermittent / perennial status, the stream channel is considered
perennial using NCDWQ stream assessment protocols. Currently, Cox Branch is classified as an
® incised "E5/G5c" stream type using the Rosgen stream classification (Rosgen, 1996). The bank
height ratios range from 1 to 2.5 along the existing channel. The channel shape is trapezoidal and the
stream is not protected by adequate riparian vegetation except for within the forested areas of the
® project reach. Cox Branch is considered moderately unstable, both vertically and laterally,
® throughout the upper and lower fields and exhibits areas of high erosion. Pool formation is poor with
® very little habitat diversity or woody debris.
The site is bordered to the east by bottomland hardwood forest. All of the cleared fields on the site
have been designated as prior converted (PC) farmland by the Natural Resources Conservation
® Service (NRCS) as shown in Exhibit 5.1. The on-going nature of the farming operations and prior
® converted status of the site present a significant opportunity for ecosystem-based restoration. On-site
"
list hydric soils. Areas
investigations reflect that all acreage to be restored is underlain by "A
targeted for restoration are mapped as the Pantego soil series.

EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING I
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
The proposed restoration areas are shown in Exhibit 1.4. The design goals of the project include:
• Restoration of 7,263 LF of stream channel
• Enhancement of 285 LF of stream channel
• Restoration of 25 acres of riverine wetlands
• Restoration of 16.9 non-riverine wetland acres
• Continued separation of cattle from stream, wetland and riparian buffer areas
• Restoration within a targeted local watershed
• An ecosystem-based restoration design
• Improvements to habitat functions
• Significant water quality benefits.
Table ES.1
Restoration Overview. Cox Site Restoration Plan

Cox Branch 6,160 LF 7,548 LF Priority 1/Priority IV Restoration
Riverine Wetland
88 acres
0
25.88 acres Grading, Soil Roughing, and
Restoration . Planting
Non-Riverine
0 acres
16.9 acres Grading, Soil Roughing, and
Wetland Restoration Planting
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction and Background .............................................................................................1-1
1.1 Brief Project Description and Location .............................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................. . 1-1
1.3 Report Overview ................................................................................................................ . 1-2
2.0 Stream Restoration Background Science and Methods ................................................... . 2-1
2.1 Application of Fluvial Processes to Stream Restoration .................................................... . 2-1
2.2 Natural Channel Design Overview .................................................................................... . 2-5
2.3 Geomorphic Characterization Methodology ..................................................................... . 2-6
2.4 Channel Stability Assessment Methodology ..................................................................... . 2-7
2.5 Design Parameter Selection Methodology ....................................................................... 2-10
2.6 Sediment Transport Competency and Capacity Methodology ......................................... 2-11
2.7 In-Stream Structures ......................................................................................................... 2-14
2.8 Vegetation ......................................................................................................................... 2-15
2.9 Risk Recognition .............................................................................................................. 2-17
3.0 Wetland Restoration Background Science and Methods ..................................................3-1
3.1 The Importance of Wetlands .............................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Ilydric 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 Site Hydrology/Hydraulics ............................................................................................... ..4-1
4.3 Site Hydrologic and Hydraulic Characteristics ................................................................. .. 4-1
4.4 Geology ............................................................................................................................ .. 4-2
4.5 Soils 4-2
4.6 Land Use ........................................................................................................................... .. 4-3
4.7 Endangered/Threatened Species ....................................................................................... ..4-3
4.8 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ .. 4-8
4.9 Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites ....................................................................... 4-8
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING III
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
4. 10 Potential Constraints ........................................................................................................... 4-8
5.0 Existing Wetland Conditions ............................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.2 Soils 5-1
5.3 Climatic Conditions ............................................................................................................ 5-2
5.4 Site Hydrology .................................................................................................................... 5-2
6.0 Stream Corridor Assessment Results .................................................................................. 6-1
6.1 Reach Identification ............................................................................................................ 6-1
6.2 Geomorphic Characterization ............................................................................................. 6-1
6.3 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................... 6-6
6.4 Biological Assessment ........................................................................................................ 6-7
7.0 Selected Design Criteria ....................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Potential for Restoration ..................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Design Criteria Selection .................................................................................................... 7-1
7.3 Design Criteria for Cox Branch .......................................................................................... 7-4
8.0 Stream Restoration Design ................................................................................................... 8-1
8.1 Restoration Approach ......................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 Design Rationale (Channel Dimension, Pattern, and Profile) ............................................ 8-1
8.3 Sediment Transport ............................................................................................................. 8-4
8.4 In-Stream Structures ........................................................................................................... 8-7
8.5 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................... 8-8
9.0 Wetland Restoration Plan .................................................................................................... 9-1
9.1 Restoration of Wetland Hydrology ..................................................................................... 9-1
9.2 Hydrologic Model Analyses ............................................................................................... 9-2
9.3 Wetland Reference Site Overview ...................................................................................... 9-3
10.0 Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................ 10-1
10.1 Stream Monitoring ............................................................................................................ 10-1
10.2 Wetland Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 10-2
10.3 Vegetation Monitoring ...................................................................................................... 10-3
10.4 Reporting Requirements ................................................................................................... 10-3
10.5 Maintenance Issues ........................................................................................................... 10-4
11.0 References ............................................................................................................................ I1-1
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING IV
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN

List of Exhibits
* All Exhibits are located at the back of the report, immediately preceding the appendices.
Exhibit 1.1 Site Location Map
Exhibit 1.2 Project Vicinity Map
Exhibit 1.3 Watershed Map
Exhibit 1.4 Proposed Wetland Restoration Areas
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 Shields Curve
Exhibit 2.8 Examples of In-stream Structures
Exhibit 4.1 Soils Map
Exhibit 5.1 Prior Converted Wetland Map
Exhibit 5.2 Site Hydrology Map
Exhibit 5.3 Locations of Water Table Monitoring Wells
Exhibit 6.1 Project Reaches
Exhibit 6.2 Biomonitoring Site Locations
Exhibit 7.1 Location of Reference Reach and Reference Wetland
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
V
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 Westbrook Site
(October 2001 through January 2002)
Figure 5.2 Hydrographs of the Groundwater Monitoring Wells on the Cox Site (October
2004 through January 2005)
Figure 5.3 Hydrographs of the Groundwater Monitoring Wells on the Westbrook Site (June
2001 through January 2002)
Figure 6.1 NC Coastal Regional Curves with Bankfull Discharge for Project Reaches and
Reference Cross-Sections
Figure 8.1 Comparison Between Bankfull Shear Stress and Channel Slope for Design
Reaches and Coastal Plain Reference Reach Data
Figure 8.2 Comparison Between Stream Power and Channel Slope for Design Reaches and
Coastal Plain Reference Reach Data
Figure 8.3 Comparison Between Width-to-Depth Ratio (W/D) and Channel Slope for
Design Reaches and Coastal Plain Reference Reach Data
Figure 9.1 Thirty-Year Model Simulation for the Longest Period of Consecutive Days
Meeting Wetland Criteria for Conditions Encountered at Restoration Site
Figure 9.2 Cross-Section for the Johannah Creek Reference Reach
Figure 9.3 Water Table Depths Recorded in a Monitoring Well Installed within the
Reference Site
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING VI
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
d
S
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Conversion of Bank Height Ratio (Degree of Incision) to Adjective Rankings
of Stability (Rosgen, 2001a)
Table 2.2 Conversion of Width/Depth Ratios to Adjective Ranking of (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 Johnston County
Table 4.3 Federal Species of Concern in Johnston County
Table 6.1 Cox Branch Reach Lengths and Watershed Size
Table 6.2 Existing Condition Data for Cox Branch - Stream Classification
Table 6.3 NC Rural Coastal Plain Curve Equations
Table 6.4 Benthic Summary Table
Table 7.1 Reference Parameters Used to Determine Design Ratios
Table 7.2 Project Design Stream Types
Table 8.1 Natural Channel Design Parameters for the Cox Branch Restoration Site
Table 8.2 Calculated Sediment Transport Data for Design Reaches
Table 8.3 In-Stream Structure Types and Locations for Cox Branch
Table 8.4 Cox Branch Site Plant Schedule
EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
vu
List of Appendices
Appendix A Wetland Delineation Data and Forms
Appendix B Cultural and Natural Resources Correspondence
Appendix C EDR Transaction Screen Map Report
Appendix D DRAINMOD Input Data
Appendix E Westbrook Hydrology Analysis
Appendix F Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data
Appendix G Site Photographs
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING VIII
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 Brief Project Description and Location
Environmental Banc and Exchange Neuse-I, LLC (EBXN-1), proposes to restore 7,263 linear feet
(LF) and enhance 285 LF of channelized stream and restore 25 acres of riverine wetlands and 16.9
acres of non-riverine wetlands along an unnamed tributary to Mill Creek. This unnamed tributary to
Mill Creek will be referred to as Cox Branch throughout the restoration plan. Exhibits 1.1 and 1.2
provide an overview of the project site. The project site is located in Johnston County in the Neuse
River Basin.
® Cox Branch is a moderate size, perennial stream with a drainage area of 1.8 square miles at the
® downstream end of the site (Exhibit 1.3). Historically, the site has been used for agricultural
k
h
l
e project area are currently used for
ivestoc
production. Cleared areas in the upstream portion of t
® production. The riparian vegetation in this area is predominantly herbaceous, as it was once
® maintained for hay production. This curtailed any efforts for native woody vegetation to establish
along the stream banks. Fields in the downstream portion of the site are currently used for row crop
® agricultural production.
® Based on field evaluations of intermittent/perennial status, the stream channel is considered perennial
e using NCDWQ stream assessment protocols. Currently, Cox Branch is classified as an incised
"E5/G5c" stream type using the Rosgen stream classification (Rosgen, 1996). The bank height ratios
® range from 1 to 2.5 along the existing channel. Cox Branch is a trapezoidal channel that is considered
® moderately unstable, both vertically and laterally, throughout the upper and lower fields and exhibits

® areas of high erosion. Pool formation is poor with very little habitat diversity or woody debris.
Additionally, the stream is not protected by adequate riparian vegetation except for within the
® forested areas of the project reach.
® 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives

The proposed restoration areas are shown in Exhibit 1.4. The proposed stream and wetland
restoration project will provide numerous ecological benefits within the Neuse River basin. While
® many of these 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.
® Water Quality
S • Nutrient removal
® • Sediment removal
® Increased dissolved oxygen concentrations
• Improved streambank stability
• Wetland filtering
Water Quantity/Flood Attenuation
• Increased water storage/flood control
• Reduced downstream flooding by reconnecting stream with its floodplain
• Improved ground water recharge
• Improved/restored hydrologic connections
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 1 i
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitat
• Improved substrate and in-stream cover
• Addition of large woody debris
• Reduced water temperature by increasing shading
• Restoration of terrestrial habitat
• Improved aesthetics
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 Buck Engineering's design processes and procedures may wish
to focus on Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 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 10 summarizes post-construction monitoring and evaluation procedures.
EBXN-I I BUCK ENGINEERING 1-2
COX SITE DRAFT 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, 1988). 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.

EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
2-1
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 2% and 4%, while alluvial channels have slopes less than 2%. 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, 1988).
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.
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 2-2
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
LJ
® 2.1.2.3 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 2
® 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.
EBXN•I / BUCK ENGINEERING
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
2-3
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, and
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
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 2-4
COX SITE DRAFT 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
'
s priority system. Generally:
the Rosgen
® 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

® EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 2-5
® COX SITE DRAFT 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. Buck
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
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 2-6
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
LJ
® used, along with regional curve information, to estimate bankfull elevation in a project reach
® that lacks bankfull indicators.
® 2.3.2 Bed Material Characterization
® Buck Engineering typically performs bed material characterization using a modified Wolman
® procedure (Wolman, 1954; 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
h
f
e
t
stream type changes, a separate pebble count is performed. The median particle size o
® modified Wolman procedure is known as the d50. The d50 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, arc 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
®

® Buck 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
'
s current state, potential
evaluation of the above characteristics leads to a determination of a channel
® for restoration, and appropriate restoration activities. A description of each category is provided in
® the following sections.

® EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING 2-7
® COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN

2.4.1 Stream Channel Condition Observations
Stream channel conditions are observed during initial field inspection (stream walk). Buck
Engineering notes the follow 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
Height Ratio (Degree of Incision) to Adjective Rankings of
Stability (Rosgen, 2001a)
Conversion ofBank
p i
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, 2001a). 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.
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 2-8
COX SITE DRAFT 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, 2001 a)
'tl~L7#?1+?lliil= i;Lttt? cif lv?ll44il! 1;firfix?a1:?C-4°l?il;rt:ll1;?
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.
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 2-9
COX SITE DRAFT 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
Buck 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.
EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING 2.10
COX SITE DRAFT 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
Buck 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 Muvial Fornis 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
The purpose of sediment transport analysis is to ensure that the stream restoration design creates a
stable channel that does not aggrade or degrade over time. The overriding assumption is that the
project reach should be transporting all the sediment delivered from upstream sources, thereby being
a "transport" reach and classified as a Rosgen "C" or "E" type channel. For sand-bed channels,
empirical relationships from stable sand-bed channels in North Carolina are used for this analysis.
Sediment transport is typically assessed by computing channel competency, capacity, or both.
Sediment transport competency is a measure of force (lbs/ft2) that refers to the stream's ability to
move a given grain size. Quantitative assessments include shear stress, tractive force, and critical
dimensionless shear stress. Since these assessments help determine a size class that is mobile under
certain flow conditions, they are most important in gravel bed studies in which the bed material
ranges in size from sand to cobble (of which only a fraction are mobile during bankfull conditions).
In sand-bed systems, all particle sizes are mobile during bankfull flows; therefore, there is no need to
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 2-11
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
determine the maximum particle size that the stream can transport. Comparing the design shear stress
values for a project reach to those computed for sand-bed reference reaches does provide a useful
comparison to determine if the stresses predicted for the design channels are within the range of those
found in stable systems.
Shear stress placed on sediment particles within a stream channel may be estimated by the following
equation:
T = 7RS, where Equation (1)
i = shear stress (lb/ft2)
y = specific gravity of water (62.4 lb/ft3)
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
S = average channel slope (ft/ft)
Shear stress values are calculated for each design reach and plotted against values from sand-bed
reference stream data from the Coastal Plain, as shown in Figure 2.2. If the predicted design shear
stress values fall within the range of values documented for stable reference channels, it is assumed
that shear stresses within the design reaches will be appropriate to maintain a stable channel.
Figure 2.2
Comparison between bankfull shear stress and channel slope for the design reaches and Coastal Plain
reference reach data.
0.300
0.250
N
0.200
W
'n 0.150
cn
0.100
t
N 0.050
0.000
? NC Sand Bed Reference Reaches
- - - 95% Confidence Interval - - "
-----------..------- '--
- - y = 37.547x +0.026
R2=0.96
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0.0035 0.004 0.0045 0.005
Slope (ft/ft)
For sand-bed streams, sediment transport capacity is a much more important analysis tool than
competency. Sediment transport capacity refers to the stream's ability to move a mass of sediment
past a cross section per unit of time, expressed 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 is extremely difficult, other
empirical relationships are used to assess sediment transport capacity. The most common capacity
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 2-12
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN

equation is stream power. Stream power can be calculated a number of ways, but the most common
among geomorphologists is:
(o = yQS/W, where
Equation (2)
w = mean stream power in W/m2
y = specific weight of water (9,810 Win); y = pg where p is the density of the water-
sediment mixture (1,000 kg/m') and g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2)
Q = bankfull discharge in m'/s
S = design channel slope (dimensionless)
W = bankfull channel width in meters
Note: 1 ft-lb/sec/ft2 = 14.56 W/m2
Equation 2 does not provide a sediment transport rating curve; however, it does describe the stream's
ability to accomplish work (i.e. move sediment). For this analysis, stream power values are
calculated and plotted against the range of stream power values documented for stable reference
streams, as shown in Figure 2.3. If the design values fall within the range of values given for stable
reference streams, then the analysis provides confidence that the design stream will be able to
transport its sediment load.
Figure 2.3
Comparison between stream power and channel slope for the design reaches and Coastal Plain
reference reach data.
12.000
N 10.000
E 8.000
3 6.000
0
a
E 4.000
d
fA 2.000
0.000
? NC Sand Bed Reference Reaches
- - - 95% Confidence Interval - , -
-'' ?, ,_'? - y.1941.8x-0.9181
i ? R°=0.9011
0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0.0035 0.004 0.0045 0.005
Slope (ft/ft)
® As an additional check of stream design stability, the design width-to-depth ratios (W/D) are plotted
against slope and compared with data from sand-bed reference reaches in the Coastal Plain. Data
® collected on sand-bed systems in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina indicate a strong correlation
between W/D and slope, with W/D decreasing as channel slope increases. The design W/D ratios are
compared with reference reach data in Figure 2.4, which shows bankfull W/D ratio versus channel
® slope. If the design points for the design reaches fall within the range of W/D values shown for

® EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 2.13
® COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN

reference reaches under similar slope conditions, it is even more likely that the design dimensions of
the restored channels will remain stable.
Figure 2.4
Comparison between width-to-depth ratio (W/D) and channel slope for the design reaches and
Coastal Plain reference reach data.
20
18 ----- - -- ---- ---- ---- - --------
? ? NC Sand Bed Reference Reaches
16 -------------------- .._ _
14 - ------------- ___- -?----------------- --- 95% Confidence Interval

12

10 ? - -
8
--
4 y-.1260x+13.667.
W-0.57
2 ,-

0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008
Slope (ft/ft)
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% 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.
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 2-14
COX SITE DRAFT 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
f'111!]T?#fili', f1.?-X id?lal111 t?l
titl t?t?f.+1;?'?li I1~i?.??.lil'?it????llt ' i;?t;t1?1?1?+,JileIIT??iii•?#il?
Cross Vane 1 1 2
Single Arne Vane 1 2
J-Hook Vane 1 2
Constructed Riffle 1 1 2
Log Weir 1 2
Wing Deflector 2 1 1
Boulder Cluster I
Root Wad 1 1
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,
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
2-15
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:
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
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
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:
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 2-16
COX SITE DRAFT 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.
19

® EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 2-17
® COX SITE DRAFT 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 et al, 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 Buck 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 (C). 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 et al, 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.
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 3-1
COX SITE DRAFT 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, 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
'
natural topographic variability. The organic content of the
process that removes much of the sites
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,
r" 1
L-J
® EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 3.2
® COX SITE DRAFT 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, Buck 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, Buck 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. Niat 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
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 3-3
COX SITE DRAFT 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 reutoff 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. Ifsteani 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 (DEM's) 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. DEM's 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 Buck 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 (1997). DRAINMOD was developed by NC State
University for the study and design of water management systems on poorly-drained, shallow water
® table soils. A combination of methods is used in the model to simulate infiltration, drainage, surface

® EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 3-4
® COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN

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, the reader is referred to 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
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.
EBXN-I I BUCK ENGINEERING 3-5
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN

® 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 (NWl) 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 Platt Species
that Occur in Metlaids: Southeast (Region 2) (Reed, 1988).
® Buck 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,
h
e
distinguishing features, examples, and associated rare plants. Wetlands are also classified using t
® Hydrogeomorphic Classification of Metlands (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. Buck 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
i
i
t
es,
restoration design. Data collected from reference wetland sites, including vegetation commun
® 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
® 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
•
® EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING 3-6
0 COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
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, Buck 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 Buck 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
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
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 3-7
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
s
s

® 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
i
spec
es.
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
i
ll
ca
y
features, which represent backwater sloughs, oxbow ponds, and floodplain pools, are typ
® constructed near the active stream channel, where the high water table conditions and frequent
flooding will maintain water levels in the pools.
® Restoration of Microtopography - 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.
s
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
between furrows and mounds and the height of the mounds can be adjusted depending on the
targeted amount of surface storage to be restored.
EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
3-8
Figure 3.1
Typical Pattern of Restored Wetland Microtopography (Scherrer, 2000)
-1
-f dl u'3
3.8.2 Restoration Techniques for Wetland Soils
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
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).
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 3-9
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
S
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.
EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING 3-10
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
4.0 WATERSHED ASSESSMENT RESULTS
4.1 Watershed Delineation
The Cox Site lies in the Neuse River Basin within North Carolina NCDWQ sub-basin 03-04-04 and
USGS hydrologic unit 03020201150050. Exhibit 1.3 shows the watershed boundaries of this project.
The 1.8-square-mile drainage area contains less than 1 percent impervious surface. The watershed is
mainly agricultural, with single family homes and rural highways.
4.2 Site Hydrology/Hydraulics
4.2.1 Surface Water Classification
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.
All surface waters within the Neuse River Basin have been given a supplemental classification
of Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW) by NCDWQ (NCDWQ 2000). North Carolina has adopted
the Neuse Basin Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy. The strategy includes a
provision to maintain and protect riparian buffers in the basin (15A NCAC 2B .0233).
Cox Branch is a moderate size, perennial stream with a drainage area of 1.8 square miles at the
downstream end of the site (Exhibit 1.3). This stream was previously channelized to improve
drainage in the surrounding fields. Based on field evaluations of intermittent / perennial status,
the stream channel is considered perennial using NCDWQ stream assessment protocols,
receiving a NCDWC stream classification score of 40.5. Cox Branch flows into Mill Creek,
which is classified as a Class C NSW. Based on North Carolina's tributary rule, Cox Branch is
considered a Class C stream.
Currently, Cox Branch is classified as an incised "E5/G5c" stream type using the Rosgen
stream classification (Rosgen, 1996) with one reach that classes out as a G5 as a result of the
degree of incision. The bank height ratios range from 1 to 2.5 along the existing channel. The
channel shape is trapezoidal and the stream is not protected by adequate riparian vegetation
until it reaches the forested area midway through the project reach. Cox Branch is considered
moderately unstable, both vertically and laterally, throughout the upper and lower fields and
exhibits areas of high erosion. Pool formation is poor with very little habitat diversity or
woody debris.
4.3 Site Hydrologic and Hydraulic Characteristics
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for
Johnston County, NC (Community Number 37101) indicates that the Cox Branch falls in Zone A,
EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING 4-1
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
L.
® which is designated as a special flood hazard area inundated by the 100-year flood. Zone A indicates
® that no base flood elevations have been determined.
® 4.4 Geology
®
Cox Branch is located in southeastern Johnston County, N.C., in the Coastal Plain of eastern North
® Carolina. The Black Creek Formation is exposed in the project area. This formation was deposited in
® the Upper Cretaceous Period, and consists of thinly laminated sands and clays. Cross bedded sands
® are common as is lignitic clay associated with marcasite. Glauconite is found in some of the sands.
Clays are characteristically dark grey to black.
® The upper part of the Black Creek Formation contains abundant marine fauna within calcareous
® greensand and marine clay. The bedded and cross-bedded sands, clays, and lignites were probably
® deposited in shallow seas or in bays and estuaries while the calcareous deposits in the upper portion
suggest deeper sea water (Stuckey and Conrad 1958).

® 4.5 Soils
® Soils types at the site were determined using Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil
® Survey data for Johnston County (USDA 2000), along with on-site evaluations to verify areas of
hydric soil. A map depicting the boundaries of each soil type is presented in Exhibit 4.1. There are
three general soil types found within the project boundaries: Pantego, Bibb, and Alta Vista.
® Soils within the proposed restoration area are mapped as the Pantego series by the NRCS. The
® Pantego series falls in the Hydric "A" list which means that units consist of all hydric soils or have
hydric soils as a major component. Pantego consists of very deep, very poorly drained, moderately
® permeable soils that formed in thick loamy sediments on broad stream terraces of the Coastal Plain.
® It has moderate permeability, with available water capacity considered to be moderate to high.
® Surface runoff is slow and the seasonal high water table is within 1 foot of the surface in the winter
and spring under undrained conditions. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. Pantego soils generally have
inclusions of Augusta or Bibb soils.

Bibb and Altavista soils are found on the northern boundary of the project. They have less clay
throughout than the Pantego soil and are along small streams or at the edge of larger floodplains and
stream terraces, respectively. Permeability, water capacity, surface runoff, and seasonal high water
tables are consistent with those found in the Pantego series.
Preliminary soil borings were conducted across the site during March 2004 to verify the presence of
hydric soils and the potential for restoration. Soil borings within the area targeted for restoration
indicated the entire area contains reduced soils with hydric indicators. The presence of alluvial hydric
soils across the site is evidence that the site historically supported a riverine wetland system. Soils at
the site ranged from 60 to 80 inches in depth.
Detailed descriptions of soils found at the Cox Site are provided in Table 4.1 below.
EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
4-2
Table 4.1
Project Soil Types and Descriptions (from Johnston County Soil Survey, USDA-NRCS, 1986)
J.
Pantego Broad stream A This soil type occurs on slopes from 0 to 2 percent in areas formed
loam terraces on in thick loamy sediments on broad stream terraces on the Coastal
Coastal Plain Plain. The soil is very deep, very poorly drained, and moderately
permeable. It has an available water capacity considered to be
moderate to high. Surface runoff is slow and the seasonal high
water table is within 1 foot of the surface in the winter and spring
under undrained conditions.
Bibb sandy Floodplains A Poorly drained soil located throughout the Coastal Plain. Slopes
loam and narrow are 0-2 percent. Permeability and available water capacity are
drainageways moderate. Surface run-off is very slow.
Altavista Stream B (Hydric This soil series consists of very deep, moderately well drained
terraces Inclusions) soils that formed in fluvial sediments on stream terraces. Slopes
range from 0-2 percent. Soil is occasionally flooded.
4.6 Land Use
Cox Branch drains surrounding agricultural, forested, and isolated residential areas. The overall Cox
Branch watershed is mostly rural with land uses that include crop and livestock agriculture, forested
areas and some residential property. Paved roads bound the project site on the west and south
boundaries, and unpaved farm roads cross Cox Branch only once with a culvert.
4.7 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 Johnston 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) lists under federal protection for Johnston
County as of August 16, 2004 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. A letter from the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Natural
Heritage Program dated October 2004 stated that no occurrences of any rare species, significant
natural communities, or priority natural areas are known within a mile of the site (Appendix B).
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 4-3
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
Table 4.2
Species Under Federal Protection in Johnston County
'?(1!fil7F
? '??l?lyt.ilf!(?, ?¢{ifl!!lll?lll ?'???1a?JI 11}':l?,?Efb??'xi1 ?Y?11?. a:w:111??1`l?i???4i1?,
. '???1?C-? a?f.4?ilr`` ?`1t?Tlrx? '??#??9?, 9:i1?)?????t?±1i

Vertebrates
Accipitridae Haliaeetus Bald eagle T 08-11-1995 T No /No Effect
leucocephalus (originally E
04-11-1967)
PD 07-06-
1999
Picidae Picoides Red-cockaded E 10-13-1970 E No /No Effect
borealis woodpecker
Invertebrates
Unionidae Alasmidonta Dwarf E 10-08-1992 E No /No Effect
heterodon wedgemussel
Unionidae Elliptio Tar River E 6-27-1985 E No /No Effect
steinstansana spinymussel
Vascular Plants
Anacardiaceae Rhus michauxii Michaux's E 8/28/1998 E No /No Effect
sumac
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
4.7.1 federally Protected Species
4.7.1.1 Vertebrates
Bald Eagle
Bald eagles are large raptors, 32 to 43 inches long, with a white head, white tail, yellow
bill, yellow eyes, and yellow feet. The lower section of the leg has no feathers.
Wingspread is about seven feet. The characteristic plumage of adults is dark brown to
black with young birds completely dark brown. Juveniles have a dark bill, pale markings
on the belly, tail, and under the wings and do not develop the white head and tail until
five to six years old.
Bald eagles in the southeast frequently build their nests in the transition zone between
forest and marsh or open water. Nests are cone-shaped, six to eight feet from top to
bottom, and six feet or more in diameter. They are typically constructed of sticks lined
with a combination of leaves, grasses, and Spanish moss. Nests are built in dominant live
EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING 4-4
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
pines or cypress trees that provide a good view and clear flight path, usually less than 0.5
miles from open water. Winter roosts are usually in dominant trees, similar to nesting
trees, but may be somewhat farther from water. In North Carolina, nest building takes
place in December and January, with egg laying (clutch of one to three eggs) in February
and hatching in March. Bald eagles are opportunistic feeders consuming a variety of
living prey and carrion. Up to 80% of their diet is fish, which is self caught, scavenged,
or robbed from osprey. They may also take various small mammals and birds, especially
those weakened by injury or disease.
Potential habitat for the bald eagle does not exist in the study area. The site does not
provide suitable nesting areas less than 2 miles from open water. In addition, a search of
the NHP database on November 3, 2004 and found no occurrences of the bald eagle
within the vicinity of the proposed project; therefore the proposed project is not expected
to have an impact on this species.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
The red-cockaded woodpecker once occurred from New Jersey to southern Florida and
west to eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma,
and Missouri. The red-cockaded woodpecker is now found only in coastal states of its
historic range and inland in southeastern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. In North
Carolina moderate populations occur in the Sand Hills and southern Coastal Plain. The
few populations found in the Piedmont and northern Coastal Plain are believed to be
relics of former populations.
The red-cockaded woodpecker is approximately eight inches long with a wingspan of 14
inches. Plumage includes black and white horizontal stripes on its back, with white
cheeks and under parts. Its flanks are streaked black. The cap and stripe on the throat
and side of neck are black, with males having a small red spot on each side of the cap.
Eggs are laid from April through June. Maximum clutch size is seven eggs with an
average of three to five.
Red-cockaded woodpeckers are found in open pine stands that are between 80 and 120
years old. Longleaf pine stands are most commonly utilized. Dense stands are avoided.
A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be
contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker.
These birds forage in pine and pine hardwood stands, with preference given to pine trees
that are 10 inches or larger in diameter. The foraging range of the red cockaded
woodpecker is up to 500 acres. The acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting
sites. While other woodpeckers bore out cavities in dead trees where the wood is rotten
and soft, the red-cockaded woodpecker is the only one that excavates cavities exclusively
in living pine trees. The older pines favored by the red-cockaded woodpecker often
suffer from a fungus called red heart disease which attacks the center of the trunk,
causing the inner wood to become soft. Cavities generally take one to three years to
excavate. The red-cockaded woodpecker feeds mainly on beetles, ants, roaches,
caterpillars, wood-boring insects and spiders, and occasionally fruits and berries.
Mature pinewoods and pocosin species are not present in the immediate area of the
proposed project. A search of the NHP database, conducted on November 3, 2004, does
not record a historic occurrence of the red-cockaded woodpecker in the project vicinity.
It is concluded that the project will not impact this endangered species.
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 4-5
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
r
L?
8 4.7.1.2 Invertebrates

Dwarf-Wedge Mussel
The dwarf wedgemussel is relatively small, rarely exceeding 1.5 inches in length. The
® shell's outer surface (periostracum) is usually brown or yellowish brown in color, with
® faint green rays that are most noticeable in young specimens. Unlike some mussel
species, the male and female shells differ slightly, with the female being wider to allow
l
i
is
ts
greater space for egg development. A distinguishing characteristic of this musse
® dentition pattern; the right valve possesses two lateral teeth, while the left valve has only
® one. This trait is opposite of all other North American species having lateral teeth
(Clarke, 1981).
This mussel is considered to be a long-term brooder, with gravid females reportedly
® observed in fall months. The dwarf wedgemussel inhabits creek and river areas with a
® slow to moderate current and a sand, gravel, or muddy bottom. Individuals are often
found burrowed into clay banks among root systems of trees. They may also be found
® associated with mixed substrates of cobble, gravel, and sand. Occasionally they may be
® found in very soft silt substrates. The associated landscape is largely wooded; trees near
® the stream are relatively mature and tend to form a closed canopy over smaller streams,
creeks, and headwater river habitats. The dwarf wedgemussel requires good to excellent
water quality.
Water quality is not considered to be good to excellent on this site (surveys conducted at
the adjacent Westbrook Site had similar land use and macroinvertebrate indicator
organisms (EPT) were found infrequently and in low abundance, thus indicating poor
water quality). In addition, the site is currently used for agricultural purposes and most of
® the stream channels are not buffered. A NHP database search on November 3, 2004 did
not record historic occurrence of the dwarf wedgemussel in the project vicinity. It is
® therefore concluded that this project will not impact this species.
® Tar River Spinymussel
® The Tar River spinymussel is only known to occur in North Carolina. Historically it is
believed to have occurred in the Neuse and Tar River Basins in the Costal Plain and
Piedmont. Today, only a few populations are known to exist.
The Tar River spinymussel is one of three freshwater mussels with spines. Juveniles may
have up to 12 spines; however, they tend to lose them as they mature. It is a medium
® sized mussel reaching about 2.5 inches (6.35 cm) in length. It is found in rivers and large
® creeks in relatively silt-free gravel and or course sand with fast-flowing, well oxygenated
riffles.
® The habitat for the Tar River spinymussel is not present on the Cox Site. UT to Mill
® Creek is a small creek with high silt content and very little gravel. The water flow is
® slow and riffles are poorly oxygenated. It is therefore concluded that this project will not
® impact this species.
® 4.7.1.3 Vascular Plants
® Michaux's Sumac
® Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatus shrub that grows 0.7 to 3.3 feet (0.2
® to 1.0 meter) in height. The narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports nine to thirteen
sessile, oblong-lanceolate leaflets that are 1.6 to 3.6 inches (4 to 9 centimeters) long, 0.8
® to 2 inches (2 to 5 centimeters) wide, acute, and acuminate. The bases of the leaves are

EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
4-s
rounded and their edges are simple or doubly serrate. Plants flower in June, producing a
terminal, erect, dense cluster of four to five greenish-yellow to white flowers.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods and roadsides. It is dependent on
disturbance (mowing, clearing, fire) to maintain the openness of its habitat. It grows in
open habitat where it can get full sunlight and is often found with other members of its
genus as well as with poison ivy. Michaux's sumac is endemic to the inner Coastal Plain
and Piedmont physiographic provinces of North Carolina. In the North Carolina
Sandhills region, naturally occurring Michaux's sumac appears to be restricted to slightly
loamy, but still well-drained, sites which are scattered through longleaf pine/scrub
oak/wiregrass woodlands. Loamy soil sites are usually found in slight depressions,
swales, or along lower slopes and are quickly recognized by their high diversity of herbs,
especially with regard to their high number of legume, composite and grass species.
The habitat for this plant is not present on site. A search of the NHP database on
November 3, 2004 did not reveal a historic occurrence anywhere in the project vicinity.
Soils on the site tend to be poorly drained loamy. Furthermore, there are very few areas
that have full sunlight without frequent disturbance for agriculture (livestock, plowing,
mowing) that would regularly disrupt the plants reproductive cycle. In areas with
minimized disturbance, early succession vegetation is most likely too dense and tall, out-
competing the small plant for necessary sunlight. Other areas on site have a dense
riparian buffer, which is not suitable habitat. It is therefore concluded that this project
will not impact this species.
4.7.2 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
Johnston 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.
The Carolina bogmint and bog spicebush are listed on the NHP database for the USGS
quadrant. However, their habitat requirements are not present on the site.
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 4-7
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN

Table 4.3
Federal Species of Concern in Johnston County
?'f?l?ll?E•"?l?lili, (rfiliitill!)1?'Ai?)s'1T? i?ll!!`d?l1?'?1=t9E?4 `?'?r1?-{,7I?.l?t?! .
Dendroica cendea Cerulean Warbler FSC SR
Lythnirus matutuinus Pinewoods Shiner FSC SR
Elliptio lanceolata Yellow Lance FSC E
Fusconaia niasoni Atlantic Pigtoe FSC E
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow Lampmussel FSC E
Lasmigona subviridis Green Floater FSC E
Lindera subcoriacea Bog Spicebush FSC T
Macbridea caroliniana Carolina Bogmint FSC T
Trillium pusillean var pusillum Carolina Least Trillium FSC E
Solidago verna Spring-flowering Goldenrod FSC SR-L
4.8 Cultural Resources
Buck Engineering sent a letter on August 17, 2004 requesting that the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) review the potential for cultural resources in the vicinity of the UT to
Mill Creek restoration site. A response was received on September 21, 2004 indicating that the
SHPO had reviewed the proposed project and was not aware of any historic resources which would
be affected by the project. A copy of the SHPO correspondence is included in Appendix B.
4.9 Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites
® Buck Engineering obtained an 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). 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; or leaking underground storage tanks were not identified by the report in the
proposed project area. During field data collection, there was no evidence of these sites in the
® proposed project vicinity and conversations with the prior landowners did not reveal any further
knowledge of hazardous environmental sites in the area.

4.10 Potential Constraints
Buck Engineering assessed the Cox Branch project site in regards to potential fatal flaws and site
constraints. No constraints or fatal flaws have been identified during project design development.
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
4-8
4.10.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
EBX-Neuse I, LLC (EBXN-I) has entered into an Agreement of Sale for the acquisition of an
easement with the landowner on the upstream side of the Cox Site. EBXN-I has entered into an
Agreement of Sale for the acquisition of the property on the downstream side of the Cox Site.
The agreements allow EBXN-I to proceed with the restoration and to restrict the land use
through a permanent conservation easement.
4.10.2 Hydrologic Trespass
The topography of the site supports the design without creating the potential for hydrologic
trespass. Based on FEMA mapping, Cox Branch is classified in Zone A, which is designated as
a special flood hazard area inundated by the 100-year flood. No specific base flood elevations
have been determined for Zone A areas.
4.10.3 Site Access
The site is connected to NCDOT ROW and can be accessed for construction and post-
restoration monitoring.
4.10.4 Utilities
No known utilities are located on site.
4.10.5 Threatened and Endangered Species
Rare, threatened, and endangered species occurrences were examined as part of the existing'
conditions survey (Section 4.7). It is anticipated that no rare, threatened, or endangered species
will be affected by this project.
4.10.6 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.
4.10.7 Farm Operations
The Cox Parcel is actively used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, the project must not
interfere with the operational needs of the farm. The final project design will need to
incorporate stream crossings, fencing, and field access.
4.10.8 Soils
Soils have been investigated and no constraints or fatal flaws were identified.
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 4-9
COX SITE DRAFT 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 areas in the project area that displayed one or more wetland
characteristics were reviewed to determine the presence of wetlands. The wetland characteristics
included:
1. Prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation.
2. Permanent or periodic inundation or saturation.
3. Hydric soils.
5.1.1 Wetland Impacts
Much of the project area once existed as a wetland ecosystem, as evidenced by hydric soils
across the bottomland fields of the site. Wetland areas that once existed on the site were
drained and manipulated to promote agricultural uses. Approximately 7,100 feet of drainage
ditches and channelized streams were constructed within the project area, to improve surface
and subsurface drainage and to decrease flooding. As a result, the open field areas of the site
have been designated "prior-converted," or PC, by the NRCS (Exhibit 5.1).
5.1.2 Jurisdictional Wetland Findings
During initial site investigations, potential jurisdictional wetlands were located on the southern
end of the Cox Site. On December 22, 2004, Buck Engineering staff delineated one wetland
area. The wetland showed all of the characteristics of a wetland: hydrology, vegetation, and
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 ranges from 90 to 100 percent, indicating a
wetland system. Soils at the site were listed by the Soil Survey of Johnston County as Pantego
loam, a poorly drained hydric soil. The boundary of the wetland was flagged and delineated
using global positioning satellite (GPS) technology. The total existing wetland area is 0.88
acres as shown on Exhibit 5.2. For more information on the wetlands delineation, and the
wetland delineation forms, please refer to Appendix A. Wetland delineation forms describe
one jurisdictional wetland point at the low end of the project site within the floodplain for Mill
Creek and one non jurisdictional point in the lower field. As of this time, this boundary has not
been verified by the USACE however a request for a jurisdictional determination meeting has
been sent to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
5.2 Soils
Soils in all areas identified for wetland restoration were confirmed to be hydric by a trained
professional. Table 4.1 and Exhibit 4.1 contain information on soils at the Cox Site. The primary soil
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
5-1

found at the site was in the A list hydrie soil series Pantego, which consists of very deep, very poorly
drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in thick loamy sediments on broad stream terraces of
the Coastal Plain. It has moderate permeability, with available water capacity considered to be
moderate to high. Surface runoff is slow and the seasonal high water table is within 1 foot of the
surface in the winter and spring under undrained conditions. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. Pantego soils
at the site generally have inclusions of Augusta or Bibb soils.
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 Johnston County is 240 days long, beginning on
March 21 and ending November 16. Johnston County has an average annual rainfall of 45.95 inches
(NRCS, 2004). In much of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina, approximately 36 inches of water are
lost to evapotranspiration during an average year (Evans and Skaggs, 1985). Since average rainfall
exceeds average evapotranspiration losses, the Coastal Plain of North Carolina experiences a moisture
excess during most years. Excess water leaves a site by groundwater flow, runoff, channelized
surface flow, or deep seepage. Annual losses due to deep seepage, or percolation of water to confined
aquifer systems, are typically less than 1 inch of water for most Coastal Plain areas and are not a
significant loss pathway for excess water. Although groundwater flow can be significant in some
systems, most excess water is lost via surface and shallow subsurface flow.
5.4 Site Hydrology
The presence of hydric soils over much of the project site is evidence that the site historically
supported a wetland ecosystem. As is the case in much of the Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont of
North Carolina, local drainage patterns have been altered over the last two centuries to increase
drainage and promote agricultural production. A hydrography map for the site, shown in Exhibit 5.2,
demonstrates the amount of ditching and channelization that has been performed on Cox Branch, the
main stream that runs through the property. During conversion of the site, stream channels and
wetland systems through the site were channelized to improve drainage. The drainage area of the
stream at the outlet of the project area is approximately 1.80 square miles.
Several lateral ditches on the west side of the site come together and drain into Cox Branch. These
ditches receive some surface runoff from adjacent woodland, but flow in the laterals appears to be
limited to ephemeral surface runoff. Based on topography information, the ditches intercept surface
runoff and shallow subsurface flow from most of the southwestern corner of the project site.
During October 2004, six groundwater monitoring wells were installed to monitor water table depth
on the project site. The locations of these monitoring wells are shown in Exhibit 5.3. The wells were
located in areas where hydrology would likely be affected by restoration efforts to provide a base for
comparing pre- and post-restoration hydrology.
These recently installed water level recorders have not been installed long enough to portray a
complete assessment of the site. Because the period of data is insufficient to provide model data of
sufficient validity, data collected from the adjacent Westbrook Site were used to model wetland
hydrology. The Westbrook Site was chosen because it has a similar valley type, the same mapped
soils, and is located adjacent to the Cox Site. Both sites contain unnamed tributaries to Mill Creek
that have been channelized and have undergone significant channel incision. Bank height ratios in
the pre-restoration channel on the Westbrook Site were generally greater than 2.0, similar to the
current Cox Branch conditions.
The Westbrook Site was developed as part of the Neu-Con Wetland and Stream Umbrella Mitigation
Bank within the Neuse River Basin. EBXN-I was the bank sponsor. The goal of the project was to
restore 5,400 feet of Coastal Plain stream and 65 acres of associated wetlands. The restoration was
EBXN-I I BUCK ENGINEERING 5-2
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
accomplished through a Priority I stream restoration, filling of existing lateral ditches, development of
microtopography, and planting of the entire site. The project was completed in February 2003 and is
currently in its second year of post restoration monitoring.
Pre-restoration wells were installed at Westbrook in June 2001 and recorded groundwater data
through February 2002 when the project was constructed. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 compare the
hydrographs of the two sites over the same period of time for two different years. The response of the
hydrographs to rainfall events is similar for the pre-restoration condition of the two sites.
Hydrographs for both sites show moderately fast falling limbs following rain events as a result of the
similar drainage effect on the sites. The similarity of the hydrographs from the two sites provides
confidence in the use of the Westbrook model to describe the existing hydrologic state of the Cox
Site.
EBXN-1 I BUCK ENGINEERING 5-3
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
Figure 5.1
Hydrographs of the Groundwater Monitoring Wells Compared to Local Rainfall on the Westbrook
Site (October 2001 through January 2002)
1018/01 10/23/01 11 /7/01 11122/01 1217/01 12/22/01 1/6/02
0
0

.
c
0
5
.
m
..
c 1
0
.

-Well 1 -»-Well2 -Well3
0
.0
S
10
0
-
.
CL
ar
0
20
0
d-
.
M
H
30
0
`
.
1-

-40.0
50
0
-
.
10/8/01 10/23/01 11/7/01 11/22101 1217/01 12/22/01 1/6/02
Date
Figure 5.2
Hydrographs of the Groundwater Monitoring Wells Compared to Local Rainfall on the Cox Site
(October 2004 through January 2005)
10/8/04 10/23/04 11/7/04 11/22104 12/7104 12/22/04 1/6/05
0
0

.
c
0
5
.
w
1
0
.
F
1
5
.
-M-Well3 -Well 5 -Well6 So= datik was Wwhcn
?la'? vves de
0.0
c
K has been mpbood
10
0
$ -
.
CL
20
0 -
m -
. xx
n

FA-
30
0 ?e
??Mxx?x^
-
.
A
4
_
0.0-

-50.0
1018/04 10/23/04 11/7/04 11/22/04 12/7/04 12/22/04 1/6/05
Date
Since water table response has been shown to be very similar on the Cox and Westbrook Sites, the
detailed hydrologic analysis performed for the Westbrook Site, as part of the mitigation plan
development for that site, is used here to estimate the hydrologic conditions of the Cox Site. A
complete record of the analyses performed on the Westbrook Site is provided in Appendix E, and is
summarized in the paragraphs that follow.
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 5.4
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
Hydrologic assessments performed on the Westbrook Site revealed that the site was exhibiting
hydrologic conditions significantly drier than wetland conditions. For the period of monitored data,
the longest consecutive period of high water table conditions (less than 12 inches deep) for any of the
monitored well locations was 2 days, or approximately 1% of the growing season.
DRAINMOD models were developed to describe the existing conditions of the Westbrook Site, and
long-term simulations were run to approximate the average hydrologic conditions of the site in its
current drained condition. The model results confirmed that the site was exhibiting hydrology
significantly drier than would be expected for wetland conditions. Approximately 42% of the
precipitation falling on the site was being lost to drainage (31%) and runoff (11%).
Since water table response has been shown to be similar between the Cox and Westbrook Sites,
similar hydrologic conditions as those described above currently exist on the drained Cox Site. The
short period of monitoring data collected at the Cox Site (collected during the wet season) also
confirms the assessment that the site currently exhibits conditions much drier than wetland
conditions.
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 5-5
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
6.0 STREAM CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT RESULTS
6.1 Reach Identification
For analysis purposes, Buck Engineering divided Cox Branch into five reaches based on changing site
conditions, not on changing drainage area. The reach locations are shown on Exhibit 6.1. Reach 1 is
located at the furthest point upstream and flows through a densely wooded riparian buffer. Reach 2
begins at the edge of the wooded area and extends to the next wooded buffer. Reach 2 is not wooded.
Reach 3 flows through a wooded buffer and is the most stable area of the site with low bank height
ratios and a defined bankfull bench. Reach 4 begins at the point where the bank height ratios exceed
1.3 and continues to the edge of the woodline. Reach 5 is cleared on the left bank of the stream, but is
wooded on the right bank a short distance flowing through agricultural row crops (soybeans and/or
corn). Reach 5 continues to the confluence with Mill Creek.
Cox Branch is a blue-line stream on the USGS topographic map of the area as shown on Exhibit 1.3.
The total current length of the Cox Site is approximately 6,160 LF.
6.2 Geomorphic Characterization
Buck Engineering performed cross-section surveys of the stream reaches to assess the current
condition and overall stability of the channels. A longitudinal survey was performed at the top and
bottom ends with additional topography pulled from Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) data.
The following report sections summarize the survey results for the Cox Branch reaches.
6.2.1 Channel Geomorphology
6.2.1.1 Cox Branch Channel Geomorphology
The lengths of the various Cox Branch reaches and the associated watershed sizes are
shown in Table 6.1. Lengths were calculated from the point where the main channel
enters the site and at the terminus of each analysis reach.
Table 6.1
Cox Branch Reach Lengths and Watershed Size
.qi,1, ti %.ab- ...-??! :.17 i'?a? :..?.. ',.ii-i ,. ? ? '}.r ,?i.4' .?? '. 7t?-•1 '.<'-:1-!r
Reach 1 595 1.5
Reach 2 1,876 1.6
Reach 3 773 1.7
Reach 4 1,052 1.8
Reach 5 1,864 1.8
Total Length 6,160 --
Cox Branch has been channelized and ditched for agricultural purposes. The channelized
geometry creates a range of stream types as the stream attempts to reach equilibrium.
These stream types range from an incised E5 stream type to a G5c in the Rosen
classification system. An E5 stream type is characterized by a very low width/depth
EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING 6-1
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN

ratio, high sinuosity, a high entrenchment ratio, and sandy bed material. A G5c is
® entrenched, with a very low width/depth ratio, moderate sinuosity, and less than 2 percent
channel slope. The overall sinuosity for the reaches was low due to the past
channelization. Much of the substrate is composed of sand but in isolated sections, small
® gravel were observed on the pavement layer. No debris jams were observed but woody
® debris was present and contributing to isolated scour pools.
Reach 1, is located in a slightly constricted valley that transitions from small rolling hills

® of inimof of relief to a wide, flat floodplain. Channelization has not been maintained for
20 years or more (based on the maturity of trees along the streambanks). Reach 1 is
currently in Stage II of Simon's channel evolution model (Simon, 1989). The reach is
® currently classified as a Rosgen G5c, The most obvious bankfull indicators were a break
in slope and a small bankfull bench at the same elevation which ranged from 1.5 to 1.7
feet above baseflow water surface. Bank height ratios were observed to be between 1.5_
® and 2.2. Incised streams are highly susceptible to bank erosion when bank height ratios
exceed 1.3 because high flows are maintained within the channel. The banks are well
® vegetated with a mature riparian buffer on both sides. Some scour was observed on the
® streambanks, but the majority of the streambanks were protected by the dense woody root
® mats. There was more diversity of bed form in this reach than the other four reaches due
to the effect of dense root mats in the bed.
® Reach 2 is downstream of Reach 1 and begins where Cox Branch breaks into the open
® agricultural field. At the beginning of the reach, the valley opens into a flat, alluvial
® floodplain. Here, the channelized system shows signs of regular maintenance of the
channel depth, dimension, and of the riparian vegetation. The riparian area contains
® primarily dense, herbaceous vegetation. The channel is most likely fluctuating between
Stage II and Stage III of Simon's channel evolution model (Simon, 1989) where the
narrow, channelized system is continuing to down-cut due to high-energy flows.
0 Bankfull indicators were less obvious as a result of increased erosional pressures acting
® against the banks. A distinct bankfull indicator existed on cross-section 5 that correlated
® with a scour line on the other two cross-sections (3 and 4). Bank height ratios in the
upper section ranged from 1.7 to 2.2, which indicates that the channel is very susceptible
to erosion. The bank height ratio for cross-section 5 was 1.0 where a small bench and
® break in slope both confirmed the bankfull elevation. Bank erosion was visible and some
minor channel migration was taking place. The banks are primarily composed of
® unconsolidated sand and are weak due to the lack of woody vegetation. Pool formation is
® minimal, as a result of the lack of pattern and woody debris.
® Reach 3, is the most stable portion of the project area. The reach passes through a
wooded area, and the valley type remains unchanged as a flat, alluvial floodplain. The
system still shows signs of historic channelization, however, Reach 3 is similar to Reach
1 in that the channelization has not been maintained for over 20 years (based on
® observations of the vegetation along the streambanks). It has evolved to Stage VI in
'
s evolution model (Simon, 1989) and has achieved a quasi-equilibrium state. The
Simon
® dimension and pattern of the stream show significant signs of recovery. The channel is
® wider allowing flows above bankfull to access a small, active floodplain. A relic
floodplain (terrace) is also present. Bankfull indicators were very strong with a wide,
® bankfull bench consistently 1.5 to 1.6 feet above baseflow water surface. There was also
® a break in slope on the opposite bank at a similar elevation. Bank height ratios are 1.0 to

® 1.1. Both cross-sections were taken in riffles, and both were classified as Rosgen Es.
Pool formation was minimal, which is typical in channelized systems.

S

® EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 6-2
e COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN

The boundary between Reach 3 and Reach 4 was chosen based on a change in stability.
Geomorphic indicators of stability such as bank height ratio, entrenchment ratio, and
obvious signs of channel degradation were used to determine the exact boundary. Based
on the densely wooded area, it is assumed that the channel was once altered but has not
been maintained within the last 20 years. This reach appears to have undergone
significant incision and is now experiencing widening through bank erosion. Bankfull
indicators were present as some benches were beginning to form. The back of the
forming benches correlated with a consistent scour line 1.5 to 1.7 feet above the baseflow
water surface, which was consistent with the other reaches. Banks were actively eroding
as a result of the channel incision and vertical angle of the banks. Bank height ratios
were 1.8 to 2.5. Flows up to twice the bankfull stage are unable to access a floodplain.
The reach was classified as a Rosgen G5c.
Reach 5 begins where the stream flows into an agricultural field. This reach is different
from the agriculturally influenced conditions of Reach 2 in that the right side of the
stream is forested and the left side is virtually free of vegetation. This channel has most
likely experienced continued channel maintenance. The left side of the stream also abuts
an existing farm road for some distance and in some cases is within feet of eroding the
road bed. This reach is in Stage II of Simon's channel evolution model (Simon, 1989)
with some degradation and widening. This reach had the most active bank erosion.
Bankfull indicators were a break in slope on the left bank and a newly forming bench on
the right side. The elevation of the back of the bench matched the elevation of the break
in slope on the opposite side. Bank height ratios were 1.7 and the system was not as
entrenched as it was in the wooded area of Reach 4. This reach was classified as an
incised Rosgen E5.
Table 6.2 summarizes the existing geomorphologic conditions of Cox Branch.
Table 6.2
Existing Condition Data for Cox Branch - Stream Classification

Riparian Vegetation
Forested Open Field
Herbaceous
Vegetation
Forested
Forested Left Bank -
Mowed
Right Bank -
Forest
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8
Stream Type (Rosgen) G5c E5 E5 G5c E5
Bankfull (bkf) Discharge, Qbkf (cfs) 36 36 36 36 36
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 2.3 2.4-3.4 2.0-2.1 2.1 3.1
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf 16.0 10.7-14.9 17.5-18.3 17.2 11.8
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 9.8 6.4-6.8 11.1-11.7 11.4 9.9
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf 1.6 1.7-2.2 1.5-1.7 1.5 1.2
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 6.0 3.1-3.8 6.7-7.8 7.6 8.3
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 20 18-39 25-46 14 26
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf 2.0 2.2-6.1 2.1-4.1 1.2 2.6
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 2.3 2.2-2.7 1.7-2.3 1.8 2.3
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Db 1.4 1.2-1.3 1.1-1.4 1.2 1.9
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 6-3
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
Table 6.2
Existing Condition Data for Cox Branch - Stream Classification

Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax 2.2 1.0-2.3 1.0-2.5 2.6 1.7
Meander Length, Lm (ft) N/A' N/A N/A N/A N/A
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf N/A' N/A N/A N/A N/A
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft) N/A' N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf * N/A' N/A N/A N/A N/A
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) N/A' N/A N/A N/A N/A
Meander Width Ratio, WbltlWbkf N/A' N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sinuosity, K 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Valley Slope, Sval Oft) 0.0055 0.0035 0.0034 0.0034 0.0016
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0050 0.0035 0.0034 0.0034 0.0016
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft) 3.4 N/A N/A 2.2 2.3
Pool Max Depth Ratio, 1.5 N/A N/A 1.2 1.0
Pool Width, Wpool (ft) 8.9 N/A N/A 8.6 12.3
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 0.9 N/A N/A 0.8 1.2
Simon Evolution Class II II VI 11 IV
Notes:
1) Due to past channelization, this reach has a very low sinuosity therefore, no pattern measurements were taken.
2) This reach has very low sinuosity and poor bedform diversity. No pools existed in this reach.
6.2.2 Channel Stability Assessment
6.2.2.1 Cox Branch Channel Stability
The stream channel within the Cox Site project area is a perennial, channelized stream
with a flow regime dominated by stormwater runoff from a forested and agricultural
watershed. Throughout the site, the channel is adversely impacted by the lack of
substantial riparian vegetation. Generally, the channel is highly incised. The majority of
the banks are experiencing moderate to high erosion with non-cohesive soils. Dense
herbaceous and woody vegetation has protected the banks in some locations. Following
past channelization, numerous side channel bars and alternating areas of high bank
erosion indicate that meanders are beginning to re-develop. This is typical in this stream
in areas with and without good floodplain vegetation.
6.2.3 Bankfull Verification
Correct field identification of bankfull stage is crucial to the natural channel design process.
Dimensions for the new channel are based on the bankfull cross-sectional area identified by
field assessments. If bankfull is identified incorrectly, the new channel may be designed either
too small or too large, resulting in channel instability. For this reason, verification of bankfull
stage should be conducted to assure that the bankfull stage has been identified correctly.
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 6-4
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
The bankfull stage in the Cox Branch was identified as the upper scour line, or the back of an
alluvial bench. These indicators are consistent with other North Carolina Coastal Plain
streams. Bankfull data for the project reach are compared with the North Carolina Coastal
regional curve, a nearer gage site, and the project reference site shown in Figure 6.1. The
project's cross-sectional areas consistently plot close to the regional curve data, indicating that
bankfull stage was adequately selected within acceptable limits. Regional curve equations
developed from the North Carolina rural Coastal Plain study are provided by Sweet and Geratz
(2003) and Doll (2003) and are shown in Table 6.3.
Table 6.3
NC Rural Coastal Plain Curve Equations

EcoScience Data (Sweet and Geratz, 2003)
Qbkf = 8.79 AW 0.76 R2=0.92
Abkf = 9.43 A,,, 0.74 RZ=0.96
Wbk = 9.64 Aw, 0.311 RZ=0.95
Dbkf = 0.98 A,y 0.36 RZ=0.92
NCSU Data (Doll, 2003)
Qbkf = 100.64 A,y 0.76 RZ=0.88
Abkf = 21.61 AH, 0.611 W=0.89
Wbk = 19.05 AN, 0.37 R2=0.83
Dbkf = 1.11 AW 0'31 W=0.79
A gage survey was conducted to verify the bankfull stage identified for Cox Branch. The gage
survey was conducted on the Little River near the Town of Princeton, approximately 13 miles
from the project site, at a U.S. Geological Survey gaging station (# 02088500). Bankfull stage
was identified at the gage site and flood frequency data for the gage were used to correlate
bankfull stage and discharge to watershed size. The gage plotted well within the 95%
confidence intervals of the NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve.
EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING 6-5
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
Figure 6.1
NC Coastal Regional Curves with Bankfull Discharge for Project Reaches and Reference Cross-
Sections
1000
0
.

y = 9.4624xo.739 _
/
Fe = 0
9565
.

Q
100.0

(n LL
.

? • Cure Data
y_
y 10.0 - 95%Clup
95% CI down
C -:- Cox
x Reference Reach
m - Gage Site
• Project Reaches
Power (Cure Data)

1.0
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Watershed Area (Sq. Mi.)
Note: Project data points were not used in determining the regression line.
6.3 Vegetation
The existing stream buffer on the Cox Site varies. Impacts to the riparian buffer are directly linked to
the existing adjacent land use. As the stream drains under the road and through gentle hills, cropland
is somewhat limited, leaving the stream with a wide forested buffer. As the valley flattens to an
alluvial floodplain, there is more arable land. As a result, the majority of the flat floodplain is used as
cropland and encroaches on the stream. The farm was managed under a North Carolina Agricultural
Cost Share Program for the last 10 years, which excluded cattle (that rotate along with crops on the
land) from 25 feet on either side of the stream. Mowing and vegetation maintenance still occurred
within the fenceline, but cattle were excluded. As a result, there is currently a portion of the channel
with a 50-foot herbaceous riparian area that buffers the stream from surrounding cropland.
There is a mix of cropland and forest land, which is typical for agricultural properties. Reaches 1, 3,
and 4 are forested. Reach 2 is herbaceous with a buffer greater than 25 feet on either side. Reach 5
has a mixed buffer with a forested buffer on the right bank side and a mowed herbaceous buffer on
the left bank side. Although there are some forested sections, 60 percent of the stream has no woody
riparian vegetation on one or both sides.
Mature vegetation in Reach 1 consists of hackberry (Celtis occidentailis), swamp chestnut oak
(Quercus michauxii), red maple (Ater Rubrum), American holly (Ilex opaca), yellow poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), and Chinese privet (Ligustrun: sinense). Understory plant communities are
dominated by giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), greenbriar (Smilax herbacea), and microstegium
(Microstegium vineum).
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 6-6
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
Reach 2 is dominated by herbaceous vegetation. The woody vegetation that is present is sporadic and
young (3 to 4 ft in height). Sweet gum (Liquidambar styracaflua), black willow (Salix nigra), winged
sumac (Rhus copallinum), and smooth sumac (Rhus glabra) were present. Herbaceous vegetation
was dominated by Pokeberry (Phytolacca americana), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii),
sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia), deer tongue (Dichanthelium clandestinum), giant cane, greenbriar, and
a dense variety of other plants.
Reach 3 begins at the point where the stream re-enters a wooded forest. Mature vegetation included:
red maple, swamp chestnut oak, southern red oak (Quercus rubra), water oak (Quercus nigra), sweet
gum, giant cane, coastal mountain laurel (Kalmia latffolia), greenbriar, microstegium, and pokeberry.
Reach 4 is within the same, contiguous wooded area that began in Reach 3. Persimmon (Diospyros
virginiana) and southern arrow-wood (Viburnum dentatum) were found in this area, as well as the
species seen in Reach 3. Microstegium was less dense here than in previous reaches.
Reach 5 is dominated by microstegium on both banks. The left bank had previously been mowed and
the right bank is forested, but due to the lack of canopy shade on the left bank early succession
herbaceous vegetation is dense. Aside from microstegium, jewelweed (Impatiens capensis ), trumpet
creeper (Campsis radicans ), and goldenrod (Solidago nemoralis) were the dominant species. Red
maple, yellow poplar, swamp chestnut oak, and giant cane are present on the right streambank.
Much of the area adjacent to the stream on the Cox Site consists of cropland or woodland. Sorghum
was planted and harvested on the right side of the stream while soybeans and corn were the additional
crops in the other fields. When the site was visited in the winter months, cattle were turned out to
feed on small grain, but were excluded from the riparian areas of the Cox Branch. A few side ditches
were wet during the winter months and were used as the cattle's watering source. The pasture areas
were heavily grazed at that time.
6.4 Biological Assessment
Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected from two sites on December 13, 2004 (see Exhibit
6.2). Sites 1 and 2 are located in UT to Mill Creek within the project area and upstream of the project
area, respectively. The sampling methodology followed the Qual-4 protocol listed in the NCDWQ's
Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates (NCDENR, 2003). A summary of the
benthic macroinvertebrate sampling results is presented in Table 6.4, with complete results presented
in Appendix F.
The components of the benthic macroinvertebrate community that are commonly used to evaluate
water quality are the EPT taxa. The EPT taxa include specimens belonging to the insect orders
Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies) and Trichoptera (caddisflies). These groups are
generally the least tolerant to water pollution and therefore are very useful indicators of water quality.
Therefore, the presence of substantial numbers of EPT taxa and individuals is considered indicative of
relatively undisturbed "higher quality" streams. EPT metrics commonly used include EPT taxa
richness, EPT biotic index, and EPT abundance which are shown in Table 6.4.
EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING 6.7
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
Table 6.4
Benthic Summary Table
... i x. 11,.. ,.,,.., -., 1d
Total Taxa Richness 18 34
EPT Taxa Richness 7 8
Total Biotic Index 6.21 6.17
EPT Biotic Index 5.06 4.77
EPT Abundance 38 55
Habitat Assessment 38 76
The benthic macroinvertebrate community of Site 1 is slightly more disturbed than in Site 2. A
healthier community is characterized by higher total and EPT taxa richness values and lower biotic
index values. Lower total and EPT taxa richness and higher total and EPT biotic indices recorded for
Site 1 as compared to Site 2 (upstream of Site 1) indicate water quality decline downstream of Site 2.
Water quality decline downstream corresponds to decrease of suitable habitat downstream (habitat
assessment scores of 76 and 38 for Sites 2 and 1, respectively). Site 1 reach has very limited canopy
cover and woody riparian vegetation to provide adequate shade, organic matter, or habitat such as
root mats for aquatic organisms. As habitat degrades, species diversity declines and more tolerant
organisms replace organisms sensitive to impairment.
Establishing a well-forested riparian buffer along the restoration reach would provide shading, reduce
the photosynthetic rate of algae and macrophytes, reduce siltation and sedimentation, and provide
additional habitat and organic matter to aquatic organisms. As a result, recruitment of additional
species, especially shredders, should occur. While the upstream reference site (Site 2) provides
refugia to Site 1 for some additional species, recruitment of additional intolerant species for the
restoration reach will also most likely come from Mill Creek located just downstream or from
Johannah Creek (Westbrook Project), a tributary to Mill Creek located near the project site.
EBXN-I I BUCK ENGINEERING 6-8
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
7.0 SELECTED DESIGN CRITERIA
7.1 Potential for Restoration
There are few potential obstacles for achieving Priority 1 stream restoration throughout the majority
of the project site. The project is located in a rural watershed, with no plans indicating land use
changes in the foreseeable future. Therefore, there are no known present or future constraints at the
site associated with structure and/or infrastructure encroachments. The Cox Branch channel is under
severe pressure from human impacts both past and present and impacts from past agricultural
practices that allowed cattle access to the channel. The majority of the stream length has incised and
is showing a tendency toward lateral migration. If left alone, it is possible that incision would stop
but the redevelopment of meanders would continue through erosion. As a result, the restoration on
the main channel at the Cox Branch site will expedite the evolutionary process already occurring.
7.2 Design Criteria Selection
Natural channel design criteria are based on a combination of approaches including reference reach
surveys, 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 Cox
Site. The approach was based on Cox Branch's potential for restoration as determined during the site
assessment. After selection of the general restoration approach, specific design criteria were
developed so the Cox Branch plan view layout, cross-section dimensions, and profile could be
described for the purpose of developing construction documents.
7.2.1 Reference Reach Database
An internal reference reach database has been developed by Buck Engineering for the
evaluation of reference reach parameters from multiple sites within a geographic area. The
database includes four sand-bed reference reaches, in addition to the Johannah Creek reference
reach described below, that were surveyed in the Coastal Plain and have been used for design
purposes on other projects. Collectively, the data provide valuable information regarding the
range of conditions documented for similar headwater stream and wetland systems. Table 7.1
summarizes the geomorphic data for Johannah Creek and the sand bed streams from the
reference reach database. Shear stress and stream power relationships developed for these
reference sites are used in the sediment transport analysis given in Section 8.3.
7.2.2 Reference Reach Survey Overview
One reference reach was identified off the project site in Johnston County. The reference site
for this project is located along an adjacent stream (Johannah Creek) that flows through the
Westbrook Project site, a stream and wetland mitigation project that was completed by EBXN-I
in February 2003 (see Exhibit 7.1). The reference site is an example of a "Coastal Plain small
stream swamp", as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). These systems exist as the
floodplains of small "blackwater" and "brownwater" streams in which separate fluvial features
and associated vegetation are too small or poorly developed to distinguish. It is difficult to
define whether the site is of the "brownwater" or "blackwater" subtype, since the site exhibits
features of both subtypes. Schafale and Weakley characterize the "brownwater" subtype as
having its headwater originating in the Piedmont, while the "blackwater" subtype originates in
the Coastal Plain. Although the reference site lies very near the fall line between the Piedmont
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 7-1
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN

® and Coastal Plain physiographic regions, most delineations of the fall line boundary would
® place the origin of the reference site stream in the Coastal Plain, and therefore the system would
® be considered the "blackwater" subtype. Hydrology of these systems is palustrine,
intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded. Flows tend to be highly variable, with floods
of short duration, and periods of very low flow. The "Coastal Plain small stream swamp"
wetland system would be typical for the watershed size and the geomorphologic setting of the
site.
®
It appears that the site has experienced little disturbance in recent time and is believed to be
® representative of undisturbed conditions on the project site. The reference site will be used as a
template for the restoration of the project site. Wetland delineation forms for the site are
® provided in Appendix A.
® 7.2.3 Reference Stream Assessment
® The stream flowing through the reference site is a small, meandering, sand-bed channel. The
® drainage area for the stream is approximately 0.9 sq. mi. in size and land use in the watershed is
primarily forest with some agriculture on the upland terraces. Along nearly the entire length
from its headwaters to the reference site, the stream is wooded. One paved road crosses the
® stream (Bentonville Road, SR 1197) approximately 3,000 feet upstream of the reference site.
® Field surveys of the reference site were conducted in the summer of 2001. Survey data were
used to evaluate the natural channel parameters describing the dimension, pattern, and profile
of the stream. Natural channel parameters are summarized in Table 8.1.

The stream is classified as an E5/C5 channel using the Rosgen Stream Classification method
(Rosgen, 1994). The channel is classified as an E/C channel since the average width/depth
ratio is 12, the breakpoint between classifying a channel as an E (< 12) or C (> 12). Both E and
C channels typically have high entrenchment ratios due to the relatively wide associated
floodplains and are commonly found in the Coastal Plain where nearly level land slopes and
dense vegetation promote the establishment of meandering stream channels. For both type
streams, out-of-bank flooding occurs at stages greater than the bankfull flow. The 5 indicates
that the stream is a sand bed system. Median particle size of the bed material is approximately
0.7 mm. The reference reach stream has appropriate bed features for a sand-bed system, with
shallow pools in the meander bends, and deeper pools formed by scour features such as roots
and debris jams.
Unlike many other stream systems located in agricultural watersheds, the section of channel
surveyed for the reference reach shows no evidence of having been altered or channelized in
the recent past. Some trees found within the riparian area appear to be over 50 years old. The
channel has good meander pattern with low bank heights. As a result, flooding of the adjacent
riparian wetland areas occurs frequently.
Bankfull verification for the reference reach followed the same procedure as described for the
project reach (Section 6.2.3). For the reference reach section, the field indicator of bankfull
stage was the top of the streambank. Bankfull cross-section areas were plotted on the same
regional curve information presented in Section 6.2, as shown in Figure 6.1 below. The plotted
cross-sectional areas match closely with the local data and the project reach data, indicating that
bankfull was correctly identified in the field. Table 7.1 summarizes the geomorphic data for
Johannah Creek and the sand bed streams from the reference reach database.
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
7-2
Table 7.1
Reference Parameters Used to Determine Design Ratios

Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 0.9
Stream Type (Rosgen) ES C5
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs) 14
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 7.2 7.8
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 1.8 1.9
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 10.1 19.7 8 14
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 8.0 9.6
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.4 1.8 1.2 1.8
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (fVft) 1.0
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf 4.0 5.9 4 17
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf 1.5 2.8 1.5 3.0
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf 1.4 2.1 2.0 6.3
Sinuosity, K 1.22 1.22 1.77
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0027 0.0007 0.0029
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0022 0.0004 0.0022
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 1.9 1.8 2.0
Pool Width Ratio, WpooMkf 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.4
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 16.0 59.0
d16 (mm) 0.35
d35 (mm) 0.6
d50 (mm) 0.7
d84 (mm) 0.8
d95 (mm) 1.8
Notes:
Composite reference reach information from Johannah Creek, Johnston County; Panther Branch,
Brunswick County; and Rocky Swamp, Halifax County
7.2.4 Reference Reach Vegetation
The reference site is well buffered along both stream banks with tree species that include sweet
gum, red maple, willow oak (Quercus phellos), water oak, swamp chestnut oak, and green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica). The small tree/shrub layer is dominated by sweetbay magnolia
(Magnolia virginiana), American holly, sugarberry saplings, giant cane, elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis), leucothoe (Leucothoe axillaris), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), beautyberry
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 7-3
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN

® (Callicarpa americana), and blackberry (Rebus spp.). The herb and vine strata contain false
nettle (Boehnieria cylindrica), jewel weed, cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamontea), sensitive
® fern (Onoclea sensibilis), greenbriar. Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), grape
(Vitis spp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica).

7.2.5 Reference Reach Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected at the reference reach site on January 17,
2002. Sampling was not conducted during the summer months due to drought conditions
which resulted in low flow conditions in the stream. The sampling methodology followed the
Qual-5 protocol listed in the NCDWQ's Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic
Macroinvertebrates. Discussion of the sampled macroinvertebrate data for the project site is
presented in Section 6.4.
7.2.6 Design Criteria Selection Method
Specific design parameters were developed using a combination of reference reach data, past
project experiences, and best professional judgment. Dimensionless ratios from an internal
reference reach database were also used to develop the design values. The design philosophy at
the Cox Branch Site is to use average values for the selected stream types and to allow the
extremes to form over long periods of time under the processes of flooding, re-colonization of
vegetation, and geologic influences.
7.3 Design Criteria for Cox Branch
After examining the assessment data collected at the site, exploring the site's potential for restoration,
and assessing "lessons learned" from the Westbrook wetland and stream mitigation site, an approach
to the stream restoration was developed. First, an appropriate stream type for the valley type present
at the site was selected. The design stream types were further refined based on the channel evolution
sequence exhibited by the stream after examination of existing conditions survey data and other field
observations, as well as conditions observed on reference streams under similar conditions. Available
belt width, existing wetlands, and channel incision were considered as well. The proposed stream
types for the project are summarized in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2
Project Design Stream Types

Impacts from cattle and property owner continue to degrade stream stability
and function. Sinuosity and pool formation is poor with riparian vegetation
consisting of fescue and privet. Restoration of the stream to its historic
Cox
C floodplain is required to restore wetland hydrology. Restoration of
Mainstem
dimension, pattern, and profile will return the reach to its original stream type
with functioning floodplain and adjacent wetland areas. "C" stream type is
based on information from reference reaches under similar slope and
sediment supply conditions.
EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
7.4
8.0 STREAM RESTORATION DESIGN
8.1 Restoration Approach
The primary objectives of the stream restoration design are to re-establish floodplain access at
bankfull flows, improve habitat quality, and decrease bank erosion. The primary objective of the
wetland restoration and enhancement design is to restore remnant riverine and non-riverine wetlands.
Riparian vegetation will be established in the permanent buffer. The proposed design includes the
following elements:
• Priority 1 Stream Restoration
¦ Cox mainstem reach - entire reach will be restored to a C stream type. A short upstream
section will require limited floodplain grading and will use a Rosgen Priority 2
restoration approach in order to tie in with the incised upstream channel. A series of
instream grade-control structures will be used to raise the channel up to connect to the
relic floodplain.
¦ Wetlands Restoration and Enhancement
¦ Project-wide planting to restore native wetland vegetation.
¦ Restoration of remnant wetland areas by decreasing the drainage effect of the stream
through a Priority I restoration approach, removing an existing drain tile, and routing an
ephemeral ditch into a wetland restoration zone.
¦ Enhancement of remnant wetlands that currently support a bottomland forest through
improved hydrology.
• Riparian Buffer Enhancement
¦ Project-wide planting and preservation of the riparian zone.
Preliminary plans for the Cox Site restoration are attached. Details of the design are discussed in the
following sections.
8.2 Design Rationale (Channel Dimension, Pattern, and Profile)
8.2.1 UT Mainstem Channel Restoration
The stream banks are unstable along the Cox Site mainstem because the channel has incised
and is in the process of widening and riparian vegetation has been removed. A stable cross-
section will be achieved by increasing the width/depth ratio and raising the streambed thus
decreasing the bank height ratio and increasing the entrenchment ratio. The channel will be
restored to a C-type stream, and the sinuosity will be increased by adding meanders to lengthen
the channel. Grade control at the bed will be provided by in-stream structures such as
constructed riffles, cross vanes, and log weirs. These in-stream structures will also help to
improve bedform diversity.
Table 8.1 presents the stream restoration dimensions and design criteria for the Cox mainstem
channel.
EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING 8.1
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
Table 8.1
Natural Channel Design Parameters for the Cox Branch Restoration Site

"oil 'Itli '3i :1 tt11 ,.r .

Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 1.4 1.8 -- --
Design Stream Length (feet) 7,548 -- --
Stream Type (Rosgen) C5 -- -- Note 1
Bankfull (bkf) Discharge, Qbkf (cfs) 21.3 -- -- Note 2
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 1.6 -- -- V=Q/A
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq fl) 13.5 -- -- Note 3
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 13.7 -- -- Ab IV/D
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 1.0 -- -- d=A/W
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 14 .0 10 15 Note 3
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 160 400 -- --
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (fl/ft) 11.6 29.1 5.5 >10 Note 4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 1.2 1.4 -- --
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.6 Note 5
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 1.0 Note 6
Meander Length, Lm (ft) 110 165 -- --
Meander Length Ratio, LnVWbkf * 8.0 12.0 8.0 12.5 Note 7
Radius of Curvature, Re (ft) 27 41 -- --
Rc Ratio, Re/Wbkf * 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Note 7
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) 69 110 -- --
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf * 5.0 8.0 3.0 8.0 Note 7
Sinuosity, K 1.47 1.3 1.8 TW length/
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0 034 -- --
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0019 0.0037 -- -- Sval / K
Slope Riffle, Srif (ft/ft) 0.0027 0.0093 -- --
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.4 2.5 -- -- Note 8
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft) 0.0000 0.0007 -- --
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.0 0.2 -- -- Note 8
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft) 2.2 2.5 -- --
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 2.2 2.5 2.0 3.0 Note 7
Pool Width, Wpool (fl) 16.5 20.6 -- --
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 12 1.5 1.2 1.5 Note 9
Pool-Pool Spacing, Lps (ft) 55.0 82.5 -- --
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Note 7
d16 - mm < 0.062 < 0.062
d35 - mm 0.125 0.125
d50 - mm 2.0 2.0
d84 - mm 22 22
d95 - mm 64 64
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 8-2
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
Table 8.1 Continued
Notes:
1 A C5 stream type is appropriate for a very low-slope, wide, alluvial valley with a sand streambed. The choice
between a C5 and E5 channel dimension was based on relationships of W/D ratio to slope in NC Coastal Plain
reference reach streams, as well as sediment transport analyses.
z 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 Coastal Plain reference reach
streams, as well as sediment transport analyses.
4 Required for stream classification.
5 This ratio was based on past project evaluation of similar C5 and E5 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 Values were chosen based on Johannah Creek reference reach data, other sand-bed reference reach data, and past
project evaluation.
s Due to the extremely low channel slopes, facet slopes were not calculated for the proposed design. Past project
experience has shown that these minor changes in slope between features form naturally within the constructed
channel, provided that the overall design channel slope is maintained during construction.
9 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.
8.2.1.1 Dimension
The existing channel dimension is unstable throughout the project area due mainly to a
lack of the dense and deep root structure provided by an intact, woody, riparian buffer.
To address the erosion throughout the project, the stream cross-section (dimension) will
be adjusted in order to reduce velocities and near bank shear stress. A Rosgen C type
stream with a w/d ratio of 14 will be created with the cross-section. The ratio of low
bank height to maximum bankfull depth (BHR) will be set to 1.0. In areas along the
mainstem channel where bank height might exceed bankfull stage because of localized
topography or a low stream bed elevation, minimal grading will be used to transition
bankfull stage to the floodplain. Once flood water rises above the bankfull stage,
erosion-causing stress in the near bank region will be reduced when the storm flow is
able to spread out on the floodplain. Root wads, brush mattresses, and log vanes will be
used to provide bank protection and maintain pool cross-sections at the outside of
meander bends where necessary. Typical cross-sections are shown on the plan sheets.
8.2.1.2 Pattern
The existing mainstem channel through the project site has a sinuosity measurement of
less than 1.05. The proposed project will increase the sinuosity of the stream to 1.47 by
adding 1,353 linear feet of stream. The pre-construction length of the design area is
approximately 6,160 linear feet; the stream length after restoration will be approximately
7,548 LF. The meander length ratio on the restored channel will be between 8.0 and
12.0, based on reference reach data and as recommended by the USACE Hydraulic
Design of Stream Restoration Projects (Copeland et al., 2001). Curve radii will range
between 27 and 41 feet, or two to three times the channel's proposed bankfull width. The
surveyed reference reaches exhibited radius of curvature ratios of less than 2; however,
EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING 8-3
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN

® the project was designed with larger ratios in an effort to enhance stability immediately
® after construction before a stabilizing vegetative root mass is established. The meander
• width ratio (MWR) of the stream will be increased as part of the restoration. Belt width
will be 5.0 to 8 times wider than bankfull width. This meander width ratio range is
® supported by the range of data from the project reference reach and the composite data
® from other Coastal Plain sand bed reference reaches. Plan views of the main channel are
shown on the attached plan sheets. The channel slope will be effectively decreased by
the addition of the meandering length, helping to slow the mean velocity in the channel.

• 8.2.1.3 ProfileMedform
The profile of the existing mainstem channel is somewhat stable but is threatened by
cattle access and removal of vegetation. There is very little diversity in the existing
® channel bedform: pools, riffles, glides, and runs are nearly indistinguishable from each
other with few exceptions. The stream restoration will include the construction of a
riffle-pool stream bed with additional habitat and diversity provided by constructed
® riffles, cross vanes, and log weirs at selected locations. The slopes for the constructed
® riffles vary from 1.5 to 3 times the proposed channel slope. The reference reaches
® indicated that this ratio range will be appropriate for this stream size and type. Similarly,
pool slopes were designed using the reference reach guidance of slope ratios 0.2 to 0.4
® times the design channel slope. The maximum pool depth (two to three times the riffle
• mean depth) in the pool will be constructed from the meander curve apex to a point one-
third of the distance along the profile from the apex to the head of the next downstream
riffle. This maximum pool location was selected based on guidance from the USACE
S manual (Copeland et al., 2001).
® 8.3 Sediment Transport

® 8.3.1 Sediment Transport Analysis
e The purpose of sediment transport analysis is to ensure that the stream restoration design
creates a stable sand-bed channel that does not aggrade or degrade over time. The overriding
S assumption is that the project reach should be transporting all the sediment delivered from
® upstream sources, thereby being a "transport" reach and classified as a Rosgen "C" or "E" type

® channel. Empirical relationships from stable sand-bed channels in North Carolina are used in
this analysis, as described in Section 2.6.
• Shear stress, stream power, and W/D values for the design reaches are plotted against stable
® reference stream data in Figures 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3. The values were calculated for existing
® conditions on each of the five reaches described in Section 6.2, design conditions for the range
of design slopes, and for the Johannah Creek reference reach. A summary of the data is
® provided in Table 8.2.
® The existing condition stream power and shear stress values plot well above the range of data
® from Coastal Plain sand bed reaches, including Johannah Creek (with the exception of Reach
5). These data indicate that bankfull flows are capable of moving significantly more sediment
than is supplied to the system. Additionally, these data are only for bankfull flows. Bank
® height ratios in the existing channel range from 1.0 to 2.5. In the incised reaches, flows greater
• than bankfull are contained within the channel. Therefore, shear stress and stream power
continue to increase with increasing stream stage up to the top of bank instead of dispersing the
e energy across an active floodplain. This excess energy results in bed and bank scour that has
resulted in the observed channel incision and bank erosion. Reach 5 is moderately stable at the
® EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING 8-4
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
0
low end just before it ties into Mill Creek. This is the section of channel that the design
channel will tie into.
The design shear stress and stream power values plot within the scatter of data points collected
from reference reaches. This analysis provides evidence that the stresses predicted for the
design channel are well within the range of stable values calculated for the reference reaches.
Therefore, the design channel is expected to have adequate stream power to move its sediment
load without resulting in excessive scour.
Figure 8.1
Comparison Between Bankfull Shear Stress and Channel Slope for Design Reaches and Coastal Plain
Reference Reach Data
0
450
.
0.400 • NC Sand Bed Reference Reaches _----------_----------------------------
0 Design Reaches
N0.350 ---95%Confidence lntenal --------------------------
-------------------
A Existing Reaches , - ' " 0
0.300 Re(erenceReach -----------------------------------?----
V0.250 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A- -- ------- /--1 - -- '" ----

20.200 -_____________________________®__ -_____-_______-_____
'
0.150
cc ---------------------------------
---------------------- j% _=-
X0.100 ----------- _ ---"- ----------------------------Y'37.547x*0.026 -
1.96
0
050 ---4?$?= "--"--------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.

0.000
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008
Slope (ft/ft)
EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING 8-5
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
Figure 8.2.
Comparison Between Stream Power and Channel Slope for Design Reaches and Coastal Plain
Reference Reach Data
25.000
N 20.000
E
15.000
d
0
E 10.000
Fn 5.000
0.000
x
x - •
i --T r-19+1.ax-09191
=i'Y' ?i v' • R'-090,1
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
Slope (ft/ft)
0.006 0.007 0.008
Figure 8.3
Comparison Between Width-to-Depth Ration (W/D) and Channel Slope for Design Reaches and
Coastal Plain Reference Reach Data

20
18
- -------------------------- --
ONC dBedRefeenceReaches--
O Reaches
16 - L
------------------------------------------- 95% Confidence inteml
e Reach
`
14 ----------- 0 - - - - - - - - - -- - - -
------------- - o -
Roaches ---

12
?-
-
----
o'
10 -.
er,, -
.-----
---------

s_ a-- _ o
4 y•.1280x+13.667
e.0.57

0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008
Slope (ft/ft)
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 8.6
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
Table 8.2
Calculated Sediment Transport Data for Design Reaches

Cox Mainstem -
High end of Slope 13.5 23.7 1.75 0.198 6.75
Range
Cox Mainstem -
Low end of Slope 13.5 23.7 1.75 0.102 2.48
Range
8.4 In-Stream Structures
A variety of in-stream structures are proposed for the Cox Branch site. Structures such as root wads,
constructed riffles, and log vanes will be used to stabilize the newly-restored stream. Table 8.3
summarizes the use of in-stream structures at the site.
Table 8.3
In-Stream Structure Types and Locations for Cox Branch

Root Wad Cox Mainstem - Outside of Meander Bends
Constructed Riffle Cox Mainstem - Riffle Areas
Cross Vane Cox Mainstem - Enhancement Section
Log Vane Cox Mainstem - Outside of Meander Bends
Log Weir Cox Mainstem - Riffle Areas
Cover Log Cox Mainstem - Outside of Meander Bends
8.4.1 Root Wad
Root wads are placed at the toe of the stream bank in 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 throughout the Cox Branch
mainstem.
8.4.2 Constructed Riffle
A constructed riffle consists of the placement of coarse bed material in the stream at the
specific riffle locations along the profile. A buried log at the upstream and downstream end of
each riffle will control the slope through the riffle. The purpose of this structure is to provide
grade control and improve riffle habitat. Constructed riffles will be placed throughout the Cox
Branch mainstem.
EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING 8.7
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN

® 8.4.3 Cross Vane
® 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
® 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. These structures will be placed in the main channel at
® both the upstream and downstream project limits. They are also a critical component of the
® restoration of the high slope step-pool channels (Rosgen 2001b).
® 8.4.4 Log Vane
® A log vane is used to protect the stream bank. The length of a single vane structure can span
one-half to two-thirds the bankfull channel width. Vanes are located just downstream of the
point where the stream flow intersects the bank at an acute angle in a meander bend. Log vanes
® will be placed in the Cox Branch mainstem.
40
8.4.5 Log Weir
A log weir consists of placing a header log and a footer log in the bed of the stream channel,
perpendicular to the stream flow. The logs extend into the stream banks on both sides of the
structure to prevent erosion and bypassing of the structure. The logs are installed flush with the
channel bottom upstream of the log. The footer log is placed to the depth of scour expected to
prevent the structure from being undermined. Although a pool is often excavated downstream
of the weir during installation, a pool will typically form naturally downstream of the structure.
Log weirs provide bedform diversity, maintain channel profile, and provide pool and cover
habitat.
8.4.6 Cover Log
A cover log is placed in the outside of a meander bend to provide habitat in the pool area. 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 the Cox Branch mainstem reaches.
8.5 Vegetation
The vegetative components of this project include stream bank, floodplain, and wetland planting. In
addition, any areas of the site that are disturbed, lack diversity, or might be adversely impacted by the
construction process will be replanted.
8.5.1 Stream Bank, Floodplain, and Wetland Re-Vegetation
The stream banks and the adjacent riparian area, including wetland areas, will be planted with
both woody and herbaceous vegetation as shown on the attached plan sheets. Any stream
banks with a 2:1 slope or steeper will be vegetated using live stake or brush mattress
techniques. A buffer of woody and herbaceous species will be installed within the buffer
limits.
A schedule of plants for use on this project is shown in Table 8.4
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
8-8
Table 8.4
Cox Branch Site Plant Schedule

{vs. 19e _. a'. 10f
Preferred Species
Blackgum Nyssa sylvatica
Black Walnut Juglans nigra
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata
Willow Oak Quercus phellos
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis
River Birch Betula nigra
Alternate Species
Shortleaf Pine Pinus echinata
Sugarberry Celtis laevigata
Red Mulberry Morus rubra

Preferred Species
Swamp Tupelo Nyssa sylvatica var.biflora
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata
Willow Oak Quercus phellos
Sugarberry Celtis laevigata
River Birch Betula nigra
Alternate Species
Shortleaf Pine Pinus echinata
Red Mulberry Morus rubra
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera

Switchgrass Panicum virgatum
Soft Rush Juncus effusus
Fringed Sedge Carex crinata
Virginia Wild Rye Elymus virginicus
Joe Pye Weed Eupatorium fistulosum
EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING 8-9
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
Table 8.4
Cox Branch Site Plant Schedule

I •`?, .,. ..:i .;??isc, .! .._,ini ,`oil+lti._ ?ti ',; _ . !'.

Silky Dogwood Corpus amoinuin
Silky Willow Salix sericea
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis
8.5.2 Invasive Species Removal
The site has minimal existing native riparian vegetation other than field grasses with the
exception of one forested block. Invasive species such as Multiflora rose (Rosa ntultiflora) and
privet (Ligustrum sinense) are present, although in relatively small amounts. Grading
operations will remove these invasive species. 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.
EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING 8-10
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
9.0 WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN
9.1 Restoration of Wetland Hydrology
The existing agricultural fields across the site are currently drained by a field ditch and the
channelized and highly incised Cox Branch. To restore wetland hydrology to the site, the lateral field
ditch and existing stream will be fully to partially filled depending on the amount of fill material that
can be produced from minor land grading and excavation of the new stream channel. When complete
filling of the stream and ditches is not possible, ditch plugs will be installed from compacted earth for
a distance of at least 100 feet. Ditch plugs will also be used in locations where the restored stream
channel will cross existing stream channel. In these locations, the existing stream will be plugged for
at least 100 feet on both sides of the restored channel to prevent drainage losses and channel avulsion.
In areas where restored stream flows will contact fill material, root wads will be installed to provide
additional protection and deflect stream energies. Due to the relatively small size of the restored
channel and the low energy nature of the system, these practices will be sufficient to prevent erosion
and channel avulsion. These practices have been used on numerous other projects with excellent
results. Some sections of existing channel may be only partially filled depending on the amount of
fill material that can be produced. These partially filled areas will be discontinuous and will mimic
small vernal pools or tree throws within the wetland areas that will add to the diversity of habitat on
the project site.
Grading activities will focus on removing any field crowns, surface drains, or swales that were
imposed during conversion of the land for agriculture. Existing and proposed graded contours are
provided in the plan sheets. In general, grading activities will be minor since the site exhibits a rather
flat existing topography.
The topography of the restored site will be patterned after natural floodplain wetland reference sites,
and will include the restoration of minor depressions and tip mounds (microtopography) that promote
diversity of hydrologic conditions and habitats common to natural wetland areas. These techniques
will be instrumental to the restoration of site hydrology by promoting surface ponding and infiltration,
decreasing drainage capacity, and imposing higher water table conditions across the restoration site.
In order to improve drainage and increase agricultural production, farmed wetland soils are often
graded to a smooth surface and crowned to enhance runoff (Lilly, 1981). Microtopography
contributes to the properties of forest soils and to the diversity and patterns of plant communities
(Lutz, 1940; Stephens, 1956; Bratton, 1976; Ehrnfeld, 1995). Microtopography will be established
after floodplain areas have been established to design grades, using the procedures described in
Section 3.8.
The restoration design for the wetland is based on the reference wetland area (Section 9.3). The
targeted type of riverine wetland would be a Coastal Plain small stream swamp as identified by
Schafale and Weakley (1990). Hydrology of this system will be palustrine, "intermittently,
temporarily, or seasonally flooded", as the restored channel is designed to carry the bankfull flow,
and to flood (flow out of its banks) at discharges greater than bankfull. This riverine wetland would
transition into a non-riverine wetland system. This non-riverine wetland will mimic the non-riverine
wet hardwood forest as identified by Schafely and Weakley (1990). Hydrology of the wet hardwood
forest will be palustrine, seasonally to intermittently flooded. Vegetation of both systems will mimic
that of the reference wetland.
EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING 9.1
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
9.2 Hydrologic Model Analyses
The DRAWMOD simulations developed to evaluate the current hydrologic status of the restoration
site (Section 3.5) were used to estimate the hydrologic conditions -of the site under the proposed
restoration practices. Model parameters that describe the depth of stream and topographic surface
storage were changed to values representative of the described restoration practices. For example,
drain depths were reduced to approximately 37 cm to represent the water level in the restored,
meandering channel. Surface storage parameters were increased from 2 to 4 cm to represent surface
roughing practices. Input files that describe cropping conditions were changed to represent forested
conditions.
To estimate the average hydrologic condition of the restored site, a model scenario was evaluated for
an average distance from the restored channel with a surface storage of 2 cm. Since wetlands are
being restored from the restored stream channel out to a distance of approximately 400 feet, an
average distance of 250 feet was used in the model. In a similar manner, a maximum surface storage
of two cm was chosen based on reference site information and represents typical topographic
conditions across the restored site. A 30-year simulation was run following the procedure described
in Section 3.5. Results of the simulation are presented in Figure 9. 1, and the DRAWMOD input file
is provided in Appendix D.
Figure 9.1
Thirty-Year Model Simulation for the Longest Period of Consecutive Days Meeting Wetland Criteria
for Conditions Encountered at Restoration Site

50
45 --- ------------------------------------------------
$ 40 Average = 17 days --------------------------------
35 - (7/9 of gr-QW'Ilg season) _
z S

25 -------- ----------------- -------
20 - ----- - -- ---- --- -- ---- ---
15
10 - - - - - - - - - - -

0
1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998
Model year
The simulation runs indicate that, on average, the water table will be less than 30 cm deep
continuously for approximately 7% of the growing season. This scenario can be assumed to represent
average conditions across the site, with the majority of the restored acreage on the site being
represented by this hydrologic scenario. It is probable that there will be areas slightly drier or slightly
wetter than the modeled scenario within the restoration area. The modeled scenario provides a basis
for estimating the average hydrologic condition over the restored site, based on the proposed
restoration practices. However, it is important to note that the hydrology of the targeted restored
EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING 9-2
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
wetland system (Coastal Plain small stream swamp) is highly variable across a given site, supporting
the ecological and functional diversity that makes these systems so valuable.
Further confidence is provided in the Model accuracy through comparison of monitoring data from
the Westbrook Site to Model predictions. Groundwater levels have been monitored on the Westbrook
Site for two years since restoration activities were completed. The Westbrook monitoring wells have
shown groundwater within the upper 12 inches of the soil for 7 to 12 percent of the growing season,
which is the range predicted by the Model.
9.3 Wetland Reference Site Overview
The reference site for this project is located approximately 1,000 feet west of Cox Branch. It is
located near another unnamed tributary to Mill Creek that flows adjacent to the project site (see
Exhibit 1.1). The site is an example of a "Coastal Plain small stream swamp", as described by
Schafale and Weakley (1990). These systems exist as the floodplains of small "blackwater" and
"brownwater" streams in which separate fluvial features and associated vegetation are too small or
poorly developed to distinguish. It is difficult to define whether the site is of the "brownwater" or
"blackwater" subtype, since the site exhibits features of both subtypes. Schafale and Weakley
characterize the "brownwater" subtype as having its headwater originating in the Piedmont, while the
"blackwater" subtype originates in the Coastal Plain. Although the reference site lies very near the
fall line between the Piedmont and Coastal Plain physiographic regions, most delineations of the fall
line boundary would place the origin of the reference site stream in the Coastal Plain, and therefore
the system would be considered the "blackwater" subtype. Hydrology of these systems is palustrine,
intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded. Flows tend to be highly variable, with floods of
short duration, and periods of very low flow. The "Coastal Plain small stream swamp" wetland
system would be typical for the watershed size and the geomorphologic setting of the site.
It appears that the site has experienced little disturbance in recent time and is believed to be
representative of undisturbed conditions on the project site. The reference site will be used as a
template for the restoration of the project site. Wetland data forms for the site are provided in
Appendix A.
9.3.1 Reference Site Soils
The reference site is located in the transition area between the Coastal Plain and Piedmont
physiographic regions of North Carolina adjacent (to the west) of the project site. Soils located
within the wetland areas of the reference site are mapped as the Bibb and Pantego series (SCS,
1994). The Bibb series consists of poorly drained soils typically found on floodplains along
streams in the Coastal Plain. Permeability is moderate, and the seasonal high water table is
within 0.5 to 1.5 feet of the soil surface. The Pantego series consists of poorly drained soils
typically found on broad stream terraces on the Coastal Plain and is the same soil that underlies
all of the restoration acreage. In the undrained condition, permeability is moderate, and the
seasonal high water table is within one foot of the soil surface in winter and spring. The
Pantego and Bibb soil series are listed as "A" list hydric soils by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS, 1995). On the upslope areas adjacent to the wetland areas, soils
of the Uchee, Blanton, and Bonneau series are found.
Two auger hole tests were performed within the wetland area to verify soil information
obtained from the Johnston County soil survey maps. These tests revealed that the soils on the
reference site match most closely with the soil description for the Pantego series, which is the
primary soil found on the restoration site. The reference site soils have a deep, dark loamy
layer to a depth of approximately two to three feet, underlain by a layer of sandy clay loam
EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING 9-3
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
material to a depth of approximately 4.5 feet. At a depth of approximately 4.5 feet, a layer of
sand is reached and extends to an undetermined depth.
Saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements were conducted in the reference site using the
method described by van Beers (1970). Hydraulic conductivity in the surface layers (0 to 0.6 m
depth) was approximately 3 to 4 m/day, while that in the underlying layers (0.6 to 1.5 m depth)
ranged from 1 to 2 m/day.
Reference Site Hydrology
Climatic conditions of the reference site are the same as those described for the project site
(Section 5.3). The reference site is classified as a "Coastal Plain small stream swamp"
(Schafale and Weakley, 1990). It is difficult to distinguish the site as either the "blackwater" or
"brownwater" subtype, as the site displays characteristics of both communities. Small stream
swamp communities are palustrine with variable flows and are intermittently, temporarily, or
seasonally flooded (Shafale and Weakly, 1990). Site hydrology is controlled by the main
stream channel that flows through the site, as well as several small drainages that flow onto the
site and provide additional water to the floodplain areas during wet periods. Due to the
shallow, unincised condition of the main stream through the site and drainage from upland side
slopes, high water table conditions are sustained across the active floodplain (see Figure 9.2).
Water table monitoring wells were installed within the reference site, and monitoring data were
collected from June 2001 to the present. An example subset of the data is shown in Figure 9.3.
Based on the data collected, the site exhibits wetland hydrology, and exhibits a range of
saturation and wetness during the wetter periods of the year (late fall, winter, and early spring).
Figure 9.2
Cross-Section for the Johannah Creek Reference Reach
Johannah Creek Reference Reach
Cross-section 1+80, Riffle
105
104
103
102
C 101 Bankfull
0
100
99
w
98
97
96
95
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Station (ft)
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 9-4
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
Figure 9.3
Water Table Depths Recorded in a Monitoring Well Installed within the Reference Site
7/19/01 8118/01 9/17/01 10/17/01 11/16/01 12/16/01 1/15/02
0
1
2
3-
4
0
c
t -10
a
d
0
m -20
a
m
F-
`m -30
m
3
-40
-50
7/19/01 8118101 9/17/01 10/17/01 11/16/01 12/16/01 1/15/02
Date
EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING 9-5
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
•
•
•
•
•
10.0 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
® Channel stability, vegetation survival, and viability of wetland function 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.

® 10.1 Stream Monitoring
Geomorphic monitoring of restored 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. The methods used and any related success criteria are described below for each
® parameter.
® 10.1.1 Cross-Sections
® Two permanent cross-sections will be installed per 1,000 linear feet of stream restoration 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.
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.
10.1.2 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.
® 10.1.3 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 feet 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.

EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
10-1
10.1.4 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.
10.1.5 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 G.
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
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.
10.2 Wetland Monitoring
10.2.1 Wetland Hydrologic Monitoring
Groundwater-monitoring stations will be installed across the project area to document
hydrologic conditions of the restored site. Eight groundwater monitoring stations will be
installed, with four stations being automated groundwater gauges, and four stations being
manually read stations. 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 Johnston 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 7% of the growing season as indicated by the DRAINMOD model in
Section 9.2 and that the site exhibits an increased frequency of flooding. The restored site will
be compared to a reference site where the groundwater and surface water levels (overbank
events) will be monitored. In addition, the restored site's hydrology will be compared to pre-
restoration conditions both in terms of groundwater and frequency of overbank events.
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 10-2
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
10.3 Vegetation Monitoring
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a wetland mitigation site is dependent upon hydrologic
restoration, active planting of preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant
community. In order to determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation-monitoring quadrants will
be installed across the restoration site, as directed by EEP monitoring guidance. The number of
quadrants required will be based on the species/area curve method, as described in EEP monitoring
guidance documents, with a minimum of three monitoring plots. The size of individual quadrants
will be 100 square meters for woody tree species, 25 square meters for shrubs, and 1 square meter for
herbaceous vegetation. 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. Relative values will be calculated, and importance values will be determined. Individual
seedlings will be marked such that they can be found in succeeding 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 subsequent year, until the final success criteria are achieved, the restored site will be
evaluated between July and November.
® Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density on the project site will be based on the
recommendations found in the YT" Technical Note and correspondence from review agencies on
® mitigation sites recently approved under the Neu-Con Mitigation Banking Instrument.
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
® criteria 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.
® Herbaceous vegetation, primarily native grasses, planted at the site shall have at least 95% coverage
® of the seeded/planted area. No bare patches shall exceed 10 square feet. Any herbaceous vegetation
not meeting these criteria shall be replaced. At a minimum, at all times ground cover at the project
site shall be in compliance with the North Carolina Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance.
10.4 Reporting Requirements
A mitigation plan and as-built report documenting both stream and wetland restoration will be
developed within 60 days of the completion of planting and the installation of wells on the restored
site. The report will include all information required by current EEP 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 the restored 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 EEP. The monitoring reports will
include:
O A detailed narrative summarizing the condition of the restored site and all regular
maintenance activities
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 10-3
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
• 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
• Reference wetland hydrology and stream data.
10.5 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.
EBXN-1 / BUCK ENGINEERING 10.4
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
11.0 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, W.W, P.L. Cohen, P.R. Saunders and F.R. Steiner, 1987. Stream Corridor Management in the
Pacific Northwest: I. 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.
Clarke, A.H., 1981. The Tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias, Alasmidonta,
and Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, (326), 101 pp.
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.
Evans, R. O. and R. W. Skaggs, 1985. Agricultural water management for Coastal Plain soils.
Published by the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service. Paper AG-355.
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.
EBXN•1 / BUCK ENGINEERING
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
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.
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.
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 June 22, 2004
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wghome.html.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 2003. Standard
Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Water Quality Section, Biological
Standards Unit, July 2003, Raleigh, NC.
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., 2001a. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the
Federal Interagency Sediment Conference, Reno, NV, March, 2001.
Rosgen, D. L., 2001b. The Cross-Vane, W-Weir and J-Hook Vane Structures... Their Description,
Design and Application for Stream Stabilization and River Restoration. Published By: ASCE
conference, Reno, NV, August, 2001.
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 11-2
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
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.
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.
® Sharitz, 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-01-1. September, 2001.
® Stephens, E. P., 1956. The Uprooting of Trees: a Forest Process. Soil Science Society of America
Proceedings 20:113-116.
Stuckey, J. L., and Conrad, S. G., 1958, Explanatory Text for Geologic Map of North Carolina: North
Carolina Division of Mineral Resources, N. C. Department of Conservation and
Development, Bulletin 71, 51 p.
® 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 (NRCS), 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 ), 2004. Climate
Information for Johnston County North Carolina. National Water & Climate Center.
Beltsville, Maryland. Website cited on November 30, 2004,
http:/hvww.wcc.nres.usda.gov/cgibin/climchoice.pl?state=nc&county--37101.
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.
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 11-3
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
Wohl, E.E. 2000. Mountain Rivers. Am. Geophys. Union Press, 320 pp.
Wolman, M.G. and L.B. Leopold., 1957. River Floodplains: Some Observations on their Formation.
USGS Professional Paper 282-C. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC.
EBXN-I / BUCK ENGINEERING 11.4
COX SITE DRAFT RESTORATION PLAN
Smithfield

Targeted Local Watershed
03020201150050
i
N
Project Location

Nqb

Newton Grove
Johnston Co.
HU 03020201
EBX Neuse-I, LLC
tA 220 Chatham Business Drive
Y Pittsboro, NC 27312
Exhibit 1.1.
Site Location Map
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles
N
4 I x?
f . i
Westbrook Restored r :) T g k
Stream Channel C f
?If l
;f"L` y 93
N.J
` + t
Project Boundary
f^FjG??X, t ?
r

rt
l !.
• ? t?V`SC01.1T
`?:%^ ` ESE AT1QN 1'
6,17
, .1

EBX Neuse-I, LLC o 1,000 2,0Q0 Exhibit 1.2.
# ; ?? 220 Chatham Business Drive eet
Pittsboro, NC 27312 Project Vicinity Map
L
•
•
s
e
!-
Legend
Watershed Boundary
`,?
- i CT Ck
Project Boundary
I!
?(-?'S- f'",'???.?????, 1f3Qtitol[v?1r ? ?t? f J •,, 't / ' ?^ t ?-' ._ !? - +-r -- r..._- r ? ,... r ?- - -
/ r ? \_. :p ,C(15999????} J i(I S ? ?i rV i + ( r ±KF `\ l
I? ?j'•? \,-? ,? :P i .r ^ ?/ t , '? e ?r71* ri i
i? V ? ?- aaval= 1 ? t { ( ? c? 1? ? / ?c r , ?? ? ( ?? (I ???" ?? ('? ` =.?M fCOUr .- ?• ?' f 1,'r
ARON
t -, . lK s - ' ? >
•) fir, ' , ?,t
't?t r ''•l. ?` ? ?jilf/t `',i?'` , •+' y j ` ?-.ltl ? ,_° / r /J ,? '? ? ff
1 t pi (' j ?" (5._ - X111
I Ji
ifi?-...?
,??lTiOf???``?: 4 _? ?_r (? ?f ?r'i ?•)?(; l {I?r ?j? ?(?' ' f t G .? ILJir.?, ? e•J _?'i?t =r? t's? i
II???•,
??-
i J
.ey?.y._-. 1! ?j? •-_11 $- f \i ?cS?(1 Cy r?irj? ^i ?IIY, t), ;"?;Of??-, (t{y?;'i ri f? I?
J) \ v+ t?ii%\r` t? \t?. f J.' _ ( J ( - )•? ?? 1
coo
?fY ? t 1 + 31 i1 ?? ty L y l\? 1 .Cem ?; ? ;l _t t,
?"t?,..^? _? j ? •r ??--? f?'_';. J-
(//, ` j Y S
V fit" ?>) (/-'' '? . I ? rrn ='\ ?t 4 ', . C',, -?J
C t l t F ?..y.- ?\ t? Y ° I
• l tiles=?_._ i? (??{?..? St?otn , \ 1
off' ss Ch'l?/?, . ?L t `
/ r 198
Cox Site Watershed r
1.8 mil
k" IA ?
F? fl
EBX Neuse-I, LLC 0 1,500 3,0Q-0 Exhibit 1.3.
220 Chatham Business Drive eet Watershed Map
r Pittsboro, NC 27312
?N
r----

r: n
EBX Neuse-I, LLC p
? 220 Chatham Business Drive 0 300 600 90Feet
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Exhibit 1.4.
Proposed Wetland
Restoration Areas

Entrenchment
Rat lo
Width/Depth Low moderate Moderate Very Low rnodo,ato to High very High Low
Ratio width/depth ratio to High wk] vviclih,clepth ratio c.idth'cfopth v;idth'depih widih'deptlt wid
(.:12) - 12) ; (.•12) (<12) (.12) (' 40) (.:40)
Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Very High High Low Low-Hi
Sinuosity Sinuosity Sinuosity Sinuosity Sinuosity Sinuosity Sinuosity Sinuosity Sinuosity
(<1.2) (>1.2) (>1.2) (>1.2) (>1.5) (>1.2) (<1.2) (1.2-1.5 )
Stream Typo O O O O O O O ?A
Slope slope range slopo ran go slop: rangy, slope range slope ru)ln slope range %inl)v rangn alrp o
>0.10 0.04• 0.02- 0.02 0.02• •:0.02 .04- 0.02- <0.02 0.02• •:0.02 .02- .001- •:.001 .02- Col. •..001 <.005
0.099 0.039 0.039 0.11<J9 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.02 0.039 0.112
Channel
Material )
B,.drock Ala. At GI Glc Flb F1 Bla Bt Bic clb C1 C c -.
tc-
Boulders Ala. A2 G2 G2c F2b F2 62a 62 82c C2b C2 C2c-
Cobble A3a. A3 G3 G3c P Fab F3 B3a i B3 83c E31) E3 C3b 0 C3c- D31) r D3
Gravel A4.j. `. A4 G4 ^ G4c Fob F4 B4a B4 B4c I E4b E4
C } Cob '.. C4 C4c D4b 1 D4 i Doc- DA4
Sand Ma. i AS pp
G5 f G5c FSb F5? 853 1 SOS BSc i E5b E5? CSb I CS i CSc ¢ ?I DSb

1 (: D505c-
DA5 ''

Slit/Clay i,... F
All. A6 L
IL -'
-
G6 G& fhb ;, F6 663 86 i B& 1 Ebb EE6?
Mb G!?C6
; C6c- 'JD6b
D6 D&- { DA6
Source: Rosgen 1996. Published by permission of Wildland Hydrology.
Fig. 7.12 - Rosgca's w= ekssifiatiea s)stem (Level 11).
In Su= Corridor R&9=1= Principle, Processes, and Praclices,105&
lataageooy S: mm Restoatioo Wodrurg Group (FISRWGx15 Fcd" agencies orLlx us).
Source: Rosgen, David L., Applied River Morphology, Wildland Hydrology, 1996
Exhibit 2.1
Rosgen Stream Classification
500mm 0.1mm .?S feet/mile _500`\
I I III 111 11 ?
( sediment size l! stream slope
coarse fine o coarse fine
? t 00
'4 SO
0 `? ( c 0
i DEGRADATION AGGRADATION ?
'low
?._
Exhibit 2.2
After: Lane, 1955 Factors Influencing Stream Stability
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Class 1. Sinuous, Premodified he = critical bank height
h<he
= direction of bank or
bed movement
F h
???
Class 11. Channelized Class Ill. Degradation Class IV. Degradation and Widening
h<he h<he h>hc
floodpiain terrace
h t t
h h h
slumped material
Class V. Aggradation and Widening
h>he
terrace
h
j slumped
material
aggraded material
Class VI. Quasi Equilibrium
h<he -
terrace f
C
Ch bank
.l bankfull
aggraded material
Class I Class III
primary Class IV
nickpornt
precursor piunriu top bank Class V
nickpoint dir(? Class VI
ction of flow - --
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 Practice3,10/98.
Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FMRWG)(15 Federal agencies of the US).
Source: Simon, 1989
Exhibit 2.3
Simon Channel Evolution Model
a) G to C conversion
P
A A'
4•;Fill.::• . , .. - ? - '
Pond -?' - '
Fill From Pond `
b) F to C conversion

B B'
Cut Cut i
New Floodplain i?
Fill
c) F to C conversion
C C'
Cut Cut
New Floodplain ?
i
Cross Section View
Plan View
,

Long. Profile
Source: Rosgen, David L., "A Geonnorphological Approach to Restoration
of Incised Rivers," Proceedings of the Conference on Management of
Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision, 1997

,
' B,
d) G to B conversion

e) F to Bc conversion
Cut Cut"-, ?•
f) Stabilize in place
Exhibit 2.4
Restoration Priorities for Incised Channels
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Cross Section View
Stable Channel

/ BANKFUL_LWIDTH ??AII??.,l.:._-.-"--.
f3Af°,iCflJj,(_- X / {iopt -t t . ?t
Aftf.1?
1. ? tr .1
F IJRFAC F
C,
T
-THALWA
Incised Channel
--------- - ` R,
BANKFI
/ 9ilNK-f UL L
I/A
AREA
s?
X
FLOOD PRONE WIDTH
-- X ..............................
X
1
ruin . 4-BAN FULL
J
?1 EI ENJ 1 lC')N

/4- WATF_R SURFACE
'L-- THALWA 6?`
Channel Dimension Measurements
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 depth (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 bank 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
Reference Reach
Survey
Reference Reach
Ratios as
design criteria
Reference Reach
Database Review
Ratios
No
Reference Reach
Search
Regime/ Literature
review equations
I Past Project I
Evaluation
Reference Reach
survey if possible
Ratios
Regime Equations
Select Design Ratios
and Equations
HUN,*C;:=2K
E N G IN E E R I N G
Review of
monitoring data
Regime Equations
& Ratios
Exhibit 2.6
Design Criteria Selection
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
s
100[
s00
200
100
20
1'1
10
?d
s
rA
A 2
1
o.s
0.2
0.1
0.001 0.002 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 02 0.5
Exhibit 2.7. Modified Shields Curve with Project Data Points
f

f
J .
f

f
J4 /
I +
/?
V

f
f
f
t Ma
f
. M2
/ f . UTa
J MC Data Point
f ..
f
•
/ Leopold, et al.
f .
- - Ro s gen & Harman
J _
f .
.

.
.+
1.0 2 s 10
',, critical shear stress, Ibs}sq f1

F? ? ik
P s,•, ?
t

.' r
11'
'
,,
r. ?
t ?? .af :" ,y g ?.;Si•?^`4' •L `.u a.1lr

v ti

L_
? ?IMP'
z )+ ?1

A
?il t 'A 1 J1? ?`t / ?T
S t \t'` k"•• ? 1?'ji./
i
n
i
i

A
t :i
t ? ?`
l
--

T
w
ei
ru

-JA 1i `i f l i ,

Log Weir
Log Vane
I
j?
.L.ar?wrwrrrr? r?....a??r. si? •?.%?? V

r

JJ erg, . ,. f 1

1 i "1 ?11?

k el,

e

Root Wads
Exhibit 2.8
Examples of Instream Structures
QovQOQOQQOo? w"?°'oo0000000000000 00 t.
da, Wh

ab
IN
® EBx Neuse-1, LLC 0 300 600 90 Exhibit 4.1.
tt? 220 Chatham Business Drive
Pittsboro, NC 27312 Feet Soils Map
E y. ;p, k .Y.. b 7 C's•,.. wy, ,a}
C~�611f
a ¢'
Existing
Jurisdictional
Kb •.�' ;�
-` - Wetland
0.88 Acres
WA
Lateral Field Ditch
CO
00
y,
®
EBX Neuse -I, LLC
Exhibit 5.2.
220 Chatham Business Drive
0 300 600 90
Feet
Site Hydrology Map
Pittsboro, NC 27312

® EBX Neuse-I, LLC p Exhibit 5.3.
220 Chatham Business Drive 90 Feet Locations of Water Table
Pittsboro, NC 27312 Monitoring Wells

N
r
4 lop.
Reach 5
Reach 4
Reach 3 =
?y ? Reach 2
, t-I
a1
MV,
Y,
CO
:
00 Reach 1 ,
446
® EBX Neuse-I, LLC 0 300 600 90 Exhibit 6.1.
220 Chatham Business Drive
Pittsboro, NC 27312 eet Project Reaches
y+
N
D,�
) 1
i
S�
r
NM1',
.• ly^
Site 1
t
ro
m E
E
ao r x.
site
U)
�I
® EBX Neuse -I, LLC 0 300 600 90
Pittsboro, NC 27312 Exhibit 6.2.
220 Chatham Business Drive Feet Biomonitoring Site Locations
N
Site 1
t
ro
m E
E
ao r x.
site
U)
�I
® EBX Neuse -I, LLC 0 300 600 90
Pittsboro, NC 27312 Exhibit 6.2.
220 Chatham Business Drive Feet Biomonitoring Site Locations

N
k
S
? i
?t€ ::
A-040,? p ..
?r
CU Reference Reach Johanna Creek
.Ter % Y and Reference Wetland
r
® EBX Neuse-I, LLC o Exhibit 7.1.
220 Chatham Business Drive 0 300 600 90Feet Location Map of Reference
Pittsboro, NC 27312 Reach and Reference Wetland

10
Wo
0
c's.

Appendix A
Wetland Delineation Data and Forms
8000 Regency Parkway
Suite 200
u Air- m Cary, NC 27511
Nq%w Phone: [phone]
E N G I N E E R I N G ? Fax: [phone]
www.buckengineedng.com
T1 1T1'9
To: Ken Gilland &John Hutton
From: George Buchholz
Date: February2, 2005
Re: Cox Site Restoration Plan; Johnston County, North Carolina; Buck Project # 0214R
I am pleased to forward to you a summary letter detailing the jurisdictional wetland
delineation that was performed for a section of forested area located at the
referenced subject project site. Attached are completed wetland data forms that
correspond to the delineation. Jurisdictional wetlands were identified, flagged, and
GPS located. I believe you should already have the GPS points ready for
processing.
A. Wetland Delineation
Identification of jurisdictional wetlands on the subject project site was based on
guidelines presented in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987).
The Corps Manual identifies three mandatory criteria that must be satisfied for
making wetland determinations: hydric soils, a prevalence of hydrophytic ("water-
loving") vegetation, and wetland hydrology.
1. Delineation Criteria
• Hydrophytic Vegetation
The Corps Manual states that an area has hydrophytic vegetation when, "under
normal circumstances more than 50 percent of the composition of the dominant
species from all strata are obligate wetland (OBL), facultative-wetland (FACW),
and/or facultative (FAC) species" (Corps Manual, Section 35.a). As defined in the
Corps Manual, obligate wetland species "occur almost always (estimated probability
> 99%) in wetlands", facultative-wetland species "occur usually (estimated probability
>67% to 99%) in wetlands", and facultative species are those "with a similar likelihood
(estimated probability 33% to 67%) of occurring in both wetlands and non-wetlands".
Two additional indicator statuses are designated for non-wetland plants. Facultative-
upland (FACU) species "occur sometimes (estimated probability 1% to <33%) in
wetlands" and obligate upland (UPL) species "occur rarely (estimated probability
<1%) in wetlands". The scientific names of all species identified were recorded and
dominants were determined as recommended in the Corps Manual (Section 65.7).
Hydric Soils
The Corps Manual states criteria that render a soil hydric based on drainage class
and the duration of soil saturation. Due to the seasonal nature of these conditions,
soil saturation may not always be observed, but the Corps Manual provides specific
field indicators that provide evidence of this criterion being met. Of these indicators,
one of the most readily utilized in the field is soil color. Soil colors are categorized
into numerical codes using Munsell Soil Color Charts, a collection of predetermined
color codes organized in a systematic soil color identification book. The Corps
Manual identifies and discusses the color codes that usually characterize a hydric
mineral soil (Section 44.f). Hydric mineral soils usually have one of the following
features in the soil layer immediately below the surface material, or the A-horizon:
1) matrix chroma of 2 or less in mottled soils
2) matrix chroma of 1 or less in un-mottled soils
Field samples for color readings are taken immediately below the A horizon (surface
layer) or to at least a depth of 10 inches and compared to color samples in the
Munsell Charts.
Wetland Hydrology
The Corps Manual defines wetland hydrology as "... all hydrologic characteristics of
areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface at some
time during the growing season."
"Areas with evident characteristics of wetland hydrology are those where the
presence of water has an overriding influence on characteristics of vegetation and
soils due to anaerobic and reducing conditions, respectively. Such characteristics are
usually present in areas that are inundated or have soils that are saturated to the
surface for sufficient duration to develop hydric soils and support vegetation typically
adapted for life in periodically anaerobic soil conditions" (p. 34).
Subsequent guidance published October 7, 1991, and March 16, 1992, by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' Headquarters further clarifies the minimum thresholds that
define wetland hydrology. The three conditions necessary to establish whether
hydrology is present include: 1) the time-frame of the "growing season", 2) near-
surface groundwater levels, and 3) the consecutive period of time groundwater must
be present within this surface zone. The Norfolk District Corps Office has mandated
the growing season for the region as being the period each year beginning March 1
and ending December 6. The Corps Manual stipulates that areas which posses
wetland hydrology are seasonally inundated and/or saturated to within 12 inches the
surface for a consecutive period of time that constitutes at least 5% of the growing
® season, while areas that are not saturated to within 12 inches of the surface
consecutively for at least 5% of the growing season do not possess wetland
® hydrology. If an area is saturated within 12 inches of the surface for more than 5% of
the growing season but less than 12.5% of the growing season, other indicators of
® hydrology must be used to determine whether or not the area possesses wetland
® hydrology. If saturation exists for longer than 12.5% of the growing season, it is there
® is considered to be conclusive evidence that the area possesses wetland hydrology.
49 However, as a result of the substantial amount of time and effort required to
® determine whether wetland hydrology exists in a given area over time, the Corps
® Manual lists readily observable, "primary" field indicators that aid in evaluating
whether wetland hydrology is present. Examples of these indicators include:
observed inundation, soil saturation, watermarks, drift lines, sediment deposits, and
wetland drainage patterns. Areas observed to contain at least one primary indicator
® of wetland hydrology are generally considered to satisfy the wetland hydrology
® criterion. The March 16, 1992 Memorandum lists "secondary indicators" as well
which, when two or more of occur together, also constitute evidence of wetland
® hydrology. These "secondary" indicators are: oxidized root channels in the upper 12
inches of soil, water-stained leaves, local soil survey data, passage of the FAC-
neutral test, and other morphological or physiological plant adaptations to wetland
conditions.
® Of these "secondary" indicators, passage of the FAC-neutral test and observations of
plant adaptations are mainly independent of short-term fluctuations in water-table and
precipitation levels, and are thus viewed by the Corps as important indicators of long-
term site conditions. A sampling point "passes" the FAC-neutral test "when more
® than 50 percent of all considered species are wetter than FAC". In essence, the FAC
® species are considered as neutral, and the decision regarding hydrology is based
upon whether the majority of species are typically found in wetlands (OBL, FACW±,
FAC+) or non-wetlands (UPL, FACU±, FAC-) (Corps Manual page 23, paragraph
® 35a).
2. Review of Published Information
® Before the on-site inspection of the property was initiated, existing reference materials
® were reviewed to identify the location of possible wetland boundaries. This review
included the U.S. Geological Survey "Newton Grove North, North Carolina" 7.5
minute quadrangle, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "National Wetland Inventory"
(NWI) Maps, U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Johnston County, NC,
® and aerial photographs.
The U.S.G.S. "Newton Grove North" quadrangle indicate that the site has little
topographic variation and the NWI map shows PF01A (palustrine forested broad-
leaved deciduous temporarily flooded) wetland areas within the section of forested
that was examined as part of this wetland delineation. This wetland community was
confirmed to be jurisdictional wetlands during the field findings.
3. Field Findings
• Vegetation
The field delineation revealed that the section of the subject project site to be
delineated consists of a forested community with the following dominant vegetation:
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer
rubrum), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), high bush blueberry (Vaccinium
corymbosum), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea)
American holly (Ilex opaca), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), yellow
jasmine (Gelseminium sempervirens), and wax myrtle (Morelia cerifera). The percent
of dominant of species comprised from all strata that are considered to be
hydrophytic vegetation ranged from 90 to 100 percent. Therefore, the composition of
dominant vegetation within the delineated forested community meets the vegetation
criteria of a wetland system according to the Corps Manual.
• Soils
According to the Soil Survey of Johnston County, North Carolina, the soils within that
section of the subject project site to be delineated are listed and described as
Pantego loam (occasionally flooded - Typic Endoquepts) which is a deep, nearly
level, and poorly drained, hydric soil. Soil samples taken within that confirmed the
presence hydric soils which measured a color ranging from 10YR2/1 to 10YR3/1. No
mottles were present within the soil samples. Oxidized roots channels within the
upper 12 inches of the soil surface and slight reducing conditions were observed
within the soil samples. Soil samples with low chroma colors are considered hydric
soils according to the Corps Manual, and therefore, meet the soil criteria of a wetland
system.
• Hydrology
During the field investigations, primary and secondary indicators of wetland
hydrology were observed within that section of the subject project site to be
delineated. Primary indicators of wetland hydrology that were observed include:
inundation, saturation, water marks, and drainage patterns. Secondary wetland
hydrology indicators that were observed include: oxidized root channels, water
stained leaves, and satisfying the FAC-neutral test. The presence of primary and
secondary indicators of wetland hydrology within the forested community is evidence
that the forested community is periodically inundated or has soils saturated to the
surface at some time during the growing season; and therefore, meets the hydrology
criteria of a wetland system according to the Corps Manual.
4. Wetlands Delineation
Based on the review of published information and field findings, the forested
community section of the subject project site to be delineated has been determined
to be jurisdictional wetlands. The boundary of the jurisdictional wetland was flagged
and GPS located. The wetland system would be classified as a PF01 A headwater
wetland system; and therefore, regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Currently, the jurisdictional wetland delineation has not been confirmed by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. If it is determined that a jurisdictional determination is
required, I would be glad to assist.
Y
b
CD
a
tz
Appendix B
Cultural and Natural Resources Correspondence
A I
llili??a
NC®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Govemor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
October 4, 2004
Ms. Jessica Rohrbach
Buck Engineering
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
Subject: Plan for Stream and Wetland Restoration on Cox Site; Johnston County
Dear Ms. Rohrbach:
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or
priority natural areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area. Although our maps do not
show records of such natural heritage elements in the project area, it does not necessarily mean
that they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The use of
Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if
the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or
priority natural areas.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at
<www.ncsparks.net/nhp/search.html> for a listing of rare plants and animals and significant
natural communities in the county and on the topographic quad map. Please do not hesitate to
contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
; 7 f z ,h
Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
HEL/hel
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 OnrthCarolina
Phone: [phone] • FAX: [phone] • Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us y+ //
An Equal Opportunity • Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled • 10 % Post Consumer Paper Naturally

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck. Administrator
Dfichacl F. Easley, Governor
Lisb,eth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
September 21, 2004
Staci Ricks
Buck Engineering
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
Re: Mitigation plan for stream and wetland restoration on
Cox Farm, Johnston County, ER 04-2292
Dear Ms. Ricks:
Thank you for your letter of August 17, 2004, concerning the above project.
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project 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,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
(Sincerely,
<tl_`?ter B. Sandbeck
PBS:w
Locatl aa Mailing Address TelephanelFaz
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1617 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 46171.4ai1 Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 [phone]n154801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 [phone]/7154801
Y
b
b
a
a.
k
n
Appendix C
EDR Transaction Screen Map Report
RR' Environmental
Data Resources Inc
The EDR Radius MapTM
Report
with ToxiCheck°
COX Site
Westbrook Lowgrounds Rd
TOUR OAKS, NC 27524
Inquiry Number: 01291448.1r
October 20, 2004
The Standard in
Environmental Risk
Management Information
440 Wheelers Farms Road
Milford, Connecticut 06460
Nationwide Customer Service
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Internet: www.edrnet.com
FORM 011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Executive Summary------------------------------------------------------- ES1
Overview Map----------------------------------------------------------- 3
Detail Map-------------------------------------------------------------- 4
Map Findings Summary ---------------------------------------------------- 5
Map Findings------------------------------------------------------------ 7
Orphan Summary--------------------------------------------------------- 8
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GR-1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
GeoCheck - Not Requested
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 information obtained from a variety of public and 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 EDR BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. It can not be concluded from this report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not
exist from other sources. Any analyses, estimates, ratings 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. Any liability on the part of EDR is strictly limited to a refund of the amount paid for this report.
Copyright 2004 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.
TC01291448.1 r Pagel

TOXICHECK
Subject Property: COX SITE
WESTBROOK LOWGROUNDS RD
FOUR OAKS, NC 27524
Environmental Risk Code: LOW
® This code results from the subject property not being listed in those databases as indicated in the Report
and not located within : 1/2 mile of a reported Superfund Site (NPL) ; 1/2 mile of a reported Hazardous
® Waste Treatment, Storage or Disposal Facility (RCRIS-TSDF); 1/4 mile of a reported known or suspect
® CERCLIS hazardous waste site ; 1/4 mile of a reported known or suspect State Hazardous Waste site
(SHWS); 1/2 mile of a reported Solid Waste Facility or Landfill (SWF/LF); or 1/8 mile of a site with a
® reported Leaking Underground Storage Tank incident (LUST).

This code is based solely on the results of searches of databases comprised of certain governmental records
as made available to EDR and reflected in the attached report. Without further confirmation by completing an
Environmental Site Assessment, the conditions affecting the property are unknown. Further investigation by
an environmental professional may be appropriate. This Report is not a substitute for a Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment conducted by an environmental professional . Nothing in this Report should be construed to
mean that any environmental remediation is or is not necessary with respect to the subject property.
Disclaimer
Copyright and Trademark Notice
This report contains information obtained from a variety of public and other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED,
IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES INC. SPECIFICALLY
DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OFANY 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 EDR BE LIABLE TO
ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY
LOSS OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.
Entire contents copyright 2001 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 the edr logos are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the
property of their respective owners.
TC01291448.1r PageTK-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
(EDR). The report meets the government records search requirements of ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments, E 1527-00. Search distances are per ASTM standard or custom
distances requested by the user.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
WESTBROOK LOWGROUNDS RD
FOUR OAKS, NC 27524
COORDINATES
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranver
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
35.352300 - 35' 21'8.3"
78.276500 - 78' 16' 35.4"
3e Mercator: Zone 17
747490.8
3915319.2
94 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property: 35078-C3 NEWTON GROVE NORTH, NC
Source: USGS 7.5 min quad index
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ( "reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the ASTM E 1527-00 search radius around the target
property for the following databases:
FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD
NPL------------------------- National Priority List
Proposed NPL-------------- Proposed National Priority List Sites
CERCLIS--------------------. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
. System
CERC-NFRAP---------------. CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned
CORRACTS-----------------. Corrective Action Report
RCRIS-TSD------------------ Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
RCRIS-LOG------------------ Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
RCRIS-SQG-----------------. Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
ERNS------------------------ Emergency Response Notification System
STATE ASTM STANDARD
SHWS------------------------ Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
TC01291448.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
?J
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SWF/LF______________________ List of Solid Waste Facilities
LUST------------------------. Regional UST Database
UST -------------------------- Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
OLI--------------------------. Old Landfill Inventory
INDIAN UST-----------------. Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
INDIAN LUST ---------------- Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
VCP-------------------------- Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL
CONSENT ------------------- Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
ROD------------------------- Records Of Decision
Delisted NPL---------------. National Priority List Deletions
FINDS-----------------------. Facility Index System/Facility Identification Initiative Program Summary Report
HMIRS----------------------- Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
MILTS------------------------ Material Licensing Tracking System
MINES----------------------- Mines Master Index File
NPL Liens------------------- Federal Superfund Liens
PADS------------------------ PCB Activity Database System
ODI-------------------------- Open Dump Inventory
UMTRA---------------------- Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
FUDS------------------------ Formerly Used Defense Sites
INDIAN RESERV------------- Indian Reservations
DOD------------------------- Department of Defense Sites
RAATS_______________________ RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
TRIS_________________________ Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
TSCA________________________ Toxic Substances Control Act
SSTS------------------------. Section 7 Tracking Systems
FITS INSP------------------- FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, &
. Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
STATE OR LOCAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL
NC HSDS-------------------- Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
AST -------------------------- AST Database
LUST TRUST---------------- State Trust Fund Database
DRYCLEANERS_____________ Drycleaning Sites
IMD-------------------------- Incident Management Database
EDR PROPRIETARY HISTORICAL DATABASES
Coal Gas--------------------. Former Manufactured Gas (Coal Gas) Sites
BROWNFIELDS DATABASES
US BROWNFIELDS---------- A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Brownfields------------------ Brownfields Projects Inventory
INST CONTROL------------. No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
VCP-------------------------- Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were not identified.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
TC01291448.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped:
Site Name
NORRIS GAS & GROCERY
HOLTS LAKE LIFT STATION
KING BUILDING
CLOVERLEAF GULF SVC
MCLAMBS AMOCO
WALLENS RES./M.J. ALLEN STORE
BEASLEYS STORE
MARLER PROPERTY - AMOCO 539
HANSLEY HANDI MART
NORRIS GAS & GROCERY
BEASLEY'S STORE
ELDRIDGE GENERAL MERCHANDISE
BENTONVILLE BATTLEGROUND HST
ALSTON R BAREFOOT
MILLER'S GROC
BEASLEY'S STORE
JIFF MART 2
COUNTRY STORE
SOUTH JOHNSTON HIGH SCHOOL
PAUL'S RESTAURANT
BAKER'S GAS & GROCERY
TRADE MART 108
JOHNSON & ELDRIDGE GROC
701 GULF SER
SOUTHERN STATES
C & C SUNOCO
Database(s)
IMD, LUST
IMD, LUST
IMD, LUST
IMD, LUST, UST
IMD, LUST, UST, LUST
TRUST
IMD, LUST
IMD, LUST
IMD, LUST
IMD, LUST
UST, LUST TRUST
LUST TRUST
LUST TRUST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
TC01291448.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
0 OVERVIEW MAP - 01291448.1 r - Buck Engineering

/Z X
%j
Al,
' jam' ; ,, ?; / /; /•
k Target Property
® A Sites at elevations higher than
® or equal to the target property
h
• Sites at elevations lower t
an
® the target property
1 Coal Gasification Sites
® El National Priority List Sites
® ED Landfill Sites
i I' Dept. Defense Sites

TARGET PROPERTY: Cox Site CUSTOMER: Buck Engineering
ADDRESS: Westbrook Lowgrounds Rd CONTACT: Jessica Rohrach
CITY/STATE/ZIP: FOUR OAKS NC 27524 INQUIRY #: 01291448.1r
® LAT/LONG: 35.3523/ 78.2765 DATE: October 20, 2004 9:58 am
Copyright 0 2004 EDR, Inc . 0 2003 GDT, Inc. Rel. 07120G3. All Rights Reserved.

0 114 1/2 1 u,ics
{
E j Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
Disposal Sites
,A/ Oil & Gas pipelines
100-year flood zone
500-year flood zone
Federal wetlands
DETAIL MAP - 01291448.1 r - Buck Engineering
/ %

/, 1

--' Target Property
A Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
• Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
A Coal Gasification Sites
i Sensitive Receptors
El National Priority List Sites
Ej Landfill Sites
i ' Dept. Defense Sites
0 1/16 1/6 1/4 Miles
F - 7 Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
Disposal Sites
Oil & Gas pipelines
/ 10o-year flood zone
0 500-year flood zone
0 Federal Wetlands
TARGET PROPERTY: Cox Site CUSTOMER: Buck Engineering
ADDRESS: Westbrook Lowgrounds Rd CONTACT: Jessica Rohrach
CITY/STATE/ZIP: FOUR OAKS NC 27524 INQUIRY #: 01291448.1r
LAT/LONG: 35.3523/78.2765 DATE: October 20, 2004 9:58 am
Copyright O 2004 EDR, Inc. 0 2003 GDT, Inc. Rel. 071200J. All Rights Reserved.
e
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Target Distance Total
Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD
NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
Proposed NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
CERCLIS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
CERC-NFRAP 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
CORRACTS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
RCRIS-TSD 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
RCRIS Lg. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
RCRIS Sm. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
ERNS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
STATE ASTM STANDARD
State Haz. Waste 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
State Landfill 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
LUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
OLI 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
INDIAN UST 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
INDIAN LUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
VCP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL
CONSENT 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
ROD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
Delisted NPL 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
FINDS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
HMIRS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
MILTS; TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
MINES 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
NPL Liens TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
PADS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
ODI 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
UMTRA 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
FUDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
INDIAN RESERV 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
DOD 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
RAATS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TRIS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
TSCA TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
SSTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
FTTS TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
STATE OR LOCAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL
NC HSDS 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
TC01291448.1 r Page 5
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Target Distance Total
Database Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
AST TP NR NR NR NR NR 0
LUST TRUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
DRYCLEANERS 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
IMD 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
EDR PROPRIETARY HISTORICAL DATABASES
Coal Gas 1.000 0 0 0 0 NR 0
BROWNFIELDS DATABASES
US BROWNFIELDS 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
Brownfields 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
INST CONTROL 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
VCP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
NOTES:
TP = Target Property
NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
TC01291448.1 r Page 6
Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction
Distance
Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
Coal Gas Site Search: No site was found in a search of Real Property Scan's ENVIROHAZ database.
NO SITES FOUND
TC01291448.1 r Page 7
}
Q
a
2.
U
Z
a
x
a
m
O
N
N
czj
ro
N
D
F- J
CL Z) D N
F-
F- F- F- F- F F F-
J J¢ J J J J F J J J J
F F- F- p c0 F- F- F- F- p p p p !- F- F- F- F- j p p p p
v v a a a ?r v v v v v v v It It It v v v v v It v v It It
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
n n o m m m m m w n n n n m r m m n r n m m r m w m n
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
v
Q
N
W
E
11
Z
N
U)
p
LU
W
U
N
2 p
F O F
V 2 to
O U
U)
O M 7 0 a V
w ¢ U rn Q p
Cl) x D m Cc `-° Cc z o m
x F- O F- Z ¢ o n n
X a }
m n < cc cc 0 C') LO z W,
a a m x z U x z m¢ U W y N X umi
m O N 000 m m m o ¢O ,) mO Y a OY o z\ O CO US m O Q z vi co N N a M O Z Q Z g v W O I U Q Fj
w w w m m w w c°o cc, M c°h c°, m w °n m p Z ' o
F- F- M co n? r v j o m? °'
000 F-U F-F-00 0 $ F- 0 O N n
Q 2 Q 2 S 0 0 0 2 S S x m 2 X X¢¢ S? O - Z _
p 0 Z Ct co
z U a O
0 a: U) 0
m ¢¢ O_ U m U) cc 0 0
¢ 0 W w 2
C7 W W F > C7 w w:?E J a F-
F-.U U Fa- N 2 p U a } Q
F O Q CL W W w F es- J O z a m Q c W w Q
m w a a O U O 2 F- ? U? j? o p w ? Q¢ W p
m a a c0 a c0 N O Y O W a S c0 a CL .6 O u)¢ z O 2= 0
z z vii u) W W¢¢ Q m _° 2 p (W7 _j Z W W¢ W
_j u) Ec w
O [L CL
w Z m> J W 0 Z CY C7 J (!7 --? V7
I :5 -j
U
ZW J O Cc cc < < O W W LL o o Z OJ o 0 a a¢ 0- O a O w a a
m a z z co m:i U x Y U 2 t0 a m F- , W r3: <0 co 2 S U
(O V o o m n m (O r- V O c0 M m 8 N o a (O m m N (2 O V
I- M n n n n N O O O N N V I- n n m O N O O
m n N M M M (O 1n f0 O M (O O M ?- M M M M V (O
m (D V' (O (O V V ,? '?! f?
f? OI m M M m n M V V V
M M M V O V (r0 n n N of
V_ V V N '? M m
(P N M t? In co M N l1) M to (f7 N
O O O O O O O O O O_ O O O O O O O O _O O O O O_ O_ O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
r0 t0 7 7 (0 c0 7 D D U) Z) 0 7 0 w 0
?
N N N O
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a m
000000000000000000000000ow
2 2 CL 2 CL CL Q Q Q Q Q 2? Q CL OC ? 2? CL ? 2 2? CL p
O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O o O 00
Co
O)
co
CL
It:
c6
V
V
N
0
U
F-
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
To maintain currency of the following federal and state databases, EDR contacts the appropriate governmental agency
on a monthly or quarterly basis, as required.
Elapsed ASTM days: Provides confirmation that this EDR report meets or exceeds the 90-day updating requirement
of the ASTM standard.
FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD RECORDS
NPL: National Priority List
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
National Priorities List (Superfund). The NPL is a subset of CERCLIS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority
cleanup under the Superfund Program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. As such, EDR provides polygon
coverage for over 1,000 NPL site boundaries produced by EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
(EPIC) and regional EPA offices.
Date of Government Version: 07/30/04
Date Made Active at EDR: 09/09/04
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 08/03/04
Elapsed ASTM days: 37
Date of Last EDR Contact: 08/03/04
NPL Site Boundaries
Sources:
EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC)
Telephone: [phone]
EPA Region 1
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 3
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 4
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 6
Telephone: [phone]
EPA Region 8
Telephone: [phone]
Proposed NPL: Proposed National Priority List Sites
Source: EPA
® Telephone: N/A
® Date of Government Version: 07/22/04 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 08/03/04
Date Made Active at EDR: 09/09/04 Elapsed ASTM days: 37
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 08/03/04
® CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
CERCLIS contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities,
® private companies and private persons, pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLIS contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities
® List (NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL.
Date of Government Version: 05/17/04 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 06/23/04
Date Made Active at EDR: 08/10/04 Elapsed ASTM days: 48
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/21/04
CERCLIS-NFRAP: CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
® As of February 1995, CERCLIS sites designated "No Further Remedial Action Planned' (NFRAP) have been removed
from CERCLIS. NFRAP sites may be sites where, following an initial investigation, no contamination was found,
contamination was removed quickly without the need for the site to be placed on the NPL, or the contamination
was not serious enough to require Federal Superfund action or NPL consideration. EPA has removed approximately
25,000 NFRAP sites to lift the unintended barriers to the redevelopment of these properties and has archived them
as historical records so EPA does not needlessly repeat the investigations in the future. This policy change is
® part of the EPA's Brownfields Redevelopment Program to help cities, states, private investors and affected citizens
to promote economic redevelopment of unproductive urban sites.
e
is
s
s
s
TC01291448.1r Page GR-1
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 05/17104 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 06/23/04
Date Made Active at EDR: 08/10/04 Elapsed ASTM days: 48
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/21/04
CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
CORRACTS identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity.
Date of Government Version: 06/15/04 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 06/25/04
Date Made Active at EDR: 08110/04 Elapsed ASTM days: 46
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/07104
RCRIS: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System. RCRIS includes selective information on sites which generate,
transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs): generate less than 100 kg of hazardous
waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. Small quantity generators (SQGs): generate between
100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month. Large quantity generators (LQGs): generate over 1,000 kilograms
(kg) of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. Transporters are individuals or
entities that move hazardous waste from the generator off-site to a facility that can recycle, treat, store, or
dispose of the waste. TSDFs treat, store, or dispose of the waste.
Date of Government Version: 08/10/04 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 08/24/04
Date Made Active at ED R: 10/11/04 Elapsed ASTM days: 48
Database Release Frequency: Varies Date of Last EDR Contact: 08/24/04
ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System
Source: National Response Center, United States Coast Guard
Telephone: [phone]
Emergency Response Notification System. ERNS records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous
substances.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/03 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 01/26/04
Date Made Active at EDR: 03/12/04 Elapsed ASTM days: 46
Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 07/26/04
FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL RECORDS
BRS: Biennial Reporting System
Source: EPA/NTIS
Telephone: [phone]
The Biennial Reporting System is a national system administered by the EPA that collects data on the generation
and management of hazardous waste. BRS captures detailed data from two groups: Large Quantity Generators (LQG)
and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities.
Date of Government Version: 12/01/01
Database Release Frequency: Biennially
Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/20/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/13/04
CONSENT: Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
Source: Department of Justice, Consent Decree Library
Telephone: Varies
Major legal settlements that establish responsibility and standards for cleanup at NPL (Superfund) sites. Released
periodically by United States District Courts after settlement by parties to litigation matters.
Date of Government Version: 03/05/04
Database Release Frequency: Varies
Date of Last EDR Contact: 07/30/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/25/04
TC01291448.1 r Page GR-2

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
ROD: Records Of Decision
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Record of Decision. ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy at an NPL (Superfund) site containing technical
and health information to aid in the cleanup.
Date of Government Version: 06/07/04
Database Release Frequency: Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 07/07/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/04/04
DELISTED NPL: National Priority List Deletions
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the
EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the
NPL where no further response is appropriate.
Date of Government Version: 07/30/04
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Last EDR Contact: 08/03/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/01/04
® FINDS: Facility Index System/Facility Identification Initiative Program Summary Report
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Facility Index System. FINDS contains both facility information and 'pointers' to other sources that contain more
detail. EDR includes the following FINDS databases in this report: PCS (Permit Compliance System), AIRS (Aerometric
Information Retrieval System), DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial
® enforcement cases for all environmental statutes), FURS (Federal Underground Injection Control), C-DOCKET (Criminal
Docket System used to track criminal enforcement actions for all environmental statutes), FFIS (Federal Facilities
Information System), STATE (State Environmental Laws and Statutes), and PADS (PCB Activity Data System).
Is Date of Government Version: 04/08/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 07/06/04
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/04/04
®
HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation
® Telephone: [phone]
t
t
ill i
id
d t
DOT
H
d
M
i
l
I
id
R
S
HMIRS
i
h
d
i
l
t
.
azar
ous
a
er
a
s
nc
ent
eport
ys
em.
conta
ns
azar
ous mater
a
sp
nc
ents repor
e
o
Date of Government Version: 02/17/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 04/20/04
Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/19/04

MILTS: Material Licensing Tracking System
Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Telephone: [phone]
® MLTS is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and contains a list of approximately 8,100 sites which
® possess or use radioactive materials and which are subject to NRC licensing requirements. To maintain currency,
EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis.
® Date of Government Version: 07/15/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 07/06/04
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/04/04

MINES: Mines Master Index File
Source: Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration
® Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: 06/04/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/28/04
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/27/04
® NPL LIENS: Federal Superfund Liens
Source: EPA
® Telephone: [phone]
Federal Superfund Liens. Under the authority granted the USEPA by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, the USEPA has the authority to file liens against real property in order
® to recover remedial action expenditures or when the property owner receives notification of potential liability.
USEPA compiles a listing of filed notices of Superfund Liens.
119
is
40
is
40
40
TC01291448.1 r Page GR-3
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /,DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 10/15/91
Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned
Date of Last EDR Contact: 08/23/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/22/04
PADS: PCB Activity Database System
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
PCB Activity Database. PADS Identifies generators, transporters, commercial storers and/or brokers and disposers
of PCB's who are required to notify the EPA of such activities.
Date of Government Version: 06/29/04
Database Release Frequency: Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 08/10/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/04
DOD: Department of Defense Sites
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
This data set consists of federally owned or administered lands, administered by the Department of Defense, that
have any area equal to or greater than 640 acres of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Date of Government Version: 10/01/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 08/12/04
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/04
INDIAN RESERV: Indian Reservations
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
This map layer portrays Indian administered lands of the United States that have any area equal to or greater
than 640 acres.
Date of Government Version: 10/01/03
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 08/12/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/04
FUDS: Formerly Used Defense Sites
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Telephone: [phone]
The listing includes locations of Formerly Used Defense Sites properties where the US Army Corps of Engineers
is actively working or will take necessary cleanup actions.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/03 Date of Last EDR Contact: 07/06/04
Database Release Frequency: Varies Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/04/04
STORMWATER: Storm Water General Permits
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
A listing of all facilities with Storm Water General Permits.
Date of Government Version: 02/04/04
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Last EDR Contact: 07/06/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/04/04
RMP: Risk Management Plans
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
When Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, it required EPA to publish regulations and guidance
for chemical accident prevention at facilities using extremely hazardous substances. The Risk Management Program
Rule (RMP Rule) was written to implement Section 112(r) of these amendments. The rule, which built upon existing
industry codes and standards, requires companies of all sizes that use certain flammable and toxic substances
to develop a Risk Management Program, which includes a(n): Hazard assessment that details the potential effects
of an accidental release, an accident history of the last five years, and an evaluation of worst-case and alternative
accidental releases; Prevention program that includes safety precautions and maintenance, monitoring, and employee
training measures; and Emergency response program that spells out emergency health care, employee training measures
and procedures for informing the public and response agencies (e.g the fire department) should an accident occur.
TC01291448.1r Page GR-4
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 05/27/04
Database Release Frequency: Varies
Date of Last EDR Contact: 08/23/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/22/04
UMTRA: Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
Source: Department of Energy
Telephone: [phone]
Uranium ore was mined by private companies for federal government use in national defense programs. When the mills
shut down, large piles of the sand-like material (mill tailings) remain after uranium has been extracted from
the ore. Levels of human exposure to radioactive materials from the piles are low; however, in some cases tailings
were used as construction materials before the potential health hazards of the tailings were recognized. In 1978,
24 inactive uranium mill tailings sites in Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Pennsylvania, and on Navajo and Hopi tribal lands, were targeted for cleanup by the Department of
Energy.
Date of Government Version: 04/22/04
Database Release Frequency: Varies
Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/20/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/20/04
ODI: Open Dump Inventory
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
An open dump is defined as a disposal facility that does not comply with one or more of the Part 257 or Part 258
Subtitle D Criteria.
Date of Government Version: 06/30/85
Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned
Date of Last EDR Contact: 05/23/95
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
RCRA Administration Action Tracking System. RAATS contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA
pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA. For administration
actions after September 30, 1995, data entry in the RAATS database was discontinued. EPA will retain a copy of
the database for historical records. It was necessary to terminate RAATS because a decrease in agency resources
made it impossible to continue to update the information contained in the database.
Date of Government Version: 04/17/95
Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned
Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/07/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/06/04
TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Toxic Release Inventory System. TRIS identifies facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air, water and
land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III Section 313.
Date of Government Version: 12/31102
Database Release Frequency: Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/20/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/20/04
TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Toxic Substances Control Act. TSCA identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the
TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. It includes data on the production volume of these substances by plant
site.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/02
Database Release Frequency: Every 4 Years
Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/07/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/06/04
FTTS INSP: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
TC01291448.1r PageGR-5
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 04/13/04
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/07/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/20/04
SSTS: Section 7 Tracking Systems
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Section 7 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended (92 Stat. 829) requires all
registered pesticide-producing establishments to submit a report to the Environmental Protection Agency by March
1 st each year. Each establishment must report the types and amounts of pesticides, active ingredients and devices
being produced, and those having been produced and sold or distributed in the past year.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/01
Database Release Frequency: Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 07/20/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/18/04
FTTS: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
Source: EPA/Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Telephone: [phone]
FTTS tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA,
TSCA and EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act). To maintain currency, EDR contacts the
Agency on a quarterly basis.
Date of Government Version: 04/13/04 Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/07/04
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/20/04
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ASTM STANDARD RECORDS
SHWS: Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
State Hazardous Waste Sites. State hazardous waste site records are the states' equivalent to CERCLIS. These sites
may or may not already be listed on the federal CERCLIS list. Priority sites planned for cleanup using state funds
(state equivalent of Superfund) are identified along with sites where cleanup will be paid for by potentially
responsible parties. Available information varies by state.
Date of Government Version: 08/25104
Date Made Active at EDR: 10118/04
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/20/04
Elapsed ASTM days: 28
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/13/04
SWF/LF: List of Solid Waste Facilities
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites. SWF/LF type records typically contain an inventory of solid waste disposal
facilities or landfills in a particular state. Depending on the state, these may be active or inactive facilities
or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Subtitle D Section 4004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposal
sites.
Date of Government Version: 07/27/04
Date Made Active at EDR: 08/31/04
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 07/27/04
Elapsed ASTM days: 35
Date of Last EDR Contact: 07/26/04
LUST: Regional UST Database
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
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: 09/03/04
Date Made Active at EDR: 10/06/04
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/08/04
Elapsed ASTM days: 28
Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/08/04
TC01291448.1r PageGR-6
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
UST: Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Registered Underground Storage Tanks. UST's are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) and must be registered with the state department responsible for administering the UST program. Available
information varies by state program.
Date of Government Version: 08/27/04
Date Made Active at EDR: 10/07/04
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/08/04
Elapsed ASTM days: 29
Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/08/04
OLI: Old Landfill Inventory
Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Old landfill inventory location information. (Does not include no further action sites and other agency lead
sites).
Date of Government Version: 08/25/04
Date Made Active at EDR: 10/06/04
Database Release Frequency: Varies
VCP: Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: 07/14/04
Date Made Active at EDR: 08/16/04
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
INDIAN UST: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
Source: EPA Region 4
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: 09/14/04
Date Made Active at EDR: 10/18/04
Database Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
Source: EPA Region 4
Telephone: [phone]
LUSTs on Indian land in Florida, Minnesota, Mississippi and North Carolina.
Date of Government Version: 09/14/04
Date Made Active at EDR: 10/18/04
Database Release Frequency: Varies
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL RECORDS
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 08/26/04
Elapsed ASTM days: 41
Date of Last EDR Contact: 08/25/04
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 07/15/04
Elapsed ASTM days: 32
Date of Last EDR Contact: 07/12/04
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/15/04
Elapsed ASTM days: 33
Date of Last EDR Contact: 08/23104
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/15/04
Elapsed ASTM days: 33
Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/07/04
HSDS: Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
Source: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
Locations of uncontrolled and unregulated hazardous waste sites. The file includes sites on the National Priority
List as well as those on the state priority list.
Date of Government Version: 06/21/95
Database Release Frequency: Biennially
Date of Last EDR Contact: 08/30/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/29/04
AST: AST Database
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Facilities with aboveground storage tanks that have a capacity greater than 21,000 gallons.
TC01291448.1r Pa9eGR-7
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 01/09/04
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 07/19/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/18/04
LUST TRUST: State Trust Fund Database
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
This database contains information about claims against the State Trust Funds for reimbursements for expenses
incurred while remediating Leaking USTs.
Date of Government Version: 08/06/04
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 08/10/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/04
DRYCLEANERS: Drycleaning Sites
Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Potential and known drycleaning sites, active and abandoned, that the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program has
knowledge of and entered into this database.
Date of Government Version: 05/19/04
Database Release Frequency: Varies
Date of Last EDR Contact: 07/19/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/18/04
IMD: Incident Management Database
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Groundwater and/or soil contamination incidents
Date of Government Version: 06/15/04
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Last EDR Contact: 07/27/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/25/04
EDR PROPRIETARY HISTORICAL DATABASES
Former Manufactured Gas (Coal Gas) Sites: The existence and location of Coal Gas sites is provided exclusively to
EDR by Real Property Scan, Inc. CCopyright 1993 Real Property Scan, Inc. For a technical description of the types
of hazards which may be found at such sites, contact your EDR customer service representative.
Disclaimer Provided by Real Property Scan, Inc.
The information contained in this report has predominantly been obtained from publicly available sources produced by entities
other than Real Property Scan. While reasonable steps have been taken to insure the accuracy of this report, Real Property
Scan does not guarantee the accuracy of this report. Any liability on the part of Real Property Scan is strictly limited to a refund
of the amount paid. No claim is made for the actual existence of toxins at any site. This report does not constitute a legal
opinion.
BROWNFIELDS DATABASES
Brownfields: Brownfields Projects Inventory
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
A brownfield site is an abandoned, idled, or underused property where the threat of environmental contamination
has hindered its redevelopment. All of the sites in the inventory are working toward a brownfield agreement for
cleanup and liabitliy control.
Date of Government Version: 03/31/04
Database Release Frequency: Varies
Date of Last EDR Contact: 08/03/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/01/04
TC01291448.11r PageGR-8
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
VCP: Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: 07/14/04
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
INST CONTROL: No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: 07/14/04
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Last EDR Contact: 07/12/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/11/04
Date of Last EDR Contact: 07/12/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/11/04
US BROWNFIELDS: A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Included in the listing are brownfields properties addresses by Cooperative Agreement Recipients and brownfields
properties addressed by Targeted Brownfields Assessments. Targeted Brownfields Assessments-EPA's Targeted Brownfields
Assessments (TBA) program is designed to help states, tribes, and municipalities--especially those without EPA
Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots--minimize the uncertainties of contamination often associated with
brownfields. Under the TBA program, EPA provides funding and/or technical assistance for environmental assessments
at brownfields sites throughout the country. Targeted Brownfields Assessments supplement and work with other efforts
under EPA's Brownfields Initiative to promote cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields. Cooperative Agreement
Recipients-States, political subdivisions, territories, and Indian tribes become BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients
when they enter into BCRLF cooperative agreements with the U.S. EPA. EPA selects BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients
based on a proposal and application process. BCRLF cooperative agreement recipients must use EPA funds provided
through BCRLF cooperative agreement for specified brownfields-related cleanup activities.
Date of Government Version: N/A Date of Last EDR Contact: N/A
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
OTHER DATABASE(S)
Depending on the geographic area covered by this report, the data provided in these specialty databases may or may not be
complete. For example, the existence of wetlands information data in a specific report does not mean that all wetlands in the
area covered by the report are included. Moreover, the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily
mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report.
Oil/Gas Pipelines: This data was obtained by EDR from the USGS in 1994. It is referred to by USGS as GeoData Digital Line Graphs
from 1:100,000-Scale Maps. It was extracted from the transportation category including some oil, but primarily
gas pipelines.
Electric Power Transmission Line Data
Source: PennWell Corporation
Telephone: [phone]
This map includes information copyrighted by PennWell Corporation. This information is provided
on a best effort basis and PennWell Corporation does not guarantee its accuracy nor warrant its
fitness for any particular purpose. Such information has been reprinted with the permission of PennWell.
Sensitive Receptors: There are individuals deemed sensitive receptors due to their fragile immune systems and special sensitivity
to environmental discharges. These sensitive receptors typically include the elderly, the sick, and children. While the location of all
sensitive receptors cannot be determined, EDR indicates those buildings and facilities - schools, daycares, hospitals, medical centers,
and nursing homes - where individuals who are sensitive receptors are likely to be located.
AHA Hospitals:
Source: American Hospital Association, Inc.
Telephone: [phone]
The database includes a listing of hospitals based on the American Hospital Association's annual survey of hospitals.
Medical Centers: Provider of Services Listing
Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Telephone: [phone]
A listing of hospitals with Medicare provider number, produced by Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services,
a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
TC01 291448.1 r Page GR-9
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Nursing Homes
Source: National Institutes of Health
Telephone: [phone]
Information on Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes in the United States.
Public Schools
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
Telephone: [phone]
The National Center for Education Statistics' primary database on elementary
and secondary public education in the United States. It is a comprehensive, annual, national statistical
database of all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts, which contains data that are
comparable across all states.
Private Schools
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
Telephone: [phone]
The National Center for Education Statistics' primary database on private school locations in the United States.
Daycare Centers: Child Care Facility List
Source: Department of Health & Human Services
Telephone: [phone]
Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 1999 from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100-year and 500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA.
NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR
in 2002 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION
© 2003 Geographic Data Technology, Inc., Rel. 07/2003. This product contains proprietary and confidential property of Geographic
Data Technology, Inc. Unauthorized use, including copying for other than testing and standard backup procedures, of this product is
expressly prohibited.
TC01291448.1r PageGR-10

b
b
a
a
?e
d
Appendix D
DRAINMOD Input Data
DRAINNIOD.GEN File Used to Simulate the Existing hydrology at Well 1.
••• Job Title •••
EBX Westbrook Lowgrounds Mitigation Site - well 1 Existing Condition Simulations
Smithfield Weather Data - Jan 1970 to Early February 2002
••• Printout and Input control ••'
3 101 C:\Drainmod\outputs
••• Climate •••
100000 L:\PROJECTS\043. EDX-WESTBROOK\DRAIIIMOD\SMIV FIELD_1970-2002.RAI
100000 L:\PROJECTS\043. EDX-WESTRROOK\DRAINMOD\SMITIFIELD_1970-2002.TEM
1970 1 2002 2 3530 77 0
2.01 2.32 2.10 1.72 1.23 1.00 .86 .02 .92 1.05 1.22 1.44
••• Drainage System Design ---
1 .00
116.00 66.57 13420.00 .70 2.50 .50 6.98 20.00
0 2.000000E-02 10000.000000
0 130.000000 10.000000 1.000000E-03
0 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 O.000OOOE#00
120.00 1.00 .00
1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120
••• Soils •••
183.00 10.00
10. 2.00 45. 2.00 70.10.00 140.15.00 183.15.00
99 .00
••• Trafficability •••
4 1 5 1 820 3.9 1.2 2.0
12321232 820 3.9 1.2 2.0
••• Crop •••
.190
410 818 30.00
410 818
11
1 1 3.00 416 3.00 5 4 4.00 517 15.00 6 1 25.00 620 30.00 718 30.00 820 20.00
924 10.00 925 3.001231 3.00
••• Wastewater Irrigation •••
0 1 1 10 1 6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7.00000 1.00000 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40
WET ••• Wetlands Information •••
1
81 304
30.0 27
COM ••• Combo Drainage weir settings •••
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
FPE ••• Fixed Avg Daily PET for the month(cm) •••
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MRA ••• Monthly Ranking •••
0
FAC ••' Daily PET Factors •••
0
DRAINMOD.GEN File Used to Simulate the Existing Hydrology at Well 2.
••* Job Title -••
EBX Westbrook Lowgrounds Mitigation Site - Well 2 Existing Condition Simulations
Smithfield Weather Data - Jan 1970 to Early February 2002
-•• Printout and Input Control •••
3 101 C:\DRAINMOD\outputs
Climate •••
100000 L:\PROJECTS\043. EBX-WESTBRDOK\DRAINMOD\SMITHFIELD 1970-2002.RAI
100000 L:\PROJECTS\043. EBX-WESTBROOK\DRAINMOD\SMITHFIELD_1970-2002.TEM
2001 1 2002 2 3530 77 0
2.01 2.32 2.10 1.72 1.23 1.00 .86 B2 .92 1.05 1.22 1.44
••• Drainage System Design •••
1 .00
116.00 95.49 8500.00 .70 2.50 .50 6.73 20.00
0 2.000000E-02 10000.000000
0 130.000000 10.000000 1.000000E-03
0 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00
120.00 1.00 .00
1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120
••• Soils •••
214.00 10.00
10. 2.00 45. 2.00 70.10.00 140.15.00 183.15.00
99 .00
Trafficability •••
4 1 5 1 820 3.9 1.2 2.0
12321232 820 3.9 1.2 2.0
••• Crop •••
.190
410 818 30.00
410 818
11 '
1 1 3.00 416 3.00 5 4 4.00 517 15.00 6 1 25.00 620 30.00 718 30.00 820 20.00
924 10.00 925 3.001231 3.00
`** Wastewater Irrigation •`•
0 1 1 10 1 6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7.00000 1.00000 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40
WET ••- Wetlands Information •••
1
81 304
30.0 27
COM *•• Combo Drainage Weir Settings ••'
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
O 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
FPE Fixed Avg Daily PET for the month(cm) •••
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MRA --- Monthly Ranking
0
FAC **• Daily PET Factors "`•
DRAINNIOD.GEN File Used to Simulate the Existing Hydrology at Well 3.
••• Job Title •••
EDX Westbrook Lowgrounds Mitigation Site - Well 3 Existing Condition Simulations
Smithfield Weather Data - Jan 1970 to Early February
Printout and Input Control ••-
3 101 C:\DRAINMOD\outputs
Climate •••
100000 L:\PROJECTS\043. EDX-WESTBROOK\DRAINMOD\SMITAFIELD_1970-2002.RAI
100000 L:\PROJECTS\043. EDX-WESTBROOK\DRAI17MOD\SMLI-HFIELD 1970-2002.TEM
2001 1 2002 2 3530 77 0
2.01 2.32 2.10 1.72 1.23 1.00 .86 .82 .92 1.05 1.22 1.44
Drainage System Design •••
1 .00
120.00 62.66 13420.00 .70 2.50 .50 7.13 20.00
0 2.000000E-02 10000.000000
0 130.000000 10.000000 1.000000E-03
0 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00
120.00 1.00 .00
1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120
••• Soils •••
183.00 10.00
10. 2.00 45. 2.00 70.20.00 140.25.00 183.25.00
99 .00
••• Trafficability •••
4 1 5 1 820 3.9 1.2 2.0
12321232 820 3.9 1.2 2.0
••• Crop •••
.190
410 818 30.00
410 818
11
1 1 3.00 416 3.00 5 4 4.00 517 15.00 6 1 25.00 620 30.00 718 30.00 820 20.00
924 10.00 925 3.001231 3.00
Wastewater Irrigation ---
0 1 1 10 1 6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7.00000 1.00000 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40
WET ••• Wetlands Information •••
1
81 304
30.0 27
COM ••• Combo Drainage Weir Settings •••
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
FPE ••• Fixed Avg Daily PET for the month(cm) •••
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MRA Monthly Ranking •••
0
FAC ••• Daily PET Factors •••
0
STM ••• Soil Temperature
ZA ZB TKA TKB TO TLAG TSNOW TMELT CDEG CICE
.000 .000 .000 .000 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
DRAZNMOD G= File Used to Simulate the Proponed Restoration Hydrology.
••• Job Title •••
EBX Westbrook Lowgrounds Mitigation Site - Design. 250 ft from stream
Smithfield Weather Data - Jan 1970 to Mid October 2001
••• Printout and Input Control •••
3 101 C:\DRAINMOD\outputs
••• Climate •••
100000 C:\DRAINMOD\WEATHER\SMITHFIELD 1970-2002.RAI
100000 C:\DRAINMOD\WEATHER\SMITf1FIELD_1970-2002.TEM
2000 1 2001 12 1530 77 0
2.01 2.32 2.10 1.72 1.23 1.00 .8G .62 .92 1.05 1.22 1.44
••• Drainage Systcm Design •••
1 .00
40.00 136.49 15000.00 4.00 2.50 4.00 5.49 20.00
0 2.000000E-02 10000.000000
0 130.000000 10.000000 1.000000E-03
1 12.000000 150.000000 7500.000000 2.000000
120.00 1.00 .00
1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120 1120
••• Soil, •••
183.00 5.00
10. 2.00 45. 2.00 70.25.00 140.30.00 183.30.00
99 .00
••• Trafficability ---
4 1 5 1 820 3.9 1.2 2.0
12321232 820 3.9 1.2 2.0
••• Crop •••
.190
410 818 30.00
410 818
11
1 1 3.00 416 3.00 5 4 4.00 517 15.00 6 1 25.00 620 30.00 718 30.00 820 20.00
924 10.00 925 3.001231 3.00
••• Wastewater Irrigation •••
0 1 1 10 1 6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7.00000 1.00000 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40 .40
WET ••• Wetlands Information •••
1
76 309
30.0 29
COM ••• Combo Drainage Weir Settings •••
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 O 0 .0
0 O 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 .0
FPE ••• Fixed Avg Daily PET for the month(cm) •••
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MRA •• Monthly Ranking •••
0
FAC ••• Daily PET Factors •••
0
STM Soil Temperature •••
ZA ZB TKA TKB TB TLAG TSNOW TMELT CDEG CICE
.000 .000 .000 .000 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
1.00 1.00

b
a.
m
Appendix E
Westbrook Hydrology Analysis
This Appendix is copied directly from the Westbrook Lowgrounds Wetland and Stream
Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan, December 2002 and details a complete record of the
pre-restoration wetland analyses performed on the Westbrook site.
2.4 Site Hydrology
The presence of hydric soils over much of the project site is evidence that the site
historically supported a wetland ecosystem. As is the case in much of the Coastal Plain
and lower Piedmont of North Carolina, local drainage patterns have been altered over the
last two centuries to increase drainage and promote agricultural production. The main
stream through the site, Johannah Creek, has been channelized and straightened to
provide drainage for agricultural crops. The stream experiences intermittent flow, with
continuous flow during the fall, winter, and spring months. The drainage area of the
stream at the outlet of the project area is approximately 1.18 square miles.
Several lateral ditches on the west side of the site come together and drain into Johannah
Creek. These ditches receive some surface runoff from adjacent woodland, but flow in
the laterals appears to be limited to ephemeral surface runoff. Based on topography
information, the ditches intercept surface runoff and shallow subsurface flow from most
of the southwestern corner of the project site.
During June 2001, three water table monitoring wells were installed and maintained by
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. to monitor water table depth on the
project site. The wells were located in areas where hydrology would likely be affected by
restoration efforts to provide a base for comparing pre- and post-restoration hydrology.
Water table data were collected from June 2001 through February 2002 with hydrographs
shown in Figure 2.3.
6/13/01 7/13/0`1 8/12101 9/11/01 10/11/01 11/10101 12/10101 119102
0
c S 2
v 3
4
10
0
c -Well1 -Well 2 -Well 3
r -10-
_20-
f
-30-
A
3
-40 A
-50-
6/13101 7/13101 8/12/01 9/1 1 /01 10/11/01 11/1 /01 12/10/01 1/9/02
Date
Figure 2-3 Water table data for three monitoring wells located on the project
property.
Rainfall data were collected for the monitoring period to correlate climatic conditions
with water table hydrology. Rainfall data were obtained from the Smithfield WETS
Station. Monthly precipitation amounts from July 2001 through January 2002 are
compared with average monthly rainfall (MRCS WETS data) in Table 2.1.
Well data from the project site were analyzed to determine the current hydrologic state of
the site. Data were used to determine 1) the longest number of days with the water table
less than 12 inches deep during the partial growing season, 2) the number of times that
the water table was less than 12 inches deep for at least one day during the partial
growing season, 3) the longest number of days with the water table less than 12 inches
deep during the entire monitoring period, and 4) the number of times that the water table
was less than 12 inches deep for at least 1 day during the entire monitoring period.
Calculated values are presented in Table 2.2.
The growing season for Johnston County is 232 days long, beginning on March 17 and
ending November 5, according to NRCS WETS data for Johnston County. For the period
of monitoring data available, the longest consecutive number of days with the water table
less than 12 inches deep during the partial growing season was 2 days (Well 41, 8/14/01
to 8/15/01 or roughly 1% of the partial growing season). This would indicate that the
current hydrologic state of the project site is drier than would be expected for a site
meeting jurisdictional wetland hydrology requirements. However, drier than average
conditions were experienced over much of the monitoring period. To further examine the
existing hydrologic condition of the site, simulation models were developed to describe
the existing hydrologic condition of the project site.
Table 2-1 Comparison between monthly rainfall amounts for the project site and
the long-term average.

MonthNear Observed
Monthly
Precipitation in
Average Monthly
Precipitation (in) Deviation of
Observed from
Average
July 2001 5.01 5.47 -0.46
August 2001 6.27 4.48 1.79
September 2001 2.87 4.06 -1.19
October 2001 0.76 3.11 -2.35
November 2001 1.62 3.04 -1.42
December 2001 1.03 3.21 -2.18
January 2002 4.58 3.96 0.62
Overall 22.14 27.33 -5.19
Table 2-2 Hvdrologic parameters observed for the project site.
Longest Total number Longest Total number
consecutive of days with consecutive of days with
number of days WT < 12 number of WT < 12
with WT < 12 inches deep days with WT < inches deep
Well inches deep from 6/13/01 12 inches deep from 6/13/01
from 6/13/01 through from 6/13/01 through 2/6/02
through 11/5/01 11/5/01 through 2/6/02 (entire period
(partial growing (partial growing (entire period of record)
season season of record
Well #1 2 3 7 12
Well #2 0 0 10 10
Well #3 0 0 3 3
2.5 Hydrologic Modeling
To further investigate the current hydrologic status of the site and provide a means for
evaluating proposed restoration plans, hydrologic models were developed to simulate site
hydrology. DRAINMOD v.5.1 was used to develop three (3) hydrologic simulation
models to represent conditions at the locations of the three (3) monitoring wells.
DRAINMOD is identified as an approved hydrologic tool for assessing wetland
hydrology by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS, 1997). For more information on DRAINMOD and its
application to high water table soils, the reader is referred to Skaggs, 1980.
Model parameters were selected based on field measurements and professional judgment
of site conditions. Rainfall and air temperature information were collected from the
Smithfield WETS Station. Field measured parameters were entered into the model and
initial model simulations were compared with observed data collected from the
monitoring wells. To calibrate the model, parameters not measured in the field were
adjusted within the limits typically encountered under similar soil and geomorphic
conditions until model simulations most closely matched observed well data. Results of
model simulations are compared with observed data in Figures 2.4 through 2.6. Model
inputs are presented in Appendix 2.
Trends in the observed data are well represented by the model simulations. Although
hydrograph peaks between observed and simulated data do not match exactly, relative
changes in water table hydrology as a result of precipitation events correspond well
between observed and modeled data. As noted above, rainfall data was collected from the
nearest automated weather station, located in Smithfield, NC. Most of the differences
between observed and modeled hydrographs can be explained by the spatial variability of
rainfall patterns between the location of the weather station and the project site.
To estimate existing long-term site hydrology, model simulations were run for 30 years
using weather data from the Smithfield WETS station. DRAINMOD computes daily
water balance information and outputs summaries that describe the loss pathways for
rainfall over the model simulation period. Table 2.3 summarizes the average annual
amount of rainfall, infiltration, drainage, runoff, and evapotranspiration estimated for the
existing condition of the project site. Infiltration represents the amount of the 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. From the data provided, it is
clear that a significant amount of the rainfall that falls on the site is lost via drainage and
runoff to the field ditches. Restoration of the site will involve restoring the stream
through the site and increasing the amount of surface storage available to pond water. In
this way, the respective amounts of drainage and runoff are decreased. The excess water
storage will allow the water table to remain higher throughout the year, thus restoring
wetland hydrology.
Table 2-3 Water balance for the existing condition of the nroiect site.

Hydrologic
Parameter Average Annual Amount
over 30 Year
Simulation Period
cm of water Average Annual Amount
over 30 Year
Simulation Period
% of rainfall
Drainage 37.40 31.3
Runoff 12.48 10.5
Evapotranspiration 69.57 58.3
Precipitation 119.32 100.0
6/13/01 7/13/01 8/12/01 9/11/01 10/11/01 11/10101 12/10/01 1/9/02
0

A 1
2
Q9 ` 3
4

0
?Well 1Observed
10
r -DralnMod

a
m
o -20
m
a
A
f-
`m -30
A
3
-40
50
-
6/13/01 7/13/01 8/12/01 9111/01 10/11101 11/10/01 12/1 101 1/9102
Date
Figure 2-4 Comparison between observed and simulated water table depths
for Well l for existing condition.
6/1 M 1 7/13101 8/12/01 9/11/01 10111/01 11/10101 12110/01 119102
0

2
Q9v 3
4

-5
-Well 2 Observed
S 15
-DralnMod

a
m
v -25
u
a
A
? -35
A
-45
55
-
6/13/01 7113101 8112101 9/11/01 10/11/01 11/10/01 12/10/01 1 / 9/02
Date
Figure 2-5 Comparison between observed and simulated water table depths
for Well 2 for existing condition.
6113/01 7/13/01 8/12101 9111/01 10/11/01 11/10/01 12110/01 1/9102
0

2
? v 3

4
10

0
-Weil 3 Observed
c
$ -70 -DralnMod
a
3
0
m -20
A
-30
A
3
-40
50
-
6113101 7/13/01 8/12101 9/1;/01 10/11/01 11/10/01 12/10/01 119102
Date
Figure 2-6 Comparison between observed and simulated water table depths
for Well 3 for existing condition.
Y
b
is
x
1-77
Appendix F
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data
Benthos Data for Cox Site Project Collected on December 13, 2004
SPECIES Tolerance
Value Functional
Feeding Group Site 1
Project Reach Site 2
Reference Reach
OLLUSCA
Gastro oda
Physidae
Physella s pp. 8.8 CG R R
NNELIDA
Oli ochaeta
Me adrile 9.0 CG R
RTHROPODA
Crustacea
Am hi oda
Talitridae
Hyallela azteca 7.8 CG R
Deca oda
Cambaridae OM C C
Insecta
I; hemero tera
He tageniidae
Stenonema modestum 5.5 SC A A
Le to hlebiidae
Leptophlebia spp. 6.2 CG R
Pleco tern
Ca niidae
Allocapnia s pp. 2.5 SH C C
Perlodidae
Clio erla cho 4.7 PR A A
Isoperla bilineata 5.4 PR R A
Taenio ter idae
Taenio teryx s p. 5.4 SH R
Tricho tern
H dro s chidae
Cheumatopsyche s p. 6.2 FC A A
Hydropsyche betteni 7.8 FC R
Limne hilidae
Pyciio syche spp. 2.5 SH C A
Odonata
Aeshnidae
Boyeria vinosa 5.9 PR C
Calo ter gidae
Calo teryx s pp. 7.8 PR C A
Cordule astridae
Cordulegaster spp. 5.7 PR R
SPECIES Tolerance
Value Functional
Feeding Group Site 1
Project Reach Site 2
Reference Reach
Gom hidae
Gomi hus s pp. 5.8 PR R R
Progomphus obscurus 8.2 PR A A
Coleo tern
Dr o idae
Helichus s pp. 4.6 SH C C
D tiscidae
Neo orus spp. 8.6 PR R
Elmidae
Ancyronyx variegates 6.5 OM R
Macronychus glabratus 4.6 OM R
H dro hilidae
Tro istenies s pp. 9.7 PR R
Me alo tera
Corydalidae
Nigronia serriconlis 5.0 PR C
Di tera
Chironomidae
Brillia s pp. 5.2 SH R
Concha elopia s pp. 8.4 PR C A
Di locladius cultriger 7.4 CG R
Orthocladius oliveri CG C
Paratanytarsus s pp. 8.5 CG R
Polypediluni illinoense g p. 9.0 SH R
Poly ediluni scalaenum 9P. 8.4 SH C C
Ptycho teridae
Bittacomior ha spp. CG R
Simuliidae
Simuliumi spp. 6.0 FC C A
Ti ulidae
Hexatonla s pp. 4.3 SH R C
Ti ula s 7.3 SH A A
WQ Habitat Assessment 38 76
Total Taxa Richness 18 34
EPT Richness 7 8
EPT Abundance 38 55
Biotic Index 6.21 6.17
E PT Biotic Index 5.06 4.77
't'olerance Values: ranges trom 0 (least tolerant to organic pollution) to 10 (most tolerant to organic
pollution).
Functional Feeding Group: CG = Collector-Gatherer, FC = Filterer-Collector, OM = Omnivore,
PR = Predator, SC = Scraper, SH = Shredder
Abundance Values: R=Rare (1-2 individuals); C=Common (3-9 individuals); A=Abundant (10 or more
individuals)

b
00
s?.
G7

41

ej- 4; r.
-

Cox Branch Cross-Section 1.
Cox Branch Channel Showing Incision.
Cox Branch Cross-Section 2.
Cox Branch through Agricultural Field.

-?F FF
Bank Erosion in Cox Branch.
t ?.
y- 1
i Kt
is b
s
Cattle in Project site.

i?? S ? t 7 ,? AtT?

}
Cox Branch in Vicinity of Road. Cox Branch Assessment.

jY
ern ? .?,
ftL4
Aerial Photography of Cox Branch.
t?.
?y R
Y y1 ji?,y5#L ,` a! ZYY \ `? \,
ism
Aerial Photography of Cox Branch
Aerial Photography of Cox Branch.
c?.-T F (?- L, I ao 1 os
Certification of Completio R&ROd[ D
D
,?l ^ I JAN 2 6 2006
DWQ Project No.: County: 3O W VS-ynd pENR -WATER QUALITY
/? m 1S1 r
Applicant: A LL-De/?/ ? 1 WETLANDS AND STORtAVATER BRANCH
??,,? U't \ J I n \ n'
Project Name: ???f? ?1?? fr ? (?1? cz?TM)A
Date of Issuance of Wetland Permit: `1w 6 -zo 7 0o
Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, and any
subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the 401 Oversight/Express Pennitting Unit,
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650. This form may be
returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or the project engineer. It is not necessary to send
certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification
I, -la-v4 Akkcke .v-A , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was
used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications,
and other supporting materials.
Signature:`` Date: 1 /2.1 /2<=(.
Agent's Certification
I,
used in the observation of the
compliance and intent of the 401
and other supporting materials.
Signature:
, hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was
construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications,
Date:
If this project ivas designed by a Certified Professional
i
I, i ft l as a duly registered Professional (i.e., Engineer,
Landscape Architect, Surveyo etc.) in the State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically,
weekly, full time) the construction of the project, for the Pennittee hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care
and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within
substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: Registration No. Z 733 Date I-07,-C6
BUCK ENGINEERING
+- 8-bS
6662
Invoice Number Date Voucher Amount Discounts Previous Pay Net Amount
Cox Site Project 4/7/05 0004617 475.00 0.00 0.00 475.00
NC Division of Water Quality
Totals 475.00 0.00 0.00 475.00
CAPITAL CH 8