20050745 Ver 1_Complete File_20050503

d t ° i
p
„ Y,t a w` Environmental Banc & Exchange
Capital • Experience • Expertise
10055 Red Run Boulevard
Suite 130
Owings Mills, MD 21117
May 23, 2006 p 410.356.5159
p 888.781.7075
401 Oversight/Express Permitting Unit f 410.356.5822
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 2530 Meridian Parkway
1650 Mail Service Center Suite 200
Durham, NC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 p
919.806 4542 27713
f 919.806.4770
Subject: Certification of Completion
Bailey Fork Site DWQ Project 05-0745 1005 A Street
Silver Creek Site DWQ Project 05-0734 Suite 313
San Rafael, CA 94901
p 415.462.0163
Enclosed are the executed Certifications for the subject projects. f 415.454.8012
www.ebxusa.com
S' +Cerely,
rr I
Thomas L. Rinker
D
Encl. as noted p U9 ? ? 0 ?'/ Lm
cc: Stacci Ricks (J ,r/ D
Ely Perry MAY 2 6 2006
WATER VIFWJ S ANDTORJXAATFJJ BRANCH
Certification of Completion
?D
DWQ Project No.: 05 -C iH 5 County: O? k? MAY 2 6 2006
Applicant: - N tiE11A11DSq???ST ?QUAL,,y
Cy
Project Name: A l U?U 'FCZk. SITE - kA-=l kAlb lyt10 3 M Rt64)
Date of Issuance of Wetland Permit:
?(?
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 Permitting 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.

A lllicant's Certification
-?tc0ltitJS V l?L?eU
I, ? 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 supp rt i ate ials. J
Signature: Date:
Agent's Certification
I, . 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:
If this project was designed by a Certified Professional
1, as a duly registered Professional (i.e., Engineer,
Landscape Architect, Surveyor, etc.) in the State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically,
weekly, full time) the construction of the project, for the Permittee 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. Date
?C) QG
? r
•?y?.,,? -i
> t..,bud -
Michael F. Easley, Gvernor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek. P.E. Director
Division of WaterQuality
May 10, 2005
DWQ Project # 05-0745
Burke County
Tara Disy Allden
EBX Neuse - I, LLC
220 Chatham Business Drive
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Subject Property: Bailey Fork Site - Wetland and Stream Restoration
Burke County
Approval of 401 WaterQuality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mrs. Allden:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed
below, to place fill within or otherwise impact 1,4076 feet of streams and associated
wetlands for the purpose of restoration at the subject property, as described within your
application received by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on May 3, 2005. After
reviewing your application, we have decided that the impacts are covered by General
Water Quality Certification Number(s) 3399 (GC3399). The Certification (s) allows you
to use Nationwide Permit(s) 27 when issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE). 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, buffer, and stormwater
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 or CAMA 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
401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
'hone: 919-733-1786/FAX [phone]/ Internet: http://h2o.enr state. no. us/ncwetlands
NorthCarolina
?Vaftrra!!J
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recyc!ed/10°a Post Consumer Paper
CDA /NCUSe - I, LLI.
Pabe2 of6
May 10, 2005
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:
Amount
Approved (Units) Plan Location or Reference
Stream 1,638 feet UT 1 to Bailey Fork
Stream 295 feet UT 2 to Bailey Fork
Stream 2,378 (feet) UT 3 to Silver Creek
Stream 135 (feet) UT 4 to Silver Creek
Stream 9,630 feet Bailey Fork
Wetlands 5.3 acres Enhancement
Wetlands 11.8 (acres) Establishement of riparian
Wetlands
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, borrow 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.
f
UDA w4euse - t, LLL-
Page3 of6
May 10, 2005
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. 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.
6. Diffuse Flow
All constructed stormwater conveyance outlets shall be directed and maintained
as diffuse flow at non-erosive velocities through the protected stream buffers
such that it will not re-concentrate before discharging into a stream. If this is not
possible, it may be necessary to provide stormwater facilities that are considered
to remove nitrogen. This may require additional approval from this Office.
7. Protective Fencing
The outside buffer, wetland or water boundary and along the construction
corridor within these boundaries approved under this authorization shall be
clearly marked with orange warning fencing (or similar high visibility material) for
the areas that have been approved to infringe within the buffer, wetland or water
prior to any land disturbing activities.
8. Buffer Replanting
Replanting of vegetation within disturbed areas located within 30 feet of the
streambank associated this project must be done immediately following
construction. Disturbed areas must be replanted with forest vegetation including
at least two different native hardwood tree species at a density sufficient to
provide 320 trees per acre at maturity. This density can usually be achieved by
planting approximately 436 (10 x 10 spacing) to 681 (8 x 8 spacing) trees per
acre.)
tbA/Neuse-l, LLC
Pa-e4 of 6
May 10, 2005
9. Turbidity Standard
The turbidity standard of 50 NTUs (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) shall not be
exceeded as described in 15 A NCAC 2B. .0200. Appropriate sediment and
erosion control practices must be used to meet this standard.
10. No Impacts Beyond those in Application
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.
11. No Sediment and Erosion Control Measures in Wetlands
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 or locally delegated program has released the project.
12. Construction Stormwater Permit NCG010000
Upon the approval of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan issued by the
Division of Land Resources (DLR) or a DLR delegated local erosion and
sedimentation control program, an NPDES General stormwater permit
(NCG010000) administered by DWQ is automatically issued to the project. This
General Permit allows stormwater to be discharged during land disturbing
construction activities as stipulated by conditions in the permit. If your project is
covered by this permit [applicable to construction projects that disturb one (1) or
more acres], full compliance with permit conditions including the sedimentation
control plan, self-monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements are
required. A copy of this permit and monitoring report forms may be found at
http.-Ah2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/Forms Documents.htm.
13. Conservation Easements
All restored streams and adjacent buffers shall be placed in protective
easements, in perpetuity, to provide for protection of both the stream segment
and its riparian area.
cDA IlNeMe -!, LU_
Pages of6
May 10, 2005

14.Standard Condition for Stream and Wetland Projects Approved Under GC 3399 (fee
paid -written approval required)
Based on the information provided this Office considers that all of the conditions
of General Certification (GC) No. 3353 have been met and that no additional
written approval is required in order to construct the above project. If the project
design changes or if the project is not constructed according to the design, then
the approval is no longer valid and the plans must be resubmitted per GC 3353.
If the project is to be used for compensatory mitigation credit in the future, then
additional written concurrence by this Office is required. Please be advised that if
this Office has not reviewed the proposed reference site or the construction site
before construction begins, then it may be impossible to determine whether or
not mitigation credit can be awarded. Also, additional information may be
required to complete a review for compensatory mitigation purposes. The
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is a participant in the Mitigation Banking Review
Team (MBRT) established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. DWQ's
approval of a Mitigation Banking Instrument shall be the sole approval for
compensatory mitigation banking credit for the State as long as proper 401 Water
Quality Certification approvals have been obtained. Please be advised that the
additional information may require that the project be redesigned and/or that the
project not be used for compensatory mitigation credit.
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.
Ct5A iiveuse -1, LLU
Page 6 of 6
May 10, 2005
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Cyndi Karoly in the
Central Office in Raleigh at 919-733-9721 or Kevin Barnett in the DWQ Asheville
Regional Office at either Kevin.Barnett(@ncmail.net or at 828-296-4657.
Sincerely,
, e-0
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
AW K1khb
Enclosures: GC 3399
Certificate of Completion
cc: John Hutton
Buck Engineering, PC
138 Charlotte Street,
Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28801
USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office
DWQ Asheville Regional Office
DLR Asheville Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Filename: 05-0745.BaileyForkRestoration. Burke.ApprovaI
MEMORANDUM
TO:
SUBJECT:
John Dorney
Non-Discharge Branch
Regional Contact: Barnett. Kevin
WQ Supervisor: Rager Fdwards
Date:
WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Facility Name Bailev Fork II Wetland & Stream Restoration
Project Number 05 0745
Recvd From APP
Received Date 513105 Recvd By Region
Project Type Stream restoration
County Burke
County2
Region Asheville
Certificates Stream
Permit Wetland Wetland Wetland Stream Class Acres Feet
Type Type Impact Score Index Prim. Supp. Basin Req. Req.
Nw27 Stream PV -@N F_- 11-34-8-(3) wSIV F_30,831. F_ 14,076.04
O Y O N F
__F_F-F_F__F__F-
Mitigation Wetland
MitigationType Type Acres Feet

Is Wetland Rating Sheet Attached? O Y *N Did you request more info? O Y *N
Have Project Changes/Conditions Been Discussed With Applicant? O Y * N
Is Mitigation required? O Y O N Recommendation: O Issue (*Issue/Coed O Deny
Provided by Region: Latitude (ddmmss) 354100
Longitude (ddmmss) 814200
Comments:
Issued ARO - KHB - 05/10/2005
cc: Regional Office Page Number 1
Central Office
Triage Check Dist
Date: 5/3/05 Project Name: Bailey Fork Wetland/Stream Restoration
Project
Kevin Barnett, Asheville Regional Office DWQ#: 05-0745
County: Burke
To: 30-day Processing Time: 5/3/05 to 6/1/05
From: Cyndi Karoly Telephone : [phone]
The file attached is being forwarded to your for your evaluation.
Please call if you need assistance.
? Stream length impacted
? Stream determination
Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USFW topo maps
? Minimization/avoidance issues
? Buffer Rules (Neuse, Tar-Pamlico, Catawba, Randleman)
? Pond fill
Mitigation Ratios
? Ditching
? Are the stream and or wetland mitigation sites available and viable?
? Check drawings for accuracy
? Is the application consistent with pre-application meetings?
? Cumulative impact concern
1-1
Comments: As per our discussion regarding revision of the triage and delegation processes,
please review the attached file. Note that you are the first reviewer, so this file will need to be
reviewed for administrative as well as technical details. If you elect to place this project on hold,
please ask the applicant to provide your requested information to both the Central Office in
Raleigh as well as the Asheville Regional Office. As we discussed, this is an experimental, interim
procedure as we slowly transition to electronic applications. Please apprise me of any
complications you encounter, whether related to workload, processing times, or lack of a "second
reviewer" as the triage process in Central had previously provided. Also, if you think of ways to
improve this process, especially so that we can plan for the electronic applications, let me know.
Thanks!
Suite 200
Phone: [phone]aa
Fax: 919.4G3.5490
www.buckergineer ing.cam
TO:
ATTENTION
DATE:
NC Division of Water Quality RE:
Parkview Building
2321 Crabtree Blvd
Raleigh, NC 27604
Ms. Laurie Dennison
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Permit Application for 401 permit for
Bailey Fork Site Restoration Project
May 3, 2005 JOB NO. 221
We are sending via: r_j Fax Regular Mail ? Pick-up OX Hand Delivered
The following items:
correspondence OX Plans F-1 Specifications EX Other as listed below:
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
5 Desi n Plans
5 Restoration Plan
5 PCN form
1 Fee $475.00

THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
BX For Approval As Requested 8 Approved As Submitted HForward Returned For Corrections
For Your Use X For Permitting Approved As Noted To Subcontractor
REMARKS:
Please find enclosed an application for DWQ's 401 Permit along with supporting
documentation for The Bailey Fork Site Wetland and Stream Restoration Site in Burke County.
If you have any questions, please give me call at [phone].
COPY TO: File SIGNED: John Ihaton
Q?c??a
MAY 3 2005
DENR - WATER QUALITY
ti'"rM""DSN10ST0U' iVATERSPANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL BANC & EXCHANGE, LLC
Management, Banking & Trading of Environmental Rights
111 "Finding Environmental Solutions through Economic incentives"
May 2, 2005
Mr. Steve Chapin
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers p r= ?wn?
151 Patton Avenue Room 208 D
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
MAY 3 2005
Ms. Lori Dennison
NC Division of Water Quality DENR - "ATER QUALITY
401/Wetlands Unit 1'rcLMOSNi0STORlhWERBW,1Jl
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Re: Bailey Fork Site Wetland and Stream Restoration Project
401/404 Pre-Construction Notification Application
Dear Mr. Chapin and Ms. Dennison:
220 Chatham Business Drive
Pittsboro, NC 27312
10055 Red Run Boulevard, Suite 130
Owings Mills, MD 21117-4860
410 356-5159 FAX [phone]
www.ebxusaxom
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 Bailey Fork
Site wetland and stream restoration project. Also enclosed are copies of the Bailey Fork 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,
Tara Disy Allden
Enclosures
M+
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. 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: taranebxusa.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: John Hutton
Company Affiliation: Buck Engineering, PC
Mailing Address: 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
Telephone Number: 919-463-5488 Fax Number: 919-463-5490
E-mail Address: Jhutton(a-)Buckenp_ineerin2.com
Page 5 of 12
.a
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 Bailey Fork Site Wetland and Stream Restoration Proiect
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): 4287, 1263, 4330, 10430
4. Location
County: Burke County Nearest Town: Morganton
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Take I-40W towards
Mortianton,NC to Exit 103. Take a right onto HWY 64 BUS. Take a left at the
stoplip,ht onto Hopewell Road. The proiect is iust past the golf course on the riuht.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35°41'00"N / 81°42'00"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 74 acres.
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Bailey Fork
8. River Basin: Catawba 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.ne.us/admin/maps/.)
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 existinil conditions are further described in the attached restoration plan.
Page 6 of 12
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
Bailey Fork Site Wetland and Stream Restoration Plan. Work to be conducted with
pans, dozers, track-hoes, and other equipment typically used for restoration projects.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work:
EBX Neuse - 1, LLC, proposes to restore approximately 6,018 linear feet (LF) of stream
alone three unnamed tributaries to Bailey Fork and Silver Creek, enhance
approximately 9,630 LF of stream alone Bailey Fork and 135 LF on UT3, enhance 5.3
acres of existine wetlands, and restore approximately 11.8 acres of riparian wetlands.
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 NCEEP in May 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.
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: N/A
Page 7 of 12
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***

* 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 htM://www.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: 5.3
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.0
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 1,638 UT 1 to Bailey Fork 10 feet perennial
2 Restoration 295 UT 2 to Bailey Fork 5 feet perennial
3 Restoration 2,378 UT 3 to Silver Fork 10 feet perennial
4 Enhancement 135 UT 3 to Silver Fork 10 feet perennial
5 Enhancement 9,630 Bailey Fork 25 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.eov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapqucst.coni, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site 14,076
3. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Page 8 of 12
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Name of Waterbody
(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 Mininuzation)
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 Bailey Fork Site Wetland and Stream Restoration Plan. Project will result in restoring
approximately 6,018 linear feet (LF) of stream alone three unnamed tributaries to Bailey
Fork and Silver Creek, enhance approximately 9,630 LF of stream along Bailey Fork and
135 LF on UT3, enhance 5.3 acres of existing wetlands, and restore approximately 11.8
acres of riparian wetlands and an overall increase in stream length on the site from 14,076
feet to 15,783 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
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 9 of 12
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
http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.bttnl.
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 Bailey Fork Wetland and Stream Restoration
Project.
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/wU)/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.
X.
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 ?
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 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .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 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 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
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).

,i/29LooSS
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12

' Bailey Fork Site
Wetland and Stream Restoration Plan
Burke County, North Carolina
Submitted by:

11

1

EBX Neuse - I, LLC
220 Chatham Business Drive
Pittsboro, NC 27312
April 2005
' DRAFT REPORT

Bailey Fork Site
Wetland and Stream Restoration Plan
Burke County, North Carolina
Prepared for EBX Neuse - I, LLC
Design Report Prepared by Buck Engineering PC
? W MCMAIW 8000 Regency Parkway
Suite 200
Cary; North Carolina 27511
Phone: [phone]
I` N I N 1 1 1Z I N G ! Fax: [phone]
www.buckengineering.com
John Hutton
Project Manager
Kevin L. Tweedy, PE
Project Engineer
April 2005
DRAFT REPORT

I

e
r

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EBX Neuse - I, LLC, proposes to restore approximately 6,018 linear feet (LF) of stream along three unnamed
tributaries to Bailey Fork and Silver Creek, enhance approximately 9,630 LF of stream along Bailey Fork and
135 LF on UT3, enhance 5.3 acres of existing wetlands, and restore approximately 11.8 acres of riparian
wetlands. The site is located in Burke County, NC, approximately two miles southwest of the town of
Morganton (Exhibit 1.1). The site lies in the Catawba River Basin, within North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) sub-basin 03-08-31 and United States Geologic Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit
03050101040020. The purpose of the project is to restore wetland functions to the site and to restore stream
functions to the impaired stream channels that flow through it.
The Bailey Fork Restoration Project will restore a "Piedmont/ Low Mountain alluvial forest" system, as
described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Most of these systems have experienced human disturbance due
to their close proximity to productive or accessible land. UT I, UT2, and UT3 will be restored to a stable
dimension, pattern, and profile. Bailey Fork will be enhanced though buffer plantings and the stabilization of
eroding bank areas. Wetland restoration of farm fields on UT3 will involve raising the local water table and
restoring a natural flooding regime, such that riverine wetland functions are restored to the adjacent hydric
soil areas. Drainage ditches within the restoration areas will be filled to decrease surface and subsurface
drainage and raise the local water table. In addition, scarification of the fields and breaking of the local plow
pan will provide increased surface storage of water and provide favorable conditions for a variety of native
wetland plant species.
Wetland functions on the site have been impaired as a result of agricultural conversion. Streams flowing
through the site were channelized many years ago to reduce flooding and provide drainage for adjacent farm
fields. Field areas were graded to promote rapid surface drainage, and additional drainage ditches were
excavated to improve sub-surface drainage. Deposition of sediments on the Bailey Fork floodplain has
resulted in historic hydric soil areas being covered with approximately one foot of alluvial sediment. As a
result, nearly all wetland functions were destroyed within the project area. Active bank erosion and an overall
poor habitat condition are evident on the tributaries and the mainstem of Bailey Fork throughout the site.
Examination of the available hydrology and soil data indicate that there is good potential for the restoration of
a productive wetland and stream ecosystem.
Table ESA
Restoration Overview
\VI, t ILII'. r.. ,,,
044.11,4- I:4:.<u,1-
Stream Reach UT 1 1,920 LF Restoration of dimension, pattern, and profile
Stream Reach UT2 870 LF Restoration of dimension, pattern, and profile
3,227 LF Restoration of dimension, pattern, and profile
Stream Reach UT3 Enhancement II- bank stabilization, structures, and
135 LF planting of native vegetation
Bailey Fork 9,630 LF Enhancement II- bank stabilization, structures, and
planting of native vegetation
Piedmont / Low 5.3 AC Enhancement II- planting of native vegetation
Mountain alluvial forest
Piedmont / Low Plugging of ditch network, restoration of flooding
Mountain alluvial forest 11.8 AC functions through stream restoration, planting of
native vegetation
EBxI BUCK ENGINEERING
e BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
0
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 Background Science and Methods .......................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Application of Fluvial Processes to Stream and Wetland Restoration ................................................2-1
2.2 Channel-Forming Discharge ............................................................................................................. ..2-1
2.3 Natural Channel Design Overview .................................................................................................... ..2-5
2.4 Geomorphic Characterization Methodology ..................................................................................... ..2-5
2.5 Channel Stability Assessment Methodology ..................................................................................... ..2-7
2.6 Stream Design Parameter Selection Methodology ............................................................................ ..2-9
2.7 Sediment Transport Competency and Capacity Methodology .......................................................... 2-11
2.8 In-Stream Structures .......................................................................................................................... 2-13
2.9 Stream and Buffer Vegetation ........................................................................................................... 2-14
2.10 The Importance of Wetlands ............................................................................................................. 2-16
2.11 Hydric Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 2-16
2.12 Wetland Vegetation ........................................................................................................................... 2-17
2.13 Wetland Hydrology ........................................................................................................................... 2-18
2.14 Wetland Hydrologic Analyses .......................................................................................................... 2-19
2.15 Assessment of Existing Wetland Areas ............................................................................................. 2-20
2.16 Reference Wetlands ........................................................................................................................... 2-21
2.17 Wetland Restoration Techniques ...................................................................................................... 2-22
2.18 Risk Recognition ............................................................................................................................... 2-25
3.0 Watershed Assessment Results .............................................................................................................3-1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
39
Watershed Boundaries ........................................................................
Geology ..............................................................................................
Soils ...................................................................................................
Land Use ...........................................................
Habitat Descriptions ..........................................
Bailey Fork Endangered/Threatened Species....
Cultural Resources ............................................
Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites......
Potential Constraints .........................................
.............................................. 3-1
.............................................. 3-1
.............................................. 3-1
3-2
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
3 -2
................................................................................. 3-3
................................................................................. 3-8
................................................................................ 3-8
................................................................................ 3-8
0
4.0 Stream Corridor Assessment Results .................................................................................................. 4-1 U
4.1 Reach Identification ............................................................................................................................ 4-1
4.2 Site Hydrology/Hydraulics .................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.3 Geomorphic Characterization and Channel Stability Assessment ...................................................... 4-2
4.4 Bank Erosion at Bailey Fork ............................................................................................................... 4-4
4.5 Bankfull Verification ........................................................................................................................... 4-5
4.6 Riparian Vegetation ............................................................................................................................. 4-7
4.7 Benthic Community ............................................................................................................................ 4-7 a
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN I

1

5.0 Wetland Assessment Results .................................................................................................................5-1
5.1 Wetland Impacts ................................................................................................................................ ..5-1
5.2 Jurisdictional Wetland Findings ........................................................................................................ ..5-1
5.3 Climatic Conditions ........................................................................................................................... ..5-2
5.4 Hydric Soils ....................................................................................................................................... ..5-2
5.5 Water Table Hydrology ..................................................................................................................... ..5-3
5.6 Hydrologic Modeling ........................................................................................................................ .. 5-4
5.7 Wetland Reference Site ..................................................................................................................... ..5-5
6.0 Selected Design Criteria ...................................................................................................................... ..6-1
6.1 Potential for Restoration .................................................................................................................... ..6-1
6.2 Design Criteria Selection .................................................................................................................. .. 6-2
6.3 Design Criteria for the Bailey Fork Site ............................................................................................ ..6-3
7.0 Restoration Design ............................................................................................................................... ..7-1
7.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................... .. 7-1
7.2 Natural Channel Design Summary .................................................................................................... ..7-1
7.3 Natural Channel Design .................................................................................................................... ..7-2
7.4 Sediment Transport Analysis ............................................................................................................ ..7-6
7.5 Restoration of Wetland Hydrology ................................................................................................... ..7-8
7.6 Hydrologic Model Analyses .............................................................................................................. ..7-8
7.7 Vegetation Plan ................................................................................................................................. ..7-9
7.8 Soils .................................................................................................................................................. 7-12
7.9 Conservation Easement ..................................................................................................................... 7-12
8.0 Monitoring and Evaluation ...................................................................................................................8-1
8.1 Stream Monitoring ..............................................................................................................................8-1
8.2 Wetland Hydrologic Monitoring .........................................................................................................8-2
8.3 Vegetation Monitoring ........................................................................................................................8-2
8.4 Reporting Methods ..............................................................................................................................8-3
8.5 Maintenance Issues ............................................................................................................................. 8-4
9.0 References ..............................................................................................................................................9-1
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING II
e BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
0
List of Exhibits*
0
Exhibit 1.1 Project Vicinity Map U
Exhibit 1.2 Site USGS Map
Exhibit 1.3 Project Watershed Boundaries a
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 Examples of In-stream Structures
Exhibit 3.1 Project Site Soils Map
a
Exhibit 4.1 Site Hydrography Map
Exhibit 4.2 Bailey Fork BEHI Summary Maps (4.2a -4.2e)
Exhibit 4.3 Stream Gage Sites
Exhibit 4.4 Benthos Sample Site
Exhibit 5.1 Well Locations
Exhibit 5.2 Reference Wetland Site
* All Exhibits are located at the back of the report, immediately preceding the appendices.
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Typical pattern of restored wetland microtopography (Scherrer, 2000).
Figure 4.1 NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curves with bankfull discharge for project reaches and
gage cross sections.
Figure 7.1 Boundary shear stresses and stream power for existing and design conditions for UT1,
UT2, and UT3.
Figure 7.2 Sixty-year model simulation for the longest period of consecutive days meeting wetland
criteria for conditions encountered at restoration site.
0
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING III
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN

t

List of Tables
Table 2.1 Conversion of Bank Height Ratio (Degree of Incision) to Adjective Rankings of Stability
(Rosgen, 2001 a)
Table 2.2 Conversion of Width/Depth Ratios to Adjective Ranking of Stability from Stability
Conditions (Rosgen, 2001 a)
Table 2.3 Functions of In-stream Structures
Table 3.1 Watershed Size and Land Use for the Project Reaches
Table 3.2 Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Table 3.3 Species Under Federal Protection in Burke County
Table 3.4 Summary of Potential Restoration Constraints for the Bailey Fork Site
Table 4.1 Watershed and Reach Summaries
Table 4.2 Geomorphic Data for Bailey Fork Site - Stream Channel Classification Level 11
Table 4.3 Bailey Fork BEHI Results
Table 4.4 Summary of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data
Table 5.1 Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site and Long-term Averages
Table 5.2 Water Balance Data for Existing Conditions of the Project Site
Table 6.1 Project Design Stream Types
Table 7.1 Reference Parameters Used to Determine Design Ratios
Table 7.2 Natural Channel Design Parameters for the Bailey Fork Site - UT1 and UT2
Table 7.3 Natural Channel Design Parameters for the Bailey Fork Site - UT3
Table 7.4 Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power for Existing and Design Conditions for UT1,
UT2, and UT3
Table 7.5 Bare-root Tree Species for Revegetation of the Restoration Site
Table 7.6 Permanent Seed Mixtures for the Restoration Site
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING IV
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
List of Appendices
Appendix 1 EDR Radius Map Report, State Historic Preservation Office, Natural Heritage, Wildlife
Resource Commission, and US Fish and Wildlife Letters
Appendix 2 Existing Conditions Summaries, Cross Sections, Bed Material Analyses, NCDWQ
Stream Forms, and Benthos Data
Appendix 3 Restoration Site Water Table Data and Wetland Delineation Forms
Appendix 4 Reference Reach Summary
Appendix 5 DRAINMOD Analysis Files
Appendix G Photographic Log
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING V
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
' 1.1 Brief Project Description and Location
The Bailey Fork restoration site is located approximately two miles southwest of the town of Morganton, in
Burke County, North Carolina (Exhibit 1. 1), along Hopewell Road. The site is part of a privately-owned farm
that is used primarily for pasture and hay production. In the past the site has been used for row crop
' agriculture. The streams on the project site have been channelized, and riparian vegetation has been cleared
in the field areas such that cattle grazing pasture extends up to the top of the stream banks. Drainage ditches
were excavated in parts of the site to provide additional drainage for agricultural production.
' The site lies in the Catawba River Basin, within North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub-
basin 03-08-31 and United States Geologic Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit 03050101040020. Two of the
unnamed tributaries (UT1 and UT2) flow into Bailey Fork, while the third tributary (UT3) flows directly into
Silver Creek. All streams on the site ultimately discharge into Silver Creek, which flows into the Catawba
River just west of Morganton.
For analysis and design purposes, the on-site streams were divided into four reaches. The reach locations are
shown in Exhibit 1.2. The reaches were numbered sequentially, moving from south to north, with unnamed
tributaries carrying a "UT" designation. UT1 begins off site, flows into the project area from the southwest,
and ends at the confluence with Bailey Fork. At the upstream end of UT1, there is a small pond. According to
' accounts from the landowner, the outlet structure for the pond failed several years ago, and water now routes
around a low spot in the earthen dam. The flow of water around the dam has formed multiple unstable stream
channels downstream. UT2 begins off site, flows into the project area from the west, and ends at its
confluence with UT1. UT3 begins off site, flows into the project area from the south, and ends at its
confluence with Silver Creek. Bailey Fork flows into the project area from the south and ends at the
confluence with Silver Creek.
' 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The proposed stream and wetland restoration project will provide numerous ecological benefits within the
' Catawba 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.

1

Water Quality
• Nutrient removal
• Sediment removal
• Increased dissolved oxygen concentrations
• Improved stream bank stability
• Wetland filtering
Water Quantity/Flood Attenuation
• Increased water storage/flood control
• Reduced downstream flooding by reconnecting stream with its floodplain
• Improved groundwater recharge
• Improved/restored hydrologic connections
EBX/BUCK ENGINEERING 1-1
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
0
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 is organized as follows:
• Section 2 provides new readers with a review of the background science and methodologies applied by
Buck Engineering in the practice of natural channel design and wetland restoration. It does not contain
information specific to this project.
• Sections 3 through 7 of the report discuss site-specific project details, including watershed assessment
findings, existing stream corridor assessments, wetland area assessments, design criteria, and the
restoration design, respectively.
• Section 8 presents the monitoring and evaluation plan for the post-implementation period.
• References are included in Section 9, and appendices are included that summarize cultural resources,
correspondence, hazardous waste screening, existing site conditions, reference reach data, site
photographs, and water balance / model analyses.
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
1-2
0
0
0
a
0
0

1 2.0 BACKGROUND SCIENCE AND METHODOLOGY
2.1 Application of Fluvial Processes to Stream and Wetland Restoration
e A stream and its wetland floodplain (referred to here as the riparian area) comprise a dynamic environment in
which 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 reflect 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. Changes in land use 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 that maximizes
ecosystem function and potential can be designed and constructed.
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.
The following sections describe the processes that Buck Engineering uses when developing stream restoration
' projects using natural channel design concepts.
2.2 Channel-Forming Discharge
e 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 proposes 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 least (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 incised.
2.2.1 Bedform Diversity and Channel Substrate
The profile of a stream bed and its bed materials is 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 percent, while
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING 2-1
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
0
alluvial channels have slopes less than 2 percent. A colluvial valley forms through hillslope processes.
Sediment supply in colluvial valleys is controlled by hillslope erosion and mass wasting; i.e., the
sediments in the stream bed originate 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).
2.2.1.1 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 a plunge pool downstream. Smaller particles collect in the
interstices of steps, creating stable, interlocking structures (Knighton, 1998).
In contrast to meandering streams that dissipate energy through meander bends, step/pool streams
dissipate energy through drops and turbulence. Step/pool streams have relatively low sinuosity.
Pattern variations are commonly the result of debris jams, topographic features, and bedrock
outcrops.
2.2.1.2 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, providing 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, 1998). 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; i.e., 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.
2.2.1.3 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 (Bunte and Abt, 2001). Bed material features called ripples, dunes, planebeds, and
antidunes characterize the sand bedform. Although sand bed streams do not, technically, have
riffles, the term is often used to describe the crossover reach between pools. The term "riffle"
may be used in this report to mean the same as "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
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
2-2
0

t
'J

rate and cause minor to major variations in aegradation and degradation (Gomez, 1991). Sand
bedforms can be divided between low-flow 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 the random
accumulation of sediment, 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 bedload 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 low-flow and 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) that mirror the surface forms. Antidunes migrate upstream
by way of scour on the downstream face and deposition on the upstream face, a process opposite
to that of ripples and dunes. Antidunes can also move downstream or remain stationary for short
periods (Knighton, 1998).
2.2.2 Stream Classification
The Rosgen Stream Classification System categorizes essentially all types of channels based on
measured morphological features (Rosgen, 1994, 1996). The system, illustrated in Exhibit 2. 1, presents
several stream types, based on a hierarchical system. The first level of classification distinguishes
between single and multiple-thread channels. Streams are then separated according to 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
is provided in Section 2.12.1.
2.2.3 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 when 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.
2.2.4 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
e channelization, increase in runoff due to build-out in the watershed, removal of streamside vegetation,
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING 23
' BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
0
and other changes that negatively affect stream stability. All of these disturbances occur in both urban a
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:
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 causes increased in-stream power that causes
degradation, often referred to as channel incision (Lane, 1955). 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 (Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group,
FISRWG, 1998).
2.2.5 Priority Levels of Restoring Incised Rivers
Though incised streams can occur naturally in certain landforms, they are often the product of
disturbance. Characteristics of incised streams include high, steep stream banks; poor or absent in-
stream or riparian habitat; increased erosion and sedimentation; and low sinuosity. Complete
restoration, in which the incised channel's grade is raised so that an abandoned floodplain terrace is
reclaimed, is the ideal, overriding objective of stream restoration; such an objective may be impractical,
however, when homes, roadways, utilities, or other structures have encroached upon the abandoned
floodplain. A priority system for the 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 a given
setting. Exhibit 2.4 illustrates various restoration/stabilization options for incised channels within the
framework of the Rosgen priority system. Generally:
• Priority 1 - Re-establishes the channel on a previous floodplain (i.e., raises channel elevation);
meanders a new channel to achieve the dimension, pattern, and profile characteristic of a stable
stream for the particular valley type; and fills or isolates existing incised channel. This option
requires that the upstream start point of the project not be incised.
• Priority 2 - Establishes a new floodplain at the existing bankfull elevation (i.e., excavates a new
floodplain); meanders channel to achieve the dimension, pattern, and profile characteristic of a
stable stream for the particular valley type; and fills or isolates existing incised channel.
• 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.
0
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING 2-4
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN

2.3 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 in order 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
1 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 2.14. 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 2.15.
After the sediment transport assessment, additional structural elements are added to the design to provide
' grade control, protect stream banks, and enhance habitat. Section 2.16 describes these in-stream structures in
detail.
Once the design is finalized, detailed drawings are prepared to show 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;
• 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.); and
• Determine the extent to which the restoration objectives have been met.
2.4 Geomorphic Characterization Methodology
' Geomorphic characterization of stream features includes the bankfull identification, bed material
characterization and analysis, and stream classification.
2.4.1 Bankfull Identification
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.
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING 2-5
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
9

• Look for bankfull indicators at 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 banks.
• 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 that of the regional curve. 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 well station survey or reference bankfull information that is
specific to the geographic location. The well information can be used to verify the applicability of the
regional curve to a localized area.
2.4.2 Bed Material Characterization
Buck Engineering performs bed material characterizations using a modified Wolman procedure
(Wolman, 1954; Rosgen, 1996). A 100-count pebble count is performed in transects across the stream
bed, with the number of riffle and pool transects proportional to the percentage of riffles and pools
within the longitudinal distance of a given stream type. As stream type changes, a separate pebble
count is performed. The median particle size of the modified Wolman procedure is known as the D50•
The D50 describes the bed material classification for that reach. The Rosgen bed material classification
is shown in 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 sand
bed 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 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.
2.4.3 Stream Classification
Cross sections are surveyed along stable riffles for the purpose of stream classification. Values for
entrenchment ratio and width/depth ratio, along with sinuosity and slope, are used to classify the
stream. The entrenchment ratio (ER) is calculated by dividing the flood-prone width (width measured
at twice the maximum bankfull depth) by the bankfull width. The width/depth ratio (w/d ratio) is
calculated by dividing bankfull width by mean bankfull depth. Exhibit 2.5 shows examples of the
channel dimension measurements used in the Rosgen Stream Classification System.
Finally, the numbers that coincide with each bed material classification are 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.
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
z-6
0
0

2.5 Channel Stability Assessment Methodology
Buck Engineering uses a modified version of stream channel stability assessment methodology developed by
Rosgen (2001a). 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, and
• Channel evolution.
This field exercise is followed by the evaluation of various channel dimension relationships.
Evaluation of the above characteristics and relationships leads to a determination of a channel's current state,
potential for restoration, and appropriate restoration activities. A description of each characteristic is
provided in the following sections.
2.5.1 Stream Channel Conditions
Stream channel conditions are observed during initial field inspection (stream walk). Buck Engineering
notes the follow characteristics:

t

t

• Riparian vegetation - concentration, composition, and rooting depth and density;
• Sediment depositional patterns - mid-channel bars and other depositional features that indicate
aegradation 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; and
• Altered states due to direct disturbance - channelization, berm construction, and floodplain
alterations, etc.
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.
2.5.2 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 a).
Table 2.1
Conversion of Bank Height Ratio (Degree of Incision) to Adjective Rankings of Stability (Rosgen, 2001a)

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
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 2-7
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
0
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). (-
2.5.3 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. This
measurement provides insight into lateral channel adjustment processes, depending on stream type and
degree of confinement; for example, an 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.
2.5.4 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.
2.5.5 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 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.
2.5.6 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 (2001a).
Table 2.2
Conversion of Width/Depth Ratios to Adjective Ranking of Stability from Stability Conditions (Rosgen, 2001a)

Very stable 1.0
Stable 1.0-1.2
Moderately unstable 1.21-1.4
Unstable > 1.4
a
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 2-8
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN 0

While an increase in width/depth ratio is associated with channel widening, a decrease in width/depth
ratio is associated with channel incision; hence, 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.
2.5.7 Channel Evolution
Simon's Channel Evolution Model (introduced in Section 2.10.4) relies on a qualitative, visual
assessment of the existing stream channel characteristics, such as bank height, evidence of
degradation/aggradation, presence of bank slumping, and direction of bed and bank movement.
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.
2.6 Stream 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.
2.6.1 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.
2.6.2 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 and 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 that meet the appropriate
criteria, a field search is performed locally to identify a reference reach that has not yet been surveyed.
Potential reference reaches are identified by first evaluating 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 evaluated in the field 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 conducting any survey work.
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING 2-9
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
0
2.6.3 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.
2.6.4 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 Fluvial Fornts
and Processes, by David Knighton (1998), Mountain Rivers, by Ellen Wohl (2000), and the Hydraulic
Design of Stream Restoration Projects, by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Copeland et al., 2001).
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. The Corps 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 Corps-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 reasons similar to
those described for radius of curvature.
2.6.5 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 site conditions after construction. 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 6.
2.6.6 Considerations Regarding Wetland Hydrology
Special considerations must be used during the stream restoration design process if there is also a goal
of restoring wetland hydrology to adjacent hydric soil areas; specifically, stream dimension and pattern
will have a significant effect on wetland hydrology. Collected data have shown that the water table of
wetland areas adjacent to the stream channel is directly influenced by the baseflow water level in the
stream. Higher width-to-depth channels are more conducive to supporting wetland hydrology, because
the baseflow water level of the channel is at a higher elevation. Surveys of sand bed streams in existing
wetland areas have shown that high width-to-depth ratios (typically 10 to 14) are common.
Stream pattern is also an important consideration for wetland restoration. The location of the restored
stream channel will have a direct effect on which areas of the restoration site are flooded and how
frequently. While stream pattern is primarily controlled by the topography of the site, minor
adjustments to stream pattern can be used to provide additional hydrologic inputs to crucial wetland
restoration areas.
0
a
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING 2-10
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN

2.7 Sediment Transport Competency and Capacity Methodology
Stream restoration designs must be tested to ensure that the new channel dimensions (in particular, the design
bankfull mean depth) create a stream that has the ability to move its sediment load without aegrading or
degrading over long periods of time. The ability of the stream to transport its total sediment load can be
understood through two measures: sediment transport competency and sediment transport capacity.
Competency is a stream's ability to move particles of a given size and is a measurement of force, often
expressed as units of pounds per square foot (lbs/ft2). Sediment transport capacity is a stream's ability to
move a quantity of sediment and is a measurement of stream power, often expressed as units of watts/square
meter. Sediment transport capacity is also calculated as a sediment transport rating curve, which provides an
estimate of the quantity of total sediment load transported through a cross-section per unit of time. The curve
is provided as a sediment transport rate in pounds per second (lbs/sec) versus discharge or stream power.
' The total sediment load transported through a cross section can be divided by type of movement into bedload
and suspended load fractions. Bedload is generally composed of larger particles, such as course sand, gravels,
and cobbles, which are transported by rolling, sliding, or hopping (saltating) along the bed. Suspended load is
normally composed of fine sand, silt, and clay particles transported in the water column.
2.7.1 Competency Analysis

Median substrate size has an important influence on the mobility of particles in stream beds. Critical
dimensionless shear stress (iii ) is the measure of force required to initiate general movement of
particles in a bed of a given composition. At shear stresses exceeding this critical value, essentially all
grain sizes are transported at rates in proportion to their presence in the bed (Wohl, 2000). iii can be
calculated for gravel bed stream reaches using surface and subsurface particle samples from a stable,
representative riffle in the reach (Andrews, 1983). Critical dimensionless shear stress is calculated as
follows (Rosgen, 2001a):
a) Calculate the ratio d5dds50
where: d50 = median diameter of the riffle bed (from 100 count in riffle or pavement sample)
ds50 = median diameter of the bar sample (or subpavement)
If the ratio d50/ds50 is between the values of 3.0 and 7.0, then calculate the critical dimensionless
shear stress using Equation 1.
Tai = 0.0834(d50/ds50)-0.872
(Equation 1)
b) If the ratio d50/ds50 is not between the values of 3.0 and 7.0, then calculate the ratio of D;/d50
where: Di = largest particle from the bar sample (or subpavement)
d50 = median diameter of the riffle bed (from 100 count in the riffle or pavement sample)
If the ratio D;/d50 is between the values of 1.3 and 3.0, then calculate the critical dimensionless
shear stress using Equation 2.
Tc; = 0.0384(Di/d50)-0.887 (Equation 2)
2.7.2 Aggradational Analysis
The aggradation analysis is based on calculations of the required depth and slope needed to transport
large sediment particles, in this case defined as the largest particle of the riffle subpavement sample.
Required depth can be compared with the existing/design mean riffle depth, and required slope can be
compared to the existing and design slopes to verify that the stream has sufficient competency to move
large particles (and thus prevent thalweg aggradation). The required depth and slope are calculated by:
_ 1.65T iD;
S. (Equation 3)
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 2-11
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
0
Q
_ 1.65i,;D,
s? d
(Equation 4)
where: d, = required bankfull mean depth (ft)
de design bankfull mean depth (ft)
1.65 = sediment density (submerged specific weight)
= density of sediment (2.65) - density of water (1.0)
T,i = critical dimensionless shear stress
Di = largest particle from bar sample (or subpavement) (ft)
sr = required bankfull water surface slope (ft/ft)
Se = design bankfull water surface slope (ft/ft)
The aggradation analysis is used to assess both existing and design conditions; for example, if the u
calculated value for the existing critical depth is significantly larger than the measured maximum
bankfull depth, this indicates that the stream is aggrading. Alternately, if the proposed design depth
significantly differs from the calculated critical depth, and the analysis is deemed appropriate for the
site conditions, the design dimensions should be revised accordingly.
2.7.3 Competency Analysis Using Shields Curve
As a complement to the required depth and slope calculations, boundary shear stresses for a design
riffle cross section can be compared with a modified Shields Curve to predict sediment transport
competency. The shear stress placed on the sediment particles is the force that entrains and moves the
particles, given by:
T = yRs (Equation 5)
where: r = shear stress (lb/ft)
y = specific gravity of water (62.41b/ft)
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
s = average channel slope (ft/ft)
The boundary shear stress can be estimated for the design cross section and plotted on a modified
Shields curve. The particle size that Shields Curve predicts will be moved is compared to the Di of the
site subpavement. Shields Curve predicts whether the design conditions will have enough shear stress
to move a particle larger than the largest subpavement particle found in the creek and prevent
aggradation.
2.7.4 Degradation Analysis
A degradation analysis is performed in order to assess whether the design cross sections will result in
scour and bed downcutting. The potential for degradation may be evaluated by examining the upper
competency limits for design cross sections and by reviewing existing and design grade control at the
site. The calculated shear stress discussed in Section 2.7.3 can be used to describe the upper
competency limits for the design channel. The calculated shear stress is compared to the Modified
Shields Curve to determine the largest particle size that stress value will move. This value should be
comparable to the D84 to D95 values from the reach-wide pebble count.
2.7.5 Sediment Transport Capacity
For sand bed streams, sediment transport capacity is much more important than competency. Sediment Q
transport capacity refers to the stream's ability to move a mass of sediment past a cross section per unit
of time in pounds/second or tons/year. Sediment transport capacity can be assessed directly using
actual monitored data from bankfull events if a sediment transport rating curve has been developed for
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING 2-12
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN

the project site. Since this curve development is extremely difficult, other empirical relationships are
used to assess sediment transport capacity. The most common capacity equation is stream power.
Stream power can be calculated a number of ways, but the most common is the following:
W = YQS/Wbkf (Equation 6)
where: w = mean stream power (W/mZ)
Y = specific weight of water 9,810 N/m'); 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 (m'/s)
S = design channel slope (m/m)
Wbkf = bankfull channel width (m)
Note: 1 ft-lb/sec/ft' = 14.56 W/m2
Equation 6 does not provide a sediment transport rating curve; however, it does describe the stream's
ability to accomplish work, i.e., move sediment. Calculated stream power values are compared to
reference and published values. If deviations from known stable values for similar stream types and
slopes are observed, the design should be reassessed to confirm that sediment will be adequately
transported through the system without containing excess energy in the channel.
1 2.8 In-Stream Structures
There are a variety of in-stream structural elements used in restoration. Exhibit 2.7 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,
e and habitat enhancement.
2.8.1 Grade Control
' Grade control pertains mainly to the design bed profile. A newly excavated gravel stream bed with a
slope greater than 0.5 percent is seldom able to maintain the desired slopes and bed features, such as
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.
2.8.2 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 typically provides 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.
2.8.3 Habitat Enhancement
e Habitat enhancement can take several forms and is often a secondary function of grade control and bank
protection structures. Flow 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.
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 2-13
' BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
a
2.8.4 Selection of Structure Types Q
Table 2.3 summarizes the names and functions of several in-stream structures.
Table 2.3
Functions of In-Stream Structures

1?.f ,'?11'. l: Illlyll It ?iB?lll? ??""Ili'l r1?11?I ?:?%?Rl?a ( ?`al?l1'{11u•1?!('all'-
Cross vane 1 1 2
Single arm vane 1 2
J-hook vane 2 1 2
Constructed rRiffle 1 1 2
Log weir 1 2
Wing deflector 2 1 1
Boulder cCluster 1
Root wad 1 1
Brush mattress 1 2
Cover log 1
The selection of structure types and locations typically follows dimension, pattern, and profile design.
In some situations, structures comprise the main, or possibly only, effort 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.
2.9 Stream and Buffer 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 food sources 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 may include live dormant staking of the stream banks,
riparian buffer planting, 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. Planting the stream banks is a 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, increasing porosity and infiltration, and reducing soil saturation through transpiration.
During high flows, plants lie flat, and stems and leaves shield and protect the soil surface from erosion. In
most settings, vegetation is more aesthetically appropriate than engineered stabilization structures.
Stream banks are delineated into four zones when considering a planting scheme:
1. Channel bottom - extending up to the low-flow stage; emergent, aquatic plants dominate bank range,
extending from the low-flow stage to the bankfull stage;
2. Lower bank - frequently flooded, extending from the low-flow stage to the bankfull stage; a mix of
herbaceous and woody plants including sedges, grasses, shrubs and trees;
3. Upper bank - occasionally flooded, but most often above water; dominated by shrubs and small trees;
4. Riparian area - infrequently flooded; terrestrial and naturally forested with canopy-forming trees.
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
2-14
a
0

1

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.
2.9.1 Live Staking
Live staking is a method of re-vegetation that utilizes live, dormant cuttings from appropriate species to
establish vegetation cheaply and effectively. The installation of live stakes on stream banks serves to
protect the banks from erosion and at the same time, provides 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 %z inches and no more than 2 inches in diameter, between 2 and 3 feet in length, and living,
as evidenced by 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.
2.9.2 Transplanted Vegetation
' Transplanting is a method of removing desirable vegetation from one location on the project site and
replanting it at another location on the site. In most cases, the vegetation being moved would otherwise
be destroyed during restoration; for example, vegetation growing along the toe of a deeply incised
channel would be destroyed when water was routed into a new stream channel and the old channel was
backfilled. Transplanted vegetation provides immediate shading to the restored stream, as well as
living root mass to increase stream bank stability and create holding areas for fish and aquatic biota.
' Transplants are excavated using a loader or mechanized excavator, such that the complete root mass
and surrounding soil are removed intact. The transplant is then placed in an excavated hole along the
stream bank, generally around the outside of a meander bend, where establishment of vegetation is
crucial to stream bank stability. Species commonly used for transplanting include giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea), small oak saplings (Quercus spp.), sedge and rush species (Juncos spp. and
Carex spp.), and other hydrophytic species with deep root masses.

i
G
1

2.9.3 Riparian Buffer Re-Vegetation
Riparian buffers are naturally occurring ecosystems 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 also 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 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:
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.
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING 2-15
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
0
• Forest structure should include understory and canopy species. Canopy species are particularly a
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 14
suburban and urban settings, riparian forested buffers do not need to resemble natural ecosystems to
improve water quality and habitat.
2.10 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.
2.11 Hydric soils u
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 and 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 a
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. a
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 CJ
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.
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 a
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 2-16
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN a

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 (Mitsch and Gosselink,
2000). Wetland soils help to return excess nitrogen to the atmosphere through denitrification (Mitsch and
Gosselink, 2000). The use of fossil fuels has greatly increased the amount of atmospheric sulfate. When
these sulfates are washed out of the atmosphere into wetlands, they can be reduced and even removed
permanently from the sulfur cycle (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000). Carbon can be sequestered into wetland
soils, helping to reduce carbon dioxide concentrations.
When hydric soils are converted to agriculture, changes to the soils' chemistry and structure often occur.
Once drained, wetland areas are typically graded smooth to improve surface drainage, a process that removes
much of the sites' natural topographic variability. The organic content of the soils often decreases due to the
oxidation caused by aeration. Concentrations of major nutrients as well as micronutrients 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 - 18 inches below the surface.
' Assessment of on-site hydric soils begins with collected soil survey data from the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). 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.
2.12 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 enables them to
tolerate or avoid water stress (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000). 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 rhyzospheres 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, 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.
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING 2-17
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
i

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 United States Army Corps of
Engineers (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), 1 171
Facultative Wetland Plants (FACW), or Facultative Plants (FAC) 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. M
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 a
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.
2.13 Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology is often sited as the primary influence on wetland development, function, and persistence
(Gosselink and Turner, 1978; Sharitz et al., 1990) and is 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. lFhat are the sources of water on the site that can be manipulated during restoration? Sources may
include groundwater discharge, runoff, surface water flows, and stream flows. Various design techniques
are available for storing more water within the restoration site to 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:
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 2-18
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN

' 1. How is ninoff 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. Ifsteanu flow or overbankflow 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 stream bed 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 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
1 functioning is difficult to predict through visual assessments, and areas where the hydrologic status of an area
is questionable (i.e. does wetland hydrology exist?). Manually read wells are typically read on a monthly
basis and are used to supplement the data collected with automated wells. Manual wells are typically
' installed in areas where the hydrologic status is predictable based on visual assessments, but measured data
will allow for more conclusive evaluation of pre- and post-restoration conditions. Manual wells, installed as
piezometers, can also be installed in nests to determine the direction of groundwater movement.
Accurate site mapping is essential to the evaluation of site hydrology and restoration design. Topographic
maps of the site are produced using either ground or aerial survey methods. Digital elevation models (DEMs)
are developed that include topographic contours (typically 1.0 foot contours or less), locations of all drainage
features and outlets, structures, existing wetland areas, and monitoring well locations. DEMs are used to
depict visually the hydrologic features of the site, develop hydrologic model inputs, and evaluate proposed
restoration practices.
2.14 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 runoff, evapotranspiration, and
seepage processes on an hour-by-hour, day-by-day basis. DRAINMOD was modified by Skaggs et al.
(199 lb) 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 wells may
EBXI BUCK ENGINEERING 2-19
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
0

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 reflect
adequately the hydrologic response of the site to varying precipitation and climatic events. a
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 stream bed 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.
2.15 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.
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 groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances
do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas" [33 CFR 328.3(b) and 40 CFR 230.3 (t)].
Within the project area, locations that display one or more wetland components are reviewed to determine the
presence of wetlands using hydrophytic vegetation, permanent or periodic inundation or saturation, and hydric
soils.
Following an in-office review of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NRCS Soil Surveys, and
United States Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangle maps, a pedestrian survey of the project area is made to
a
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 2-20
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
investigate suspect areas and to delineate all wetlands and waters of the U.S. The project area is examined
utilizing the jurisdictional definition detailed in the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual. Supplementary
information to further support wetland determinations is found in the National List of Plant Species that
Occur in Metlands: 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 Approxinnation, by Schafale and Weakley (1990). This classification
system includes descriptions of all the natural community types in North Carolina (112 types and subtypes),
including vegetation, soils, physical environment, dynamics, distinguishing features, examples, and associated
rare plants. Wetlands are also classified using the Hydrogeonnorphic Class fcation 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 CADD applications and submitted to USACE and the NC Division of
Water Quality for jurisdictional determination and verification when required.
2.16 Reference Wetlands
Reference wetlands are natural wetland systems that are similar in function and geomorphic setting to the
proposed restoration site. Reference wetlands can be used as templates for the proposed restoration design.
Data collected from reference wetland sites, including vegetation communities, hydrologic characteristics,
and topographic features, can provide valuable information for the evaluation of proposed restoration
practices. Analysis of the vegetation communities within the reference site is used as a tool for developing
the planting plan for the restoration site. Reference wetlands can also be used for comparison purposes to
determine whether the restored wetland site is on a trajectory for success during the required monitoring
period.
I' The reference wetland site should be located as close to the proposed restoration site as possible. The
reference wetland should be of the same hydrogcomorphic 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 systems appropriate for
reference sites maybe 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 and
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
i
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING 2-21
' BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
0
documentation of the hydrologic range of conditions across the site. Well data are downloaded monthly
throughout the required monitoring period.
2.17 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.
2.17.1 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.
2.17.1.1 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 stream bed
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 2.9, 2. 10, and 2.11.
2.17.1.2 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 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.
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
2-22
0
0

' 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.
2.17.1.3 Runoff Diversions
In some areas, it is beneficial to construct shallow diversions and swales to direct surface water
' runoff into the site. This practice is commonly used when restoration areas are adjacent to long
hillslopes, where significant amounts of runoff may be produced during large rain events. The
diversions are used to direct the runoff to areas of the restoration site where the additional water
inputs are most needed.
2.17.1.4 Shallow Depressions and Floodplain Pools
' To increase the diversity of hydrologic conditions across the site, shallow depressions and
floodplain pools can be excavated or created by leaving sections of ditches only partially filled in
certain areas. The depressions are constructed to mimic the function of natural sloughs and pools
commonly found across many wetland ecosystems. These areas provide increased surface
storage of precipitation and floodwaters, improve biotic diversity, and provide breeding areas for
a number of amphibian and reptile species.
' Depressions and pools are generally constructed to be less than 1 foot deep. The size of
depressions can vary, depending on the site; however, depressions 200 feet by 100 feet are typical
of many sites. The depressions are designed to hold water for extended periods, ranging from
several weeks to many months. For many amphibian species, it is crucial that the pools dry up
completely during the late summer months. These ephemeral pools are typically constructed in
higher elevation areas away from the active stream channel. For other species, pools that retain
' some degree of ponded water throughout the year are most beneficial. These features, which
represent backwater sloughs, oxbow ponds, and floodplain pools, are typically constructed near
the active stream channel, where the high water table conditions and frequent flooding will
maintain water levels in the pools.
2.17.1.5 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 runoff. 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). The introduction of microtopography also
infiltration
runoff and erosion and enhancin
e on the site
reducin
increases surface stora
.
g
g
g
,

t

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 2.1. 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.
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING 2-23
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
0
Figure 2.1 a
Typical pattern of restored wetland microtopography (from Scherrer, 2000)
-1

2.17.2 Restoration Techniques for Wetland Soils
2.17.2.1 Soil Scarification and Tillage
10
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 - 18 inches to break any compacted pan
layers.
2.17.2.2 Soil Amendments
Samples of topsoil 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 that 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.
2.17.3 Restoration Techniques for Wetland Vegetation
2.17.3.1 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. a
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 a
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 a
EBx/ BUCK ENGINEERING
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
2-2a
B

months during the growing season. Flood tolerant species are able to survive on sites in which
the soil is saturated or flooded for extended periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997).
Observations are made during construction of the site regarding the relative wetness of areas to be
planted. Planting zones are determined based on these assessments, and planted species will be
matched according to their wetness tolerance and the anticipated wetness of the planting area.
When feasible, trees are transported to the site from the nursery and stored on site in a
refrigerated cooler prior to planting. If on-site refrigeration is not available, trees are planted
within two days of being transported to the site. Soils across the site are sufficiently disked and
loosened prior to planting. Trees are planted by manual labor, using a dibble bar, mattock,
planting bar, or other similar method. Planting holes for the trees are made sufficiently deep to
allow the roots to spread out and down without "J-rooting." Soil is loosely compacted around
trees once they have been planted to prevent them from drying out.
2.17.3.2 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 stream banks, access roads, side slopes, spoil piles, etc.
e 2.18 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 important, the execution of the
construction phase. There are many factors that ultimately determine the success of these projects; many are
beyond the influence of a designer, and compiling all of them is beyond the scope of this report. It is
impossible to consider and to design for all of them, but it is important to acknowledge those factors, such as
daily temperatures, 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, although unusually heavy floods often cause
erosion, deposition, and/or loss of vegetation in even the most stable channels and forested floodplains.

1
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING 2-25
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
0
3.0 WATERSHED ASSESSMENT RESULTS
3.1 Watershed Boundaries
The Bailey Fork restoration site is located approximately two miles southwest of the town of Morganton, in
Burke County, North Carolina (Exhibit 1. 1), in the Catawba River Basin. The site lies within the NCDWQ
sub-basin 03-08-31 and hydrologic unit 03050101040020.
Watershed areas for the project reaches were determined by delineating watersheds on the USGS 7.5 minute
topographic quadrangle for Morganton. Exhibit 1.3 shows the watershed boundaries for UT1, UT2, UT3, and
Bailey Fork. Watershed areas are summarized in Table 3.1 below.
Table 3.1
Watershed Size and Land Use for the Project Reaches
,.:/nt:
UT1 0.81 mi z Forest and agricultural cropland
UT2 0.24 mi z Forest and agricultural cropland
UT3 0.92 mi s Forest, agricultural cropland, and residential
Bailey Fork 8.3 mi 2 Forest, agricultural cropland, and residential
3.2 Geology
The project area is in southwestern Burke County, which is located within the Inner Piedmont Belt of western
North Carolina. The underlying geology of the project area consists of migmatitic granitic gneiss. This area
is made up of intrusive rocks that are foliated to massive, granitic to quartz where biotite gneiss and
amphibiotite are common.
3.3 Soils
The floodplain areas of the project are mapped by the Burke County Soil Survey. Soils along Bailey Fork are
primarily Colvard and Arkaqua. Smaller areas along the UTs are mapped as Unison, Fairview, and Hatboro.
These soils generally conform to the range of characteristics presented in the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (MRCS) Official Soils Descriptions (OSD). Descriptions of the series are provided in Table 3.2.
Hydric soils are discussed in Section 4.4. A map depicting the boundaries of each soil type is presented in
Exhibit 3.1.
Table 3.2
Project Soil Types and Descriptions
=?V1 1:ljjtlt o?;;? tilt J?{.S a1e(?hlr
Arkaqua** Main Channel and Floodplain Arkaqua series consists of somewhat poorly drained soils that formed
in loamy alluvium along nearly level floodplains and creeks. Runoff
is slow, and permeability is moderate. Soil texture within the profile
ranges from loam to clay loam to sandy loam to sandy clay loam.
0
0
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 3-1
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN

H

Li

Table 3.2
Project Soil Types and Descriptions
anti'=1111 1';01',,4111), 1111 :0Il!)I W
Colvard Main Channel and Floodplain Colvard series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in
loamy alluvium on floodplains. These soils are occasionally flooded,
well drained, and have slow surface runoff and moderately rapid
permeability. The surface layer and subsurface layers are loamy sands
in texture.
Fairview Floodplain Fairview soil type occurs on nearly level floodplains along creeks and
rivers in pastureland. It has a very deep soil profile and moderate
permeability. The surface layer and subsurface layers are clay loams
in texture, with an increase in clay content starting at about 1 foot
below the surface.
Hatboro* Floodplain Hatboro series consists of a very deep soil profile that is poorly
drained with moderate permeability. The series primarily consists of
silt loams with underlying layers of sandy clay loam. These soils are
generally found on floodplains in pastures and woodlands.
Unison Floodplain Unison soil type occurs on mountain foot slopes or stream terraces. It
generally has a very deep soil profile, is well drained, and is
moderately permeable. Uses include cultivated crops, pasture,
orchards, and mixed hardwood forests.
Notes:
Source: From Burke County Soil Survey, USDA-NRCS, littp:Hefotg.nres.usda.gov
* Hydric "A" soil type
** Hydric "B" soil type
3.4 Land Use
All creeks within the Bailey Fork restoration project drain surrounding agricultural pastureland, cropland,
forested, and isolated residential areas (impervious surface < 5 percent). Within the project area, current land
uses consist entirely of pastureland, hay production, and forest. The predominant land uses for each project
watershed are summarized in Table 3.1.
Although the project site is located near the city of Morganton, the streams drain rural sections of Burke
County. No major changes in local land use are anticipated in the foreseeable future.
3.5 Habitat Descriptions
The habitat within and adjacent to the proposed project area primarily consists of fallow agricultural fields
(cleared land), Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest (mixed riparian community), and Degraded
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest. A general description of each community follows.
3.5.1 Agricultural Fields
' This community is the predominant community, which includes over 95% of the project site. The fields
have been used for grazing and hay fields. Vegetation primarily consists of pasture grasses (Poa spp.),
and feseues (Festuca spp.).
3.5.2 Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest (Mixed Riparian Community)
This ecological community composed the riparian stream buffer, which was limited to narrow corridors
of 5 to 10 feet in width along one or both of the banks. The dominant species in the overstory of this
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 3-2
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN

community included, sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), yellow
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and black walnut (Juglans nigra). Midcanopy species included
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), silky dogwood (Corpus antonuun), alder (Alms serrulata), autumn Q
olive (Elaeagnus untbellata), and blackberry (Rubus spp.). Herbaceous and vine species consisted of
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), asters (Aster spp.), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), and
various grasses and sedges. r3
3.5.3 Degraded Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
This ecological community was found adjacent to the agricultural fields on Bailey Fork and was
severely degraded due to livestock impacts. There were very few tree species in the overstory, and
those that were there were significantly spread out, so as to not provide a continuous canopy. Tree
species included green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black willow (Salix nigra), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana). Herbaceous and understory vegetation consisted of
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), blackberry (Rubus spp.), arrow head (Sagittaria latifolia), soft rush
(Juncus effuses), wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
3.6 Bailey Fork Endangered/Threatened Species
Some populations of plants and animals are declining as a result of either natural forces or their difficulty in
competing with humans for resources. Legal protection for federally listed species, Threatened or
Endangered status, is conferred by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1534).
This act makes it illegal to kill, harm, harass, or remove any federally listed animal species from the wild;
plants are similarly protected, but only on federal lands. Section 7 of this act requires federal agencies to
ensure that actions they fund or authorize do not jeopardize any federally listed species. Species that are
being considered for federal protection, though not currently listed, are designated as Candidate species and
may be listed in the future.
Species that the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) lists under federal protection for Burke
County as of November 3, 2004, are listed in Table 3.3. A brief description of the characteristics and habitat
requirements of federally listed species follows the table, along with a conclusion regarding potential project
impact.
Letters were sent to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NC Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC), and the NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) in the fall of 2004, requesting that each agency
provide comments regarding the proposed project. Response letters from each agency are provided in
Appendix 1.
a
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 3-3
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN M
J

t

Table 3.3
Species Under Federal Protection in Burke County
It.+11iStC° aaluili{it, 4-?flljliitiii I
?!11. :l.+lllt 3C)l?ll?l!JI??IJ?1'?Iall?.lhlf
Vertebrates
Emydidac Clemnys Bog turtle T (S/A) 10-21-1996 T May affect, not likely to
nuthlenbergii affect
Accipitridae flaliaeelus Bald eagle T 08-11-1995 T No/No Effect
leucocephahss (originally E
04-11-1967)
PD 07-06-
1999
Vascular Plants
Rosaccae Geunt radialum Spreading E 2-29-2000 E-SC No/No effect
avens
Aristolo-chiaccae flexasrylis Dwarf- T 1-26-2003 T May affect, not likely to
naniJlora flowered affect
heartleaf
Cistaceae Iludsonia Mountain T 2-29-2000 E No/No effect
montana golden heather
Orchidaceae Isotria Small whorled T 12-23-1992 E No/No effect
niedeoloides pogonia
Astcraccae Liatris helleri fleller's T 11-19-1987 T-SC No/No effect
blazing star
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
PE Proposed Endangered
PT Proposed Threatened
PD These species have been proposed for delisting from the current status.
FSC Federal Species of Concern
S/A Threatened due to similar appearance
SC A Special Concern species is one that requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and sold under regulations
adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and
Conservation Act (plants).
SR A Significantly Rare species is not listed as "E," "T," or "SC," but which exists in the state in small numbers and has been
determined to need monitoring.
3.6.1 Vertebrates
3.6.1.1 Bog Turtle
Bob turtles are small (3 to 4.5 inches) turtles with a weakly-keeled carapace (upper shell) that
ranges from light brown to ebony in color. The species is readily distinguished from other turtles
by a large, conspicuous, bright orange to yellow blotch on each side of its head. Mating occurs
from late April to early June. Eggs hatch in late July to early September.
Bog turtles are semi-aquatic and are only infrequently active above their muddy habitats during
specific times of year and temperature ranges. They can be found during the mating season from
June to July and at other times from April to October when the humidity is high, such as after a
rain event, and temperatures are in the seventies. Bog turtle habitat consists of bogs, swamps,
marshy meadows, and other wet environments, specifically those that have soft muddy bottoms.
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 3-4
' BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
0
Its habitat usually contains an abundance of grassy or mossy cover. The turtles depend on a
mosaic of microhabitats for foraging, nesting, basking, hibernation, and shelter (USFWS 2000).
"Unfragmented riparian systems that allow for the natural creation of open habitat are needed to

compensate for ecological succession" (USFWS 2000). Beaver, deer, and cattle maybe
instrumental in maintaining essential, open canopy wetlands (USFWS 2000).
The bog turtle is not nearly as rare as once thought; however, the turtle is still uncommon and
adversely affected by continual habitat destruction and over collection. The southern populations
of bog turtles (VA, TN, NC, SC, and GA) are listed as threatened due to similar appearance to
northern bog turtles that are listed as threatened. Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation
have resulted from urban/suburban development; filling, draining, and dredging of wetlands;
water impoundment; water diversion into habitat; and other hydrological alterations. In some
areas, successional changes (e.g., reforestation) and exotic plant species have reduced habitat
quality (Morrow et al., 2001). Heavy grazing is detrimental, especially when nesting females are
disturbed or eggs are trampled. Light grazing may be beneficial in some cases if it maintains an
open canopy and avoids the problems just mentioned (Morrow et al. 2001). Habitat
fragmentation has made it difficult for turtles to cope with successional changes.
Comments received January 31, 2005, from the USFWS give concurrence to a biological
conclusion of may affect, not likely to affect for this species. No further surveys were required
for this species. See Appendix 1 for copies of comments received.
3.6.1.2 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 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 12, 2004, 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.
3.6.2 Vascular Plants
3.6.2.1 Spreading Avens
Spreading avens is a perennial herb of the Rosaceae family. The densely pubescent plant forms a Li
basal rosette arising from horizontal rhizomes. The basal leaves are kidney-shaped, serrate, and 3
to 6 inches wide. The inflorescence is an indefinite cyme supporting a few large (1 to 2 inches in
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
3-5
B

s

diameter), yellow flowers. Flowering occurs from June through September. This plant is found
in highly specialized habitat, mostly on exposed northwest-facing cliffs or sunny locations with
pockets of soil on nearly vertical cliffs. These sunny/rocky openings are surrounded by spruce-fir
(Picea rubens-Abies fraseri) forests that generally occur above 4300 feet elevation. At these
sites, the plants are exposed to a variety of threats, including trampling, rock climbing, ski slope
development, acid precipitation, and flower pickers. Only 20 surviving occurrences have been
verified and since the species primarily reproduces vegetatively, there may be fewer than 1000
genets remaining at these sites. Five of the historically known occurrences have been eliminated,
and substantial declines in overall population size were documented in the 1980s. (Nature Serve,
1997)
The study site does not include high elevation rock outcrops. A search of the NHP database of
rare species and unique habitats, on November 12, 2004, found no occurrences of this species in
the project areas; therefore, it is concluded that this project will not impact this species.
3.6.2.2 Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf

e

Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is a low-growing, spicy-smelling, evergreen perennial herb. Leaves are
heart-shaped, alternate, leathery, untoothed, and 1.6 to 2.4 inches wide. Each leaf is supported by
a long, thin stalk, which rises directly from the subsurface rhizome. This species has the smallest
flowers of any North American plant in the genus Hexastylis. The solitary flowers are fleshy,
firm, grow at the end of the short stalks, and often are found under forest litter and leaves near the
base of the leafstalks. Every year, each rhizome section produces one leaf, one flower, and a leaf
scale. The flowers are jug-shaped, less than 0.4 inches long, and have a narrow sepal tube,
ranging in color from brown to greenish or purple. Flowering occurs from mid-March to early
June; fruiting begins in late May (Russo, 2000).
This plant grows along bluffs and north-facing slopes, boggy areas along streams, and adjacent
hillsides and ravines in rich, deciduous forests. It is usually associated with mountain laurel or
pawpaw and requires acidic, sandy loam soils. The species needs Pacolet, Madison gravelly
sandy loam, or Musella fine sandy loam soils to grow and survive. Provided the soil type is right,
the plant can survive in either dry or moderately moist habitat. For maximum flowering, the plant
needs sunlight in early spring. Creekheads where shrubs are rare and bluffs with light gaps are
the habitat types most conducive to flowering and high seed production. Seed output is lowest in
bluff populations with a lot of shade (USFWS, 2002).
Found in the upper Piedmont regions of South Carolina and North Carolina, this species has 24
known populations in an eight-county area. North Carolina has one population in Catawba
County, two in Lincoln County, and three populations each in Rutherford, Cleveland, and Burke
Counties. Both of the Lincoln County sites are in serious trouble. One site may be lost, and the
other has only 160 healthy plants. A third known Lincoln County site was destroyed. Rutherford
County also supported another site, but it was eliminated by road construction. In addition to its
known range, the plant may occur in isolated areas in northwestern Gaston County, western
Iredell County, and Yadkin County, all in North Carolina (USFWS, 2002).
A search of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats, on November 12, 2004, found
no occurrences of this species in the project area. Although potential habitat exists within the
project area, the soils, primarily of the Arkaqua, Colvard, and Unison series, are not conducive
for this species to grow and survive. Additionally, guidance from the USFWS indicates that no
surveys are needed as long as ground disturbing activities do not affect the wooded areas within
the potential habitat zones. These wooded zones will not be affected by project construction. As
a result, it is concluded that this project may affect but is not likely to affect this species.
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING 3-6
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
0
3.6.2.3 Mountain Golden Heather 0
Mountain golden heather is a low, needle-leaved shrub with yellow flowers and long-stalked fruit
capsules. It usually grows in clumps of 4 to 8 inches across and about 6 inches high, and
sometimes is seen in larger patches of a foot or two across. The plants have the general aspect of
a big moss or a low juniper, but their branching is more open. Their leaves are about 0.25 inches
long, and the plants are often somewhat yellow-green in color, especially in shade. The leaves
from previous years persist scale-like on the older branches. The flowers appear in early or mid-
June and are yellow, nearly an inch across, with five blunt-tipped petals and 20 to 30 stamens.
The fruit capsules are on 0.5-inch stalks, roundish, and with three projecting points at the tips.
These fruits often persist after opening, and may be seen at any time of the year. Mountain
golden heather begins flowering in about its third year, and roots vegetatively at the edges once it
forms well-rounded clumps, after perhaps 10 years. Large, well-rooted clones may become
fragmented into separate, self-maintaining plants. The majority of the existing plants appear to
have developed in this manner (USFWS, 2002b).
This plant is found only in Burke and McDowell Counties, North Carolina, at elevations of 2,800
to 4,000 feet. Originally discovered on Table Rock Mountain in 1816, mountain golden heather
has since been found at several other sites, in Linville Gorge and on Woods Mountain. All sites
are on public land within the Pisgah National Forest. Mountain golden heather is known from
several localities within its range, with the total number of plants possibly numbering 2,000 to
2,500. Monitoring is needed to determine if the plant's abundance may be cyclic (USFWS,
2002b).
Mountain golden heather grows on exposed quartzite ledges in an ecotone between bare rock and
Leiophylluni dominated heath balds that merge into pine/oak forest. The plant persists for some
time in the partial shade of pines, but it appears less healthy than in open areas.
No potential habitat exists in the project area for the mountain golden heather. The known
populations are found in elevations well above the project area elevations; also, no heath balds are
present within the project area. A search of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats,
on November 12, 2004, found no occurrences of this species in the project area; it is, therefore,
concluded that this project will not impact this species.
3.6.2.4 Small Whorled Pogonia
Small whorled pogonia is a small, perennial member of the Orchidaceae. These plants arise from
long slender roots with hollow stems terminating in a whorl of five or six light green leaves. The
single flower is approximately one inch long, with yellowish-green to white petals and three
longer green sepals. This orchid blooms in late spring, from mid-May to mid-June. Populations
of this plant are reported to have extended periods of dormancy and to bloom sporadically. This
small Spring, ephemeral orchid is not observable outside of the spring growing season. When not
in flower, young plants of Indian cucumber-root (Medeola virginialta) also resemble small
whorled pogonia. However, the hollow stout stem of Isotria will separate it from the genus
Medeola, which has a solid, more slender stem (USFWS 2002c).
Small whorled pogonia may occur in young as well as maturing forests, but typically grow in
open, dry, deciduous woods and areas along streams with acidic soil. It also grows in rich, mesic
woods in association with white pine and rhododendron (Russo, 2000).
A search of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats, on November 12, 2004, found
no occurrences of this species in the project area. No potential habitat exists within the proposed
project area; it is, therefore, concluded that this project will not impact this species.
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
3-7
0
0

' '
s Blazing Star
3.6.2.5 Heller
Heller's Blazing Star (Liatris helleri) is a perennial herb that has one or more erect stems or
arching stems (maximum 16 inches) arising from a tuft of narrow, pale green basal leaves. Its
stems are topped by a showy spike of lavender flowers that are 7 to 20 centimeters long. Heller's
Blazing Star is differentiated from other similar species by a much shorter pappus, ciliate petioles,
' internally pilose corolla tubes, and a lower, stockier habit. This plant is found on high elevation
ledges of rock outcrops, in shallow, acid soils that are exposed to full sunlight (USFWS, 1989).

11

The project area is located within bottomlands, primarily on alluvial soils. No rock outcrops are
located within the proposed project area; therefore, no potential habitat exists in the project area
for the Heller's Blazing Star. A search of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats,
on November 12, 2004, found no occurrences of this species in the project area; it is, therefore,
concluded that this project will not impact this species.
3.7 Cultural Resources
A letter was sent to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on September 28, 2004,
requesting a review for potential cultural resources in the vicinity of the Silver Creek restoration site. A
response dated November 4, 2004, indicated that SHPO had reviewed the proposed project and was not aware
of any historic resources on the site. Due to the location and the high probability for historic or prehistoric
archeological sites on the property, SHPO recommended a search of the site. It is anticipated that this project
will have no impact on such sites. As requested by the NC SHPO, an archaeological survey is planned. A
copy of the SHPO correspondence is included in Appendix 1.
3.8 Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites
An Environmental Data Registry (EDR) Radius Map Report was obtained, dated December 21, 2004, 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 1. 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.
3.9 Potential Constraints
The Bailey Fork project site was assessed for potential fatal flaws and site constraints. They are listed in the
table below. No constraints or fatal flaws have been identified during the production of the proposed
restoration plan.
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING 3$
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
I
Table 3.4
Summary of Potential Restoration Constraints for the Bailey Fork Site

Property ownership No EBX-Neuse I, LLC (EBXN-I), has entered into an
Agreement of Sale for the acquisition of an easement with
the landowner for the Bailey Fork Site. The Agreement
allows EBXN-I to proceed with the restoration and to restrict
the land use through a permanent conservation easement.
Hydrologic trespass and flooding of No The topography of the site supports the design without
FEMA mapped areas creating the potential for hydrologic trespass. Based on
FEMA mapping, Bailey Fork, but not the tributaries, is
classified in Zone AE, which is designated as a detailed
flood study area. No adjustments to the bed or floodplain
elevations are proposed for Bailey Fork; therefore a flood
study will not be conducted.
Post-restoration access to the site No EBXN-I has legal site access to the site through the
conservation easement agreement with the landowner.
Access to the site for construction and post-restoration
monitoring has been provided
Presence of utilities No Residential power lines run through the property. The
project will be designed such that construction activities will
not disturb the lines.
Presence of federally protected species No USFWS, NCWRC, and NCNHP have concurred with the
biological conclusions presented in this report. It is not
anticipated that this project will affect any federally
protected species.
Archaeological sites and historical Unresolved A search of the site is currently being conducted. It is
properties anticipated that this project will have no impact on
archaeological or historical sites.
Farm Operations No The Bailey Fork Site is actively used for agricultural
purposes; therefore, the project must not interfere with the
operational needs of the farm. The design will incorporate
crossings and fencing to exclude cattle.
Soils No Soils have been investigated, and no constraints or fatal
flaws were identified.
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
3-9
I'l
a
I i

4.0 STREAM CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT RESULTS
' 4.1 Reach Identification
' For analysis and design purposes, on-site streams were divided into four reaches. The reach locations are
shown in Exhibits 1.2 and 4.1. The reaches were numbered sequentially, moving from south to north, with
unnamed tributaries carrying a "UT" designation. UT1 begins off site, flows into the project area from the
northwest, and ends at the confluence with Bailey Fork. At the upstream end of UT1, there is a small pond.
According to accounts from the landowner, the outlet structure for the pond failed several years ago, and
water now routes around a low spot in the earthen dam. The flow of water around the dam has formed
multiple unstable stream channels downstream. UT2 begins off site, flows into the project area from the west,
and ends at its confluence with UT1. UT3 begins off site, flows into the project area from the south, and ends
at its confluence with Silver Creek. Bailey Fork flows into the project area from the south and ends at the
confluence with Silver Creek.
4.2 Site Hydrology/Hydraulics
O The total current length of stream on the project site is approximately 14,076 ft. Most of the project reaches
exhibit signs of channelization and are incised. All project reaches are shown as blue-line streams on the
USGS topographic map except for UT2 (Exhibit 1.2). The current location of UT1 as depicted on the USGS
topographic map is no longer accurate. The current stream location is shown in Exhibit 4.1 All project
reaches were determined to be perennial streams (based on a minimum score of 30 and the presence of
biological life) using the NCDWQ Determination of the Origin of Perennial Streams guidelines. Scores for
each reach are shown in table 4.1 (see forms in Appendix 2).

t

t
Table 4.1
Watershed and Reach Summaries.
!(?:rl?}i ! 1:.::171 I1 411a
?}l1/i?'X11111 ', Ii1ItJ Ii 111 Lit i, I!r:?.. 1111I}'1 :11a.;:1ii..
!:•II It :1v IIn:
UT I 1,638 0.81 48.5
UT2 295 0.24 50.75
UT3 2,513 0.92 31.75
Bailey Fork 9,630 8.3 57.5
4.2.1 Surface Water Classification
The NCDWQ designates surface water classifications for bodies of water, such as streams, rivers, and
lakes that define the best uses to be protected within these waters (e.g., swimming, fishing, and drinking
water supply). These classifications carry with them associated water quality standards to protect those
uses. All surface waters in North Carolina must at least meet the standards for Class C
(fishable/swimmable) waters. The other primary classifications provide additional levels of protection
for primary water contact recreation (Class B) and drinking water supplies (WS). Class C waters are
protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival,
agriculture, and other uses suitable for Class C. Classifications and their associated protection rules
may also be designed to protect the free-flowing nature of a stream or other special characteristics.
The streams through the site ultimately discharge into Silver Creek, which flows into the Catawba River
just west of Morganton. Silver Creek and Bailey Fork are both listed as class "WS-IV" waters because
these streams lie within the water supply watershed for the town of Morganton.
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING 4-1
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
D
4.2.2 FEMA Designations 0
The Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Burke County, a
NC (Community Number 370035) indicates that there is a detailed flood study for Bailey Fork;
however, there is no regulatory floodplain associated with the tributaries for the project site. Since the
bed elevations of Bailey Fork will not be altered, and no fill will be deposited within the regulatory
floodplain, no flood study will be required.
4.3 Geomorphic Characterization and Channel Stability Assessment
EBXN-I contracted with Matrix East to perform general topographic and planimetric surveying of the project
site. Matrix East produced a digital elevation model (DEM) based on their survey data, which is used as the
plan set base mapping. Cross-sectional surveys were performed on the stream reaches to assess the current
condition and overall stability of the channels. The following report sections summarize the survey results for
all project reaches. UT1, UT2, UT3, and Bailey Fork watersheds are shown in Exhibit 1.3. Watershed sizes
were calculated at the terminus of each reach and are summarized in Table 4.1. Table 4.2 summaries the
Level II channel classification data for the site. Appendix 2 contains detailed summaries of existing condition
parameters, cross-sectional survey results, and bed material distribution graphs for all reaches.
4.3.1 UT1
At the upstream end of the project along stream UT1, there is a small pond. The outlet structure for the
pond failed several years ago, and water now routes around a low spot in the earthen dam. The flow of
water around the dam has formed an unstable stream channel downstream, with numerous headcuts
along its length.
UT1 is classified as an unstable E5 stream type (Rosgen, 1994) in the upper section of the reach and a
G5 below the confluence with UT2. The modified Wolman pebble count (Rosgen, 1994) is not
appropriate for sand bed streams; therefore, a bulk sampling procedure was used to characterize the bed
material. The majority of the reach had a sand stream bottom; however, in areas where riffle flow was
evident, gravel was present. Bulk bed material samples were taken back to a lab and dry sieved to
obtain a sediment size distribution. The sieve data show that UT1 has a D50 of 0.86-mm and a D84 of
9.05-mm, indicating that the dominant bed material in the stream channel is course sand to medium
gravel.
In the upstream section of UT1, below the pond, two main channels are present. The original spillway
is operating at 1/3 of the flow rate of the emergency spillway (currently the main channel). Due to the
reduced flow in this section of channel, cross section 4 on the upper section of UT1 cannot be compared
to the regional curve. Banks on UT1 become increasingly incised through a series of headcuts. Bank
height ratios are 1.0 in the upper section, above the headcuts. This ratio is doubled in the lower section
of the reach, below the confluence with UT2, to 2.0. The bank height ratio values in the lower section
fall into the highly unstable range in Rosgen's comparison of bank height ratio to vertical stability
ranking. It is likely that over time the upper section will become increasingly unstable as headcuts
continue to migrate upstream. The stream displays no measurable meander geometry due to its
channelized condition. These conditions generally lead to lateral instability over time. Overall, UT1 is
overly straight (sinuosity = 1.13) and has poor bedform diversity.
4.3.2 UT2
UT2 is classified as a straightened and incised E5 stream type (Rosgen, 1994). A bulk sampling
procedure was used to characterize the bed material. The majority of the reach had a sand stream
bottom; however, in areas where riffle flow was evident, some gravel was present. Bulk bed material
samples were taken back to a lab and dry sieved to obtain a sediment size distribution. The sieve data
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
4-2
0
0

show that UT1 has a D50 of 0.61-mm and a D84 of 2.67-mm, indicating that the dominant bed material
in the stream channel is course sand to very fine gravel.
UT2 within the project area flows through an early succession wooded area to the confluence of UT I.
This reach is very uniform throughout the project, with no bedform diversity; therefore, only one cross
section was surveyed The bank height ratio is 2.5 on this reach which falls into the highly unstable
range in Rosgen's comparison of bank height ratio to vertical stability ranking. The stream displays no
measurable meander geometry due to its channelized condition. These conditions generally lead to
lateral instability over time.
4.3.3 UT3
UT3 is classified as a straightened, incised, E5 stream type (Rosgen, 1994). A bulk sampling procedure
was used to characterize the bed material. The majority of the reach had a sand stream bottom;
' however, some gravel was present. Bulk Bed material samples were taken back to a lab and dry sieved
to obtain a sediment size distribution. The sieve data show that UT3 has a D50 of 0.44-mm and a D84 of
1.38-mm, indicating that the dominant bed material in the stream channel is medium sand to very
course sand.
UT3 flows through active pastureland and is highly incised. A small buffer (< 10 feet) is fenced off so
cattle do not have access to the stream. Bank height ratios range- from 1.3 - 1.9 in the surveyed cross
sections. These values fall into the unstable to highly unstable range in Rosgen's comparison of bank
height ratio to vertical stability ranking. The stream has poor bedform diversity and is overly straight
(sinuosity = 1.11), generally displaying no measurable meander geometry due to its channelized
1 condition.
4.3.4 Bailey Fork
Bailey Fork is classified as a moderately incised E5 stream type (Rosgen, 1994). Similar to the other
streams on site, the modified Wolman pebble count (Rosgen, 1994) is not appropriate for sand bed
streams; therefore, a bulk sampling procedure was used to characterize the bed material. The majority
of the reach had a sand stream bottom; however, some gravel was present within the riffles. Bulk bed
material samples were taken back to a lab and dry sieved to obtain a sediment size distribution. The
sieve data show that UT 1 has a D50 of 0.89-mm and a D84 of 3.74-mm, indicating that the dominant bed
' material in the stream channel is course sand to very fine gravel.
Bailey Fork flows through active pastureland. A small buffer consisting mainly of one row of trees is
present on both banks along most of the reach. Bank height ratios range from 1.4-1.7 in the surveyed
cross sections. These values fall into the unstable to highly unstable range in Rosgen's comparison of
bank height ratio to vertical stability ranking. The stream has poor bedform diversity and is overly
straight (sinuosity = 1.13); it generally displays no measurable meander geometry due to its channelized
' condition. These conditions generally lead to lateral instability over time.

EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 43
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
a
Table 4.2
Geomorphic Data for Bailey Fork Site - Stream Channel Classification Level II
:J ilt: Y 'llf6,
1III
Rosgen Stream Type E5/G5 E5 E5 E5
Bankfull Width (Wbla) 10.9 5.1 9.2-10.8 22.9-25.5 Feet
Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkf) 2.0 1.6 1.9-2.2 3.0-3.7 Feet
Cross-Sectional Area (Abla) 21.6 8.0 19.8-20.7 76.2-87.7 Square feet
Width/Depth Ratio (W/D ratio) 5.5 3.3 4.3-5.6 6.2-8.5
Bankfull Max Depth (dmbkf) 2.9 1.9 2.9-3.1 5.1 Feet
Floodprone Area Width (W f a) 20+ 10 40+ 80+ Feet
Bank Height Ratio (BHR) 1-2 2.5 1.3-1.9 1.4-1.7
Entrenchment Ratio (ER) 1.4 2.0 3.4-6.8 3.0-10.6
Meander Width Ratio N/A N/A N/A N/A2
Channel Materials
(Particle Size Index - d50) Coarse sand Coarse sand Medium Sand Coarse sand
d16 0.25 0.23 0.24 0.48 mm
d35 0.46 0.39 0.34 0.69 mm
d50 0.86 0.61 0.44 0.89 mm
d84 9.05 2.67 1.38 3.74 mm
d95 14.98 5.90 3.40 10.94 mm
Slope (S) 0.0056 0.0048 0.0023 0.013 Feet per foot
Channel Sinuosity (K) 1.13 1.03 1.11 1.13
Evolution Scenario G-C-E E -G-C-E E -G-C-E E -G-C-E
Notes:
1. Where multiple cross sections were surveyed in a single reach and data varied, the data are presented as a
range of values.
2. N/A: Meander Width Ratio not measured because channels have been straightened.
4.4 Bank Erosion at Bailey Fork
Bank erosion rates can be approximated using the Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) procedures developed
by Rosgen (2001). The traditional application of BEHI predicts an annual estimation of sediment tonnage
entering the stream reach solely from stream bank erosion. On Bailey Fork, BEHI was also used as the
primary tool to plot areas where the most significant bank erosion was occurring, in order to aid in the design
and placement of structures (See Exhibit 4.2a-4.2e)
Results from the Bailey Fork site assessment indicate that approximately 1,600 tons enter the stream reach
from bank erosion each year, from approximately 9,630 LF of stream. This rate translates to approximately
165 tons per 1,000 LF of stream.
Table 4.3 summarizes the BEHI rates.
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
4-4
0
0
0

Table 4.3
Bailey Fork BEHI Results
IN-144

Bailey Fork 9,630 1,600 165
Previous BEHI assessments, conducted on 40 miles of streams in the foothills region of North Carolina
(South Fork Mitchell River and Snow Creek in Surry County), showed a definitive separation between
degraded reaches and pristine conditions. Pristine reaches generally contributed less than 50-70 tons per
reach (reaches were 1,000 linear feet) per year. Degraded reaches contributed in excess of 150 tons per reach
per year (Halley/Elmore 2002; Halley, 2003). Bailey Fork is 9,630 linear feet long and thus contributes
approximately 165 tons per 1,000 LF. It is difficult to draw a true parallel between the conditions witnessed
on the South Fork Mitchell River, Snow Creek, and those seen on Bailey Fork, as no data have been
published or peer reviewed. But Bailey Fork's drainage area is similar, as well as its stream and valley types,
so the comparison can serve as a benchmark to indicate that there is lateral degradation occurring at this site
which is comparable with degraded conditions seen elsewhere.
In many locations, Bailey Fork's stream bed has downcut beneath the rooting depth of the riparian vegetation.
Trees have collapsed in some locations. In addition to poor rooting depth, stream banks are vertical and in
some locations undercut. Surface protection is inadequate as a result of consistent bank scour, inadequate
vegetation, and root density. Bank height ratios range from 1.4 to 1.7.
UT1 and UT2 were not included in the BEHI survey because they were both less than 1,000 linear feet, and
design approach will be a Rosgen Priority 1. In addition, UT1 had multiple channels that had recently been
cut after the emergency spillway on the upstream pond began functioning as the primary spillway. The
channel had numerous headcuts, indicating that vertical stability was more of an issue than lateral stability.
BEHI is a tool for measuring lateral instability.
Approximately 900 linear feet of UT3 were surveyed for BEHI. The uppermost 900 linear feet of UT3
contributes about 50 tons of sediment to the stream each year. The stream bank heights are low compared to
those seen in the mainstem of Bailey Fork, and the single row of vegetation that lines the channelized ditch of
UT3 did offer dense rootmats in many locations. BEHI is not the contributing factor to degradation on this
small tributary. The channelization, cattle access, loss of connectivity to the floodplain, and lack of aquatic
habitat play more of a significant role in the systems degradation than BEHI. UT3 was the most degraded of
the unnamed tributaries and is experiencing the most significant lateral adjustment of any of the smaller
tributaries. Multiflora rose dominates the stream banks in the upper sections of the tributary and impairs the
development of a thick, vegetated buffer. The root system is not deep enough in some locations to prevent
erosion of the banks. Farther downstream, woody vegetation is more prevalent, but the buffer is very narrow.
Stream banks with vertical angles are experiencing the most erosion; here, vegetation is unable to establish,
root density and depth are not adequate, and surface protection is low since even herbaceous vegetation
cannot take hold. Bank height ratios are generally above 1.5 and exceed 2.0 in some locations.
4.5 Bankfull Verification
The bankfull stage in all reaches on the Bailey Fork Site was identified in the field as the top of point bars, a
consistent break in slope above baseflow water surface, or an upper scour line. These indicators are
consistent with other Piedmont streams. Cross-sectional area plotted versus drainage area for all project
reaches is shown on Figure 4.1. The cross-sectional areas for all project reaches fall well within the 95
percent confidence intervals of the rural Piedmont curve comparing cross-sectional area to drainage area. The
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING 45
' BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
0
"Unstable E and G" channels have downcut but have not experienced much widening of the channel, which
will be needed before they reach quasi-equilibrium.
In order to verify that the Piedmont regional curve is appropriate to use in this region, we assessed the
continuing stability on one USGS gage that was surveyed during the development of the regional curve, and
we surveyed cross sections and a longitudinal profile at a second USGS gaging station. The Norwood Creek
gage, which was surveyed for the original curve, is located about 50 miles east of the Bailey Fork Site. The
second gage, Jacob Fork, is located approximately 15 miles southeast of the Bailey Fork Site. See Exhibit 4.3
for gage and project site locations.
The Norwood site gage is located in the same 8-digit HUC as the project site. The Jacob Fork is located in
the adjacent 8-digit HUC but occurs in the same basin. Drainage area is 7.2 mil at the Norwood Creek gage
site and 25.7 mil at the Jacob Fork Site. Both creeks have small drainage areas in comparison to most active
USGS gages. This provides confidence that the low end of the regional curve is applicable to this region.
The top of bank was a very consistent bankfull indicator at the Norwood Creek Site. Sandy deposition and
rack lines in the floodplain indicated that the creek overtopped its banks on a frequent basis. A visual
assessment of the gage site indicated that the creek has maintained a stable dimension, pattern, and profile in
the period since it was surveyed for the original curve development. For this reason, the information obtained
from this earlier survey was used to verify drainage area versus bankfull cross-sectional area and discharge
relationships for this watershed. The average bankfull cross-sectional area for Norwood Creek is 99 ftz. The
bankfull discharge was determined to be 254 cubic feet per second (cfs).
Bankfull indicators at the Jacob Creek Site consisted of a scour line and depositional features typically present
approximately 4.5 feet above water surface at the time of the survey. The stream has apparently experienced
some incision in the past and has abandoned a relic floodplain while creating a newer one at a lower
elevation. Sandy deposition and rack lines in the active floodplain indicated that the creek overtops its banks
on a frequent basis. The thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of bank were surveyed for 850 feet through
the gage and compared the stage at the bankfull indicator (determined from trend line through all bankfull
indicators) to the stage-discharge table listed for the gage. From the stage-discharge relationship, we
estimated the recurrence interval for the discharge of Jacob Fork related to the bankfull stage to be about 1.23
years. A log Pearson analysis was run on the annual maximum flow data to account for skew in the data set.
The bankfull recurrence interval for the rural Piedmont region is normally 1.09 to 1.8 years with an average
return interval of 1.4 years (Harman et al., 1999). The Jacob Fork return interval is within the range of data
used to develop the NC Piedmont rural regional curve.
The average bankfull cross-sectional area for Jacob Fork (290 SF) plots slightly above the regression line on
the NC Piedmont regional curve (Harman et al., 1999), as illustrated in Figure 4.3; however, this data point is
within the range of the other data points used to develop the curve and within the 95% confidence interval for
the curve. Bankfull discharge was estimated, as discussed above, by comparing the stage at the bankfull
indicator (estimated based on a trend line through all bankfull indicators) to the stage-discharge table listed
for the gage. The bankfull discharge for Jacob Fork is approximately 1,140 cfs. The bankfull area was cross-
referenced with the regional curve, as shown in Figure 4.3. The bankful area plotted within the range of other
data points used to develop the curve.
These gage analyses indicate that bankfull stage was correctly identified at the project site and that the NC
Piedmont regional curve is applicable to these gage sites located near the Bailey Fork project site.
a
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 4-6
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN

Figure 4.1
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curves with bankfull discharge for project reaches and gage cross sections.
I---L-95%

North Carolina Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (,,,.,97.
C- D.4
• B.I., Fak
1000 UT7
• UTI
. U 7
A N-W C,."
J-o Fak
Poxes (C- D..)
ankftXX-Area
(Sq. Ft
10
1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 Y°21.433x'^^'
Watershed Area (Sq. Mi.) rY = 0.9491
4.6 Riparian Vegetation
The existing stream buffers are limited to narrow corridors of five to ten feet from the top of the existing
banks of Bailey Fork and its tributaries throughout most of the project. The dominant species in the overstory
of this community included, sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), swectgum (Liquidambar styraciua), yellow
poplar (Driodendron tulipifera), and black walnut (Juglans nigra). Midcanopy species included Chinese
privet (Ligustrunm sinense), silky dogwood (Corms amonuan), alder (Alms semilata), autumn olive
(Elaeagnus tunbellata), and blackberry (Rubus spp.). Herbaceous and vine species consisted of Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), asters (Aster spp.), Johnson grass (Sorgluani halepense), and various grasses
and sedges.
4.7 Benthic Community
Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected from four sites on January 3-5, 2005 (see Exhibit 4.4).
Sites 1 and 2 are located in UT1 to Bailey Fork, within the project area and upstream of the project area,
respectively. Sites 3 and 4 are located in UT3 to Silver Creek, within the project area and upstream of the
project area, respectively. The sampling methodology followed the Qual-4 protocol listed in the NCDWQ
' Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroin vertebrates. A summary of the Benthic
macroinvertebrate sampling results is presented in Table 4.4, with complete results presented in Appendix 2.
The components of the benthic macroinvertebrate community 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 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 to assess water quality include EPT taxa richness, EPT biotic index, and EPT
abundance, which are shown in Table 4.4.
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING 4-7
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
0
0
Table 4.4
Summary of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data
iE ???';?a:y;?i1:aE ??,r?? a? a??I:v.iii-ti i?,?r! y ;'-??';ri?. Iqi; ?:?1?r.
Total taxa richness 30 26 10 20
EPT taxa richness 14 16 1 9
Total biotic index 4.27 4.09 7.8 4.18
EPT biotic index 3.71 3.41 6.2 2.74
EPT abundance 72 73 10 42
Habitat assessment 51 65 37 53
The benthic macroinvertebrate community of Site 3 is more disturbed than the other three sites. A healthy
community is characterized by higher total and EPT taxa richness values and lower biotic index values.
Lower taxa richness and higher biotic indices were recorded at the restoration sites (Sites 1 and 3) than at the
corresponding upstream reference sites (Site 2 and 4), indicating a decline in water quality downstream of the
reference sites. The most evident decline in water quality is observed in UT3 to Silver Creek: EPT taxa
dropped from 9 (Site 4) to 1 (Site 3), and biotic indices increased considerably downstream. In UT1, from
Site 2 to Site 1, EPT taxa only slightly decreased (from 16 to 14), and biotic indices slightly increased. The
decline in water quality downstream in both UT1 and UT3 corresponds to a decrease of suitable habitat
downstream (see habitat assessment scores in Table 4.4). The restoration reaches (Site 3 in particular) have
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 reaches would provide shading, reduce the
photosynthetic rates 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. Both upstream reference sites (2 and 4) provide refugia to their corresponding
project sites (1 and 3) for those additional species. Potential additional species may also come from Bailey
Fork and Silver Creek, located just downstream of the project area. The influx of macroinvertebrate species
will rely heavily on the successful establishment of the riparian vegetation and in-stream habitat
improvements.
0
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 4.8
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
II
I 5.0 WETLAND ASSESSMENT RESULTS
I 5.1 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 7,000 feet of drainage ditches and channelized streams were
w constructed within the project area, to improve surface and subsurface drainage and to decrease flooding.
5.2 Jurisdictional Wetland Findings

Following an in-office review of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map, Natural Resource Conservation
Service (MRCS) Soil Survey, and United States Geological Survey (USGS) Quadrangle map, a pedestrian
survey of the project area was made to investigate the suspect areas and to delineate all wetlands and waters
of the U. S. The project area was examined utilizing the jurisdictional definition further detailed in the Corps
of Engineers (COE) Metlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Supplementary
information to further support wetland determinations was found in the National List of Plant Species that
Occur in Metlands: Southeast (Region 2) (Reed, 1988).
Wetland determinations were made by evaluating soils and vegetation within the project reach and were
located with a survey grade total station and tied to the State Plane coordinate system.
On-site surveys of the project area were conducted on November 9, 2004, to determine the extent of COE
jurisdiction in the project area. Three jurisdictional wetland areas were identified within the project limits.
These areas are shown in Exhibits 4.1 and 5.1. Delineation forms can be found in Appendix 3. The following
paragraphs describe COE jurisdictional areas found in the project area.
5.2.1 Bailey Fork Wetland #1

Wetland 1 was the largest wetland within the project area and was located in an agricultural field. The
majority of the wetland was scrub-shrub in nature, with some small areas containing mature trees
approximately 25 years in age. Although this wetland had hydric vegetation, it was heavily impacted
due to cattle grazing.
Tree species included green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black willow (Salix nigra), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), and chokecherry (Prunes virginiana). Herbaceous and understory vegetation
consisted of elderberry (Santbuctts cana(lensis), blackberry (Rubes spp.), arrowhead (Sagittaria
latifolia), soft rush (Juncus effuses), wool grass (Scirptts cyperinus), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans). Wetland hydrology included inundation and saturated soils. There was standing water in
places, and water entering the soil pit at 10 inches. The soils were clay loams and were very dark gray,
with yellowish-red mottles.
5.2.2 Bailey Fork Wetland #2
Wetland 2 was a scrub-shrub, depressional wetland located in an agricultural field adjacent to a small,
agricultural ditch. This wetland was heavily impacted by cattle grazing. Vegetation within this wetland
is dominated by soft rush, St. Johns wart (Hypericum spp.), and grasses (Panicum spp.), with no canopy
tree species identified within the wetland. Soils had a distinct hydric layer that was approximately 4 to
5 inches thick. Soils were very dark gray, clay loams, with yellowish-red mottles. Water entered the
soil pit at approximately 10 inches.

EBX/BUCK ENGINEERING 5-1
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
0
5.2.3 Bailey Fork Wetland #3 a
Wetland 3 was a scrub-shrub, depressional wetland located in an agricultural field adjacent to a small,
agricultural ditch. This wetland had identical vegetation to Wetland #2, and was also heavily impacted
due to cattle grazing. Soils were clay loams and were dark gray, with yellowish-red mottles. Water
entered the soil pit at approximately 10 inches.
5.3 Climatic Conditions
Burke County has an average annual rainfall of 49.6 inches (NRCS WETS Table NC 5838 for Morganton)
and a growing season that is 208 days long, beginning on April 3 and ending on October 29. Rainfall data
were collected for the monitoring period from the nearest automated weather station, located in Morganton,
approximately two miles northeast of the project site (Morganton, NC ULAN: 14224, COOP: 315838).
Monthly precipitation amounts from January through December 2004 are compared with Burke County
WETS table average monthly rainfall, in Table 5.1. These data indicate that over the entire year, rainfall was
near normal except during September, when conditions were wetter than average, due to several hurricanes
that passed through the area.
Table 5.1
Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site and Long-Term Averages
'1iljidi'o'i=t;i ?i[f , t.ii +'li)iidil?' i!k- Sti?elLal?l1 , •: ;`, ' +iili- i•a. ltiiuiyii?F 3 , .}ak9i1f +111,ki a,a, ai S1t1+
11!41 )jog
Jan-04 1.20 4.43 -3.23
Feb-04 4.59 4.14 0.45
Mar-04 2.13 4.85 -2.72
Apr-04 3.74 3.79 -0.05
May-04 4.77 4.49 0.28
Jun-04 5.68 4.74 0.94
Jul-04 6.16 3.91 2.25
Aug-04 2.44 3.74 -1.30
Sep-04 13.87 4.18 9.69
Oct-04 1.53 3.84 -2.31
Nov-04 5.97 3.79 2.18
Dec-04 3.76 3.72 0.04
Sum 55.84 49.62 6.22
5.4 Hydric Soils
Soils within the proposed wetland restoration areas are mapped as the Hatboro and Arkaqua series by the
NRCS Burke County Soil Survey. Hatboro is considered a hydric "A" soil type in Burke County. The
Arkaqua series is considered a hydric "B" soil type, indicating that in some areas of these mapped soils,
inclusions of hydric soils can be found. The areas with Hatboro and Arkaqua soils generally conform to the
range of characteristics presented in the NRCS Official Soils Descriptions (OSD) for those soils.
Hatboro and Arkaqua series are mapped in the floodplain of Bailey Fork in the project area. Descriptions of
both hydric and non-hydric soils within the project boundary are provided in Section 3.3, and a soils map for
the site is provided in Exhibit 3.2.
a
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 5-2
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN 0

While there are existing areas of hydric soils and jurisdictional wetlands (see field assessment forms in
Appendix 3), on-site analyses of the soils in the northern portion of the site indicate the presence of buried
hydric soils. The process of valley aggradation has been documented across much of the Piedmont and
Mountain regions of North Carolina (Trimble, 1975). During the early 1900's, the lack of good land
management practices resulted in extreme amounts of erosion and sediment loss. This sediment load was
carried by the rivers and streams, and during large flow events, large amounts of sediment were deposited on
adjacent floodplains. In some cases, valley aggradation of more than four to five feet of sediment has been
documented. Eroded stream banks and preliminary soil borings indicate that this process buried extensive
areas of hydric soils and historic wetland areas on the northern portion of the Bailey Fork Site, to a depth of
approximately 1 to 1.5 feet. Restoration of the site would restore wetland functions to these areas of buried
hydric soils. Currently, these soils are too dry to support wetland functions.
5.5 Water Table Hydrology
A hydrography map for the site, shown in Exhibit 4. 1, demonstrates the amount of ditching and
channelization that has been performed on the site. UT3 flows onto the property from the southern boundary,
runs along the eastern edge, and outlets into Silver Creek, under the railroad tracks at the northern end of the
property. During conversion of the site, stream channels and wetland systems throughout the site were
channelized to improve drainage. Additional field ditches were constructed to further improve drainage.
Water table data were collected from the field adjacent to UT3 and Bailey Fork from three automated and
four manual groundwater wells, from October 2004 through February 2005. The automated wells were
installed in open field areas that are typical of the range of conditions across the site. The four manual wells
were installed across the site to supplement the automatic well data. All of the wells are located within the
areas proposed for wetland restoration or enhancement. The wells were installed to a depth of 40 inches, and
automated wells (Infinities USA pressure transducer units) were programmed to record water table levels
every 12 hours. To meet minimum wetland hydrologic criteria in Burke County, the water table must be
within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for a minimum of 11 consecutive days (5% of the growing
season).
The existing hydrology of the site is controlled by several lateral drainage ditches, as well as an incised stream
which flows along the eastern property boundary (UT3). A small, lateral ditch flows into the main lateral
ditch that bisects the property. These two ditches eventually flow into UT3 and then flow into Silver Creek.
There is one large, existing wetland, as well as two pocket wetland areas, in this field, as shown in Exhibits
4.1 and 5.1. Any precipitation that falls on the site is quickly diverted from the field via the drainage ditches
or stream.
The majority of the data were collected during the dormant season, as the growing season for Burke County
ends on October 29. This period of the year is typically wetter and has higher water table conditions than the
summer months. Precipitation data collected during the monitoring period indicate that average rainfall
occurred. The wells represent a range of conditions across the site, as shown in the graphs in Appendix 3.
See Exhibit 5.1 for the locations of wells. Well #1 is located in the middle of the largest existing wetland on
site. This area receives hillside seepage and is lower in landscape position than the surrounding area. The
seepage and runoff from the hillside is captured in this area, enabling the water to infiltrate the soil profile and
create a higher water table. Well #4 is located on the edge of the second largest jurisdictional wetland area.
The greatest effect of the ditches is shown in this hydrograph, where there are periods during which the water
table is at the surface during high rainfall but quickly recedes after the rain ends. The peaks of the hydrograph
correlate well with the rain events (Appendix 3). Well #7 is located between a drainage ditch and the incised
UT3. Its hydrograph shows a rising water table after significant rainfall, but after periods of no rainfall, the
water table recedes due to the effect of the incised stream that draws the water table down. Data collected
from the manual well locations indicate a range of conditions. These wells represent average conditions
across the restoration site.
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING 5-3
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
0
5.6 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 (version 5.1)
was used to develop hydrologic simulation models to represent conditions across the proposed restoration
area. DRAINMOD was identified as an approved hydrologic tool for assessing wetland hydrology by the
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 about site
conditions. Rainfall and air temperature information were collected from the nearest automated weather
station, in Morganton, approximately two miles southwest of the project site (Morganton, NC UCAN: 14224,
COOP: 315838). Measured field parameters were entered into the models, and initial model simulations were
compared with 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.
Trends in the observed data were well represented by the model simulations; however, it should be noted that
a limited amount of observed data were available for comparison. It is important to note that DRAINMOD
uses simplifying assumptions in the estimation of water table depths. When applied to a site such as the
Bailey Fork 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.
DRAINMOD computes daily water balance information and produces summaries that describe the loss
pathways for rainfall over the model simulation period. Table 5.2 summarizes the average annual amount of
rainfall, infiltration, drainage, runoff, and evapotranspiration estimated for the existing condition of the
project area, based on 60-year simulations. The average amounts for the simulated areas, as well as the
minimum and maximum values, are presented in the table. 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 drainage ditches or underlying aquifers. Runoff is water that
flows over land and reaches drainage ditches before infiltration. Evapotranspiration is water that is lost
through 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 on the site is lost to
evapotranspiration, which is typical for farm fields in the Piedmont of North Carolina. Drainage is also a
significant loss pathway for water under the existing farm conditions. Restoration of the site will involve
excavating the sediment deposited over the hydric soil layer, plugging the network of drainage ditches, raising
the bottom elevation of the stream, and increasing the amount of surface storage available to pond water. In
this way, the respective amounts of drainage and runoff are decreased, and the excess water allows the water
table to remain higher throughout the year, thus restoring wetland hydrology.
Table 5.2
Water Balance Data for Existing Conditions of the Project Site
,.i iii'•1111jtj1?
1 ?''.1 't 111 :1 /:1• '.4111111:1 A111t1#1i1iIN I-1' - 1 I '.111111iN-:Ii 11
1''1.?1111'.•1 ?:.11:!)• ,1l.--.: `.411111€+e •.'aIIto !IN 11"1„oa- i1. •1'u?:l• `?1#111111:4A11)1'
i ?tlll., i :11 ,I . Y.; 1!,1' " 1111':}I!.
Precipitation 126.7 (79.8 to 172.2) 100
Drainage 47.6 (21.3 to 71.5) 37.6 (16.8 to 56.4)
Runoff 13.7 (0.0 to 33.4) 10.8 (0.0 to 26.4)
Evapotranspiration 65.4 (48.5 to 85.9) 51.6 (38.3 to 67.8)
0

EBx/ BUCK ENGINEERING 5-4
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN 0

5.7 Wetland Reference Site
' An existing wetland and stream system similar to the system to be restored on the Bailey Fork site was
identified near the project site (Exhibit 5.2). This site falls within the same climatic, physiographic, and
ecological regions as the restoration site.
' The reference site is located on two adjacent parcels on Connelly Street, near the Town of Glen Alpine and
the City of Morganton, approximately 2.5 miles west of the Bailey Fork restoration site. The stream
associated with the wetland system is an unnamed tributary to Little Silver Creek. The reference site is most
similar to a "Piedmont/ Low Mountain alluvial forest" as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). These
systems exist on river and stream floodplains. Hydrology of these systems is palustrine which are
intermittently or seasonally flooded. Flows tend to be highly variable, with occasional flooding.
The site classifies as a wetland, utilizing criteria identified in the USACE 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual.
These criteria include the FAC Neutral Test, oxidized root channels, and local soil survey data. Climatic
conditions of the reference site are the same as those described for the project site (Section 4.3). The wetland
delineation form is in Appendix 3.
The reference site has experienced disturbances in the past, primarily due to its proximity to Connelly Street,
Interstate 40, and a maintained power line easement. This disturbance is most evident in the existing
' vegetation, which consists of a mature overstory but contains invasive species within the understory. An
extensive search of the area surrounding the Bailey Fork site was conducted, and no undisturbed sites were
located. The hydrology of the site does not appear to be disturbed. Soils, hydrology, and vegetation for the
' site sites are described in the sections that follow.
5.7.1 Soils
Soils of the reference site were examined, and onsite soil samples were taken. Soils in the reference
wetland were determined to be hydric. Arkaqua is the primary series mapped on the reference site. The
Arkaqua series consists of somewhat poorly-drained soils that formed in loamy alluvium along nearly
' level floodplains and creeks. Runoff is slow, and permeability is moderate. Soil texture within the
profile ranges from loam to clay loam to sandy loam to sandy clay loam. This soil series is also found in
the wetland restoration area of UT3 on the Bailey Fork site. The area is prone to frequent flooding from
' the adjacent stream channel, as well as overland flow.
5.7.2 Hydrology
The hydrology of the wetland varies across the site due to relative changes in topography and soil
conditions. These conditions are typical of a Piedmont/ Low Mountain alluvial forest system. The site
hydrology is controlled primarily by overland flow, seepage flow from the toe of an adjacent hill slope,
and overbank flooding captured in depressional areas.
5.7.3 Vegetation
The canopy of the system is dominated by various bottomland species. The reference site is comprised
e of greater than 83% facultative and wetter species and therefore, meets the hydrophytic vegetation
requirement.
Vegetation within the reference wetland area primarily consists of red maple (Ater rubnan), sycamore
1 (Plautus occidentalis), privet (Ligustrun: sinense), American holly (Ilex opaca), tag alder (Alnus
serrulata), elderberry (Sa/nbucus Canadensis), Christmas fern (Polystichun: acrostichoides), and
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 5-5
' BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
a
6.0 SELECTED DESIGN CRITERIA a
6.1 Potential for Restoration
This project site is an appropriate candidate for restoration due to the degraded nature of the streams within
the project area. The channel reaches are incising, and bank erosion is contributing excessive fine sediment to
the areas downstream of the project site. Restoration can help to stabilize the channels, halt incision, and
significantly diminish bank erosion.
There are few potential obstacles to achieving Priority I or Priority II stream restoration on the three unnamed
tributaries. A Priority II restoration approach will be required on UT2 to meet the grade of the upstream and
downstream tie in points. The project is located in a rural watershed, with no plans indicating land use
changes in the foreseeable future; therefore, there are no present or future constraints at the site associated
with structure and/or infrastructure encroachments.
Due to the size of Bailey Fork, a Priority IV restoration will be used to stabilize actively eroding banks that
were identified during the BEHI assessment discussed in section 4.4.
6.1.1 UT1 Channel Restoration Potential
UT1 begins on the upstream side of a small pond. The pond will be drained, and the dam will be
removed. The new stream channel will be constructed through the existing bed of the drained pond in
the upper section of the reach and then re-meandered through the field below the existing dam. A small
section of Priority II channel will be constructed in the downstream end, in order to step the channel
down to tie into the existing channel on Bailey Fork.
6.1.2 UT2 Channel Restoration Potential
UT2 will be restored using a Priority II approach along the entire reach in order to link the channel to an
existing culvert at the upstream end, as well as to tie into UT1 at the downstream end. A berm of 1 to 2
feet will be constructed between UT1 and UT2, near the confluence, to ensure that floodwaters from
UT 1 do not cut over and flow into UT2.
6.1.3 UT3 Channel Restoration Potential
The existing ground along approximately 2,400 feet of the new stream alignment on UT3 will be
graded down within the wetland restoration area. Throughout this section, a Priority I approach will be
used. Below the wetland restoration area, approximately 830 feet will be constructed using a Priority II
approach, in order to tie back into the existing channel on UT3. After tying back into the existing
channel, a Priority IV approach will be used to stabilize approximately 135 feet along the existing
channel, up to the railroad crossing.
6.1.4 Bailey Fork Channel Restoration Potential
A Priority I restoration approach on Bailey Fork was determined not to be feasible for several reasons.
A Priority I restoration would raise the base flood elevations within the FEMA mapped floodway in
close proximity to the City of Morganton. This approach would require extensive coordination with
FEMA and most likely would not be permitted. Additionally, there is not enough slope through the Q
project site to raise the incised stream bed quickly to a Priority I, which would result in a lengthy
Priority II restoration section. A priority II approach would require a significant amount of cut material,
which would make the project cost prohibitive; Bailey Fork will therefore be enhanced using a Priority
IV approach. A BEHI assessment was conducted in order to identify eroding areas along both banks of
Bailey Fork through the project area. The BEHI ranking (Exhibit 4.2) was used to prioritize treatment
zones. Several methods will be used to stabilize these eroding areas. Rock structures or rootwads will
primarily be used to stabilize banks by redirecting the water away from the eroding bank or by
0
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 6-1
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN a
protecting the banks from near bank stress. In some areas the bank may need to be reshaped or sloped
back to create stable meander geometry. Banks that exhibit minor erosion may be stabilized through
bioengineering techniques.
6.2 Design Criteria Selection
Selection of natural channel design criteria and associated wetland design criteria is based on a combination
of approaches, including review of reference reach databases, regime equations, and evaluation of results
from past projects, as discussed in Section 2.6.
Selection of a general restoration approach was the first step in selecting design criteria for the streams on the
Bailey Fork site. The approach was based on each reach's potential for restoration, as determined during the
site assessment. After selection of the general restoration approach, specific design criteria were developed so
that each reach's plan view layout, cross-sectional dimensions, and profile could be described for the purpose
of developing construction documents.
6.2.1 Reference Reach Survey
An extensive reference reach search was conducted in the area surrounding the project site. Initially, a
search radius of 5 miles was selected. When a search of this area revealed no useful reference reaches,
the search radius was increased. A search for reference reaches conducted within a 15-mile radius of
the project site concluded without locating any useful sites. General land use in the area surrounding
the project site is low-concentration residential and agriculture. Streams in the area have generally been
straightened and channelized during the conversion of land to agriculture or the development of
residential areas. Although several streams exhibiting good bankfull indicators were located, none had
pattern that was determined to be stable or appropriate for the valley type.
6.2.2 Reference Reach Database
A reference reach database developed by the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) was also
consulted for additional design parameters. Two reference reach datasets were selected from the
database to provide information for low-slope, alluvial streams: Oak Forest Branch in Mecklenburg
County (Clinton, 2001) and a tributary to Cane Creek in Rowan County. Data considered in the design
criteria selection from these two reference reaches are shown in Appendix 4.
6.2.3 Design Criteria Selection Method
Specific design parameters were developed using a combination of reference reach data, past project
experiences, and best professional judgment. The design philosophy at the Bailey Fork site is to use
conservative values for the selected stream types and to allow natural variability in stream dimension,
facet slope, and bed features to form over long periods of time under the processes of flooding, re-
colonization of vegetation, and watershed influences.
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 6-2
I' BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
B
6.3 Design Criteria for the Bailey Fork Site
After examining the assessment data collected at the site and exploring the site's potential for restoration, an
approach to the stream restoration was developed. First, an appropriate stream type for the valley type 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 and channel incision
were considered as well. The proposed stream types for the project are summarized in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1
Project Design Stream Types

UT1 C5 Restoration of dimension, pattern, and profile will return the reach to its original
stream type with functioning floodplain. "C" stream type is based on information
from reference reaches under similar slope and sediment supply conditions.
UT2 C5 Restoration of dimension, pattern, and profile will return the reach to its original
stream type with functioning floodplain at a lower elevation. "C" stream type is
based on information from reference reaches under similar slope and sediment
supply conditions.
UT3 C5 Restoration of the stream to its historic floodplain is required to restore wetland
hydrology. Restoration of 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.
UT3 n/a Enhancement through the use of stabilizing structures, bank sloping, and riparian
plantings.
Bailey Fork E Enhancement through the use of stabilizing in-stream structures in highly eroded
areas and additional buffer planting will help stabilize unstable areas as well as
improve in-stream habitat, increase water infiltration, and decrease stream bed and
stream bank erosion.
B
0
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING 6-3
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN a

7.0 RESTORATION DESIGN
7.1 Overview
The objectives of this project will be the restoration of approximately 6,018 feet of stream, the enhancement
of approximately 9,765 feet of stream and 5.3 acres of wetland, and the restoration of approximately 11.8
acres of riverine wetland. The restoration design will seek to restore a "Piedmont/ Low Mountain alluvial
forest," as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). "Piedmont/ Low Mountain alluvial forests" exist on
floodplain areas of small, Piedmont and Mountain streams. They are similar to larger levee swamp and
bottomland systems; however, features associated with these larger systems are often absent or poorly
developed.
The hydrology of these systems is variable, due to their small watershed sizes. They are generally seasonally
or intermittently flooded. Wetland hydrology may be driven by poorly-drained soils, lack of adequate
drainage, and periodic flooding from overbank events. Emphasis is placed on proper design of the stream
channel itself, such that stability of designed channels will be maintained. Flow of groundwater and overbank
flooding events will drive the hydrologic restoration of the wetland areas on UT3. The first few sections that
follow discuss the design of the stream channel components, followed by discussion of the wetland
restoration components.
7.2 Natural Channel Design Summary
The proposed natural channel designs for UT I, UT2 and UT3 are the highest level of restoration feasible
given the valley and stream types. Selection of restoration type follows Rosgen's priority restoration
approach for incised streams (Rosgen, 1997), which has an overriding objective of re-establishing contact
between the channel and a floodplain. For the purposes of this discussion, the four Rosgen restoration
approaches have been defined below in order of decreasing restoration benefit:
• Priority I - Re-establish the channel on a previous floodplain (i.e., raise channel elevation); meander new
channel to achieve dimension, pattern, and profile characteristic of a stable stream for the particular valley
type; fill or isolate existing incised channel.
• Priority II - Establish a new floodplain for the existing bankfull elevation (i.e., excavate a new
floodplain); meander channel to achieve dimension, pattern, and profile characteristic of a stable stream
for the particular valley type; fill or isolate existing incised channel.
• Priority III - Establish a new floodplain at the existing bankfull elevation (i.e., using bankfull benches);
leave existing channel in place; use in-stream structures to dissipate energy through a step/pool channel
type.
• Priority IV - Stabilize the channel in place using in-stream structures and bioengineering to decrease
stream bed and stream bank erosion.
The entire length of the restored stream channel along reach UTl will involve a Priority I restoration
approach. The entire length of the restored stream channel along reach UT2 will involve a Priority II
restoration approach. A Priority I channel will be constructed along the wetland restoration section of UT3.
Below the wetland restoration area the restored channel will transition into an area of Priority II restoration.
A short section of Priority IV will be constructed at the downstream end of UT3 to tie the channel back into
the elevation of the incised existing channel. Bailey Fork will be enhanced using a Priority IV approach. The
new channels and enhancement areas will be constructed as described below.

EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 7-1
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
0
0
7.3 Natural Channel Design
* See project construction plans for detailed design in formation.
7.3.1 Tributary Restoration (UT1, UT2, and UT3)
Restoration of site hydrology will involve the restoration of natural stream systems on the site. The
stream systems that have historically flowed through the site were channelized and as a result, are now
incised. The design for the restored streams, UT 1, UT2, and UT3, will involve the construction of new,
meandering channels across the existing agricultural fields. For UT3, the design will also involve the
restoration of a riverine wetland system. The stream type for the restored streams will be Rosgen "C"
channels, with design dimensions based on the design criteria discussed in Section 6. Selected design
parameters, based on the information provided in Table 7. 1, are provided in Tables 7.2 and 7.3. Total
stream length across the Bailey Fork Restoration Project will be increased from 14,076 feet to
approximately 15,783 feet. Actual restored length will be determined after as-built plan sheets have
been developed for the project.
The design on the project tributaries will allow stream flows larger than bankfull flows to spread onto
the floodplain, dissipating flow energies and reducing stress on stream banks. In-stream structures will
be used to control stream bed grade, reduce stresses on stream banks, and promote bedform sequences
and habitat diversity. The in-stream structures will consist of root-wads, log vanes, log weirs, and other
wood structures that will promote a diversity of habitat features in the restored channel. Where grade
control is an issue, constructed riffle structures will be used to provide long-term stability. Constructed
riffle structures will be needed at the downstream end of reach UT1 and UT3 to "step" the restored
stream channel down to the existing incised channel. Constructed riffles will also be used through out
the project in areas where steep riffle slopes exist. Stream banks will be stabilized using a combination
of erosion control matting, live staking, and transplants. Transplants will provide living root mass to
increase stream bank stability and create holding areas for fish and aquatic biota.
The new stream channels will be constructed "in the dry," and all stabilization practices will be in place
prior to routing stream water into the new sections of channel. When it is time to route water into the
new sections, plugs will be installed in the old channel to re-direct the water into the new channel.
Immediately after the water has been routed into the new channel, the process of filling the old channel
with soil will begin.
One stream crossing will be incorporated into the stream restoration design. The crossing will be
located at approximate station 47+00 along Reach UTlb, as shown on the design plans. The crossing
will be constructed as a rock ford, using a gradation of stone to maintain the stream bed elevation and
allow for equipment traffic across the stream without causing damage upstream or downstream.
7.3.2 Bailey Fork Enhancement
The BEHI assessment was used as the basis for the Bailey Fork design. The BEHI assessment was
conducted using sub-meter accuracy GPS equipment and transferred onto the project base mapping to
create a map showing moderate, high, and extreme BEHI locations. Project designers walked the entire
length of Bailey Fork within the project area using the BEHI map to prioritize and guide treatment
approaches. Particular attention was paid to sources of near bank stress in combination with the BEHI
assessment. The use of these two assessment measures allowed for a range of treatment applications.
More drastic enhancement approaches, such as reshaping the banks and use of rock structures, were
designed for those areas exhibiting extreme BEHI and high near bank stress. On the other end of the
cross vanes, and J-hooks. These structures will help protect and stabilize the banks as well as provide a
diversity of habitat features in the channel. Q
treatment spectrum, areas with moderate BEHI and low near bank stress will be stabilized by matting 0
the banks and installing live stakes. In-stream structures utilized will consist of root-wads, rock vanes,
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 7-2
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN 0

1

1

r-
L

Table 7.1
Reference Parameters Used to Determine Design Ratios
I!t,?. .li?la?:i'• 1tr-?!. 1'3 ii!'l1 1t1ai1?j A , ??illl?:?•: ?Irf? -,i?1? f, v?a•?;
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 0.39 1.5
Stream Type (Rosgen) E5 E4/5
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 17.8 20.5
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 5.8
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 9.14 5.05
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (fVft) 23.47
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (fVft) 1.2
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf 6.25 7.23
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf 2.41 2.5
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf 2.42 8.5
Sinuosity, K 1.24 1.8
Valley Slope, Sval (fVft) 0.0023 0.0025
Channel Slope, Schan (fl/ft) 0.0018 0.0014
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.36
Run Slope Ratio, Srun/Srif
Glide Slope Ratio, Sglide/Schan
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.29
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 1.45
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 1.1
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 5.25
d 16 (mm)
d35 (mm)
d50 (nun)
d84 (mm)
Notes:
All slopes are water surface slopes.
See Appendix 4 for database sheets.
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING 7-3
' BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
0
Table 7.2
Natural Channel Design Parameters for the Bailey Fork Site - UT1 and UT2

"qr'!inTnliq?
I
I:wiill'll-
i?t=a
,??= •' a'w ?;??;,- iii ,. ,
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 0.8 0.24
Design Stream Length (feet) 1,920 900
Stream Type (Rosgen) CS C5 CS C5 Note 1
Bankfull (bkf) Discharge, Qbkf (cfs) 72 18.3 Note 2
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (fVs) 3.9 2.2 V=Q/A
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 18.5 8.2 Note 2
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft) 149 9.9 AR7;J D
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 1.2 0.8 d=A/W
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 12 12 Note 3
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 130 240 60 220
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 8.7 16.1 6.1 22.2 Note 4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 1.8 1.2
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.5 1.5 Note 5
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 1.0 Note 6
Meander Length, Lm (ft) 104 164 69 109
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf * 7 11 7 11 Note 7
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft) 30 45 20 30
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf * 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Note 7
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) 52 119 35 79
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf * 3.5 8.0 3.5 8 Note 7
Sinuosity, K 1.3 1.4 TW length / Valley
length
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/fl) 0.014 0.008
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.01 0.0057 Sval / K
Slope Riffle, Srif (fl/ft) 0.016 0.031 0.003 0.022
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.6 3.1 0.5 3.9 Note 8
Slope Pool, Spool (fvft) 0.0005 0.0005 0.001 0.001
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 Note 8
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft) 2.5 3.7 1.7 2.5
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Note 7
Pool Width, Wpool (ft) 19.4 25.3 12.9 16.9
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.7 Note 9
Pool-Pool Spacing, Lps (ft) 52.1 81.9 34.7 54.6
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 3.5 5.5 3.5 5.5 Note 7
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
7-4
0
0
0

Table 7.3
Natural Channel Design Parameters for the Bailey Fork Site - UT3
Ia!?ia; 1' d:: It fihlit'1[>

Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 0.92
Design Stream Length (feet) 3,365
Stream Type (Rosgen) CS C5 Note 1
Bankfull (bkf) Discharge, Qbkf (cfs) 54 Note 2
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 2.7 V=Q/A
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft) 20 Note 2
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf(ft) 16.7 AbkJ*1V/D
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 1.2 d=A/W
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 14 Note 3
Width Noodprone Area, Wfpa (ft) 80 480
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 4.8 28.7 Note 4
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft) 1.7
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.4 Note 5
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (fVft) 1.0 Note 6
Meander Length, Lm (ft) 117 184
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf * 7 11 Note 7
Radius of Curvature, Re (ft) 33 50
Re Ratio, Rc/Wbkf * 2.0 3.0 Note 7
Belt Width, Wblt (ft) 59 134
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf * 3.5 8.0 Note 7
Sinuosity, K 1.4 TW length/ Valley length
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.005
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0035 Sval / K
Slope Riffle, Srif (fVft) 0.003 0.020
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 0.86 6.67 Note 8
Slope Pool, Spool (f1/ft) 0.0005 0.0005
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.14 0.14 Note 8
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft) 2.4 3.6
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 2.0 3.0 Note 7
Pool Width, Wpool (ft) 21.8 28.4
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 1.3 1.7 Note 9
Pool-Pool Spacing, Lps (ft) 58.6 92.0
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 3.5 5.55 Note 7
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 7-5
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN

Notes for Tables 7.2 and 7.3:
1. A C5 stream type is appropriate for a low-slope (generally less than 0.02), wide, alluvial valley
with a sand stream bed.
2. Bankfull discharge was estimated using Manning's equation.
3. A final W/D ratio was selected based on relationships of W/D ratio to slope in NC Piedmont
reference reach streams, 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 Oak Forest Branch and Cane Creek Tributary reference reach data
and past project evaluation.
8. Values were chosen based the Cane Creek Tributary reference reach data and past project
evaluation.
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.
7.4 Sediment Transport Analysis
UT1 (D50=0.86 mm), UT2 (D50=0.60 mm), and UT3 (D50=0.40 mm) have median particle sizes that result in
their classification as sand bed streams; therefore, the restoration reaches on the Bailey Fork site were
analyzed for sediment transport capacity rather than for competency, as described in section 2.7.
The purpose of the sediment transport analysis for the UTs on the Bailey Fork site is to ensure that the stream
restoration design creates a stable sand bed 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.
Sediment transport capacity, measured as unit stream power (Watts/m2), was compared for the existing stream
channels and the design channels. Table 7.4 shows bankfull boundary shear stress and stream power values
for existing and design conditions. Stream power values for the existing and design conditions all compare
well to values for similar streams and valley types, described in Nanson and Croke, 1992. According to their
classification system, the UT1 classified as a B2 valley type (gravels, sands, silts, and organics), while UT2
and UT3 classified as B3b valley types (sands and minor gravel beds in wide alluvial valleys). The range of
stream powers for the B2 valley type in their study is 30 to 200W/M2. The range of stream powers for the
B3b is 10 to 60 W/M2. Figure 7.1 shows a comparison between bankfull stage and shear stress of the existing
and design cross sections. Sediment transport rate is higher at higher stages for the existing conditions
channel due to the higher bank height ratios. Flows higher than bankfull are trapped in the existing incised
channel, which results in an excess in channel power and a higher shear stress. The design channel will allow
flows greater than bankfull to spread out on the floodplain, thus dissipating this excess energy.
0
0
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING 7-6
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN 9
s
i
i
Table 7.4
Boundary Shear Stresses and Stream Power for Existing and Design Conditions for UT1, UT2, and UT3
ii}al?ti1lt?f? '+`t'1111: (1;?;ll.illil?f_I?.cilal)
0 Bill 11 l.R % it 1W
Bankfull Q (cfs) 72 18 54
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 21.6/18.5 8.0/8.2 20.3/20.0
Bankfull Width, W (ft) 10.9/14.9 5.7/9.9 10.0/16.7
Bankfull Mean Depth, D (ft) 2.0/1.2 1.6/0.8 2.1/1.2
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (fVft) 5.5 / 12 3.3 / 12 5.0/14.0
'Vetted Perimeter 12.4/17.4 7.7/11.6 13.0/19.1
Hydraulic Radius, R (ft) 1.2/1.1 0.9/0.7 1.3/1.1
Slope (fvft) 0.013 / 0.010 0.006 / 0.006 0.005 / 0.004
Boundary Shear Stress, T (1bS/ft2) 0.98/0.66 0.32/0.25 0.40/0.33
Stream Power (W/m2) 93.5/43.7 19.3/9.6 25 / 14.7
Figure 7.1
Comparison between bankfull stage and shear stress of existing and design cross sections.
Stage vs. Shear
2.5
N
d
N
U) ----.-
0.5 - - - - -- -------- - - -
0
0.25 1.25 2.25 3.25 4.25 5.25
Stage (ft)
sting UT1 - Design UT2- Existing -)E- UT2 - Design - UT3 - Existing -o- Ut3 - Design
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING 7-7
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
0
0
7.5 Restoration of Wetland Hydrology
The existing agricultural fields across the site are currently drained by a series of lateral ditches and
channelized streams. To restore wetland hydrology to the site, the lateral field ditches will be partially filled,
depending on the amount of fill material that can be produced from minor land grading and excavation of the
new stream channels. When complete filling of lateral 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 lateral ditches. In these locations, the ditch 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.
As discussed in section 5.4, on-site analyses of the soils in the northern portion of the site indicate the
presence of buried hydric soils. The depth to the buried hydric soil layer was analyzed across the restoration
zone by coring to the layer and recording the depth of deposited sediment. The coring was conducted in a
grid fashion, and at each core the elevation of the surface of the hydric soil layer was recorded using a total
station survey unit. In this manner, a contour file of the hydric soil surface was created and used to develop
the grading plan. Grading activities will focus on removing the deposited sediment over the buried hydric soil
layer in the field as well as 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. Grading cuts
will generally be less than 10 inches in most areas.
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 2.8.
7.6 Hydrologic Model Analyses
The DRAINMOD simulations that were developed to evaluate the current hydrologic status of the restoration
site (Section 4.6) were modified 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 represent average water levels in the restored, meandering channel. Surface storage parameters
were increased, within a range of two to four centimeters, to represent soil scarification practices. Input files
that describe cropping conditions were changed to represent forested conditions.
To estimate the average hydrologic condition of the restored site, two model scenarios were simulated to

evaluate the restored hydrologic conditions: 1) a location 150 feet from the restored channel, and 2) a location a
300 feet from the restored channel. These scenarios were chosen to represent a range of wetness conditions
expected across the restored site. Scenario #1 was chosen to represent the drier areas of the site located closer
to the restored stream, where the drainage effect would be greatest; however, these areas are most susceptible
to occasional flooding. Scenario #2 was chosen to approximate conditions in areas away from the restored
stream channel. These areas will receive less of a drainage effect and will exhibit the greatest surface storage

EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING 7-8
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN a

due to topographic undulations. Sixty-year simulations were run following the procedures described in
Section 2.14. Results of the simulation are presented in Figure 7.2. DRAINMOD input files are provided in
Appendix 5.
Figure 7.2
Sixty-Year Model Simulation for the Longest Period of Consecutive Days Meeting Wetland Criteria for
Conditions Encountered at Restoration Site

40

35
Average = 13 days
(6% of growing season)
Average = 19 days
(9% of growing season) 13 Scenario 2: 300 feet from restored channel
30-

25-

20-

15
m
3
10

5-
m ? w l i I
0
1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Model Year
The results of the simulations indicate that hydrologic conditions imposed across the restored site will vary
from location to location, depending on the distance from the restored stream channel and topographic
variability. The 150-foot scenario hydrology is influenced more by the drainage effect of the stream channel
and will primarily be controlled by the baseflow water level in the restored stream and overbank flooding.
The second scenario is farther from the restored stream, where the drainage effect becomes insignificant, and
water loss through evapotranspiration and runoff begin to dominate the water balance. Hydrology of these
areas will be restored through topographic manipulations imposed to increase surface storage and infiltration
of water on the site. The simulation runs indicate that, on average, the water table will be less than 30 cm
deep continuously for approximately 6% of the growing season for scenario 1 and 9% for scenario 2. It is
probable that there will be areas slightly drier or slightly wetter than the modeled scenarios within the
restoration areas.
These modeled scenarios provide an indication of the hydrologic conditions that are expected across the
restored site. The data indicate that under average conditions, wetland hydrology will occur for at least 6% to
9% of the growing season across the restored wetland site. Since no wetland system is homogeneous
throughout, hydrology will vary across the restored site. Factors that will affect hydrology in any particular
location include seepage inputs and outputs, degree of ponding, frequency of stream flooding events, local
soil and subsoil conditions, runoff, and run-on.
7.7 Vegetation Plan
The planting plans for the site (see restoration plan sheets) indicate that bare-root trees will be planted within
' all areas of the conservation casement. A 50-foot (minimum) buffer will be established along all restored
EBX / BUCK ENGINEERING 7-9
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
of growing soason) ? Scenario 1: 150 foot from restored channel
O Scenario 2: 300 feot from rostorod channel

BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
0
stream reaches. In most areas, the protected buffer area will exceed 50 feet in width and will include restored
wetland areas. In general, bare-root vegetation will be planted at a target density of 680 stems per acre, or an 8
by 8 foot grid. Planting of bare-root trees will be conducted during the dormant season, with all trees
installed prior to March 15.
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 re-
vegetation 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). Selected species
for hardwood re-vegetation are presented in Table 7.5 below. 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 Q
periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997).
Observations will be made during construction of the site regarding the relative wetness of areas to be
planted. Planting zones will be determined based on these assessments, and planted species will be matched
according to their wetness tolerance and the anticipated wetness of the planting area.
Trees will be transported to the site from the nursery and planted within two days. Tree roots will be kept
moist until placed in the ground. Soils across the site will be sufficiently disked and loosened prior to
planting. Trees will be planted by manual labor, using a dibble bar, mattock, planting bar, or other approved
method. Planting holes for the trees will be sufficiently deep to allow the roots to spread out and down
without "J-rooting." Soil will be loosely compacted around trees once they have been planted to prevent them
from drying out.
Permanent seed mixtures will be applied to all disturbed areas of the project site. Table 7.6 lists the species,
mixtures, and application rates that will be used. One mixture is provided for both floodplain and stream
bank areas. This mixtures will also include temporary seeding (rye grain or browntop millet) to allow for
application with mechanical broadcast spreaders. The permanent seed mixture specified for floodplain areas
will be applied to all disturbed areas outside the banks of the restored stream channel and is intended to
provide rapid growth of herbaceous ground cover and biological habitat value. The seed mixture specified for
restored stream banks will be applied to provide rapid, herbaceous vegetation growth to stabilize constructed
stream banks. The species provided are deep rooted and have been shown to proliferate along restored stream
channels, providing long-term stability.
Temporary seeding will be applied to all disturbed areas of the site that are susceptible to erosion. These
areas include constructed stream banks, access roads, side slopes, spoil piles, etc. If temporary seeding is
applied from November through April, rye grain will be used and applied at a rate of 130 lbs/acre. If applied
from May through October, temporary seeding will consist of browntop millet, applied at a rate of 45 lbs/acre.
0
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 7-10
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN 0

Table 7.5
Proposed Bare-root and Live Stake Species
{' ,??illiitill `;: AI+I ?7 7(alll?il"'>edlnt? d:l.i _qli
l'jl'Ii1? ;i i14.
;IiI13j_: i'ihillilli'. 01tiil.ij."
Zone 1- Wetland Restoration and Enhancement Areas
River birch Benda nigra 20% 137 stems per acre
Sugarberry Celtis laevigata 17% 116 stems per acre
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 16% 109 stems per acre
Black walnut Juglans nigra 5% 34 stems per acre
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 20% 137 stems per acre
Cottonwood Populus deltoides 5% 34 stems per acre
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii 17% 116 stems per acre
Alternate Species
Persimmon Diospyros virginiana
Blackgum Nyssa sylvatica
Willow Oak Quercus phellos
Zones 2 and 3 - Stream Restoration Buffer
Persimmon Diospyros virginiana 12% 82 stems per acre
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 12% 82 stems per acre
Tulip poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 20% 136 stems per acre
Blackgum Nyssa sylvatica 12% 82 stems per acre
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 20% 136 stems per acre
Willow oak Quercus phellos 12% 82 stems per acre
Southern red oak Quercus rubra 12% 82 stems per acre
Alternate Species
River birch Benda nigra
Black walnut Juglans nigra
Swamp chestnut oak Quercus ntichauxii
Zone 3 - Stream banks (Live Stakes)
Silky dogwood Cornus mnonuan 40% 65 to 100 stems per 1,000 SF
Silky willow Salix sericea 40% 65 to 100 stems per 1,000 SF
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 20% 33 to 50 stems per 1,000 SF
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 7-11
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
D
Table 7.6
Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
f;?unl,1ru?v`?"4'i'?it:
\tI1R:Ji1?b{c
?Irl-=.thl••:3
1`a,tla;Ili'!
Streambank Areas
Redtop Agrostis alba 10 1.5 FACW
Virginia wildrye Elymus virginicus 15 2.25 FAC
Switch grass Panictan virgatunt 15 2.25 FAC+
Eastern gamma grass Tripsicunt dactyloides 5 0.75 FAC+
Pennsylvania smartweed Polygonunt pennsylvanicunt 5 0.75 FACW
Little blue stem Schizachyritnn scopariunt 5 0.75 FACU
Soft rush Junct[s effusus 5 0.75 FACW+
Beggars tick Bidens frondosa (or aristosa) 10 1.5 FACW
Lance-leaved tick seed Coreopsis lanceolata 10 1.5 FACU
Tioga deer tongue Panicunt clandestinuin 10 1.5 FAC
Big blue stem Andropogon gerardii 5 0.75 FAC
Indian grass Sorgastrunt nutans 5 0.75 FACU
7.8 Soils
Existing soils within the restoration site have been confirmed hydric below the deposited sediment layer. If
necessary, soil amendments (fertilizer, lime, etc.) will be applied at rates appropriate for the target vegetation.
Since the land has been in agricultural production for a number of years, it is likely that soil fertility
amendments will not be necessary.
Disking and tillage practices commonly used in agriculture will be applied to all restored farm field areas to
break the plow pan and reduce compaction of the soil caused by years of agricultural production. Tillage
practices will also be used to restore a more natural topography to the restored site, as discussed in Section
2.8.
7.9 Conservation Easement
The restored wetland and stream areas of the Bailey Fork site will be protected by a perpetual conservation
easement, following the format provided by the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program. The easement will be
recorded at the Burke County courthouse. Cattle will be excluded from all conservation easement areas.
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
7-12
0
0
0
8.0 MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Channel stability, wetland hydrology, and vegetation survival will be monitored on the project site. Post-
restoration monitoring will be conducted for five years following the completion of construction to document
project success.
8.1 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.
8.1.1 Bankfull Events
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of crest
gages and photographs. The crest gages will be installed on the floodplain within 10 feet of the restored
channels. One crest gage will be placed in UT3, and one will be placed immediately below the
confluence of UTl and UT2. The crest gages will record the highest watermark between site visits and
will be checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred. Photographs will be
used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during
monitoring site visits.
Two bankfull flow events must be documented on each crest gage within the 5-year monitoring period.
The two bankfull events must occur in separate years; otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue
until two bankfull events have been documented in separate years.
8.1.2 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-sectional 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.
8.1.3 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile will be completed in years one, three, and five of the monitoring period. The
profile will be conducted for the entire length of the project, or 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
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 8-1
' BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
0
should remain steeper and shallower than the pools. Bedforms observed should be consistent with
those observed for channels of the design stream type.
8.1.4 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.
8.1.5 Photo Reference Sites
Photographs will be used to document restoration success visually. Reference stations will be
photographed before construction and for at least five years following construction. Reference photos
will be taken once a year, from a height of approximately five to six feet. Permanent markers will be Q
established to ensure that the same locations (and view directions) on the site are monitored in each
monitoring period.
8.1.5.1 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.
8.1.5.2 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. Photographs will be used to evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures subjectively. Lateral
photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks. A series of
photos over time should indicate successive maturation of riparian vegetation.
8.2 Wetland Hydrologic Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring stations will be installed across the wetland restoration area to document hydrologic
conditions. Eight groundwater monitoring stations will be installed, with five automated groundwater wells
and three manually-read stations. Groundwater 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 nearest automated weather station, located in Morganton, NC, approximately two miles Q
southwest of the project site (Morganton, NC UCAN: 14224, COOP: 315838).
The monitoring data will show that the site has been saturated within 12 inches of the soil surface for at least
7% of the growing season and that the site has exhibited an increased frequency of flooding. This criterion is
based on the modeling analysis presented in Section 7.6. The restored site will be compared to a reference
site data. In addition, the restored site's hydrology will be compared to pre-restoration conditions both in
terms of groundwater and frequency of overbank events.
8.3 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 have been met, vegetation monitoring quadrants will be installed across the
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 8-2
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN 0

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. 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 met, 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 WRP Technical Note, and from 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.
8.4 Reporting Methods
A mitigation plan and an 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:
• A detailed narrative summarizing the condition of the restored site and all regular maintenance activities;
• As-built topographic maps showing location of monitoring wells, 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; and
• Reference wetland hydrology and stream data.
EBx/ BUCK ENGINEERING 83
' BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN
a
8.5 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.
• 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 that may have caused any maintenance needs, including any of the conditions
listed above, shall be discussed.
0
a
EBX/ BUCK ENGINEERING 8-4
BAILEY FORK SITE RESTORATION PLAN

9.0 REFERENCES
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 Hydrogeonnorphic Classification for Metlands. US Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Exp. Stn, Tech. Rep. WRP-DE-4, Washington, DC. 79 pp. +app.
Budd, W.W, P.L. Cohen, P.R. Saunders, and F.R. Steiner. 1987. Stream Corridor Management in the Pacific
Northwest: L Determination of Streani 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 sireanibed nnonitoring.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-74. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station. 428 pp.
t Buol, S.W., F.D. Hole, and R.J. McCracken. 1989. Soil Genesis and Classification. Iowa State University
Press. 446 pp.
Copeland, R.R, D.N. McComas, C.R. Thorne, P.J. Soar, M.M. Jones, and J.B. Fripp. 2001. US Army Corps
' of Engineers (USACOE). Hydraulic Design of Strewn Restoration Projects. Washington, DC.
Craft, C.B., and W.P. Casey. 2000. Sediment and Nutrient Accunndation in Floodplain and Depressional
Freshwater 1Vetlands of Georgia, USA. Wetlands Vol. 20, No. 2, June 2000: 323-332.
Doll, B.A. 2003. Streani Restoration Technical Guidebook and Coastal Streant Study Annendntent. Division of
Water Quality, Program 319.
' Ehrnfield, J.G. 1995. Microsite differences in surface substrate characteristics in Chaniaecyparis swannps of
the New Jersey pinelands. Wetlands 15(2): 183-189.
e Evans, R.O., and R.W. Skaggs. 1985. Agricultural water managennent for Coastal Plain soils. North Carolina
Agricultural Extension Service. Paper AG-355.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. Streani Corridor Restoration:
' Principles, Processes and Practices. National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in Hydric Soils of the United States. Washington, DC.
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 ecosystenns. Freshwater
Wetlands, 63-78. R.E. Good, D.F. Whigham, and R.L. Simpson, Eds. Burlington, Mass.: Academic
' Press.
Halley, James M and Elmore, Julia N. August 2002. South Fork Mitchell River Riparian Corridor
Assessment. A report prepared for Surry Soil and Water Conservation District 220 Cooper St.
' Dobson, NC 27017 in conjunction with NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund. Submitted by NC
State University Water Quality Group's Stream Restoration Institute.
' Halley, James M. June 2003. Snow Creek Riparian Corridor Assessment. A report prepared for Surry Soil
and Water Conservation District 220 Cooper St. Dobson, NC 27017 in conjunction with NC Clean
Water Management Trust Fun. Submitted by Natural System's Engineering, Virginia Beach, VA.
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 Streanns. Wildland
Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, Eds. American Water
Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.

0
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 ofsingle burn events on degraded oak savanna. Ecological Restoration 18:228-233.
Knighton, D. 1984. Fluvial Forms and Processes. Rutledge, Chapman, and Hall, Inc. New York, NY.
1998. Fluvial Forms and Processes - A New Perspective. Arnold Publishers. London.
Lane, E.W. 1955. Design of stable channels. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Paper o
No. 2776. 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 Viciv of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Mass.
Lilly, J.P. 1981. The blackened soils of North Carolina: Their characteristics and management for
agriculture. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service. Technical Bulletin No. 270.
Lutz, H.J. 1940. Disturbance of forest soil resulting front the uprooting of trees. Yale University School of
Forestry. Bulletin No. 45.
Mausbach, M.J., and J.L. Richardson. 1994. Biogeochemical Processes in Hydric Soil Formation. Current
Topics in Wetland Biogeochemistry. Vol. 1(1994): 68-124.
McCandless, T.L. 2003. Maryland Strewn Survey: Bankfdl Discharge and Channel Characteristics of
Streams in the Allegheny Plateau and the Valley and Ridge Hydrologic Regions. US Fish and
Wildlife Service. Annapolis, MD.
McCuskey, S.A., A.W. Conger, and H.O. Hillestad. 1994. Design and Implementation of Functional Wetland
Mitigation: Case Studies in Ohio and South Carolina. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 77(3): 513-532.
Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 920 pp.
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 Sununary. US Fish 0
& Wildlife Service. Biol. Rep. 88(24). 244 pp.
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22: 169-199.
2001a. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the Federal Interagency
Sediment Conference. Reno, NV. March, 2001.
rin
s
CO
Wildl
d H
d
l
B
k
P
a S
d Ri
M
h
l
1996
A
li
g
,
.
an
y
ro
ogy
oo
s.
agos
p
ver
orp
o
ogy.
.
pp
e
1997. A geontorphological approach to restoration of incised rivers. Proceedings of the Conference on
Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. S.S.Y.Wang, E.J. Langendoen, and F.D.
Shields, Jr., Eds. 12-22.
1998. The Reference Reach-a Blueprint for Natural Channel Design. Draft Presented at ASCE
Conference on River Restoration. Denver, CO, March, 1998. ASCE. Reston, VA.
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, NC.
Scherrer, E. 2000. Using microtopography to restore wetland plant communities in Eastern North Carolina.
MS Thesis, Forestry Department, North Carolina State University.
a
L
Schumm, S.A. 1960. The Shape of Alluvial Channels in Relation to Sediment Type. US Geological Survey.
Professional Paper 352-B. Washington, DC.
Sharitz, R.R., R.L. Schneider, and L.C. Lee. 1990. Composition and regeneration of a disturbed river
foodplai n forest in South Carolina. Ecological Processes and Cumulative Impacts: Illustrated by
Bottomland Hardwood Wetland Ecosystems. G. Gosselink, L. C. Lee, and T. A. Muir, Eds. 195-218.
' Boca Raton, Fla.: Lewis Publishers.
Simon, A. 1989. .el model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(1): 11-26.
Skaggs, R.W., D. Amatya, R.O. Evans, and J.E. Parsons. 1991b. Methods for evaluating wetland hydrology.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers. St. Joseph, MO. Paper No. 91-2590.
Skaggs, R.W., J.W. Gilliam, and R.O. Evans. 1991a. A computer simulations study of pocosin hydrology.
Wetlands 11, Special Issue 399416.
Skaggs, R.W. 1980. DRAINMOD Reference Report: Methods for design and evaluation of drainage-water
' managennent systems for soils with high water tables. US Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service. 329 pp.
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.
Sweet, W.V., and J.W. Geratz. 2003. Bankfndl Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and Recurrence Intervals
for North Carolina's Coastal Plain. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 39(4):
861-871.
Trimble, S.W. 1975. A volumetric estinnate of man-induced soil erosion on the Southern Piedmont, in Present
and prospective technology for predicting sediment yields and sources. Huston, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, USDA Agricultural Research Service Publication S-40:142-152.
US Army Corps of Engineers. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Metlands Delineation
' Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg,
MS.
US Army Corps of Engineers. Wetland Research Program (WRP). 1997. Technical Note VN-RS-4.1.
July, 2000. Technical Note ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02. US Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation
Service (SCS). 1984. Soil Survey of Burke County, North Carolina.
US Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1996. Field Indicators of
Hydric Soils in the United States. G.W. Hurt, P.M. Whited, and R.F. Pringle, Eds. USDA, NRSCS.
Forth Worth, TX.
1997. NRCS Engineering Field Handbook: Hydrology Tools for Metland Determination. Chapter 19,
part 650.
van Becrs, W.F.J. 1970. The auger-hole method: a field measurement of hydraulic conductivity of soil below
' the water table. ILRI Bulletin 1, Rev. E. Wageningen. 32 pp.
Vepraskas, M.J. 1996. Redoxinnorphic Features for Identifying Aquic Conditions. North Carolina Agricultural
Research Service.
Wohl, E.E. 2000. Mounntainn 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. US Geological Survey.

C?7
cr
y

1

I

1

Exhibits

wba
0
/I- I
L
1Targeted Local Watershed
03050101040020
,l
Catawba
c2aw
Burke Co.
HU 03050101
k

F

? Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
}_,
''
1 220 Chatham Business Drive

_ Pittsboro, NC 27312
Exhibit 1.1. Project Vicinity Map
Bailey Fork Site
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles

F

t
1

zl?

Calvin
• ' _
-- ..Ib63
1054
End Bailey Fork ERN Qr.? '
z \c :- End UT3 ;
Begin UT3
1 End UT2 , , _ >>• _
Begin UT2 '
. y'
,;? Begin UT1 ??
1
l_
1
Hopewell I
t = End UT1
! c^ i

{
gin Bailey Fork
s Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC o 1 000 2 p Exhibit 1.2.
l . P 0 C otham Business Drive Feet Site USGS Map
Bailey Fork Site

UT2 Watershed = 0.24 mil
I '
UT1 Watershed = 0.81 mi2

' t,
- =' N
s
`, •'? sle, , • i

UT3 Watershed = 0.92 mi2

T\1 0

J 1,
? Mn`J
Bailey Fork Watershed = 8.3 mi2
NO UI? ? `t????

.
J

A.

A
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
220 Chatham Business Drive
Pittsboro, NC 27312
nwke. T?p?/ /, ??
0 2,000 4.0Reet
Exhibit 1.3.
Project Watershed Boundaries
Bailey Fork Site
M M M M M A M M M M M M M M M r i M

Entrenchment
Ratio r i i.t ;; . ? F. ',
r. •
t :r. .. ,

Width/Depth

Ratio Low
ratio
{o
H)gh d
ht,datrdep[h u,o
Very
lowxh

' depth High
U

cry
H 9 :L,

ow
1 ) 40)

1 1
1
1 1 -4,- 1 1..._.
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-LS )
Stream 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D
TYpe q
Slope slope range slope range slope range slope rang(,. slope range slop c range slope, range slope
'010 0.04- 002- 002 0.02- 0.02 94- 0.02- 10.02 0.02- 1002 .02- .001- 1.001 .02- col- 1001 1.005
0O9J 0.039 0.037 0099 0.039 0039 0.039 092 0039 0,02
Channel
Material
Bedrock AM- G1 Gic Fib F1 Bla [31 131C Clb Ci Clc-
Boulders Ala. A2 t G2 GPC l F21, a F2 132a 112 62c C21) C2 p C?c-
Cobble A3.,• A3 G3 y G3c
A Fab F3
111 63a B3 Bic Bb E3A
111 C31) C3 C3c- D3b D3 '
Gravel A4a• ?.l A4 CA ?..' G4c F4b F4? B4., B4 M I E4b E4? Cob ' C4 Coo ?I D41, D4 Doc- DA4
Sand ASa. AS GS GSc F5b F5 ? 1151 135 BSc I E5b E5 C,c
f
C.51) (-,5 DSc-
DSt) U5 DA5
rr r
fr SS
Silt/Clay AGa. I1 AG GG GGC FGb II FG 116a L BCx EGb EG CU) CG CGc- UGb U DC,- i DAG
Source: Rosgen 1996. Published by permi ssion of Wiidland Hydrology.
Fig. 7.12 - Rosgcn f su%=-n classibcatico sy=m (Uwl t3).
in S,rc= Corridor ResL=ioc: Principles, Processes, and Practices, 10,58.
Iracragemy Sues(, Re storation Wurking Group (FISRWG)(15 Federal agencies of tho US}
Exhibit 2.1
Rosgen Stream Classification
Source: Rosgen, David L., Applied River Morphology, Wildland Hydrology, 1996
r r ?r ?r r? rr ?r >•r ¦r >,r rr r r r r r ? r rep

coarse

mm 75
® sediment size I stream slope ?
fine U coarse
190
SO
0
A DEGRADATION AGGRADATIO1,! ?

After: Lane, 1955
feet/mile ( 1.. 50C
I fine

Exhibit 2.2
Factors Influencing Stream Stability
Class I. Sinuous, Premodified
h<hc
iDsl?
he = critical bank height
= direction of bank or
bed movement
Class II. Channelized Class 111. Degradation Class IV. Degradation and Widening
h<hc h<hc h>hc
floodplain terrace
? 2\\ t t
h
slumped material
Class V. Aggradation and Widening Class VI. Quasi Equilibrium
h>hc h<hc
terrace terrace
h bank
t h
rl bankfull
1
slumped
material
aggraded material aggraded material
Class 1 Class III
primary Class IV
nickpoint
precursor Plu?!9E top bank Class V
? -
nickpoin[ Class VI
? Jwocoon of tlow
secondary
nickpoint
oversteepened reach aggradation zone aggraded material
Source: Simon, 1989; US Army Corps of Engineers, 1990.
Fig. 7.14 - Channel evolution model..
In Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices, 10/98.
Interagency Snoa-rt Restoration Working Group (FISRWGXI5 Federal agencies of the US).
Exhibit 2.3
Simon Channel Evolution Model
Source: Simon, 1989
I? M M III M M ®» M I? M M M M ® M M s
a) G to C conversion
F=
A A' -
i
R1 Fran and
b) F to C conversion
B B,
` Cut Cut r `
i B i
Fill ,?
i
c) F to C conversion
C C'
Cut Crr, ??
cillS c : ufl Viu..
FIL-irl V;::.:
B,

Long Frci.',e
Source: Rosgen, David L., "A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration
of Incised Rivers," Proceedings of the Conference on Management of
Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision, 1997
d) G to C conversion
Cut
N ?\\``?1\\
e) F to Bc conversion
.I.,i? ?, ;, j•: Ii 1.
f) Stabilize in place
Exhibit 2.4
Restoration Priorities for Incised Channels

Stable Channel
// BANKFLU
AREA
BANKFULLWIDTH f-gANKFULL
(top of Bank for
Stable Channel)
?.. WATER SURFACE
-THALWAG

Incised Channel
"FLOOD PRONE WIDTH
...............................
D
. x
_ .0 1 o *-TOP of BANK
. BANKFULL WIDTH . , gANKFULL
BANKFULL
AREA ELEVATION
(break inslope
indicator)
-- WATER SURFACE
?-THALWAG
Channel Dimension Measurements
Bankfull Elevation is associated with the
channel forming discharge. It is the point
where channel processes and flood plain
processes begin.
Bankfu_II 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 ProneAdth: 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
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M ' M M M M
Design Criteria Selection
Is there a reference reach
upstream with a stable
riffle S, 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
Past Project
Evaluation
Reference Reach
survey if possible
Ratios
Regime Equations
Select Design Ratios
and Equations
BUCK
FNGINEE It ING A
Review of
monitoring data
I Regime Equations
R Ratios
Exhibit 2.6
Design Criteria Selection
!A 14/ i, `? ° ,? ?r 1 Few U\ rp?
I tr?' y • pr o°di y, ! A f' A q '?. ? ?r it r ?y17? 0.
./ . ,`,• 9 ?7iI? ::`/ b; #d!_ Y? ' ',.(j?(tr?,? t? ?, ? ?, 1? 7. rp ?.
?, r .; s r rria ,?rl
?p +?; s • t e `i a '' a(t,},? ?k r• f 1 t,4 I,
Log Weir
r
TJJ. >6 p a !yt
"` "S°?r ',art r "ici ?; ^.d??R• 4??? ?, .tz???? ,
r +
Lo Vane
stir,'` 3? M
rAl,
ayE "`' 5
Exhibit 2.7
Examples of Instream Structures
Root Wads
Legend Ud
U AaA - Arkaqua
BaB - Banister
CvA - Colvard AaA
u
Fairview 2-8% slope
J FaC2 - Fairview 8-15% slope CvA
FaD2 - Fairview 15-25% slope
HaA - Hatboro
RhD Rhodhiss Hao
RhE - Rhohiss-Bannertown AaA
Ud - Udorthents RhE
UnB - Unison 2-8% slope
f? I
u UnC - Unison 8-15% slope
Ur - Urban Land
VV- Water
FaC2
E
FaD2
FaD2 UnB
r
FaC2
FaC2
UnC
CvA
hE
RhE
FaC2
BaB
FaD2
RhE
FaD2
HaA RhD
RhE
RhD
FaD2
I
UnB
FaC2
I
FaD2
FaC2

RhE
UnC
FaC2
FaD2
AaA
FaD2
RhE RhE UnB
FaC2
FaC2 CvA
Exhibit 3.1.
Environmental Banc and Exchange. LLC 0 500 1,00
220 Chatham Business Drive Feet Project Site Soils Map
Pittsboro. NC 27312 Bailey Fork Site
Legend ±'j 'o, `'w .�.`' N.
Existing Wetland •�-- IIIIA���/�j ,
Ditches
UTUU-
t " ,t ,
I
JK
-
i
Z., s+5 Bailey Fork Site Boundary
At
? P.. ,,� •: fir. .. i`w
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
Exhibit 4.1
220 Chatham Business Drive 0 600 1,2
�e
Pittsboro, NC 27312 et Site Hydrography Map
Bailey Fork Site

RV@ ,
REI

IJ12
tt-'e
RVRS?
LVM
LVRI
LEI
LVRS
RM ?
LVR6
BAILEY FORK
BEHI SUMMARY MAP
120 60 0 120 240
SCALE (F9
L
RFRII ` VRB `VA9
RVM2
auuuir
wa+
LEGEND
_ LLRY HIGH
ft
RVRII
LVR10
LWU2
RV7778
`-
RVM2
RVR78 LV2L5
RVA7`
H`
RVHII
LVfOB
BAILEY FORK
BEHI SUMMARY MAP
120 60 0 120 240
nr??r_u
SCALE (Fn

LRC.FWI
® l:.Y'1.
_ {ARV
. LVR79
RVIW e
/SII
4
R4NI5

LVRU
?L170,

»r2,
LVIM
LEGEND
VEk1'
BAILEY FORK
BEHI SUMMARY MAP
120 60 0 120 210
SCALE (FT)

LV2av
RV1228, d i ?i?,.
RVHt9 , 5,•
LVH47
LRJI
RV®I
`LRif
RVR33

M7
tv"
L{7D6 ?-- --` ?O.
LEW
N
`7
W L-
' LVH44
LBGEK"
? lr++r
BAILEY FORK
BEHI SUMMARY MAP
120 60 0 120 240
SCALE (FT)
Lx?s
* RPB36
1

Exhibit 4.2e
I
ZECIENO
® r_i ra?V1'
VER) IHGH
LVH/'
?,_'...
kH4r RVHQ
RVH40
RVlIJB
BAILEY FORK
BEHI SUMMARY MAP
120 60 0 120 240
SCALE (FT)
f? /f ?

010a) f 050001
03040101
030k0101
n
Project Location
03040102
Norwood
N
Jacobs
03050102
030
Environmental Banc and Exchange. LLC Exhibit 4.3.
220 Chatham Business Drive 0 4 $M112S Stream Gage Sites
t!? Pittsboro, NC 27312
Bailey Fork Site
.� � r•.,,d "¢ •l�Lti
Site 3
K 'i w
IT
t
♦t t ►t
,
Site 4 w.
i ,`� J4
VOW—
A} Site 1'asar•
w
Site 2
i f
a
s
r
♦. �. T.
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC Exhibit 4.4. � 1,000 2, 0o0
I' 220 Chatham Business Drive Feet Biomonitoring Sample Sites
Pittsboro, NO 27312 Bailey Fork Site

Legend N
• Wells - a
® Existing Wetland *-
Project Boundary .-.7
- - Ditches j
s m j'
J M6
Wetland #3 O ??y t
Wetland #2
f s -
+J ?' OM5
A7
Wetland #1 <-
O
A1 A4
M2 O
O
....
M3 JP:
"OPP
.77-77 t
?4 i > 4
v i•'.
_4
Env.ronmental Banc and Exchange, LLC Exhibit 5.1.
220 Chatham Business Drive 0 200 40Q Well Locations
Pittsboro, NC 27312 Peet
Bailey Fork Site
0
o I
70
f i -
Silve' I? ?
Little
f ? teed `'? ? ?
UTTargeted UT to Little Silver Creek _
Reference Wetland
_ Property Boundary
l
I
64
t
Environmental Banc and Exchange; LLC 0 2'000 4,0
Pittsboro, NC 27312 O Figure 5.2.
220 Chatham Business Drive Peet Reference Wetland Site
Bailey Fork Site

a
?e'
O-A

' Appendix 1
EDR Transaction Screen Map Report, State Historic Preservation Office, Natural Heritage, Wildlife Resource
Commission, and US Fish and Wildlife Letters

t
The EDR Radius MapTM
Report
with Geocheck°
and ToxiCheck°
Bailey Fork Site
Hopewell Rd
Morganton, NC 28655
Inquiry Number: 01331008.1r
December 21, 2004
R" Environmental
Data Resources Inc
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
FQ . ERN
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Executive Summary ------------------------------------------------------- ES1
Overview Map----------------------------------------------------------- 2
Detail Map-------------------------------------------------------------- 3
Map Findings Summary ---------------------------------------------------- 4
Map Findings------------------------------------------------------------ 6
Orphan Summary --------------------------------------------------------- 8
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking-------------------------- GRA
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum------------------------------------------ A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary ------------------------------------------- A-2
Physical Setting Source Map-----------------------------------------------. A-7
Physical Setting Source Map Findings---------------------------------------- A-8
Physical Setting Source Records Searched------------------------------------ A-9
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.
TC01331008.1 r Page 1
9
0
a

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

HOPEWELL RD
MORGANTON, NC 28655
COORDINATES

Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranven
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
35.717900 - 35' 43'4.4"
81.724100 - 81' 43' 26.8"
3e Mercator: Zone 17
434504.8
3952702.0
1014 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property:
Source:
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
35081-F6 MORGANTON SOUTH, NC
USGS 7.5 min quad index
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______________
CERCLIS--------------------. Proposed National Priority List Sites
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System
CERC-NFRAP---------------. CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned
CORRACTS-----------------.
RCRA-TSDF----------------- Corrective Action Report
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
RCRA-LQG------------------ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
RCRA-SQG------------------ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
ERNS------------------------ Emergency Response Notification System
STATE ASTM STANDARD
' SWF/LF---------------------- List of Solid Waste Facilities

TC01331008.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LUST ------------------------- Regional UST Database
UST__________________________ Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
OLI-------------------------- _Old Landfill Inventory
VCP__________________________ Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
INDIAN LUST________________ Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
INDIAN UST ------------------ Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL
0
CONSENT___________________ Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees I?
ROD_________________________ Records Of Decision
Delisted NPL----------------
FINDS________________________ National Priority List Deletions
Facility Index System/Facility Identification Initiative Program Summary Report
HMIRS_______________________ Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
MLTS________________________ Material Licensing Tracking System
MINES_______________________ Mines Master Index File
NPL Liens___________________ Federal Superfund Liens n
PADS________________________ PCB Activity Database System u
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_________________________
TSCA________________________ Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
Toxic Substances Control Act D
SSTS------------------------- Section 7 Tracking Systems
FTTS INSP___________________ FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, &
Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
STATE OR LOCAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL
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 identified.
TC01331008.1 r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
0
0
0

I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Elevations have been determined from the USGS Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on
a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity
should be field verified. Sites with an elevation equal to or higher than the target property have been
differentiated below from sites with an elevation lower than the target property.
Page numbers and map identification numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report where detailed
data on individual sites can be reviewed.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
Sites listed in bold italics are in multiple databases.
STATE ASTM STANDARD
SHINS: The State Hazardous Waste Sites 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. The data come from the Department of Environment
& Natural Resources' Inactive Hazardous Sites Program.
A review of the SHWS list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there is 1 SHWS site within
approximately 1 mile of the target property.
Equal/Higher Elevation Address Dist / Dir Map ID Page
ROMARCO LTD ROMARCO RD 112 -1 NNW 1 6
STATE OR LOCAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL
HSDS: The Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites list contains locations of uncontrolled and unregulated
hazardous waste sites. The file contains sites on the national priority list as well as the state priority list.
The data source is the North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis.
A review of the NC HSDS list, as provided by EDR, and dated 06/21/1995 has revealed that there is 1
NC HSDS site within approximately 1 mile of the target property.
Equal/Higher Elevation
ROMARCO LTD
Address Dist / Dir Map ID Page
1/2 - 1 NNW 0 6
TC01331008.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped:
Site Name
LAKE JAMES UNDERWATER BOX
MARANTZ PIANO CO INC/ANEVKA, INC
INMONT CORP/BASF CORPORATION
NATIONAL TEXTILES, LLP
BURKE COUNTY LANDFILL
BURKE COUNTY TRANSFER FACILITY
ROADWAY EXPRESS. INC.
RAMSEY'S 66 10201
KELLER'S HIGHWAY 181 SERVICE
OAK HILL SUPERETTE
CLOER'S CONVENIENCE
BRENDLETOWN GROCERY
FRED CALLAHAN CO (ASPHALT PL
PORT'S GENERAL STORE
COUNTRY QUICK STOP
H. H. MARTIN GROCERY
LOG CABIN GENERAL STORE
HANES PRINTABLES. INC.
MIDWAY GROCERY
B&G BAIRD QUICK STOP 10245
AMHERST GROCERY
STROUPE'S SEPTIC TANK
LAUREL GRO.
STROUPE SEPTIC TANK SERVICE
RUSSELL STROUPE
BURKE CO HDQ
HIGH PEAK 66 SERVICE
TABLE ROCK FISH HATCHERY
D & D GRILL
COLONELS PANTRY 3
F & S CONTRACTORS INC
NATIONAL TEXTILES
CONSOLIDATED FOODS HANES KNITWEAR
B&T BODY & FRAME
CAROLINA SHOE CO
MORGANTON DIV ETHAN ALLEN
SITE ID 370231001
Database(s)
SHWS
SHWS
SHWS
SHWS
SWF/LF
SWF/LF
IMD, LUST, UST
IMD, LUST, UST, LUST TRUST
IMD, LUST
IMD, LUST
LUST TRUST
LUST TRUST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
IMD, Brownfields
RCRA-SQG, FINDS
RCRA-SQG, FINDS
RCRA-SQG, FINDS
RCRA-SQG
FINDS
TC01331008.1 r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
0
0
6
1 OVERVIEW MAP - 01331008.1 r - Buck Engineering
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
jo
? 7 \
1-
5
Target Property
' Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
? Sites at elevations lower than

A6 the target property
Coal Gasification Sites
National Priority List Sites
Landfill Sites
Dept. Defense Sites

TARGET PROPERTY: Bailey Fork Site CUSTOMER: Buck Engineering
ADDRESS: Hopewell Rd CONTACT: Kyle Smith
CITY/STATE/ZIP: Morganton NC 28655 INQUIRY !#: 01331008.1r
LAT/LONG: 35.7179/ 81.7241 DATE: December 21, 2004 5:30 pm
Cepyvght ,? 2004 EDR. Inc. a 2W3 GDT, Inc, Rel. 07,2003. A.I Rights Reserved.
uue.
0 t/4 112
Indian Reservations BIA ?-? Hazardous Substance
Oil & Gas pipelines Disposal Sites
Federal Wetlands
vc i AIL. mHlr - u llij iumi. i r -MUCK tnglneering
Z \\
N
9
LLH?
0V
0
NOy
?HOPMELL GAP ?
140 W \
140 E
fLl TAVE
L
q _
GF
lw
sr Target Property 0 1/16 118 tia Mlles
MMMMMMMIl
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
• Sites at elevations lower than cad' Oil & Gas pipelines Disposal Sites
the target property ?
A Coal Gasification Sites Federal Wetlands
Sensitive Receptors
E] National Priority List Sites
0? Landfill Sites
? l Dept. Defense Sites
TARGET PROPERTY: Bailey Fork Site CUSTOMER: Buck Engineering
ADDRESS: Hopewell Rd CONTACT: Kyle Smith
CITY/STATE/ZIP: Morganton NC 28655 INQUIRY#: 01331008.ir
LAT/LONG: 35.7179/ 81.7241 DATE: December 21, 2004 5:31 pm
Copyright v 2004 EDR. Inc. cv 2003 GDT, Inc. Rel. 0712003. All Rights Reserved.
e
i
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Database
FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD
Search
Target Distance Total
Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted
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
RCRA TSD 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
RCRA Lg. Quan. Gen. 0.250 0 0 NR NR NR 0
RCRA 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 1 NR 1
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
VCP 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
INDIAN LUST 0.500 0 0 0 NR NR 0
INDIAN UST 0.250 0 0 NR 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
MLTS 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 1 NR 1
TC01331008.1 r Page 4

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
Brownfields 0.500
INST CONTROL 0.500
VCP 0.500
NOTES:
AQUIFLOW - see EDR Physical Setting Source Addendum
TP = Target Property
NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
0 0 0 NR NR 0
0 0 0 NR NR 0
0 0 0 NR NR 0
0 0 0 NR NR 0
TC01331008.1r Page 5

Map
' Direction
Distance
Distance (ft.)
Elevation Site

MAP FINDINGS
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
Coal Gas Site Search: No site was found in a search of Real Property Scan's ENVIROHAZ database.
HSDS ROMARCO LTD
Region
NNW NC
1/2-1
4973 ft.
e NC HSDS:
Facility Name: ROMARCO LTD
Latitude: 35 43 48.550223
Site Type: Federal

[phone]
Classification: Small Quantity Generator
TSDF Activities: Not reported
Violation Status: Violations exist
Regulation Violated:
Area of Violation:
Date Violation Determined:
Actual Date Achieved Compliance:
Enforcement Action:
Enforcement Action Date:
Penalty Type:
Regulation Violated:
Area of Violation:
Date Violation Determined:
Actual Date Achieved Compliance:
Enforcement Action:
Enforcement Action Date:
Penalty Type:
Regulation Violated:
Area of Violation:
RCRA-SQG 1000154694
SHWS NCDO55161186
FINDS
CERC-NFRAP
Federal Facility: Not a Federal Facility
NPL Status: Not on the NPL
Completed: 08/01/1980
Completed: 06/13/1985
Completed: 02/01/1990
Completed: 02/01/1990
Not reported
GENERATOR-ALL REQUIREMENTS (OVERSIGHT)
02/13/1990
05/07/1990
WRITTEN INFORMAL
03/19/1990
Not reported
Not reported
GENERATOR-ALL REQUIREMENTS (OVERSIGHT)
01/05/1989
02/28/1989
WRITTEN INFORMAL
01/31/1989
Not reported
Not reported
GENERATOR-ALL REQUIREMENTS (OVERSIGHT)
TC01331008.1r Page 6
NC HSDS S102442444
N/A
Longitude: 81 43 59.200080
Superfund ID #: 055 161 186
1 ROMARCO LTD
NNW ROMARCO RD
1/2-1 MORGANTON, NC 28655
5068 ft.
Relative: CERCLIS-NFRAP Classification Data:
Higher Site Incident CategorNot reported
Non NPL Code: NFRAP
Actual: Ownership Status: Other
1061 ft. CERCLIS-NFRAP Assessment History:
Assessment: DISCOVERY
Assessment: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
Assessment: SITE INSPECTION
Assessment: ARCHIVE SITE
CERCLIS-NFRAP Alias Name(s):
ROMARCO LTD
RCRAInfo:
Owner: MIMOSA MFG.,INC.
[phone]
EPA ID: NCDO55161186
Contact: CONNIE MCFARLAND

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Di
ti
rec
on
Distance
Distance (ft.) EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
ROMARCO LTD (Continued)
Date Violation Determined:
Actual Date Achieved Compliance:
Enforcement Action:
Enforcement Action Date:
Penalty Type:
Regulation Violated:
Area of Violation:
Date Violation Determined:
Actual Date Achieved Compliance:
Enforcement Action:
Enforcement Action Date:
Penalty Type:
Regulation Violated:
Area of Violation:
Date Violation Determined:
Actual Date Achieved Compliance:
Enforcement Action:
Enforcement Action Date:
Penalty Type:
03/13/1987
04/13/1987
WRITTEN INFORMAL
03/31/1987
Not reported
Not reported
GENERATOR-ALL REQUIREMENTS (OVERSIGHT)
11/08/1984
12/06/1984
WRITTEN INFORMAL
11/27/1984
Not reported
Not reported
GENERATOR-ALL REQUIREMENTS (OVERSIGHT)
01/24/1984
03/05/1984
WRITTEN INFORMAL
02/07/1984
Not reported
There are 5 violation record(s) reported at this site:
Evaluation Area of Violation
Compliance Evaluation Inspection GENERATOR-ALL REQUIREMENTS (OVERSIGHT)
Compliance Evaluation Inspection GENERATOR-ALL REQUIREMENTS (OVERSIGHT)
Compliance Evaluation Inspection GENERATOR-ALL REQUIREMENTS (OVERSIGHT)
Compliance Evaluation Inspection GENERATOR-ALL REQUIREMENTS (OVERSIGHT)
Compliance Evaluation Inspection GENERATOR-ALL REQUIREMENTS (OVERSIGHT)
FINDS:
Other Pertinent Environmental Activity Identified at Site:
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information system
SHWS:
Facility ID: NCD055161186
1000154694
Date of
Compliance
19900507
19890228
19870413
19841206
19840305
TC01331008.1 r Page 7
0
0
M M M M M M r s M M r r s M= M r s M
ORPHAN SUMMARY
City EDR ID
Site Name
Site Address
Zip Database(s)
BURKE S104919034 LAKE JAMES UNDERWATER BOX GLEN ALPINE 28655 SHWS
GLEN ALPINE 1002963341 FRED CALLAHAN CO (ASPHALT PL HWY 70 WEST 28655 UST
MORGANTON 0001205444 PORT'S GENERAL STORE RT 1 BOX 64 (JAMESTOWN ROAD) 28655 UST
MORGANTON 0001190085 COUNTRY QUICK STOP ROUTE 1, BOX 126 (CONNELLY SPS 28655 UST
MORGANTON 0003134451 H. H. MARTIN GROCERY ROUTE 1, (CONNELLY SPRINGS) 28655 UST
MORGANTON 0003134301 LOG CABIN GENERAL STORE ROUTE 2 28655 UST
MORGANTON 0001189374 ROADWAY EXPRESS. INC. ROUTE 2, KATHY ROAD, BOX 497 28655 IMD, LUST, UST
MORGANTON 0001201084 HANES PRINTABLES. INC. ROUTE 2, JAMESTOWN ROAD 28655 UST
MORGANTON 0003134344 MIDWAY GROCERY ROUTE 3, BOX 40 28655 UST
MORGANTON 0003134460 B&G BAIRD QUICK STOP 10245 ROUTE 3, BOX 530 28655 UST
MORGANTON 0003143420 AMHERST GROCERY ROUTE 3, BOX 258 (AMHERST ROAD 28655 UST
MORGANTON 0003134290 STROUPE'S SEPTIC TANK RT 4 BOX 75 28655 UST
MORGANTON 0003134291 LAUREL GRO. RT 4 BOX 18 SOUTH 28655 UST
MORGANTON 0003137468 STROUPE SEPTIC TANK SERVICE RT 4 BOX 75 28655 UST
MORGANTON 0003137511 RUSSELL STROUPE RT 4 BOX 749 28655 UST
MORGANTON 0003137529 BURKE CO HDQ RT 4 BOX 176 (OLD 18S) 28655 UST
MORGANTON 0003134457 HIGH PEAK 66 SERVICE ROUTE 4, BOX 302 28655 UST
MORGANTON 1004744816 CONSOLIDATED FOODS HANES KNITWEAR 1 40 & JAMESTOWN RD 28655 RCRA-SQG, FINDS
MORGANTON 0003145642 TABLE ROCK FISH HATCHERY RT 5 BOX 348 28655 UST
MORGANTON 0003134458 RAMSEY'S 66 10201 ROUTE 5, BOX 99 28655 IMD, LUST, UST, LUST TRUST
MORGANTON 0003143421 D & D GRILL ROUTE 5, BOX 193 C 28655 UST
MORGANTON S105218781 CLOER'S CONVENIENCE ROUTE 5, BOX 795 LUST TRUST
MORGANTON S105764048 KELLER'S HIGHWAY 181 SERVICE ROUTE 5, BOX 425K IMD, LUST
MORGANTON 1004746200 B&T BODY & FRAME RT 6 BOX 432 28655 RCRA-SQG, FINDS
MORGANTON S103554452 MARANTZ PIANO CO INC/ANEVKA, INC HWY 64/70 E SHWS
MORGANTON S104919025 INMONT CORP/BASF CORPORATION HWY 70 W SHWS
MORGANTON 1004744637 CAROLINA SHOE CO HOPEWELL RD PK 28655 RCRA-SQG, FINDS
MORGANTON 0001202407 COLONELS PANTRY 3 JAMESTOWN ROAD AT 1-40 EXIT 10 28655 UST
MORGANTON S105593273 NATIONAL TEXTILES JAMESTOWN ROAD AT 140 INTERSE IMD, Brownfields
MORGANTON S105163724 BURKE COUNTY LANDFILL KNOB-RHODISS /AIRPORT-RHODISS SWF/LF
MORGANTON S105163725 BURKE COUNTY TRANSFER FACILITY 2500 MARSH TRAIL SWF/LF
MORGANTON 1005841227 SITE ID 370231001 MORGANTON FINDS
MORGANTON 1004549777 MORGANTON DIV ETHAN ALLEN OFF 1110 AT DREXEL HWY 28655 RCRA-SQG
MORGANTON S105805010 NATIONAL TEXTILES, LLP REEP DRIVE SHWS
MORGANTON 0001204085 F & S CONTRACTORS INC SUMMERS ROAD RT 9 BOX 199 28655 UST
MORGANTOWN S105219468 BRENDLETOWN GROCERY 4456 HWY 64 28655 LUST TRUST
OAK HILL S105958763 OAK HILL SUPERETTE ROUTE 2-HWY 90 28655 IMD, LUST
TC01331008.1r Page 8
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 Super-fund 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: 10/12/04
Date Made Active at EDR: 12/09/04
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
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]
Proposed NPL: Proposed National Priority List Sites
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Date of Government Version: 09/23/04
Date Made Active at EDR: 12109/04
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 11/02/04
Elapsed ASTM days: 37
Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/02/04
EPA Region 6
Telephone: [phone]
EPA Region 8
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 11/02/04
Elapsed ASTM days: 37
Date of Last EDR Contact: 11102/04
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 (CERCtA). 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: 08/10/04
Date Made Active at EDR: 10/27/04
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/21/04
Elapsed ASTM days: 36
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.
0
0
0
TC01331008.1r Page GR-1
a

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 08/10/04 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/21/04
Date Made Active at EDR: 10/27/04 Elapsed ASTM days: 36
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: 09/23/04 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 10/07/04
Date Made Active at ED R: 11/18/04 Elapsed ASTM days: 42
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/07/04
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
Source: EPA
I Telephone: [phone]
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRAInfo replaces
the data recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS).
The database 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: 08/10104 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 08/24/04
Date Made Active at EDR: 10/11/04 Elapsed ASTM days: 48
Database Release Frequency: Varies Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/24/04
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: 12/31103 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 01/26/04
Date Made Active at EDR: 03112/04 Elapsed ASTM days: 46
Database Release Frequency: Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/25/04
FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL RECORDS
BRS: Biennial Reporting System
Source: EPA/NTI
S
Telephone: [phone]
The Biennial Reporting System is a national system administered by the EPA that collects data on the generation
I 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: 12/13104
¦ 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.

TC01331008.1r Page GR-2
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 03/05/04
Database Release Frequency: Varies
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/25/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/24/05
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: 09/09/04
Database Release Frequency: Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/06/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/03/05
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: 10/12/04
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/02/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/31/05
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).
Date of Government Version: 09/09/04
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/08/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/03/05
HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation
Telephone: [phone]
Hazardous Materials Incident Report System. HMIRS contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to DOT.
Date of Government Version: 09/08/04
Database Release Frequency: Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/28/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/17/05
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
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
MINES: Mines Master Index File
Source: Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: 09/13/04
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/04/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/03/05
Date of Last EDR Contact: 09/28/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/27/04
0
0
0
TC01331008.1r Page GR-3 0

ii
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
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.

Date of Government Version: 10/15/91
Database Release Frequency: No Update Planned
Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/22104
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02121/05

1

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: 11/12104
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/07/05
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: 10101/03
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/12/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/07/05
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: 12120/04
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: 05/23195
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
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
Database Release Frequency: Varies
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/04/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01103/05

TC01331008.1r Page GR-4
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
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: 11/12/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/07/05
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: 12/06/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/07/05
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 I I I Section 313.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/02
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: 12/06/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/07/05
FTTS INSP: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
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: 10/18/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/17/05
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.
0
0
0
TC01331008.1r Page GR-5 a
t

1
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 09/13/04 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.
1 Date of Government Version: 09/30/04 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 10/22/04
Date Made Active at EDR: 11/24104 Elapsed ASTM days: 33
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly 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 of Data Arrival at EDR: 07/27/04
Date Made Active at EDR: 08/31/04 Elapsed ASTM days: 35
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/25/04
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 of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/08104
Date Made Active at EDR: 10/06/04 Elapsed ASTM days: 28
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/08/04
I 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 of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/08/04
Date Made Active at EDR: 10/07/04 Elapsed ASTM days: 29
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly Date of Last EDR Contact: 12/08/04
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: 09/30/04 Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 10/14/04
Date Made Active at EDR: 11/17/04 Elapsed ASTM days: 34
Database Release Frequency: Varies Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/14/04
TC01331008.1r Page GR-6
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
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: 09/14104
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: 07/15/04
Elapsed ASTM days: 32
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/13/04
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/15/04
Elapsed ASTM days: 33
Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/22/04
Date of Data Arrival at EDR: 09/15/04
Elapsed ASTM days: 33
Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/22104
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: 11/29/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/28/05
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.
Date of Government Version: 01/09/04
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/18/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/17/05
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: 11/05/04
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/10/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/07/05
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: 11/12/04
Database Release Frequency: Varies
Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/01/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/17/05
0
0
TC01331008.1r PageGR-7 0

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
IMD: Incident Management Database
Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Groundwater and/or soil contamination incidents
Date of Government Version: 06/15104
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
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. ©Copyright 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.

t

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
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: 09/30/04
Database Release Frequency: Quarterly
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/29/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/24/05
Date of Last EDR Contact: 11/04/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/31/05
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/13104
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/10/05
Date of Last EDR Contact: 10/13/04
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/10/05
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 Brownfields Cleanup Revolving
Loan Fund (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.
TC01331008.1r Page GR-8
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: N/A
Database Release Frequency: Semi-Annually
OTHER DATABASE(S)
Date of Last EDR Contact: N/A
Date of Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
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.
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.
0
0
0
TC01331008.1r Page GR-9 0
GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
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.
TC01331008.1r Page GR-10
0
GEOCHECK°- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE ADDENDUM
TARGET PROPERTY ADDRESS
BAILEY FORK SITE
HOPEWELL RD
MORGANTON, NC 28655
TARGET PROPERTY COORDINATES
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranverse Mercator:
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
35.717899 - 35'43'4.4"
81.724098 - 81 ° 43' 26.8"
Zone 17
434504.8
3952702.0
1014 ft. above sea level
EDR's GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum has been developed to assist the environmental professional
with the collection of physical setting source information in accordance with ASTM 1527-00, Section 7.2.3.
Section 7.2.3 requires that a current USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (or equivalent, such as the USGS Digital
Elevation Model) be reviewed. It also requires that one or more additional physical setting sources be sought
when (1) conditions have been identified in which hazardous substances or petroleum products are likely
to migrate to or from the property, and (2) more information than is provided in the current USGS 7.5 Minute
Topographic Map (or equivalent) is generally obtained, pursuant to local good commercial or customary practice,
to assess the impact of migration of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property. Such
additional physical setting sources generally include information about the topographic, hydrologic, hydrogeologic,
and geologic characteristics of a site, and wells in the area.
Assessment of the impact of contaminant migration generally has two principle investigative components:
1. Groundwater flow direction, and
2. Groundwater flow velocity.
Groundwater flow direction may be impacted by surface topography, hydrology, hydrogeology, characteristics
of the soil, and nearby wells. Groundwater flow velocity is generally impacted by the nature of the geologic strata.
EDR's GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum is provided to assist the environmental professional in
forming an opinion about the impact of potential contaminant migration.
0
TC01331008.1r Page A-1
GEOCHECK9 - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION INFORMATION
Groundwater flow direction for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional
using site-specific well data. If such data is not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other
sources of information, such as surface topographic information, hydrologic information, hydrogeologic data
collected on nearby properties, and regional groundwater flow information (from deep aquifers).
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Surface topography may be indicative of the direction of surficial groundwater flow. This information can be used to
assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or,
should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
TARGET PROPERTY TOPOGRAPHY
USGS Topographic Map: 35081-F6 MORGANTON SOUTH, NC
General Topographic Gradient: General SW
Source: USGS 7.5 min quad index
SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY: ELEVATION PROFILES
G
C
co J N y + + N O O
_? W O O O + O+
V Ol W O A A
North
TP
+
N V
p U
+ W
South

O N O °> ° + N m + O
p O °m O
cD O m O N C p q O
? p W
? N N ° V
W - _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . _
West I
TP
0
Target Property Elevation: 1014 ft. C
East
1/2 1 Miles
Source: Topography has been determined from the USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated
on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity
should be field verified.
TC01331008.1 r Page A-2
0
GEOCHECW - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
Surface water can act as a hydrologic barrier to groundwater flow. Such hydrologic information can be used to assist
the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should
contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
Refer to the Physical Setting Source Map following this summary for hydrologic information (major waterways
and bodies of water).
FEMA FLOOD ZONE
Target Property County
BURKE, NC
Flood Plain Panel at Target Property:
Additional Panels in search area:
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY
NWI Quad at Target Propert
y
MORGANTON SOUTH
HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION
FEMA Flood
Electronic Data
Not Available
Not Reported
Not Reported
NWI Electronic
Data Coverage
YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail Map
Hydrogeologic information obtained by installation of wells on a specific site can often be an indicator
of groundwater flow direction in the immediate area. Such hydrogeologic information can be used to assist the
environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should
contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
AQUIFLOW3
Search Radius: 1.000 Mile.
EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System to provide data on the general direction of groundwater
flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted by environmental professionals to regulatory
authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, groundwater flow direction as determined
hydrogeologically, and the depth to water table.
LOCATION GENERAL DIRECTION
MAP ID FROM TP GROUNDWATER FLOW
Not Reported
0
0
TC01331008.1r PageA-3
a

GEOCHECW - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
GROUNDWATER FLOW VELOCITY INFORMATION
Groundwater flow velocity information for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional
using site specific geologic and soil strata data. If such data are not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary
to rely on other sources of information, including geologic age identification, rock stratigraphic unit and soil
characteristics data collected on nearby properties and regional soil information. In general, contaminant plumes
move more quickly through sandy-gravelly types of soils than silty-clayey types of soils.
GEOLOGIC INFORMATION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY
Geologic information can be used by the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the relative speed
at which contaminant migration may be occurring.
ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT
GEOLOGIC AGE IDENTIFICATION
Era: Paleozoic Category: Metamorphic Rocks
System: Mississippian
Series: migmatite
Code: mm3 (decoded above as Era, System & Series)
Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology
of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - a digital representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman
Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994).
DOMINANT SOIL COMPOSITION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) leads the National Cooperative Soil
Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey information
for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns
in a landscape. Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed (SSURGO) soil survey maps.
The following information is based on Soil Conservation Service STATSGO data.
Soil Component Name: PACOLET
Soil Surface Texture: fine sandy loam
Hydrologic Group: Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep,
moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse
textures.
Soil Drainage Class: Well drained. Soils have intermediate water holding capacity. Depth to
water table is more than 6 feet.
Hydric Status: Soil does not meet the requirements for a hydric soil.
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: HIGH
Depth to Bedrock Min: > 60 inches
Depth to Bedrock Max: > 60 inches
TC01331008.1 r Page A-4
GEOCHECK© - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
Soil Layer Information
Boundary Classification
Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Permeability Soil Reaction
Rate (in/hr) (pH)
1 0 inches 3 inches fine sandy loam Granular COARSE-GRAINED Max: 6.00 Max: 6.50
materials (35 SOILS, Sands, Min: 2.00 Min: 4.50
pct. or less Sands with
passing No. fines, Silty
200), Silty, or Sand.
Clayey Gravel
and Sand.
2 3 inches 29 inches sandy clay Silt-Clay FINE-GRAINED Max: 2.00 Max: 6.00
Materials (more SOILS, Silts Min: 0.60 Min: 4.50
than 35 pct. and Clays
passing No. (liquid limit
200), Clayey less than 50%),
Soils. Silt.
3 29 inches 52 inches clay loam Granular FINE-GRAINED Max: 2.00 Max: 6.00
materials (35 SOILS, Silts Min: 0.60 Min: 4.50
pct, or less and Clays
passing No. (liquid limit
200), Silty, or less than 50%),
Clayey Gravel Lean Clay
and Sand.
4 52 inches 70 inches sandy loam Silt-Clay COARSE-GRAINED Max: 2.00 Max: 6.00
Materials (more SOILS, Sands, Min: 0.60 Min: 4.50
than 35 pct. Sands with
passing No. fines, Silty
200), Silty Sand.
Soils.
OTHER SOIL TYPES IN AREA
Based on Soil Conservation Service STATSGO data, the following additional subordinant soil types may
appear within the general area of target property.
Soil Surface Textures: clay loam
gravelly - sandy loam
sandy loam
loam
Surficial Soil Types: clay loam
gravelly - sandy loam
sandy loam
loam
Shallow Soil Types: clay
sandy clay loam
silt loam
clay loam
silty clay loam
Deeper Soil Types: fine sandy loam
weathered bedrock
TC01331008.1 r Page A-5
GEOCHECKD - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES
According to ASTM E 1527-00, Section 7.2.2, "one or more additional state or local sources of environmental
records may be checked, in the discretion of the environmental professional, to enhance and supplement federal
and state sources... Factors to consider in determining which local or additional state records, if
any, should be checked include (1) whether they are reasonably ascertainable, (2) whether they are sufficiently
useful, accurate, and complete in light of the objective of the records review (see 7.1.1), and (3) whether they
are obtained, pursuant to local, good commercial or customary practice." One of the record sources listed in Section
7.2.2 is water well information. Water well information can be used to assist the environmental professional in
assessing sources that may impact groundwater flow direction, and in forming an opinion about the impact of
contaminant migration on nearby drinking water wells.
WELL SEARCH DISTANCE INFORMATION
DATABASE SEARCH DISTANCE (miles)
Federal USGS 1.000
Federal FRDS PWS Nearest PWS within 1 mile
State Database 1.000
' FEDERAL USGS WELL INFORMATION
LOCATION
' MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
No Wells Found
' FEDERAL FRDS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION
LOCATION
MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
' No PWS System Found
Note: PWS System location is not always the same as well location.
' STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION
LOCATION
MAP ID WELL ID FROM TP
' No Wells Found
TC01331008.1r Page A-6
PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP - 01331008.1 r
\ HW 70
CSX -? x CSxX
csx \\
CSX CSX
/ A?AAO 40 -
o
1200 A > ti?
i

V
County Boundary 0 1/4
I I 112
1 Miles
N Major Roads
Contour Lines
Airports
}
c I
Groundwater Flow Direction
Indeterminate Groundwater Flow at Location
Wildlife Areas
Natural Areas
pO Earthquake epicenter, Richter 5 or greater c v Groundwater Flow Varies at Location o Rare & Endangered Species
© Water Wells
© Public Water Supply Wells
® Cluster of Multiple Icons
TARGET PROPERTY: Bailey Fork Site CUSTOMER: Buck Engineering
ADDRESS: Hopewell Rd CONTACT: Kyle Smith
CITY/STATE/ZIP: Morganton NC 28655 INQUIRY #: 01331008.1 r
LAT/LONG: 35.7179 / 81.7241 DATE: December 21, 2004 5:31 pm
Co pyria ht !4 2004 ED R, Inc. v 2003 GDi, Inc. Re 1. 0712003. All Rights Reserved.
GEOCHECK8- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
RADON
AREA RADON INFORMATION
State Database: NC Radon
Radon Test Results
County Result Type Total Sites Avg pCi/L Range pCi/L
BURKE Statistical 33 2.12 -0.20-10.10
BURKE Non-Statistical 55 2.53 0.00-11.20
Federal EPA Radon Zone for BURKE County: 2
Note: Zone 1 indoor average level > 4 pCi/L.
Zone 2 indoor average level - 2 pCi/L and - 4 pCi/L.
Zone 3 indoor average level < 2 pCi/L.
Federal Area Radon Information for Zip Code: 28655
Number of sites tested: 10
Area Average Activity % <4 pCi/L
Living Area - 1 st Floor 1.775 pCi/L
Living Area - 2nd Floor Not Reported
Basement 3.560 pCi/L
100%
Not Reported
70%
% 4-20 pCi/L % >20 pCi/L
0% 0%
Not Reported Not Reported
30% 0%
TC01331008.1 r Page A-8
PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model (DEM)
Source: United States Geologic Survey
EDR acquired the USGS 7.5' Digital Elevation Model in 2002. 7.5-Minute DEMs correspond to the USGS
1:24,000- and 1:25,000-scale topographic quadrangle maps.
HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
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.
HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION
AQUIFLOWR Information System
Source: EDR proprietary database of groundwater flow information
EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System (AIS) to provide data on the general direction of groundwater
flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted to regulatory authorities at select sites and has
extracted the date of the report, hydrogeologically determined groundwater flow direction and depth to water table
information.
GEOLOGIC INFORMATION
Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit
Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - A digital
representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994).
STATSGO: State Soil Geographic Database
Source: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) leads the national
Conservation Soil Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil
survey information for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation
of soil patterns in a landscape. Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed (SSURGO)
soil survey maps.
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES
FEDERAL WATER WELLS
PWS: Public Water Systems
Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water
Telephone: [phone]
Public Water System data from the Federal Reporting Data System. A PWS is any water system which provides water to at
least 25 people for at least 60 days annually. PWSs provide water from wells, rivers and other sources.
PWS ENF: Public Water Systems Violation and Enforcement Data
Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water
Telephone: [phone]
Violation and Enforcement data for Public Water Systems from the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) after
August 1995. Prior to August 1995, the data came from the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS).
USGS Water Wells: USGS National Water Inventory System (NWIS)
This database contains descriptive information on sites where the USGS collects or has collected data on surface
water and/or groundwater. The groundwater data includes information on wells, springs, and other sources of groundwater.
0
0
0
TC01331008.1r Page A-9

s

u
[ j I

PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
STATE RECORDS
NC Natural Areas: Significant Natural Heritage Areas
Source: Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
A polygon converage identifying sites (terrestrial or aquatic that have particular biodiversity significance.
A site's significance may be due to the presenceof rare species, rare or hight quality natural communities, or
other important ecological features.
NC Game Lands: Wildlife Resources Commission Game Lands
Source: Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
All publicly owned game lands managed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and as listed in Hunting
and Fishing Maps.
NC Natural Heritage Sites: Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Sites
Source: Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Telephone: [phone]
A point coverage identifying locations of rare and endangered species, occurrences of exemplary or unique natural
ecosystems (terrestrial or aquatic), and special animal habitats (e.g., colonial waterbird nesting sites).
North Carolina Public Water Supply Wells
Source: Department of Environmental Health
Telephone: [phone]
RADON
State Database: NC Radon
Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Telephone: [phone]
Radon Statistical and Non Statiscal Data
Area Radon Information
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
The National Radon Database has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) and is a compilation of the EPA/State Residential Radon Survey and the National Residential Radon Survey.
The study covers the years 1986 - 1992. Where necessary data has been supplemented by information collected at
private sources such as universities and research institutions.
EPA Radon Zones
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Sections 307 & 309 of IRAA directed EPA to list and identify areas of U.S. with the potential for elevated indoor
radon levels.

OTHER
Airport Landing Facilities: Private and public use landing facilities
Source: Federal Aviation Administration, 800-457-6656
Epicenters: World earthquake epicenters, Richter 5 or greater
Source: Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
I TC01331008.1r Page A-10
0
EDR TOXICHECK01.0 Environmental Risk Summary
Target Property 440 Wheelers Farms Road
Milford, CT 06460
BAILEY FORK SITE Phone:[phone]
HOPEWELL RD Fax:[phone]
MORGANTON, NC 28655 Web:www.edrnet.com
December 21, 2004
CEDIR- Environmental
Data Resources Inc
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK LEVEL
To help evaluate environmental risk, the ToxiCheck 1.0 Environmental Risk Summary provides an Environmental
Risk Level, based on a search of current government records. Refer to the supporting report for additional
detail.
HIGH RISK High Risk implies that additional investigation by an environmental professional may be
necessary. Call your EDR Account Executive if you need a list of environmental
professionals for further investigation.
LOW RISK Low Risk implies that the environmental risk associated with the Target Property is
minimal.
Current Government Records
Current government regulatory files may identify known or potential sites of environmental concern.
o EDR Radius Map Report
(Not Requested for ToxiCheck) Historical Records
The prior use of a property may contribute to environmental contamination. Historical sources such as fire insurance
maps, city directories, and other databases may identify sites of potential environmental concern not identified in
current government records. The following reports and/or databases were not requested for ToxiCheck by
customer:
O EDR Fire Insurance Map Abstract
O EDR City Directory Abstract
o EDR Proprietary Gas Station/Dry Cleaner Database
v EDR Proprietary Coal Gas Database
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.
ToxiCheck 01331008.1r Page 1
0
0
0
0
t
TOXICHECK3 1.0 Environmental Risk Summary
FINDINGS CONTRIBUTING TO THE ENVIROMENTAL RISK LEVEL
The environmental LOW RISK is based upon the findings listed below. Refer to the supporting report(s) for
additional detail.
CURRENT GOVERNMENT RECORDS
Target Property
No records identified (if any) were determined to be of high risk.
Surrounding Properties
No records identified (if any) were determined to be of high risk.
HISTORICAL RECORDS (NOT REQUESTED)
Property historical reports and/or data was not requested for ToxiCheck by the customer.
ToxiCheck01331008.1r Page 2
0
TOXICHECe1.0 Environmental Risk Summary
PROPERTY TIMELINE
The property timeline indicates the year of the finding contributing to a LOW RISK environmental risk level.
For details on data points along the timeline, refer to page 2 of the ToxiCheck Environmental Risk Summary.
Target Property Timeline
Historical Not Requested for ToxiCheck
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2004
Historical Current
Surrounding Properties Timeline
Historical Not Requested for ToxiCheck
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2004
Historical Current
O Timeline ID (refer to page 2)
TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Data Source
Data Source indicates the government database or historical record contributing to a HIGH Environmental Risk
Level. Current government records sources include federal, state and local databases. Detailed information for
current government records can be found in the EDR Radius Map Report Government Records Searched section.
When requested to be searched by the customer, and where available, historical records sources include the EDR
Proprietary Gas Station/Dry Cleaner Database, EDR Proprietary Coal Gas Database, EDR Fire Insurance Abstract
and EDR City Directory Abstract. Additional information about the EDR Gas Station/Dry Cleaner Database and
EDR Proprietary Coal Gas Database can be found in the EDR Radius Map Report. Additional information about the
EDR Fire Insurance Abstract and EDR City Directory Abstract is located in the respective report(s).
Surrounding Properties
Surrounding Properties included in the ToxiCheck Environmental Risk Summary are those sites found in the EDR
Radius Map Report and Historical Reports near the target property. Surrounding Properties are also known as
adjoining properties. Surrounding Property data which contribute to a HIGH Environmental Risk Level can be found
in the Surrounding Properties section of the ToxiCheck Environmental Risk Summary.
Target Property
The Target Property is the location for which this inquiry is conducted. Target Property is also known as the subject
site. Target Property data which contribute to a HIGH Environmental Risk Level can be found in the Target
Property section of the ToxiCheck Environmental Risk Summary.
Timeline ID
Timeline ID is the identification number assigned to a property and used on the ToxiCheck Property Timeline to
show the publication year of the document(s) which identify the property.
EDR Radius Map(tm) Report
The EDR Radius Map Report is a map-based radius search of current government regulatory information that
identifies sites of real or potential environmental concern. The report searches federal, state, local, and EDR
proprietary databases for the target property and surrounding properties. Government records are regularly
updated according to industry standards.
0
0
EDR Proprietary Gas Station/Dry Cleaner Database
EDR has searched select national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential dry
cleaner and gas station/filling station/service station sites that were available to EDR researchers. EDR's review
ToxiCheck 01331008.1 r Page 3
0

I

t

TOXICHECK©1.0 Environmental Risk Summary
was limited to those categories of sources that might, in EDR's opinion, include dry cleaning and gas station/filling
station/service station establishments. The categories reviewed included, but were not limited to: gas, gas station,
gasoline station, filling station, auto, automobile repair, auto service station, service station, dry cleaner, cleaners,
laundry, laundromat, cleaning/laundry, wash & dry, etc. The information provided in this proprietary database may
or may not be complete; i.e., the absence of a dry cleaner or gas station/filling station/service station site does not
necessarily mean that such a site did not exist in the area covered by this report.
EDR Fire Insurance Map Abstract
Fire insurance maps were initially produced by private companies for the insurance industry to provide information
on the fire risks of buildings and other structures. Sanborn Maps are a valuable historical resource for persons
concerned with evaluating the potential for site contamination based on the history of past use. Fire insurance
maps are available for approximately 12,000 U.S. cities and towns from the mid-1800s to the present. Map coverage
is most comprehensive in urban core areas and in older suburbs; map coverage is limited in suburban areas developed
after 1950. When requested by the customer, EDR conducts a keyword search of the EDR Fire Insurance Map Abstract
to identify records contributing to the Toxicheck Environmental Risk Level. Keyword searches are limited and
should not be considered a substitute for review by an environmental professional. For more information about the
keywords used for the ToxiCheck Environmental Risk Level, contact your EDR Account Executive.
EDR City Directory Abstract
City directories have been published for cities and towns across the U.S. since the 1800s. Originally a list of
residents, the city directory developed into a sophisticated tool for locating individuals and businesses in a
particular urban or suburban area. Twentieth century directories are generally divided into three sections: a
business index, a list of resident names and addresses, and a street index. With each address, the directory lists
the name of the resident or, if a business is operated from this address, the name and type of business (if unclear
from the name). While city directory coverage is comprehensive for major cities, it may be spotty for rural areas
and small towns. When requested by the customer, EDR conducts a keyword search of the EDR City Directory
Abstract to identify records contributing to the Toxicheck Environmental Risk Level. Keyword searches are limited
and should not be considered a substitute for review by an environmental professional. For more information about
the keywords used for the ToxiCheck Environmental Risk Level, contact your EDR Account Executive.
The following keywords were used to evaluate the EDR City Directory Abstract: 7-Eleven, AM General, Acura,
Amerada Hess Corporation, Amoco, Arco, Aston Martin, Atlantic Richfield Oil Company, Audi, Auto, Automotive, BMW, BP,
Beacon, Bentley, Body Shop, Body Works, British Petroleum, Buick, Cadillac, Caltex, Car, Chemical, Chevrolet, Chevron,
Chevrontexaco, Chrysler, Circle K, Citgo, Cities Service Company, Cleaner, Cleaning, Coastal Petroleum, Collision, Conoco,
Conocophillips, Cumberland Farms, Daewoo, Diamond Shamrock, Dodge, Dry Cleaner, Dyer, Dying, Eagle, Esso, Exxon,
Exxonmobil, Ferrari, Ford, GMC, Garage, Gas, Gulf Oil, Hess, Honda, Hummer, Hyundai, Imperial Oil, Infiniti, Isuzu, Jaguar,
Jeep, Jersey Standard, Jet Oil, Junkyard, Kia, Laboratory, Lamborghini, Land Rover, Landfill, Launderer, Laundromat,
Laundry, Lexus, Lincoln, Lotus, Magnolia Petroleum Co, Manufacturing, Marathon, Marathon Ashland Petroleum, Martinizing,
Maserati, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mercury, Mini, Mirastar, Mitsubishi, Mobil, Motor, Nissan, Oil, Oldsmobile, Paint, Panoz,
Petroleum, Phillips, Phillips 66, Photo, Pilot, Plymouth, Pontiac, Porsche, Press, Print, Printing, Radiator, Railroad,
Railway, Recycling, Repair, Rolls-Royce, Royal Dutch/Shell, STA, Saab, Saturn, Shell Oil, Sinclair Oil, Socony, Sohio,
Speedway, Standard Oil, Standard Oil of Ohio, Station, Subaru, Sun Oil Company, Sunoco, Suzuki, Tesoro, Tesoro Petroleum,
Texaco, Total, Toyota, Transmission, Ultramar, Union 76, Union Oil, Vacuum Oil Co, Valero, Valero Energy, Volkswagen,
Volvo, Waste, Wyatt Oil.
EDR Proprietary Coal Gas Database
The existence and location of Coal Gas sites is provided exclusively to EDR by Real Property Scan, Inc.
(c)Copyright 1993 Real Property Scan, Inc. For a technical description of the types of hazards which may be
found at such sites, contact your EDR Account Executive.

r,

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.
ToxiCheck01331008.1r Page 4

M N?o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Slate Historic Preservation Office
Pcter B. Sandbcck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Govemor
Lisbalt C. (-.vans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
November 4, 2004
Ms. Jessica Rohrbach
Buck Engineering
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
Re: Bailey Fork Site, Stream and Wetland Restoration, Burke County, ER 04-2607
Dear Ms. Rohrbach:
Thank you for your letter of September 28, 2004 concerning die above project.
Office of Archives and History
Division of I listorical Resources
David Brook, Director
There arc no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the project area
has never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological resources.
Seven previously recorded sites arc located within one mile of the project area. Based on the topographic and
hydrological situation, there is a high probability for the presence of prehistoric or historic archaeological
sites.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and
evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by tic proposed
project. Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site forms,
should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in advance of any
construction activities.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North
Carolina is available at wxt><v.arch.dcr.state.nc.us/consults. Tlie archaeologists listed, or any other experienced
archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended surrey.
The above coinnhents are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Acr and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Luwlen Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Ccntcr, Raleigh NC 276994617 (919)7334763n334653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Ccntcr, Raleigh NC 276994617 (919)733.654717154801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 (919)733.654517154801
0
0
0
0
0
0
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Carley, enviromnental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite die above-referenced tracking number.
' Sincerely,
q?'b
Peter Sandbeck
'

I

0
lit,
ENVIRONMENTAL BANC & EXCHANGE, LLC
Management, Banking & Trading of Environmental Rights
"Finding Environmental Solutions through Economic Incentives"
10055 Red Run Boulevard, Suite 130
Owings Mills, MD 21117-1860
410356-5159 FAX [phone]
220 Chatham Business Drive
Pittsboro, NC 27312
[phone]
www.cbxusa.coni
December 21, 2004
Isis. Renee Gledhill-Earley
State Historic Preservadon Office
Environmental Review Coordinator
Survey & Planning Branch
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Via Hand Delitrry
RE: Bailey Fork Wctland & Stream Restoration Site - Burke County - ER 04-2607
§106 Coordination - Archaeological Survey
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley:
AOO' I am in receipt of your letter dated November 4, 2004, wherein you request that an archaeological survey be
conducted on the above-referenced stream restoration site before construction of the site. As you and 1
have discussed, an on-site archaeological survey will be conducted by an experienced archaeologist in early
spring of 2005. We arc currently using the list of archaeologists provided on the SHPO website to identify
and hire personnel to complete the survey and to prepare the appropriate report. Two copies of the report
and one copy of the appropriate site form will be provided to you before any construction activities are
initiated on the Bailcy Fork Site.
Please contact me if you have any additional questions regarding this project. I appreciate your assistance
and input.
Best regards,
Tara Disy Alldcn
Southeast Regional Manager

0
0

n

A74 A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
October 4, 2004
Ms. Jessica Rolubach
Buck Engineering
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27511
Subject: Plan for Stream and Wetland Restoration on Bailey Fork Site; Burke County
Dear Ms. Rolubach:
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 I-leritage 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
<%k,NNRv.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 inforniation.
Sincerely,
Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
HEL/hel
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] - FAX: [phone] - Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal Opporturity - Affirmative Action Employer. 50 % Recycled 110 % Pcst Corsumer Paper
NorthCarolina
,Iatura!!y
0
0
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
October 6, 2004
Ms. Jessica Rolnrbaeh
Buck Engineering
8000 Regency Parkway
Cary, North Carolina 27511
RE: Proposed Silver and Bailey Fork Restoration Projects, Burke County
Dear Ms. Rolrbaeh:
This correspondence is in response to your letters of September 28, 2004 concerning the
referenced projects. Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Conuiussion
(NCWRC) are familiar with habitat values in the area. The NCWRC is authorized to
continent and make recommendations which relate to the impacts of this project on fish
and wildlife pursuant to the Clean Water Act of 1977, state and federal Environmental
Policy Acts, the Endangered Species Act (16 U. S. C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat 884), the
Federal License of Water Resource Project Act (Federal Power Act-16 U.S.C. 791 a et
seq.), and the Fish and Wildlife Coorduiation Act (48 Stat. 401. as amended; 16 U.S.C.
661-667d).
The conceptual projects are indicated as "in kind" stream restoration for the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program's consideration. The streams have been
selected by Buck Engineering due to their perceived potential for high quality restoration
probability where stream "habitat has ceased to exist" according to your letter. Tine
proposed restoration is indicated to restore stable channel pattern and profile to the
streams and associated tributaries as well as restore forested riparian buffers. No fencing
or protective casements are discussed. For your information, cattle exclusion fencing and
permanent conservation easements must be provided for this office to concur with any
mitigation credits. In watersheds supporting listed species, these. buffers should be
minimum 100' for intermittent channels and 200' for perennial channels. In watersheds
without listed species, we recommend that these buffers should be minimum 50' and 100'
respectively.
Based on our review of your letter, we have determined that listed federal and state
species are known for the county and relatively near these stream areas. No terrestrial
rare animal species are known for the area; however, habitats it the Bailey Creek area
could have potentially suitable habitats for the bog turtle (Clemm)s nruhlenbergii), a state
and federal threatened species. Slice these turtles are known to migrate long distances,
impacts to the area could jeopardize any turtles present it the area. Conversely, if bog
turtles are not present, stream restoration that does not impact wetlands or that restores
Mailino Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
o
Telephone: [phone] ext, 281 - Fax: [phone]

I

Silver & Bailey Fork Restoration 2 .
October 6, 2004
wetlands could enhance habitat values needed for turtles and other plant and animal
species.
We recommend that you contact the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the NC Natural
Heritage Program to determine if they have similar concerns. If they do, professional
bog turtle surveys should be provided in the spring (or as otherwise indicated by Project
Bog Turtle personnel) to determine the presence of bog turtles or suitable bog turtle
habitats to ensure that avoidable direct impacts do not occur to listed or rare species.
These surveys could provide additional insights for potential ancillary or associated
wetland enhancement or preservation.
It is our understanding that this project has an 80 % chance of being used as North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) mitigation. Accordingly, specific
mitigation credits should be established according to previously determined 404 Permit
and 401 Certification requirements. Tlus letter does not indicate agreement or
disagreement with the project or with any specific amount of mitigation the site may
provide. As appropriate, we will provide additional review and comment as needed
during future environmental assessments or permit reviews. Please be advised that all
activities must follow US Army Corps of Engineers and NC Division of Water Quality
Certification requirements as well as any other special conditions specified by the NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project during its early planning
stages. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at
336/769-9453.
Sincerely,
ZRon Linville
Regional Coordinator
habitat Conservation Program
Ee: Marla Chambers, WRC
Sarah McRae, NI-JP
John Fridell, USFWS

0
0
-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 1:23 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: restoration projects
Kevin,
I have reviewed the information you sent me regarding five restoration
sites and the potential to impact federally listed species. I understand
and appreciate that you--Buck Engineering--are trying to be proactive and
determine whether or not further review is needed for endangered species for
the projects that EEP has selected into the full delivery program.
Ultimately, it will be up to the COE to review these sites at permitting and
determine if there are any unresolved issues for endangered species. Given
that permitting occurs after a lot of other work already has occurred, I
will provide the following comments for your consideration.
For the following sites; Jones Creek (Anson Co.), Silver Creek (Burke Co.),
South Fork Hoppers Creek (McDowell Co.) and Cleghorn Creek (Rutherford Co.)
after reviewing the information provided and talking further about the sites
with you on the telephone, I believe it is unlikely there would be any
effects to listed species from the activities proposed. Keep in mind,
however, that if listed species should be discovered after the project
begins or other species occurring on these sites become listed during the
implementation of the projects, further consultation will be required. As
we discussed, for the Bailey Fork Site in Burke County, I think that surveys
for dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis nanaflora) should be conducted in
the wooded areas adjacent to the creek north and south of I-40, if ground
disturbing activities will occur in those wooded sections.
If you have any questions or need something further, please let me know.
marella
marella buncick
USFWS
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
828-258-3939 ext 237
0
0

11

fl

t

N

0
0

I Appendix 2
I Existing Conditions Summaries, Cross Sections, Bed Material Analyses, NCDWQ Stream Forms, and
Benthos Data

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
Summary of Cross-Section Data: Bailey Fork Site
U T1 UT2 U T3 Baile Fork
Cross-section Descriptor X4 X6 X5 X7 X8 X1 X2 X3 X9
Feature Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Pool Riffle Riffle
Ros en Stream Type E5 G5 E5 E5 E5 E5 ---- E5 E5
Bankfull Width (ft) 9.17 10.90 5.09 9.19 10.78 25.50 26.03 22.94 24.76
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.18 1.98 1.56 2.15 1.92 2.99 3.42 3.72 3.54
Width/Depth Ratio 7.75 5.50 3.26 4.27 5.61 8.52 7.62 6.16 6.99
Bankfull Area( q ft 10.90 21.60 8.00 19.80 20.70 76.20 88.90 85.40 87.70
Bankfull Max Depth ft 1.97 2.87 1.90 3.09 2.94 5.06 5.68 5.08 5.09
Entrenchment Ratio 5.40 1.40 2.00 6.80 3.40 5.10 6.70 10.60 3.00
Bank Height Ratio 1.00 2.00 2.50 1.30 1.90 1.40 1.50 1.70 1.60

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle E5 10.9 9.17 1.18 1.97 7.75 1 5.4 99 99.06
Unnamed Tributary 1 to Bailey Fork
103 Cross-section 4
102
,-. 101 --- -------- -------- -------- --------

100-

99
99
ca

d 98
w
97
96
95

0 10 20 30 40
50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (ft) c - • Bankfull - - o• - - Floodprone
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Bev
Riffle G5 21.6 10.9 1.98 2.87 5.5 2 1.4 97.38 100.31
Unnamed Tributary 1 to Bailey Fork
102 Cross-section 6
101
100
c 99
98
`c -
97
w 96
95
94
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (ft) - - - a - • Floodprone
t
t

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
j D
t
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle E5 8 5.09 1.56 1.9 :!326::: 2.5 2 96.7 99.6
Unnamed Tributary 2 to Bailey Fork
103 Cross-section 5
102
101
100
2 99
.
> 98 - •? - - - - }
w 97
96 -
95
94
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft) 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 19.8 9.19 2.15 3.09 4.27 1.3 6.8 100.1 100.89
Unamed Tributary 3 to Bailey Fork
104 Cross-section 7
103 '----------------------------- ---------------- ------------o
w 102
0 101

100
> 99
w 98
97

96
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft) Bankfull 0. Floodprone
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E5 20.7 10.78 1.92 2.94 5.61 1.9 3.4 97.6 100.22
Unnamed Tributary 3 to Bailey Fork
102 Cross-section 8
101
----------------------------------
100 4
w 0
c 99
98
M
> 97 ---------
w 96
95
94

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft) F--o---Bankfull - - o- - • Floodprone
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev I TOB Elev
Riffle E5 76.2 25.5 2.99 5.06 8.52 1.4 5.1 96.54 98.74
Bailey Fork
104 Cross
section 1
-
102 ----------------------- -------------------------
100
98

w 96-
94-

92-
90
88
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Station (ft) a - • Bankfull - - a - •Floodprone
t
r tream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool E5 88.9 26.03 3.42 5.68 7.62 1.5 6.7 96.4 99.02
Bailey Fork
104 Cross-section 2
102 - -----0
100
w
98
.2 96
94
U' 92
90
88
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Station (ft) 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 E5 85.4 22.94 3.72 5.08 6.16 1.7 10.6 95.6 99.37
Bailey Fork
104 Cross-section 3
102
u-----------------------------------------------------------
w 100
w
= 98
96 ,
d 94
w 92
90
88
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Station (ft) Bankfull - a Floodprone
0
0
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
-Riffle E5 87.7 24.76 3.54 5.09 6.99 1.6 3 98.5 101.8
Bailey Fork
115 Cross-section 9
110
:.
0 105
----------------------- -
> 100
d
w
95
90

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Station (ft) _- a - • Bankfull - - o- - • Floodprone
0
0
SITE OR PROJECT: Gaily Fork
REACHILOCATION: UTt Bulk Sample
DATE COLLECTED: 11/812004
FIELD COLLECTION BY: KS
DATA ENTERED BY: KS

t

SEDIMENT ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
PARTICLE CLASS Reach Summary
MATERIAL PARTICLE SIZE (mm) Riffle Pool Total Class % % Cum
Silt if Clay <.063 48.00 4E 1.63 1.63
- Very Fine .063-.125 62.00 62 2.11 3.74
Fine 125-25 359.00 359 12.21 15.95
SAN D Medium .25-.50 643.00 643 21.86 37.81
Coarse .50-1.0 456.00 456 15.50 53.32
Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 304.50 305 10.35 63.67
OQ Very Fine 2.0-2.8 127.50 128 4.34 68.00
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 127.50 128 4.34 72.34
??p Fine 4.0-5.6 115.50 116 3.93 76.27
Fine 5.6-8.0 143.00 143 4.86 81.13
^n Medium 8,0_11.0 219.00 219 7.45 88.58
GRAVEL
? Medium 11.0.16.0 229.50 230 7.80 96.38
OO Coarse 16 - 22.6 78.50 79 2.67 99.05
0 Coarse 22.6 - 32 28.00 28 0.95 100 00
Very Coarse 32 - 45 100.00
1VnW?,,,?,? Very Coarse 45.64 100.00
Small 64-90 100.00
Small 90 - 128 100.00
COBBLE
Large 128 - 180 100.00
Large 180 - 256 100.00
Small 256-362 100.00
Small 362 - 512 100.00
BOULDER
Medium
512 - 1024
100.00

1 Large-Very Large 1024 - 2048 100.00
BEDROCK ....
€ Bedrock > 2048 100.00
2941 0 2941
Riffle Summary Pool Su mmary
Class % % Cum Class % % Cum
1.63 1.63 #DIV/0!
2.11 174 #DIV/0!
12.21 15.95 #DIV/0!
21.86 37.81 #DIV/0!
15.50 53.32 #DIV/O!
10,35 63.67 #DIV101
4.34 68.00 #DIV/O!
4.34 72.34 #DIV/O!
3.93 76.27 #DIV10!
4.86 81.13 #DIV/O!
7.45 88.58 #DIV10!
7.80 95.38 #DIV/0!
2.67 99.05 #DIV/0!
0.95 10100 #DIV/O!
10100 #DIV/O!
100.00 #DIV/D!
100.00 #DIV/O!
10100 #DIV/O!
10100 #DIV/0!
100.00 #DIV/0!
100.00 #DIV/O!
100.00 #DIV/O!
100.00 #DIV/0!
100.00 #DIV/O!

P 100.00 #DIV/0!
100 100 0 #DIV/0!
Cummulative Riffle Pool
Channel materials Channel materials Channel materials
D,s = 0.25 D,e = 025 Die = #N/A
Du = 0.46 Du = 0.46 D,s = #N/A
DSO = 0.86 DSO = 0.66 DSO = #N/A
D,,,= 9.05 De, = 9.05 Deg = #N/A
DDS = 14.98 DDS = 14.98 DDS = #N/A
D-=22.6-32 D-=22.6-32 D-= #N/A

Sediment Distribution
Baily Fork - UT1 Bulk Sample
100
90
80
70
60
c
50
d
a
40
30
20
10
0
I II I; I j l !I
I I I II I ? I ? I I
-?- Cumulative Percent
0 Class Percent
ICI
?,I II I I I ?I ? i i I I !I
I I I I I I I,
' !? I' I i i Ili
?i III I I I ?'
I I II I ? i
I li I ?
I I I
0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle Size Class (mm)
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel
100 1000
Cobble Boulder
10000
Bedrock
Q = 0 171-1 a CZ3 = a f a= C == 0

SITE OR PROJECT: Baily Fork
REACHILOCATION: UT2 Bulk Sample
DATE COLLECTED: 11/8/2004
FIELD COLLECTION BY: KS
DATA ENTERED BY: KS
SEDIMENT ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
PARTICLE CLASS Reach Summary
MATERIAL PARTICLE SIZE (mm) Riffle Pool Total Class% % Cum
Silt / Clay < .063 19.50 20 1.39 1.39
Very Fine .063-.125 27.50 28 1951 . 3.34
- - Fine .125-.25 206.50 207 14.67 18.01
SAND - Medium .25-.50 375.50 376 26.68 44.69
-- - Coarse .50-10 263.00 263 18.69 63.37
Very Coarse 1,0-20 210.00 210 14,92 78.29
O O Very Fine 2.0-2.8 94.00 94 6.68 84.97
Very Fine 2.8 - 4.0 82.50 8' 5.86 90.83
C Fine 4.0-56 51.00 51 3.62 94.46
Qj Fine 5.6 - 8.0 51.50 52 3.66 98.12
Medium 8.0-11.0 16.50 17 1.17 99.29
GRAVEL
i Medium 11.0.16.0 10.00 10 0.71 100.00
OO Coarse 16 - 22.6 100.00
0 Coarse 22 6 - 32 100.00
Very Coarse 32 - 45 100.00
n Very Coarse 45 - 64 100.00
Small 64 - 90 100.00
\ Small 90 -128 100.00
COBBLE
Large 128 - 180 100.00
j Large 180 - 256 100.00
Small 256 - 362 100.00
Small 362 - 512 100.00
BOULDER
Medium
512 - 1024
100.00
Large-Very Large 1024 - 2048 100.00
BEDROCK !
--- Bedrock > 2048 100.00
1408 0 1408
Pool Summary
Class % % Cum
#DIV/0!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/oI
#DIV/0!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/O!
0 #DIV/0!
Cummulative Riffle Pool
Channel materials Channel materials Channel materials
Die = 0.23 D, = 0.23 Die = #N/A
Du = 0.39 Du = 0.39 Du = #N/A
D,0 = 0.61 Duo = 0.61 D. = #N/A
D,,, = 2.67 De = 2.67 D. = #N/A
D? = 5.90 DZ = 5.90 D?5 = #N/A
D-=11.0-16.0 D-=11.0-16.0 Dim= #N/A

Sediment Distribution
Baily Fork - UT2 Bulk Sample
1UU
90
80
70
60
c
U
50
d
a
40
30
20
10
0
it I I ?I II I II ! i I ?,
I
I
11 I-F-7 I -L
i
-[]-
Cumulative Percent
m Class Percent
II
I
i
I
i I I I i ? ? it I?
i
'' III ':, II I I? '' I II
it I ' I III ?I II '? ?I ??
I ? ? I
0.01
Silt/Clay
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
4 0

SITE OR PROJECT: Badly Fork
REACH/LOCATION: UT3 Bulk Sample
DATE COLLECTED: 111812004
FIELD COLLECTION BY: KS
DATA ENTERED BY: KS
SEDIMENT ANALYSIS DATA SHEET

f

PARTICLE CLASS Reach Summary
MATERIAL PARTICLE SIZE (mm) Riffle Pool Total class % % Cum
Silt / Clay <.063 18,501 1 15 0.71 0.71
Very Fine .063 -.125 44.00 44 1.69 2.40
Fine .125-.25 381.50 382 14.67 17.07
SAN D Medium .25-.50 1040.00 1040 39.98 57.05
Coarse .50 - 1.0 551.50 552 21.20 78.26
Very Coarse 1.0 - 2.0 321.00 321 12.34 90.60
O O Very Fine 2.0-2.8 85.00 85 3.27 93.87
Q6 Very Fine 2,8-4,0 54.50 55 2.10 95.96
;;NNC?C Fine 4.0.5.6 27.50 28 1.06 97.02
?? Fine 5.6 - 8.0 24.50 25 0.94 97.96
r` Medium 8.0-11.0 32.00 32 113 99.19
GRAVEL
O Medium 11.0.16.0 15.00 15 0.58 99.77
p Coarse 16-22.6 6.00 6 0.23 100.00
Coarse 22.6 - 32 100.00
Very Coarse 32 -45 100 00
n Very Coarse 45 - 64 100.00
Small 64 -90 100.00
\ Small 90 - 128 100.00
COBBLE
Large 128 - 180 100.00
j Large 180 - 256 100.00
Small 256 - 362 100.00
Small 362 - 512 100.00
BOULDER
Medium
512 - 1024
100.00

1 Large-Very Large 1024 - 2048 100.00
BEDROCK
€ Bedrock > 2048 100.00
2601 0 2601
Pool Summary
Class % %Cum
#DIV/0!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
0 #DIV/0!
Cummulative Riffle Pool
Channel materials Channel materials Channel materials
Dib = 0.24 Dib = 0.24 D16 = #N/A
Du = 0.34 D,, = 0.34 Du = #N/A
Dbu = 0.44 D? = 0,44 D? = #N/A
D,,,= 1.38 Dg. = 1.38 D6, = #N/A
D96 = 140 D95 = 3.40 D96 = #N/A
D-= 16-22.6 D-= 16-22.6 D-. #N/A

Sediment Distribution
Baily Fork - UT3 Bulk Sample
100
90
80
70
60
w
c
50
d
a
40
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
4 10 f? 0 0.
D C7 G`7 ? C7 D D ? D ? D ? ? ? D

L

SITE OR PROJECT: Bally Fork
REACH/LOCATION: Bulk Sample
DATE COLLECTED: 11/8/2004
FIELD COLLECTION BY: KS
DATA ENTERED BY: KS
SEDIMENT ANALYSIS DATA SHEET
PARTICLE CLASS Reach Summary
MATERIAL PARTICLE SIZE (mm) Riffle Pool Total Class h k Cum
Sill / Clay < .063 7.50 8 0.22 0.22
Very Fine .063-.125 13.50 14 0.40 0.62
- - - Fine .125-.25 77.00 77 2.26 2.88
SAND Medium .25-.50 476.50 477 13.98 16.85
Coarse .50-1.0 1356.00 1356 39.78 56.64
Very Coarse 1.0.2.0 634.00 634, 18.60 75.24
?O Very Fine 2.0.2.8 145.00 145 4.25 79.49
Very Fine 2.8-4.0 189.00 189 5.54 85.04
C? Fine 4.0-5.6 140.00 140 4.11 89.14
Fine 5.6-8.0 120.00 120 3.52 92.67
^ Medium 8,0_11.0 81.00 81 2.38 95.04
GRAVEL
Medium 11.0-16.0 68.50 69 2.01 97.05
O? Coarse 16 - 22.6 32.50 33 0.95 98.00
(0) C Coarse 22.6 - 32 43.50 44 1.28 99.28
Very Coarse 32 - 45 24.50 25 0.72 100.00
n Very Coarse 45-64 100.00
Small 64 - 90 100.00
Small 90 -128 100.00

Large 128 - 180 100.00
Large 180-256 100.00
P Sma:I 256 - 362 100.00
Sma:1 362 - 512 100.00
Medum 512 - 1024 100
.00
Large-Very Large 1024 - 2048 100.00
ROI Bedrock > 2048 100.00
3409 0 3409
Pool Summary
Class% %Cum
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/O!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
0 #DIV/0!
Cummulative Riffle Pool
Channel materials Channel materials Channel materials
D,6 0.48 Dm = 0.48 D16 = #N/A
D36 = 0.69 Du = 0.69 Du = #N/A
D,? = 0.89 D,0 = 0.89 D,0 _ #N/A
D6, = 3.74 D6, = 3.74 D6, _ #N/A
Dios = 10.94 Dios = 10.94 Dios = #N/A
Dim=32-45 D-=32-45 Dim= #N/A

Sediment Distribution
Baily Fork - Bulk Sample
1UU
90
80
70
60
c
LU 50
a?
a
40
30
20
10
0
I I li I? ? I I II ? li
I ?
I
_ ? I ,III I II I
?- Cumulative Percent
o Class Percent
I
I
I,
I
i I I I i II
/ yp
i
;
I I ! I I ! i I I
i
ij I II I I ' I
I
I
I
i I
0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle Size Class (mm)
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel
100 1000
Cobble Boulder
10000
Bedrock
[.? D L? D D ? D ?1 D ? ? d D ? D

NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: EBX River Basin: Catawba County: Burke USGS QUAD: Morganton South
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream:Bailey Fork Latitude: Longitude:
Evaluator: Huysman Signature: Date:
Location/Directions: UTi - Data point taken upstream of bridge located adjacent to I-40
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not
necessary Also, if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified
natural stream-this rating system should not be used*
Primarv Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomorpholou Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 1 2 (3)
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain?
0 1
2
(3)
3) Are Natural Levees Present? 0 1 (2) 3
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 (2) 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Floodplain Present?
0 1
(2)
3
6) Is The Channel Braided? 0 (1) 2 3
7) Are Recent Alluvial Deposits Present? 0 1 (2) 3
8) Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 (2) 3
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1
(*NOTE: IjBed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*) 2 (3)
10) Is A 2nd Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tono Man And/Or in Field) Present?
Yes=3 Nn=(O)
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:20
II. Hvdrolopy Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 (3)
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 3
III. Biolojzv Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 (2) 1 0
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 (2) 1 0
3) Is Periphyton Present? 0 1 (2) 3
4) Are Bivalves Present? 0 1 2 (3)
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 9
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Nund)er Per Line)
1. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
2) Is There A Grade Control Point in Channel? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Wav? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 4.5
II. Hydrologv Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambed? (1.5) 1 .5 0
2) is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 (.5) 1 1.5
3) Are Wrack Lines Present'? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 (1.5)
Last Known Rain? (*NOTF,: If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #5 Below*)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 (1.5)
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
6) Are Hydric Soils Present in Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes= 1.5 No=(0)

0
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 6.5

Ill. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fish Present? (0) .5 1 1.5
2) Are Amphibians Present? 0 .5 (1) 1.5
3) Are AquaticTurtles Present? (0) .5 1 1.5
4) Are Crayfish Present? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
6) Are Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fungus Present? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
7) Is Filamentous Algae Present? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE. If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 (.75) .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skin This Step UNLESS SAV Present*).
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:7.75
TOTAL POINTS (Printary + Secondary) =50.75
(If Greater Titan Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intennillent)

l ?L? ?+?ar
?
/
? ®
f
yfa
J /
-

0
0

NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: EBX River Basin: Catawba County: Burke USGS QUAD: Morganton South
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Bailey Fork Latitude: Longitude:
Evaluator: Huysman Signature: Date:
Location/Directions: UT - Sample point located above impoundment
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not
necessary. Also, if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified
natural stream-this rating system should not be used*
Primarv Field Indicators: (Circle One Nund7er Per Line)
1. Geomorphologv Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 1 (2) 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain? 0 1 (2) 3
3) Are Natural Levees Present? 0 1 (2) 3
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 2 (3)
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Floodplain Present?
0 1
(2)
3
6) is The Channel Braided? 0 1 (2) 3
7) Are Recent Alluvial Deposits Present? 0 1 (2) 3
8) Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 (2) 3
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 (3)
(*NOTF. • If Bed R Bank Caused By Ditching And 1WHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
10) Is A 2"' Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo Man And/Or in Field) Present? Yes=3 N0=(0)
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:20
II. Hvdrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong _
' 1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 (3)
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 3

11

E

III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 2 (1) 0
2) Are Rooted Plants Present in Streambed? 3 (2) 1 0
3) Is Periphyton Present'? 0 1 (2) 3
4) Are Bivalves Present? (0) 1 2 3
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 5
Secondarv Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
L Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 .5 (1) 1.5
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Wav? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 4
II. Hvdrologv Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambed? 1.5 (1) .5 0
2) is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 (.5) 1 1.5
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 (1.5)
Last Known Rain? (*NOTF: If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skin This Step And #5 B(,low*)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 (1.5)
Conditions Or in Growing Season)?
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes=(1.5) No=O

0
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:8

III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fish Present? (0) .5 1 1.5
2) Are Amphibians Present? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
3) Are AquaticTurtles Present? 0 (.5) 1 1.5
d) Are Crayfish Present? 0 .5 (1) 1.5
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
6) Are Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fungus Present? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
7) Is Filamentous Algae Present? 0 .5 (1) 1.5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly 0131, Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* ]VOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 (.5) 0 0
As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAV Present*).
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 8.5
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) =48.5
(If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)

7..T. 7 `rr ti

a , !
0
0
F1

NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: EBX River Basin: Catawba County: Burke USGS QUAD: Morganton South
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Bailey Fork Latitude: Longitude:
Evaluator: Huysman Signature: Date:
Location/Directions: UT - Channelized stream with greater than 40 acres of drainage
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the fcature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not
necessary. Also, if in the best professional judgeu:ent of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified
natural stream-this rating system should not be used`
Primarv Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 (1) 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain? 0 1 (2) 3
3) Are Natural Levees Present? (0) 1 2 3
4) is The Channel Sinuous? 0 (1) 2 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Floodplain Present? 0 1 2 (3)
6) Is The Channel Braided? (0) 1 2 3
7) Are Recent Alluvial Deposits Present? 0 1 (2) 3
8) Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 (2) 3
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 (3)
t *NOTF• If Bed & Batik Caused By Ditching And IVITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
10) Is A 2t,d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tono Man And/Or in Field) Present? Yes=3 No=(0)
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:14
IL Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
' 1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 (3)
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 3

I I
u

III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present in Streambed? (3) 2 I 0
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2 (1) 0
3) Is Periphyton Present? 0 1 (2) 3
4) Are Bivalves Present? (0) 1 2 3
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 6
Secondarv Field Indicators: (Circle One Nund5er Per Line)
1. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 (.5) 1 1.5
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 .5 (1) 1.5
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainawe Wav? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 3
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
Present in Streambed? 1.5 1 (.5) 0
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 .5 (1) 1.5
3) Are Wrack Lines Present'? 0 (.5) 1 1.5
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 0.'
Last Known Rain? (*NOTF. • If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skin This Step And #5 Below*)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 (1) 1.5
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
6) Are Hydric Soils Present in Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes=(1.5) No=O

0
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 5
III.I3iology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fish Present? (0) .5 1 1.5
2) Are Amphibians Present? 0 (5) 1 1.5

3) Are AquaticTurtles Present?
0
.5
1
1.5 a
4) Are Crayfish Present? 0 .5 (1) 1.5
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 .5 (1) 1.5
6) Are Iron Oxidizing BacteridFungus Present? 0 .5 (1) 1.5
7) Is Filamentous Algae Present? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 (.75) .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skin This Step UNLESS SAV Present*).
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:5.75
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) =31.75
(If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Lcast Intermittent)
i
. '10
Calvin
` l }
Goe Caere
0
0
ii

L'

NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: FBX River Basin: Catawba County: Burke USGS QUAD: Morganton South
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Bailey Fork Latitude: Longitude:
Evaluator: Huysman Signature: Date:
Location/Directions: Sample point located on Bailey Fork south of I-40
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not
necessary. Also, if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified
natural stream-this rating system should not be used'
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Nu berPerLine)
I. Geomorpholopv Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 1 2 (3)
2) Is The USDA Texture In Strcambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain? 0 1 2 (3)
3) Are Natural Levees Present'? 0 1 (2) 3
4)1s The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 (2) 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
Floodpllain Present?
0 1
2
(3)
6) Is The Channel Braided? (0) 1 2 3
7) Are Recent Alluvial Deposits Present? 0 1 2 (3)
8) Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 2 (3)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present'? 0 1 2 (3)
LNOTF, • if Bcd & Bmik Cau«-d B?, DitrhinQ And IVIT11OUT Sinu(>ritp Dim S(-ore=0*)
10) Is A 2nd Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tono Man And/Or In Field) Present? Yes=(3) No=O
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:22
II. Hvdrolo-.y Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 (3)
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 3

f]

III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? (3) 2 1 0
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Strcambed? (3) 2 1 0
3) Is Periphyton Present? 0 1 (2) 3
4) Are Bivalves Present? 0 1 (2) 3
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:10
Secondarv Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
1. Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Stronjj
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainaee Wav? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 4.5
II. Hvdrolou Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambed? (1.5) 1 .5 0
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 .5 (1) 1.5
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 (1.5)
Last Known Rain? (*NOTF.: l(Dilrh Indicated hi #9 Above Skip This Step And #5 B(,Io1r*)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 (1.5)
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes=1.5 No=(0)

0
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:7
a
III. Biology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Are Fish Present? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
2) Are Amphibians Present? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
3) Are AquaticTurtles Present? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
4) Are Crayfish Present? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
6) Are Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fungus Present? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
7) Is Filamentous Algae Present? 0 .5 1 (1.5)
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(*NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed
As Noted Above Skin This Step UNLESS SAV Present*). 2 1 .75 (5) 0 0
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:11
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) =57.5
(If Greater Titan Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
? + ?? • ? ? t
Jw
1 -7-
Az-
Y f
1 ?
4 1. a? I
4 _' V

0
0
Benthos Data for Bailey Fork Project Collected in January 2005

SPECIES Tolerance
Values Feedin-
Group Site 1
UTI
Restoration Site 2
UT1
Reference Site 3
UT3
Restoration Site 4
UT3
Reference
MOLLUSKA
Gastro oda
Pleuroceridae
Elimia s pp. 2.5 SC A
Ph sidae
Ph Sella s pp. 8.8 Sc A
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta
Me adrile 9.0 CG R R
ARTHROPODA
Crustacca
Am hi oda
Talitridae
Hvallela aveca 7.8 CG C
Deca oda
Cambaridae CG C C C C
Insecta
E hemero tera
Baetidae
Baetis ludo 4.3 CG C
E hemerellidae
E hemerella s pp. 2.0 CG C A
E hemeridae
Ephemera s pp. 2.0 CG A A
He tageniidae
Stenonema modestum 5.5 SC A A R
Stenonema udicum 2.0 SC R C C
Stenonema terminatum 4.1 SC A
Le to hlebiidae
Le to hlebia s pp. 6.2 CG R C A
Pleco tern
Ca niidae
Alloca nia s pp. 2.5 SH R C A
Pelto erlidae
Talla erla s pp. 1.2 SH R R
Perlidae
Ecco tera xanthenes 3.7 PR C C
Perlodidae
Clio erla clio 4.7 PR R R
Di to erla du licata 2.7 PR R A C
Iso erla bilineata 5.4 PR C A
Tricho tern
H dro s chidae
0

SPECIES Tolerance
Values Feeding
Group Site 1
UTI
Restoration Site 2
UT1
Reference Site 3
UT3
Restoration Site 4
UT3
Reference
Cheumato s the s pp. 6.2 FC A
Di lectrona modesta 2.2 FC A R A
H dro s the betteni 7.8 FC R
Le idostomatidae
Le idostoma s pp. 0.9 SH R
Limne hilidae
P cno s the s. 2.5 SH R C A
Philo otamidae
Chimarra s pp. 2.8 FC A
Uenoidae
Neo h lax mitchelli 0.1 SC R
Odonata
Calo to idae
Calo to x s pp. 7.8 PR R C R
Cordule astridae
Cordule asters . 5.7 PR R R
Gom hidae
Lanthus s pp. 1.8 PR C
Coleo tern
D o idae
Helichus s pp. 4.6 SH R
D tiscidae
A abus s pp. 8.9 PR R
Ptilodact ]idae
Anch tarsus bicolor 3.6 SH R R
Di tera
Chironomidae
Ablabesm is mallochi 7.2 PR C
Brillia s pp. 5.2 CG R
Concha elo is r . 8.4 PR C R R
Chironomus s pp. 9.6 CG R C
Di locladius cultri er 7.4 CG R
Microtendi es s pp. 5.5 CG C R
Nanocladius s pp. 7.1 CG C A
Pol edilum allax 6.4 CG R
Pol edilum avum 4.9 CG R
Pol edilum sealaenum 8.4 CG R
Tribelos s pp. 6.3 CG R R
Zavrelinz is s pp. 9.1 PR R
Simulidae
simulium S PP. 6.0 FC C C C
Ti ulidae
Antocha s pp. 4.3 SH C R
Hexatoma s pp. 4.3 SH R
Ti ula s pp. 7.3 SH C A C
0
0
0

SPECIES Tolerance
Values Feeding
Group Site 1
UT1
Restoration Site 2
UT1
Reference Site 3
UT3
Restoration Site 4
UT3
Reference
Date Sampled 1/3/2005 1/4/2005 1/3/2005 1/5/2005
Total Taxa Richness 30 26 10 20
EPT Taxa Richness 14 16 1 9
Total Biotic Index 4.27 4.09 7.8 4.18
EPT Biotic Index 3.71 3.41 6.2 2.74
EPT Abundance 72 73 10 42
Habitat Assessment 51 65 37 53
Notes:
Tolerance Values ranges from 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: A = Abundant (10 or more individuals), C =
' Common (3-9 individuals), R = Rare (1-2 individuals).

y
b
a
:e'
w
Appendix 3
Restoration Site Water Table Data and Wetland Delineation Forms
® ® ® ® ® ® m Mll m m ® ® m m m m m m m
Bailey Fork Site Groundwater Gauge Station Auto #1
11/4/2004 11/24/2004 12/14/2004 1/3/2005 1/23/2005 2/12/2005
0.0 -. Q o
1
0
.
C

2
0
.
0
5 -
.
0.0 - -
c
w
0 - - - - -
-5. -
CL
m

m
10
0
-
. -
cu
F-
1
0
-
5.
Auto Well 1 Manual Well

20
0
-
.

-25.0
11/4/2004 11/24/2004 12/14/2004 1/3/2005 1/23/2005 2/12/2005
Date
Bailey Fork Site Groundwater Gauge Station Auto #4
11/4/2004 11/24/2004 12/14/2004 1/3/2005 1/23/2005 2/12/2005
0
0
.

C
1.0-
,
C
2
0
.
5
0
.
Auto Well 4 0 Calibration Well
0
0
.
c
0
w
5
-
. - - - -
CL
m
0
10
0
-
.
m
ca
15
0
`
.
) -
a
ca VIJ
El
20
0
-
.
-25.0
11/4/2004 11/24/2004 12/14/2004 1/3/2005 1/23/2005 2/12/2005
Date
E EM am M3 " E cm EM) = 0 Cm = E EM C
® m m m m ® m m m ® m ® S m ® ail m
Bailey Fork Site Groundwater Gauge Station Auto #7
11/4/2004 11/24/2004 12/14/2004 1/3/2005 1/23/2005 2/12/2005
_ 0.0
c
v a -IN -
ca 1.0 _I - - -
C

2
0
.
5
0
.
Auto Well 7 Calibration Well
0
0
.
c
5
0 - -
-
.
a
a)
0
R-10.0 - - --
.n
c?
H
-15.0 -- ---
r.
ca

20
0
-
.
25
0
-
.
11/4/2004 11/24/2004 12/14/2004
1/3/2005 1/23/2005 2/12/2005
Date
DATA FORM WETLAND SITE: BAILEY FORK W/L 1
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL)
Project Site: Bailey Fork Mitigation Plan Date: Nov. 9, 2004
Applicant/Owner: EBX County: Burke
Investigator: Steve Glickauf Buck Engineering State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Describe in Remarks) Yes No Plot ID: Bailey Fork
W/L 1
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Occasional Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica Tree FACW 9. Sagiltarla latlfolla Herb OBL
2. Scirpus c}perinus Herb OBL 10. Rubus spp. Herb
3. Juncus efftsus Herb FACW+ 11. Prunus virginiana. Mid FACU
4. Cyperus strigosus Herb FACW 12.
5. Toxicodendron radicans Herb FAC 13.
6. Platanus occidentalis Tree FACW- 14.
7. Smnbucus canadensis Mid FACW- 15.
8. Salix nigra Mid OBL 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-) 90%
Remarks: Vegetation is distinctly wetland. Although, it has been severely impacted due to grazing.
L
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
- Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge x Inundated
- Aerial Photographs x Saturated in upper 12 inches
Other _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
x No Recorded Data Available _ Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns in Wetland
Field Observations: Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators
(2 or more required)
Depth of Surface Water: none (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 10 (in.) x Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) x Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Standing water in places. Surface hydrology has been impacted due to drainage by adjacent ditches.
0
0
A
a
Bailev Fork W/L 1 cont.

0

I
C?

Map Unit Name:
(Series and Phase): Arkaqua Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-5 B1 10 YR 4/1 5 YR 4/6 1% Clay loam
5-16 B2 10 YR 3/1 10 YR 4/6 10% Clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Concretions
Histosol - High Organic Content in Surface
Histic Epipedon Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor - Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soil is hydric.
I
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this sampling point within a wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Wetland is a depressional wetland located within an agricultural field. The vegetation has been seriously
impacted due to grazing. Surface hydrology also appears to be impacted due to adjacent ditching. This wetland would be
considered an area suitable for enhancement, with the adjacent areas considered restoration.
Approved by HOIISACE 3192

DATA FORM WETLAND SITE: BAILEY FORK W/L 2
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL)
Project Site: Bailey Fork Mitigation Plan Date: Nov. 9, 2004
Applicant/Owner: EBX County: Burke
Investigator: Steve Glickauf Buck Engineering State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Describe in Remarks) Yes No Plot ID: Bailey Fork
W/L 2
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Occasional Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Juncus effusus Herb FACW+ 9.
2. Hlpericum spp. Herb FAC 10.
3. Panicum spp. Herb 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-) 66%
Remarks: Vegetation has been severely impacted due to grazing.
L
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
- Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge x Inundated
- Aerial Photographs x Saturated in upper 12 inches
Other _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
x No Recorded Data Available _ Sediment Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns in Wetland
Field Observations: Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators
(2 or more required)
Depth of Surface Water: none (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 10 (in.) x Local Soil Survey Data
x FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) x Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Surface hydrology has been severely impacted due to drainage by adjacent ditches, and grazing.
M
0
0
B
1 Sn:ILS Bailev Fork W/L 2 cont.

u
n
s

e
H-
I

Map Unit Name:
(Series and Phase): Arkaqua Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-5 B1 10 YR 4/1 5 YR 4/6 5% Clay loam
5+ B2 7.5 YR 4/3 5 YR 4/6 20% Clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Concretions
Histosol _ High Organic Content in Surface
Histic Epipedon Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soils appear to have a hydric layer approximately 5 inches thick. Below this layer, soil chromas are not 2 or
less.
L
I
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Fis this sampling point within a wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Wetland is a depressional wetland located within an agricultural field. The vegetation has been seriously
impacted due to grazing. Surface hydrology also appears to be impacted due to adjacent ditching. This wetland would be
considered an area suitable for enhancement, with the adjacent areas considered restoration.
Approved by HQUSACE 3192
u
DATA FORM WETLAND SITE: BAILEY FORK W/L 3
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL)
Project Site: Bailey Fork Mitigation Plan Date: Nov. 9, 2004
Applicant/Owner: EBX County: Burke
Investigator: Steve Glickauf Buck Engineering State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Describe in Remarks) Yes No Plot ID: Bailey Fork
W/L 3
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Occasional Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Junczrs effusus Herb FACW+ 9.
2. Hypericum spp. Herb FAC 10.
3. Panicum spp. Herb 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-) 66%
Remarks: Vegetation has been severely impacted due to grazing.
L
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
- Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge x Inundated
- Aerial Photographs x Saturated in upper 12 inches
Other _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
x No Recorded Data Available _ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetland
Field Observations: Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators
(2 or more required)
Depth of Surface Water: none (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 10 (in.) x Local Soil Survey Data
x FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) x Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Surface hydrology has been severely impacted due to drainage by adjacent ditches, and grazing.

0
0
0
SOILS Bailev Fork W/L 3 cont.
11

11
n

Map Unit Name:
(Series and Phase): Arkaqua Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mott le Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Mansell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-5 B1 7.5 YR 3/1 5 YR 4/6 1% Clay loam
5-10 B2 10 YR 4/2 7.5 YR 4/6 35% Clay loam
10+ B3 7.5YR 3/1 5 YR 4/6 5% Clay Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Concretions
Histosol - High Organic Content in Surface
- Histic Epipedon Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor - Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- Aquic Moisture Regime x Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions x Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soils are hydric.
L-
I
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No [Is this sampling point within a wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Wetland is a depressional wetland located within an agricultural field. The vegetation has been seriously
impacted due to grazing. Surface hydrology also appears to be impacted due to adjacent ditching. This wetland would be
considered an area suitable for enhancement, with the adjacent areas considered restoration.
Approved by HOUSACE 3192

DATA FORM WETLAND SITE: REFERENC W/L
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL)
Project Site: Reference Wetland Date: March 1, 2005
Applicant/Owner: EBX County: Burke
Investigator: Jessica Rohrbach, Julie Elmore Buck Engineering State: North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Describe in Remarks) Yes No Plot ID: Reference
Wetland
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Occasional Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Acer rubrum Tree FAC 9. Ilex opaca Mid FAC
2. Platanus occidentalis Tree FACW- 10. Sambucus canadensis Mid FACW-
3. Ligustrum sinense Mid FAC H.
4. Lonicera japonica Herb/Vine FAC- 12.
5. Abius serrulata Mid FACW 13.
6. Polystichum acrostichoides Herb FAC 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-) 83%
Remarks: Vegetation is hydric.
L
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
- Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge x Inundated
- Aerial Photographs x Saturated in upper 12 inches
Other _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
x No Recorded Data Available _ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetland
Field Observations: Secondary Wetland Hydrology Indicators
(2 or more required)
Depth of Surface Water: 2 (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) x Local Soil Survey Data
x FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soils are Hydric B - Soil has hydric inclusions.
0
0
0
0
1 SOILS Reference W/L cont.
Map Unit Name:
(Series and Phase): Arkaqua Drainage Class: somewhat poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Field Observations - Hydric inclusions
Confine Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions
inches Horizon (Mansell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-5 BI 10 YR 3/3 Sandy Loam
5-14 B2 10 YR 4/1 Sandy Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Concretions
_ Histosol - High Organic Content in Surface
_ Histic Epipedon Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor - Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soils are hydric (listed Hydric B).
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this sampling point within a wetland? Yes No
Remarks: This wetland is riverine in nature. Wetland hydrology appears to be provided through a combination of
flooding of the adjacent creek, surface runoff and ground water. The wetland vegetation is somewhat disturbed due to its
proximity to power line and road right of ways
Approved by HQUSACE 3192
I

I

I
F
u
1-1
1

.A.
t
Appendix 4
Reference Reach Sununar5-

T 04 NptIN Ct?g,

n
9{,4FHrorit

e

t
F1
t

t

LeiLani Paugh, NCDOT
Reference Reach Database [phone]
[e-mail]
Stream ID l 36
Stream Name Oak Forest Branch
Contact Dan Clinton J
Organization NCSU
Email [e-mail] - l
Date Surveyed 8/9/2000
Location
River Basin Catawba
13-digit HUC - - -?
Location NE Charlotte, Trib. to Hope Park
i
,Branch, approx. 2,500 ft upstream of
confluence with Hope Park Branch

Reach
Description
State ANC
Latitude (decimal degrees)
Longitude (decimal degrees)
County Mecklenburg I
Physio. Region Piedmont (coast, Piedmont, mtns)
Ecoregion j
Public/Private V
Right of Entry El (check for yes)
USGS Quad
Hydraulics
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Bankfull Velocity [ (ft/s)
Manning's n
Method of Calculating
Manning's n
Channel Materials
Percent Silt/Clay I -
Percent Sand
Percent Gravel
Percent Cobble L
Percent Boulder
Percent Bedrock
D16 (mm)
D35 ?- (mm)
D50- - --- -? (mm)
D34 - - -? (mm)
D95 (mm)
Note: 2,049 mm corresponds to BEDROCK

0
Data Standards
No survey data provided ? No material analysis provided
No pattern data provided ? Data do not align with regional curve ?
No profile data provided ? No location information provided 0
No hydraulics data provided
0
Description
Rosgen Stream Type E5 Soils Type Cecil, Cecil ur
Reach Length 87 (ft) BEHI Scare
Watershed Drainage Area 0.39 (sq. mi) Avg Water Surface Slope 0.0018
Watershed % Impervious 0.45 Valley Slope 0.0023
Valley Type (C- colluvial or A- alluvial) Valley Length 70 (ft)
Land Use (U- urban or R- rural) Sinuosity 1.24
D
i
i
Si l
i
il
id
i DWQ Index No. 1
escr
pt
te
on , some
mar
y res
ent
a
Pr
commercial; substantial wooded DWQ Reference Reach ? (check for yes)
buffer > 50ft either side; excellent
on banks; rock & sewer crossing
,
DWQ Benthic Monitoring
(check for yes)
El
served as grade control

Description of any
Associated Wetlands

Description of
Vegetative Communities

Watershed Description Residential, commercial area adjacent to reach in heavily vegetated with
sanitary sewer easement along right bank
0

M ® ® M ® M M ® M r r M M M ® M
r FNOrrH?y
ti ? Y
Reference Reach Database
"Or TRAP,
Stream ID 8?.
Stream Name 'Ckbre5Ebnh
LeiLani Paugh, NCDOT
[phone]
[e-mail]
Cross-Sectio
X-Sec Station Feature Bankfull Width (ft) Bankfull Depth (ft) Bankfull Area (ft2) BKF Max Depth (ft) Width FPA (ft) Low Bank Ht (ft)
',02-1 re 12.81 1.C 1;6 2.04 ii
i
1.2 19 1', 31
;024 X001 1 155.61
r Of
Y Y
* * LeiLani Paugh, NCDOT
Reference Reach Database [phone]
[e-mail]
F?tGTR1V+?
Stream ID Sinuosity 1.24
Stream Name IGk Bret ®nb
Pattern
Meander Length (ft) Radius of Curvature (ft) Meander Belt Width (ft) Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
80 0.9 3 57

M M M ® M M M M M M M M M M ® M M M M
r OF N?CtN ??y
? ? Y
0
fN1 C412 U+?v
Stream ID
Stream Name
Profile
LelLani Paugh, NCDOT
Reference Reach Database [phone]
[e-mail]
Gk Bret Ebnh
Avg Water Surface Slope 0.0018
Avg Valley Slope 0.0023
Valley Length 0
Sinuosity 1.24.
X-Sec Stationing Run Slope Pool Slope Riffle Slope Glide Slope
0.00014' I?
F Of NOrrH f1?4
* * LeiLani Paugh, NCDOT
o Reference Reach Database [phone]
[e-mail]
Stream ID
Stream Name 6k 6ret Ebnb
Dimension Ratios Mean Minimum Maximum
Bankfull Width: Depth Ratio 9.14 9.14 9.14
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Pool width: Bankfull width* 1.22 1.22 1.22
Max pool depth: Bankfull depth* 2.14 2.14 2.14
Mean pool depth: Bankfull depth* 0.86 0.86 0.86
Pool area: Riffle area* 1.07 1.07 1.07
* Ratio denominators are the riffle mean bankfull value.
Pattern Ratios Mean Minimum Maximum
Pool to pool Spacing: Bkfl width 4.45 4.45 4.45
Meander length ratio B5 B5 6?5
Radius of curvature ratio 2.41 2.41 2.41
Meander width ratio 2.42 2.42 2.42
Profile Ratios Mean
Pool slope: Avg WS slope 0.08
Riffle slope: Avg WS slope
Glide slope: Avg WS slope
Run slope: Avg WS slope
Minimum
0.08
Maximum
0.08
0

tir OF HvttH

LeiLani Paugh, NCDOT
Reference Reach Database [phone]
[e-mail]
Stream ID - 48
Stream Name Tributary to Cane Creek
- --- - -
Contact Grant Lewis
Organization ?EcoScience Corporation_
Email [e-mail]
Date Surveyed
Location
River Basin Yadkin Pee Dee -
8-digit HUC 03040103 1
Location Southeast of Salisbury, NC
Reach
Description
State NC
Latitude (decimal degrees)
Longitude L-- j (decimal degrees)
County Rowan - --
Physio. Region LPiedmont (coast, Piedmont, mtns)
Ecoregion
Public/Private ?V
Right of Entry El (check for yes)
USGS Quad Southmont J
Hydraulics
Bankfull Discharge 119.Oj (cfs)
Bankfull Velocity (ft/s)
Manning's n ? -
Method of Calculating
Manning's n
Channel Materials
Percent Silt/Clay
Percent Sand
Percent Gravel
Percent Cobble
Percent Boulder
Percent Bedrock L
D16 - - I (mm)
D35 - - - (mm)
D50 ( (mm)
D34 I - - (mm)
D95 ?- - (mm)
Note: 2,049 mm corresponds to BEDROCK
0
Data Standards
No survey data provided 0 No material analysis provided 0
No pattern data provided ? Data do not align with regional curve ?
No profile data provided ? No location information provided S?j
No hydraulics data provided ?
0
Description
Rosgen Stream Type E4/5 Soils Type
Reach Length (ft) BEHI Score
Watershed Drainage Area 1.50 (sq. mi) Avg Water Surface Slope 0.0014
Watershed % Impervious Valley Slope 0.0025
Valley Type E (C- colluvial or A- alluvial) Valley Length (?)
1.80
Land Use (U- urban or R- rural) Sinuosity
Site Description DWQ Index No.
DWQ Reference Reach ? (check for yes)
DWQ Benthic Monitoring ? (check for yes)
Description of any
Associated Wetlands
Description of
Vegetative Communities
Watershed Description
e
0
M M ® M M M ® M M M M M M M ® M M
O4 N,^t7HC _
* ??* LeiLani Paugh, NCDOT
Reference Reach Database [phone]
`^ ti o [e-mail]
J
''?Nrcr rcu'?
Stream ID 48
Stream Name Tributary to Cane Creek
X-Sec Station Feature Bankfull Width (ft) Bankfull Depth (ft) Bankfull Area (ft2) BKF Max Depth (ft) Width FPA (ft) Low Bank Ht (ft) j
SM1 ; re -- - 10.11 L - 21 20.5 i - 2.6 --- 23 F 12 1
8ary2 ®ol 11.1!--? 2.9' .--
I`
I
i
?* °Uy
y Y
* * LeiLani Paugh, NCDOT
y, o Reference Reach Database [phone]
[e-mail]
Stream ID 48'. Sinuosity 1.8
Stream Name Tributary to Cane Creek
Pattern Meander Length (ft) Radius of Curvature (ft) Meander Belt Width (ft) Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
3 25.3 861 53
=a Lz:j LZJ ma M MZ3 (M) EM MM =a am) cm

r 04 77HC -?
LeiLani Paugh, NCDOT
[phone]
Q Reference Reach Database
[e-mail]
g`NrG,, ?cu+??x
Stream ID 48' Avg Water Surface Slope 0.00141
Stream Fume Tributary to Cane Creek Avg L'lleyslope 0.0025',
Profile Mle?.ength
Sinuosity 1.8
;;Sec Stationing Run Slope Pool Slope Riffle Slope Glide Slope
0.0004 0.0019i
I
I
*~** p LeiLani Paugh, NCDOT
Q Reference Reach Database [phone]
o [e-mail]
Ail
Stream ID 48
Stream Name Tributary to Cane Creek `
Dimension Ratios Mean Minimum Maximum
Bankfull Width: Depth Ratio 5.05 - L5.05 _ 5.05
Entrenchment Ratio 2317 2347 2347
Bank Height Ratio 1.20 1,20] 1 1.20
Pool width: Bankfull width* 1.10 1.10 1.10
Max pool depth: Bankfull depth* 1.45 1.45 1.45
Mean pool depth: Bankfull depth* 0
Pool area: Riffle area*
* Ratio denominators are the riffle mean bankfull value.
Pattern Ratios Mean Minimum Maximum
Pool to pool Spacing: Bkfl width 5.25 5.25' 5.25
Meander length ratio 723 723 723
Radius of curvature ratio 2.50 2.50 2.50:
Meander width ratio 8.52 8.52 8.52
Profile Ratios Mean
Pool slope: Avg WS slope 0.29
Riffle slope: Avg WS slope 1.8
Glide slope: Avg WS slope
Run slope: Avg WS slope
Minimum
0.29
1.8
0
Maximum
0.29
1.8
0

0
r
7

s
L

J
1-1
0

u

10
oa
'J
Appendix 5
DRAINMOD Analysis Files
*** Job Title ***
Water Balance for Bailey Fork Wetland - Well #4
*** Printout and Input Control ***
3 111 c:\Drainmod\outputs
*** Climate ***
1 L:\PROJECTS\0221R\DRAINMOD\MORGANTO.RAI
1 L:\PROJECTS\0221R\DRAINMOD\MORGANTO.TEM
1945 1 2004 12 3513 74 0
1.94 2.32 2.09 1.73 1.23 1.02 .89 .84 .95 1.07 1.23 1.38
*** Drainage System Design ***
1
76.20 119.34 9540.00 1.00 2.50 .50 5.54 5.00
0 3.000000E-02 13720.000000
0 1000.000000 1000.000000 1.200000E-03
0 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00
60.00 1.00 1.00
1 85 1 85 1 85 1 85 1 85 1 85 1 85 1 85 1 85 1 85 1 85 1 85
*** Soils ***
200.00 10.00
100.10.00 200.20.00 0. .00 0. .00 0. .00
99 .00
*** Trafficability ***
4 1 5 1 820 3.0 1.2 2.0
12311231 820 3.0 1.2 2.0
*** Crop ***
.170
410 818 30.00
410 818
2
1 1 15.001231 15.00
*** Wastewater Irrigation ***
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.00000 .00000 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
WET *** Wetlands Information ***
1
93 302
30.0 11
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) ***
.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
.00 .00
MRA *** Monthly Ranking ***
0
FAC *** Daily PET Factors ***
0
STM *** Soil Temperature ***
00 .00 .00 .00
ZA ZB TKA TKB TB TLAG TSNOW TMELT CDEG LICE
.000 .000 .000 .000 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
Initial Soil Temperature
0
Initial snow depth(m) & density(kg/m3)
.00 .00
Freezing characteristic curve
0
t

*** Job Title ***
Water Balance for Bailey Fork Wetland-Design
*** Printout and Input Control ***
3 111 c:\Drainmod\outputs
*** Climate ***
1 L:\PROJECTS\0221R\DRAINMOD\MORGANTO.RAI
1 L:\PROJECTS\0221R\DRAINMOD\MORGANTO.TEM
1945 1 2004 12 3513 74 0
1.94 2.32 2.09 1.73 1.23 1.02 .89 .84 .95 1.07 1.23 1.38
*** Drainage System Design ***
2
30.00 154.34 9144.00 4.00 2.50 2.00
0 3.000000E-02 13720.000000
0 1000.000000 1000.000000 1.200000E-03
0 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00 0.000000E+00
60.00 1.00 1.00
1 85 1 85 1 85 1 85 1 85 1 85 1 85 1 85 1 85 1 85 1 85 1 85
*** Soils ***
200.00 5.00
100.10.00 200.20.00 0. .00 0. .00 0. .00
99 .00
*** Trafficability ***
4 1 5 1 820 3.0 1.2 2.0
12311231 820 3.0 1.2 2.0
*** Crop ***
.170
410 818 30.00
410 818
2
1 1 15.001231 15.00
*** Wastewater Irrigation ***
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.00000 .00000 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
WET *** Wetlands Information ***
1
93 302
30.0 23
4.83
0.000000E+00
5.00
00 .00 .00 .00
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) ***
.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
.00 .00
MRA *** Monthly Ranking ***
0
FAC *** Daily PET Factors ***
0
STM *** Soil Temperature ***
.00 .00 .00 .00
ZA ZB TKA TKB TB TLAG TSNOW TMELT CDEG LICE
.000 .000 .000 .000 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
Initial Soil Temperature
0
Initial snow depth(m) & density(kg/m3)
.00 .00
Freezing characteristic curve
0
Appendix 6
Photographic Log

UT1 -Pond Overflow

S,,

104-

w

- fw_
ti

UT1 - Biomonitoring Site 2
Upstream of Project Reach
UT1 - Biomonitoring Site 1
Downstream of Confluence with UT2
UT2 - Culvert at Road Crossing
Downstream End of Project Reach
Upstream of Reach

UT3 - Biomonitoring Site 3
UT2 - Cross-Section 5
UT3 - Biomonitoring Site 4
UT3 - Middle of Reach

UT3 - Bank Erosion
Existing Wetland Area N+3ear UT3
Reference Wetland Site from Connelly Road

Bank Erosion on Bailey Fork
Bank Erosion on Bailey Fork
Bailey Fork Pool Cross-Section 2
Bailey Fork Riffle Cross-Section 1

L L C
? 4 EII`/I ,? 4 S E o 1
B X jw
ern wa nw.T mooaa ro wrxi wun
9 0221R 1 27
P4 BAILEY FORK STREAM . DATE CHECKED BY APPROVED BY
1 R p 1 1102 I

, ,

AND WETLAND
RESTORATI
JOHN HUTTON KEVIN TWEEDY
ON
1 0
Fj,"
19II ? \
PfiWECT-11
AMIA 1 ?.
B UR K E COUNTY

D
MAY 3 2005

2113 ;
1
4 LOCATION: SOUTH OF MORGANTON DENR•WATERQUALITY
,ss ;
21DS
OFF HOPEWELL ROAD SR 1102
VYcTL ;DSANOSTOW-liATEREWH
TYPE OF WORK STREAM AND WETLAND
' c o RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT
,,, 2
VICINITY MAP
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION Ui1 tsb
tE?
STA 10+00
00
_
--
a

INDEX OF SHEETS St
.
BEGIN CONSTRUCTIO ?
t
i
N UT2

1 TITLE SHEET STA 10+00.00
SNF4T
1-A STREAM CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
GENERAL NOTES, STANDARD
SPECIFICATIONS, AND ` ?? SyF?S
IS
SMf? d
23
VEGETATION SELECTION END CONSTRU CTION UT2
1-B CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS bIA,9w1.26 t
2702-C TYPICAL POOL AND
RIFFLE CROSS SECTIONS,
STRUCTURE DETAILS
r
3 CONSTRUCTION SQUENCE,
QUANTITIES
4TO16 PLAN VIEW OF PROPOSED AND
EXISTING STREAM DESIGN r SHEET 18 a 24
17 TO 20 PROFILES
21TO24 REVEGETATION a rf u

SEES t?
„? END CONSTRUCTION BAILEY FORK
STA 104+724,3
/
SFIE?
?. '
Il
• %?
fi END CONSTRUCTION UT1 44
,,/
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION BAILEY FORK
STA 10+00.00 A
.ly STA 29+21.49 J J ..
SHti

END CONSTRUCTION UT7
N 1 J S1A 43+62.77
N
® BEGIN CONSTRUCTION Uil
sia 10.00.00
0 0

THE OFFICE OF
E ECT ENGINEER
PRO
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN SUMMARY PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF. .
PREPAR
D IN J

4 EXISTING STREAM LENGTH = 14,076 FEET EBX NEUSE - I LLC
) B, t?K °°°°" ..' PG ""'°"" t°°
a? GW,a In. 21I11
51o
°1°
F
°
-
, 50 0 50 loo
1 PROPOSED
DESIGN
STREAM = 6,018 FEET 10055 RED RUN BOULEVARD
SUITE 130 aoTHiKT R No
? 1
w
i?
t
RESTORATION
LENGTH ,
OWING MILLS, MD 21117

O

50 PLANS

0 50 100 PROPOSED DESIGN STREAM =
ENHANCEMENT LENGTH 9,765 FEET ; KEVIN TWEEDY
PROJECT ENf xwru
PRELIMINARY PLANS
ro" aNmurnoN
DO NOT UW
EXISTING WETLAND ACREAGE 5.3 ACRES
220 CHATHAM BUSINESS DRIVE
4 i
f PITTSBORO
NORTH CAROLINA 27312 JULY '05

PROFILE
HORIZONTAL
DESIGN
ETLA
ES
O
ATIO , JESSICA ROHRBACH
(
) ND R
W
T
R
N CONSTRUC1701Y DOTS' PROJECT DEMC.\Zt
5 0 5 1o -
ACREAGE 11.8 ACRES , . ..` ": EBX CONTACT:

Q
i DESIGN WETLAND = 5.3 ACRES TARA DISY ALLDEN
PROJECTNANAGER
JOHN HUTTON
iIiiii
ENHANCEMENT ACREAGE PE
PROFILE (VERTICAL) PROJECT MANAGER STGN/TUAS
STREAM CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS GENERAL NOTES v"PR01ECr ENGINEER
SUPERCEDES SHEET 1B
Lam' ROCK J
HOOK -®- SAFETY FENCE P PLANS
Y
PR?LaM
co - 1. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL INSTREAM STRUCTURES USING SE POR C
T
A TRACK HOE WITH A HYDRAULIC THUMB OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO MOVE
nnm ROCK VANE -TF- TAPE FENCE BOULDERS 3FTX 3FT X 2FT (APPROXIMATELY 1.5 TONS), FOR TRIBUTARIES
AND 4FTX 3FT X 2FT (APPROXIMATELY 2 TONS) FOR BAILEY FORK
CM OUTLET PROTECTION -FP- 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN 2. WORK IS BEING PERFORMED AS AN ENVIROMENTAL RESTORATION PLAN.
THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAKE ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REDUCE
ROCK CROSS VANE -Q- CONSERVATION EASEMENT SEDIMENT LOSS AND MINIMIZE DISTRUBANCE OF THE SITE WHILE eOPo ap. g P. n yS..2W
PERFORMING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK C., NaS 11511
REIM vnon.: ?5`86
DOUBLE DROP ROCK CROSS VANE - - - - - EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
3. CONSTRUCTION IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN JUNE 2005. o ee e o F. Ia.6154W
SINGLE WING DEFLECTOR - - - - - EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
DOUBLE WING DEFLECTOR FOOT BRIDGE

TEMPORARY SILT CHECK TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
ROOT WAD ru-r PERMANENT STREAM CROSSING STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
oa LOG J-HOOK ® TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
® LOG VANE TREE REMOVAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL
DECEMBER 1993
1;0= LOG WEIR 'O` TREE PROTECTION
n LOG CROSS VANE
F-7 7

TRANSPLANTS

6.60 TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP
6.06 CONSTRUCTION ACCESS
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
0
6.62 SILTFENCE
00
0 BOULDER CLUSTER
6.70 TEMPORARY (FORD) STREAM CROSSING
ROCK STEP POOL
"NOTE: ALL ITEMS ABOVE MAY NOT BE USED ON THIS PROJECT
PERMANENT SEED MIXTURE
Percent of Seeding Density Wetness
Common Name Scientific Name Mixture (lbstacre) Tolerance
Redtop Agrostisalba 10 1.5 FACW
VirginiaWildrye Elymusvirginicus 15 2.25 FAC
Switch Grass Panicum virgatum 15 2.25 FAC+
Eastern Gamma Grass Tripsicumdactyloides 5 0.75 FAC+
PennsylvaniaSmartweod Polygonumpennsylvanicum 5 0.75 FACW
Little Blue Stem Schizachyriumscoparium 5 0.75 FACU
Soft Rush Juncuseffusus 5 0.75 FACW+
Beggars Tick Bidens frondosa (or aristosa) 10 1.5 FACW
Lance-Leaved Tick Seed Coreopsislancoolata 10 1.5 FACU
Tioga Deer Tongue Panicumclandestinum 10 1.5 FAC
Big Blue Stem Andropogongerardii 5 0.75 FAC
Indian Grass Sorgastrumnutans 5 0.75 FACU
VEGETATION SELECTION
BARE ROOT AND LIVE STAKE SPECIES
BARE ROOT AND LIVE STAKE SPECIES
C
a
x
a
X
C3
W
G:
N
N
B
Percent Planted Percent Planted
Common Name Scientific Name by Species Planting Density Common Name Scientific Name b Species Planting Density.
Zone 1- Wetland Restoration and Enhancem ent Areas Z ones2 and 3 - Stream Restoration Buffer
Persimmon Diospyrosvirginiana 12% 82 stems per acre
River birch Betula nigra 20% 137 stems per acre Green ash Fraxinuspannsylvanica 12% 82 stems per acre
Sugarberry CaYislaevigata 17% 116 stems per acre
Green ash Fraxinuspennsylvanica 16% 109 stems per acre Tulip poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 20% 136 stems per acre
BIackwalnut Juglansnigra 5% 34 stems per acre Blackgum Nyssasylvatica 12% 82 stems per acre
Sycamore Platanusocadantalis 20% 137 stems per acre Sycamore Platanusoccidentalis 20% 136 stems per acre
Cottonwood Populusda`foides 5% 34 stems per acre Willow oak Quercusphellos 12% 82 stems per acre
Swamp chestnut oak Qua cusmichauxii 17% 116 stems per acre Southern red oak Quercus rubra 12% 82 stems per acre
Alternate Species
Alternates Species
p
River birch Betula nigra
Persimmon Diospyrosvirginiana Black walnut Juglansnigra
Blackgum Nyssasylvatica Swamp chestnut o ak Quercusmichauxii
Willow Oak Quercuspholos
Zone 3-Stream banks (Live Stakes)
Silky dogwood Cornusamomum 40% 65.100 stems per 1,000 SF
Silky willow S3fixsari cea 40% 65 - 100 stems per 1,000 SF
Elderberry Snmbucuscanadensis 20% 33- 50 stems per 1,000 SF
0
`S.U.E = SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEER
ROADS & RELATED ITEMS
Edge of Pavement .............................
Curb ........................................... - ---
Prop. Slope Stakes Cut ........................ _ _ _
Prop. Slope Stakes Fill ........................ _ _ -.E
Prop. Woven Wire Fence ..................... -6 $
Prop. Chain Link Fence ..................... -E 3 E3
Prop. Barbed Wire Fence ..................... -
Prop. Wheelchair Ramp .. ............ •.......
Curb Cut for Future Wheelchair Ramp • • • • • .
Exist. Guardrail ............................... - ---
Prop. Guardrail ................................ . . .
Equality Symbol .............................. &
Pavement Removal
RIGHT OF WAY
Baseline Control Point ........................ 0
Existing Right of Way Marker .................. Q
Exist. Right of Way Line wiMarker ............. - -?[j- -
Prop. Right of Way Line with Proposed
WW Marker (Iron Pin & Cap) .............. A.
Prop. Right of Way Line with Proposed
(Concrete or Granite) RrW Marker ...........
Exist. Control of Access Line ...................
?e-
Prop. Control of Access Line ...................
Exist. Easement Line ...........................
Prop. Temp. Construction Easement Line ...... _E_
Prop. Temp. Drainage Easement Line ......... -ICE-
Prop. Perm. Drainage Easement Line ......... _PM-
m
m
a
X
C3
W
N
N
e
0
a
4
0
0
N
N
Pm
Pl
HYDROLOGY
Stream or Body of Water ....................
River Basin Buffer .............................. -aee-
Flow Arrow .................................... _r..
Disappearing Stream .......................... ?,.._
Spring • ........................................ Q^.?
Swamp Marsh .................................
Shoreline ....................................... -------
Falls, Rapids .................................... - -i•- -
Prop Lateral, Tail, Head Ditches ..............
E- /LL1
STRUCTURES
MAJOR
Bridge, Tunnel, or Box Culvert ...... . . . . ..... CO?c
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall
and End Wall ............................. )CONC r.C
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
MINOR Recorded Water Line ....................... ¦ ¦
Head & End Wall .......................... r\ Designated Water Line (S.U.E.*) .............. - .- ¦- .
Pipe Culvert ................................... ?= = = ; Sanitary Sewer ................................ -
Footbridge ...................................... > - _ _ _ _ _ _< Recorded Sanitary Sewer Force Main ...... -iss-rss-
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 ............................ 4-
Prop. Joint Use Pole ............................ -6-
Telephone Pedestal ............................ ID
Ut; Telephone Cable Hand Hold...........
Cable TV Pedestal ............................ IKI
USG TV Cable Hand Hold ....................
USG Power Cable Hand Hold .................
Hydrant ......................................... C
Satellite Dish ................................... 21
Exist. Water Valve ..............................
Sewer Clean Out .............................. Q+
Power Manhole ................................ 0
Telephone Booth ............................... M
Cellular Telephone Tower ......................
Water Manhole .................................
Light Pole ...................................... p
H-Frame Pole .................................. 0-o
Power Line Tower ..............................
Pole with Base ................................ p
Gas Valve ..................................... 0
Gas Meter ..................................... 4
Telephone Manhole ............................ OT
Power Transformer ............................. 0
Sanitary Sewer Manhole .......................
Storm Sewer Manhole ........................
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..----..... -- --- 4S n
Designated Sanitary Sewer Force Main(S.U.E.`)-rss•--rss
Recorded Gas Line
Designated Gas Line (S.U.E.*) ................ - --G- ---r- -
Storm Sewer .................................. -s-s-
Recorded Power Line ......................... ??-
Designated Power Line (S.U.E.*) .............
Recorded Telephone Cable .................. -r-r-
Designated Telephone Cable (S.U.E.*) .......
Recorded WG Telephone Conduit ....... -rc-rc-
Designated LYG Telephone Conduit (S.U.E.*) _ _rc--rc--
Unknown Utility (S.U.E.*) .................. -runrL-
Recorded Television Cable ------------------ -rv-T,
Designated Television Cable (S.U.E.*) ....... --h--rv--
Recorded Fiber Optics Cable ............... -re-ro-
Designated Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.*) .....
Exist. Water Meter ........................... 0
LIG Test Hole (S.U.E.*) .......................
Abandoned According to UIG Record........ .rrw
End of Information ............................ rm
BOUNDARIES & PROPERTIES
State Line ...
County Line..,
Township Line
City Line......
Reservation Line ................................ _ -_----
Property Line ...................................
Property Line Symbol .......................... R
Exist. Iron Pin .................................. 0

Property Corner ................................ - +
Property Monument ............................
Property Number .............................. 123
Parcel Number ................................. 6
Fence Line .................................... -x. x-x-

Existing Wetland Boundaries .................. WV 6 ISBr
- -nB- -
High Quality Wetland Boundary .............. -HO aB-
Medium Quality Wetland Boundaries........ -MO ¦rB-
Low Quality Wetland Boundaries ............. -Lo WLB-
Proposed Wetland Boundaries ................ -.LB-
Existing Endangered Animal Boundaries ...... - - EAB- _
Existing Endangered Plant Boundaries ........ - -En- -
BUILDINGS & OTHER CULTURE
Buildings ......................................
Foundations .................................... rJ
L
Area Outline ................................. C
?
^
Gate ........................................... r•
Gas Pump Vent or U/G Tank Cap ............ 0
Church ........................................ A
School .........................................
Park .......................................... -- -
Cemetery ....................................... -
,- I- ]
Dam ...........................................
Sign ............................................ o

Well ............................................ o
Small Mine .................................... yt
Swimming Pool ................................
TOPOGRAPHY
Loose Surface ................................ - - - - - - -
Hard Surface .................................
Change in Road Surface ..................... ..............
Curb ...........................................
Right of Way Symbol ......................... R/w
Guard Post .................................... 0GP
Paved Walk -------
Bridge .........................................
Box Culvert or Tunnel - - - - - -
Ferry ......................................... -------
Culvert ....................................... ,.............,
Footbridge ..................................... ..............
Trail, Footpath ................................ .
Light House
VEGETATION
Single Tree .................................... 0
Single Shrub .................................. o
Hedge ......................................... n
Woods Line .....................................
Orchard ....................................... 000000
Vineyard ...................................... ?vwEruw
RAILROADS -
Standard Gauge ...............................
(Y 0109WIAr=
RR Signal Milepost ......................... a
Switch ......................................... on
TYPICAL STRUCTURE PLACEMENT ucurT
PROJECT ENGINEER
ROOT WADS WITHOUT TRANSPLANTS
NTS
ROOT WADS
PLAIN
COIR FIBER
MATTING
/ TOP OF
/i BANK
ANI
•: v1'OF RQOTMASS H HT`F3:
98LOWSTREAM BED

FOOTER LOG > 12'DIAMETER INSTALLED BELOW STREAMBED
(OPTIONAL PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER)
1045 FEET LONG
>1D' DIAMETER
CROSS SECTION NEW
ROOT WADS WITH TRANSPLANTS
NTS
PLAIN
EXTEND BEYOND LIMITS
y OPTIONAL
COVER LOG
L.„
ANCHOR COVER LOG
UNDER FOOTER LOGS
OR WITH A BOULDER
ROOT 1'U10
?11\?
TRANSPLANTS OR
NOTES:
TRENCHING METHOD:
IF THE ROOT WAD CANNOT BE DRIVEN INTO THE BANK OR THE
BANK NEEDS TO BE RECONSTRUCTED, THE TRENCHING METHOD
SHOULD BE
USED. THIS METHOD REQUIRES THAT A TRENCH
BE EXCAVATED FOR THE LOG PORTION OF THE ROOT WAD. IN
THIS CAS_A FOOTER LOG SHOULD BE INSTALLED UNDERNEATH
THE ROOT WAD IN A TRENCH EXCAVATED PARALLEL TO THE
BANK AND WELL BELOW THE STREAMBED ONE-THIRD OF THE
ROOT WAD SHOULD REMAIN BELOW NORMAL BASE FLOW CONDITIONS.
NOTES
DRIVE POINT METHOD:
SHARPEN THE END OF THE LOG WITH A CHAJNSAW BEFORE 'DRIVING'
IT INTO THE BANK ORIENT ROOT WADS UPSTREAM SO THAT THE
STREAM FLOW MEETS THE ROOT WAD AT A 90-DEGREE ANGLE,
DEFLECTING THE WATER AWAY FROM THE BANK A TRANSPLANT
OR BOULDER SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF
THE ROOT WAD IF A BACK EDDY IS FORMED BY THE ROOT WAD.
THE BOULDER SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY 1'X XX Z.
BOULDERS
FOOTER LOG FOR
TRENCHING METHOD
ONLY
PLAN NEW
CROSS SECTION VIEW
V" ?I TOP Of TERRACE)
I TYPICAL RIFFLE, POOL, AND BANKFULL BENCH CROSS SECTIONS
VVI ?ARIES? YAkf -??}fARIE511
D#1u 500 'T) ti
rys(o s, I`oe sl
4Ri FOF P? 5 pP>F• RIFF D-M- ?pE
Fs? N'q'LooF OF ?4 SE??SI
W4 ? ly
RIFFLE
IIP?I WbM
C
m
N
x
a
m
O'
N
i
n
DMa]
N
POOL
UT1 UT2 U T3
RIFFLE POOL RIFFLE POOL RIFFLE POOL
11.9 191 9.9 12.9 16.7 21.7
1.8 7.2 1.2 1.0 1.7 10
120 10.7 12.0 113 14.0 RI
18.6 76.6 8.2 11.8 20.0 7d.1
6.1 7.1 7.8 1.9 8.3 17
2.51 - 16.1 - kl -
- 4 l - 451 - 51
RIFFLE NJITH BANKFULL BENCH
TOP OF TERRACE
BOTTOM WIDTH (NA)
W701H OF BM'KFULL {VJSLA
MAXIMUM DEPTH (DIAaq
NAOT1 TO DEPTH RATIO (Wokf 10)
BANKFULL AREA (ANCO
RIFFLE 610E SLOPES
POINT BAR SLOPES
WCkf
Wb
POOL WITH BANKFULL BENCH
WILL BE INSTALLED IN THE LOCATION
NOTES.
1. DURING CONSTRUCTION CORNERS OF DESIGN CHANNEL WILL BE ROUNDED
AND ATHALYJEG WILL BE SHAPED PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER
2. POOLS SHOWN ABOVE ARE LEFT POOLS ONLY.
$TRUCTIJRE NOTES'
1. GENERALLY LOG WEIRS, ROOT WADS,
LOG PANES AND COIR FIBER MATTING
AND SEQUENCE AS SHOWN.
NOTES
ALL RESTORED STREAMBANKS.
2. ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES OR CHANGES
TO STRUCTURE LOCATIONS MAY BE MADE
BY THE DESIGN ENGINEER DURING
CONSTRUCTION
1. COIR FIBER MATTING TO RE INSTALLED ON
2. IF ROOT WADS DO NOT LOVER ENTIRE SLOPE ON OUTSIDE
OF MEANDER BENDS, COIR FIBER MATTING IS NEEDED.
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION
BUCI
C., Nate Cav4m 27611
Ph- cl9+cssue
Rpx? Dakxry ]ul? 2f0
o en o ? F-
LOG VANE
(SEE SPECS)
(SEE SPErS)
ROOT WADS
MAT BANKS WITH COIR FIBER MATTING
(SEE SPECS)
MAT BANKS WITH COIR FIBER MATTING
LOG WEIR
\\ p%? MAT BANKS WITH COIR FIRER MATTING
/ I
G
F.
o
U
00 OQ 1-
° °
O
MAT BANKS WITH COIR FIBER MATTING
5
(SEE SPECS)
(NUMBER AND
SIZE TO BE
DETERMINED `•?. ? /
IN THE FIELD) i
TOP OF BANK
- TOP OF STREAMBANK
PLACE LOIR FIBER MATTING IN fiINCH DEEP
TRENCH, STAKE, BACKFILL, AND COMPACT
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
1? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 /
?

TOP OF ?'
?
STREAMBANK
1 1 / / 1 1 / 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
PLAN VIEW
MAT BANKS WITH COIR EIDER
(SEE SPECS)
NOTES..
PLACEMENT OF MATTING
1. BANKS SHOULD BE SEEDED PRIOR TO
2 PLACE COIR FIBER MATTING ACCORDING TO
MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS
3. MATTING STAKES SHOULD BE PLACED
IN A DIAMOND SHAPED PATTERN.
THE WOOD STAKE SHALL BE THE NORTH AMERICAN
GREEN ECO-STAKE OR APPROVED EQUAL WITH THE
FOLLOWING DIMENSIONS:
M
LEG LENGTH 11001N 279!C
HEAD WDTH 1.251N 3.18 CM
HEAD THICKNESS O4O IN 102 CM
LEGYADTM OB71N 152 CM TRPEAED TO PORN
LEG THICKNESS 0471N 'C2&
TOTAL LENGTH 12001N YI eB CMI
DITCH
TOP OF STREAMBANK
STAKES
COIR FIBER MATTING TO BE
EXTENDED TO TOE OF SLOPE
PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET NO.
CONSTRUCT ED LOG RIFFLE •A
A J-H 00 K VANE PROJECT ENGINEER
HEAD OF
A ElEVA710N PDINT(HEAD OF RIFFLE)
TOP RIFFLE 1FI BOTTOM 1N BOTTOM
TOE OF BANK
OF BANK n BURY LOGS 2.4 INCHES BELOW BED CHANNEL WDTHOF
CHANNEL CHANNEL
LODS
OF
TONE
l 2f00T MIX OF CLlSBA STONE,
C
ST
,AND 57
CUSS B STONE, ANO K75TONE CLASSBSTONEANDx57STONE
FLOW PRELIMINARY PLANS
g
Ba `? p?
G?
/
7 °?
FLOW--? BINCH MIXOFC TOPPED ONE ANN
CUSS
STONE TOPPER WITH:INCHES I LEAVE 1'.r
20'7070' 1il GARS nG NaP 4'98 Pal CaNmtOCnDN
?
9 S
DLIOE RIF
OF 1575TONE
g.
I FLE
TAR OF RIFFLE
-_ -_ °? BURY BOULDERS X'
2J INCHES BELOW BED A
, L
? q ? O?? BINCH MMOFCIASSASTONEANO
qq""..map?yy jjjQBQ?7))) CUSS B STONE TOPPED WITH 2 INCHES I I
{•-5'-+( I P
TTPE2 S
\ w
a
N A

@?p W00 Rperp Pxnary 9uN 2M
j?? OF 157 STONE
00
VMIE$
i
''VV
° FILTER FABRIC
' `?E2 -+ sill( Cu7, Nan Cemnru 77511
iO P
YIP?6}
Q
54
'
8
8
° PROFILE A-A

FILTER FABRIC
NO GAPS
Q NO GAP F.:
W
. 111J6
0
O
Fu
°
?
F N
99,?
e ? BOULDERS
m
ep °? EROSION
MATTING Dnu 1130-- n /
r7 ?

_ - e1 CUSS A STONE
SCOUR ` T, HEADER ROCK
1
L / POOL STREA MBED
IE
ALLUVIUM
B
(
,
A ELEVATION POINT
VATI
POIN ,"?-?`.. ?- NOTCH LOG TO INVERT ELEVATION
ELEVATION POINT )
NO.57
STON
O
I
` ,-;,,
(TA
PI .
MEAD OF RIFFLE 50 PERCENT OF BOTTOM W OTH '
FILTER FABRIC -
PLAN VIEW SECTION B-B' SCOUR POOL(FXCAVATED)
,? ' n
?-•? PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER
FOOTERROCK
1'
?
PLAN VIEW CUSSBSTONE
s MINIMUM
N=s
1. LOGS MUST BEAT LEAST 10 INCHES INDIIMETERAND15FEETLONG.
SECTIONA-A
2. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BCD FOR THE UPSTREAM FOOTER LOGS AND
STOCK PILE CUT MATERIAL
3. PUCE FOOTER LOGS FIRST AND THEN HEADER(TOP)LOG. SET
HEADER LOG APPROXIMATELY 3INCHES ABOVE THE INVERT NOTES FOR ALL VANE STRUCTU.°.ES: 1R TO 713 BANNFULL HEADER ROCK
ELEVATION.
4. curANOicn IN THE HEADER LOG MPROXIMATELV 50 PERCENT
1. BOULDERS MUST BEATLEASTVx Yx2' IN BAILEY FORKAND
OFTHE CHANNEL BOTTOM WIDTH AND EXTENDING DOWN TO THE XYX
INTHE
IJF

INVERT ELEVATION. ABR
F
FORD
I
2. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC FOR DPAIN4GE BEGINNING AT THE MIDDLE OF THE HEADER FLOW ???
5. PUCE FOOTER ROCK FIRST AT T,IL OF RIFFLE AND THEN HEADER ROCK ROCKS AND EXTEND DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER ROCK AND 4%TO 10%SLOPE
8. FOR BOTH INVERTS, INSTALL FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE BEGINING THEN UPSTREAM TO A MINIMUM OF TEN FEET. _ _
AT THE LIIDOLE NF THE HEADER AND EXTEND DOWIANAROTO THE DEPTH 3. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BD FOR FOOTER ROCKS AND PUCE FILL ON UPSTREAM STREAMBD ELEVATION •""
OF THE FOOTER AND THEN UPSTREAM TO A MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET. SIDE OF VANE ARM, BETWEEN THE ARM AND STREAMBANK i/tf
7. FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH 2 FOOT MIX OF f
4. START AT BANK AND PUCE FOOTER ROCKS FIRST AND THEN HEADER(TOP)ROCK
CUSS ASTONE CUSS B STONE, AND 157 STONE TO THE ELEVATION
OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER LOG J
5. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOVANG ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS. BACKFILL(ONSITE ALLUVIUM
FOOTER ROCK
.
i UNDERCUT RIFFLE BETWEEN INVERTS BY B INCHES
BACKFILL BETWEEN & AN EXTRA BOULDER CAN BE PLACED IN SCOUR POOL FOR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT. OR N0.575TONq
.
LOGS MATH A 8 INCH MIX OF CLASSAAND B STONE TOP WITH 2 INCHES OF 7. USE CLASS B STONE TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF BOULDERS, AND CIASSA CLASSASTONE SCOUR POOL
157 STONE STONETO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF CLASS B STONE.
CLASSBSTONE (EXCAVATED)
B. AFTER ALL STONE HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE PROFILE VIEW
WITH ONSITE ALLUVIUM TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCK
DOUBLE DROP CROSS VANE DOUBLE WING DEFLECTOR
BANKFULL
HEADER ROCK
FLOW-
q%TO 8°A SLOPE
STREAM BED .f''`
ELEVATION +'+
113 to 1!i
FOOTER ROCK
BACKFILL (ONSITE ALLUVIUM) BOTTOM BOTTOM BOTTOM
WIDTH OF WIDTH OF WIDTH OF
1!J 1? 1n
BOT10M BOTrDM BOTTOM
957 STONE FILTER FABRIC x CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL 5-'
a
WIDTH OF WIDTH OF WIDTH OF CUSSASTONE ¢
m m
CHANNEL CHANNEL CHANNEL
CLASS ISSTONE PROFILE VIEW w
o HEADER ROCK o
A
A
x

rc A
FLOW N
FULL STA
B
F ARgFZ, PQ's F• BACK FILL WITH WELL GRADD 1l3 TO 1R BANKFULL
TH WELL
\ VA1ilE CUSSAAB
IX COARSE
.\.Yf a
w F ?V MATERLLL FROM $TREAMBD
J
w J1 .r`?' i575TONE A FH FLOW A
`
r- - - 1 CLASS B STONE w F ?'
?'"
? n
_
M
, -
BACKFILL(ONSITEALLUVIUM)
L 1' f 7 .
?,x < k
X
.
?
0
SECTIONA-A
a
\ m
, ?
STREALIBED ?I .
}
?
°
`
/
m
e BACKWATER

aaea. 20'TO 30•
0
.+P?
'i'S
NO GAPS
J
POOL J ? r
BETWEEN
e 6d
idy
• / j
\ 1Fbd?-
?`A
R
- ROCKS
f
; N",&-„
CUSSASTONE o
FILTER FABRIC I 1R BANKFULL HEADER ROCK
?- S MINIMUM
e
/ ? 7I ` °' FLOW
7%704%SLOPE
SS,
SECTION A - A FOOTER BOULDER TI D INTO K
ROCK
I CLUSTER STREAMBANK STREAMBD
/
SCOUR I
POOL ELEVATION
I PLAN VIEW
NOGAPS FOOTER ROCK
BETWEEN
a
FLOODPIAIN SI
BOULDERS e LL
NOTES FOR 0.LL PANE STRUCTURES:
`-
- ' ARM'X'PROFILEVIEW
PDOLS(EXCAVATED)PER 1. BOULOERSMUSTBEATLEAST4
xTx2'INBAILEYFORKAND
3' X 3' X r IN THE TRIBUTARIES.
DIRECTION OF ENGINEER 2. INSTALL FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE BEGINNING AT THE MIDDLE OF THE HEADER NOTE NO SLOPE FOR ARMS Y 82
DEPTH- AVERAGE BANKFULL DEPTHx1.5 TO20 ROCKS AND EXTEND DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER ROCK AND
THEN UPSTREAM TO A MINIMUM OF TEN FEET.
3. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER ROCKS AND PUCE FILL ON UPSTREAM
PLAN VIEW SIDE OF VANE ARM, BETWEEN THE ARM AND STREAMBANK
/. START AT BANKAND PUCE FOOTER ROCKS FIRST AND THEN HEADER(TOP)ROCK
5. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS.
B. AN EXTRA BOULDER CAN BE PLACED IN SCOUR POOL FOR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT.
7. USE CLASS B STONE TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF BOULDERS, AND CLASSA
STONE TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF CLASS B STONE.
8. AFTER ALL STONE HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE
WITH ONSITE ALLUVIUM TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER ROCK
d
x
N
XI
m
w
N
N
m
a
a
C
0
d
om
Irv
PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS
NOTES.
1. PLANT BARE ROOT SHRUBS AND TREES TO THE WIDTH OF THE
BUFFER AS SHOWN ON THE PUNS.
2. ALLOW FOR &10 FEET BETWEEN PLANTINGS, DEPENDING ON SIZE
TOP OF STREAJABANK 3 LOOSEN COMP ACTED SOIL
PLANT IN HOLES MADE BY A MATTOCK DIBBLE. PLANTING BAR OR
OTHER APPROVED MEANS.
S. PLANT IN HOLES DEEPANO W DE ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE ROOTS
TO SPREAD OUTAND DOWN WITHOUT }ROOTING
6. KEEP ROOTS MOIST WHILE DISTRIBUTING OR WAITING TO PLANT
BY MEANS OF WET CANVAS. BURLAP, OR STRAW.
T. HEEL4N PLANTS IN MOIST SOIL OR SAWDUST IF NOT PROMPTLY
PUNTED UPON ARRIVAL TO PROJECT SITE
BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
CROSS SECTION VIEW OF BARE ROOT PLANTING
NOTES
1. WHEN PREPARING THE. HOLE FOR A POTTED PLANT OR
SHRUB DIG THE HOLE 8 - 12 INCHES AND LA
THAN THE DIAMETER TER OF THE THE POT AND THE SAME DEPTH
A THE P07
2. R E MOVE MOVE THE PLANT FROM THE POT LAYTHEPLANTON
ITS SIDE NECESSARY REMOVE THE POT
(ROOTS GROW NG INA
7. SPIRAL THE PLANT IS THE ROOT BALL), MAKE VER
0T BEM)SMAKEVERNAL
HOP OF STRFANBANK CUTS WH A KNIFE THER0 CUT THE NET OF ROOTS. ALSOMMAKE AEPENWGH TO
CRISS-CROSS CUT ACROSS THE BOTTOM OF THE BALL
4. PLACE TIE PLANT IN THE HOLE
5. FILL HALF OF THE HOLE PATH SOIL (SAME SOIL
REMOVED FOR BACKFILL1
8. Yu7ER THE SOIL TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS AND FILL
THE REST OF THE HOLE VATH THE REMAINING SOIL
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION, ROOTMASS, AND SOIL MATERIAL
?I-
TOP OF STREAMBANK
'•1
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION, ROOTMASS• AND SOIL MATERIAL
- TOE OF BANK
BOTTOM OF CNANNEL
CROSS SECTION VIEW
C
a
TI
m
N
2
N
a
m
w
N
N
67
e
c
a
m
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION AND ROOTMASS
/ r ® 1?`?W\l \
6d SPACING
Z-Y SPACING
PLAN VIEW
SQUARE CUT TOP
FACING UPWARD
TOP OF
TOP OF STRFAMBWK
LIVE CUTTING STRFAAIOANK
MIN. 1rr DM T-7LENGTH -
1 1 1
1 ' ' .. / ..
' 1-
.' . .
. . .
.
. PUNT
AKE
ATOP OF BANK
O
BANK K IN IN A DIAMOND
TO TOE OF SHAPED
4PE0
STAGGERED PATTERN

ANGLE CUT
TOE OF SLOPE
1
?. 1
30.45 DEGREES
LIVE STAKE DETAIL
PLAN VIEW
un.cc
1. EXCAVATEA HOLE IN THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED THAT WILL
ACCOMMODATE THE SIZE OF TRANSPLANT TO BE PLACED.
BEGIN EXCAVATION AT THE TOE OF THE BANK
2 EXCAVATE TRANSPLANT USING 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 14 TOO LARGE
AND ANOTHER SHOULD BE SELECTED.
3. PUCE 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.
5. PUCE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE TOGETHER SUCH THAT
THEY TOUCH
TOP OF BANK
TOE OF BANK
LIVE STAKING SPECIFICATION
NOTES:
1. SIAKESSHOULDBECUTAND
INS LEO ON THE SAME DAY.
2 DO NOT INSTALL STAXFS THAT
HAVE BEEN SPLIT.
2. STAKES MUST BE INSTALLED WITH
BUDS POINTING UPWARDS.
4. STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED
PERPENDICULAR TO BANK
5, STAKES SHOULD BE V2 TO 2 INCHES
IN DIAMETER AND 2 TO B FT LGNG.
6. STAKES SHOULD BE INSTALLED LEAVING
115 OF STAKE ABOVE GROUND.
TRANSPLANTS ® 1
w
o
N=7 LHANNELWIDTH
1.5XCWWNELVADT
® I SCOUR
POOL
• A
PLAN VIEW
LOG BURIED
N STREAMBANK
AT LEAST T
TRANSPLANTS J®
10 BKFL WIDTH
2/T BKFL WDTH
LOG VANE
?i
7• w
LOG BURIED
BELOW STREAMOED
PLAN VIEW
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT V36 FOR CONSTRUCLION
&]00 Rn-PaA ay Suit 200
GAry, Napa 3541511
w: Be
vn F1w6A,u Fv' lIBJ61 W
NO CCR O
TRANSPLANTS
TOP OF STREAMBANK
FLOW -? / / ,
STREAMBED

tmlaa°
1
l?.
/
/
BURY ENO OF LOGV

BELOW MAX POOL DEPTH. T LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST IY INCHES N DIAMETER RELATIVELY STRAIGHT,
NARDYA]00 AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2 SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOO

PROFILE VIEW 7. TRANSPLANTS ARE PLACED ALONG THE TOP OF THE BANK OVER
THE BURIED LOG VANE TO PROTECT AGAINST EROSION DURING
HIGH FLOWS.
LOG WEIR
RANSPLANTS
LOG WEIR
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG
TOP OF STREAMBANK
•- FLOW
STREAMBED
'
'
PLO' ..
.:.

HEADER LOG BACKFILL (ON-SITE ALLUVIUM)
?/
FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE
FOOTER LOG ; . (SEE SPECS) ;' .
II
I S MINIMUM -?1
SECTION A-A'
NOTES'
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT,
HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY RARVESTED.
1 LOGS>241NCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE USED ALONE WITHOUT AN ADDITIONAL LOG.
FILTER FAORC SHOULD STILL BE USED TO SEAL AROUND LOG
3. PLACE FOOTER LOGS FIRSTAND THEN HEADER(TOP)LOG. SET HEADER LOG
APPROXIMATLEY 3 INCHES ABOVE THE INVERT ELEVATION.
4. CUTA NOTCH IN THE HEADER LOG APPROXIMATLEY 50 PERCENT OF THE CHANNEL
BOTTOM WIDTH AND EXTENDING DOWN TO THE INVERT ELEVATION.
5. USE FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.
6. PUCE TRANSPLANTS FROM TOE OF STREAMBANK TO TOP OF STREAMBANK
PLAN VIEW
CROSS SECTION NEW
m
PERMANENT STREAM CROSSING
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT V39 FOR CONSTAVCTTON
FILTER FABRIC
FILL
STREAM-
CHANNEL
COVER FILL MATERIAL
MATH 61NCHE5 p5T STONE
e
ROUND CONCRETE PIPE
EXISTING
GROUND
CROSS SECTION VIEW
CATTLE CROSSING CONSTRUCTED 16
WITH Y1 SIDE SLOPES
FLPN? DD
L
IE
BO
PLAN VIEW
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION
C
TF
U
N
2
a
w
N
N
m
i
C
a
C
m
TIll"L NTEDVEGETATION, ROOTVASS,AND SOIL MATERIAL
/a II.
TOP OF STRFAMBANK
:l
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION. ROOTMASS. AND SOIL MATERIAL
i- TOE OF BANK
_ BOTTOM OF CHANNEL
CROSS SECTION VIEW
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION AND ROOTMASS
Ma-ss..
1. EXCAVATEA HOLE IN THE BANKTO BE STABILIZED TI-ATWLL
ACCOMMODATE THE SIZE OF TRANSPLANT TO BE PLACED.
BEGIN EXCAVATION AT THE TOE OF THE BANK
2 EXCAVATE TRANSPLANT USINGA 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 BI THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED.
e. PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE TOGETHER SUCH TEAT
THEYTOUCR
TOP OF BANK
TOE OF BANK
BUCK 6000 R?C. -5uN R00
C? g=P, NW 77511
PnonP'. HpJa15Mp
iL?NL?11rN? Fu'. pip.e3s.ao
PLAN VIEW
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT UBR FOR CONS RUMGN
2751300 I
I ?p ¦?¦/ BOOO N .,q Pa-V _ May S5
U .K` Ca,ry
Plwna'. itiJB1NBB
?NOTNCLI11N0? Ta. Biwusrea
Construction Sequence
A Buck Engineering Project Manager will provide construction observation during the construction phase of this
project. The following construction sequence shall be used during implementation of the plan.
UT1, UT2, Bailey Fork Upstream of 1-40
C
v
M
N
a
X
m
W
R
N
N
B
C
a
1. Contractor shall prepare stabilized construction entrances as indicated on plans.
2. The Contractor shall mobilize equipment, materials, prepare staging area(s) and stockpile area(s)
as shown on plans.
3. Construction traffic shall be restricted to the area denoted as "Limits of Disturbance" on the
construction plans.
4. The Contractor shall install silt checks and temporary sediment traps at locations indicated on
plans.
5. The Contractor shall install temporary silt fence around the staging area(s). Temporary silt fence
will also be placed around the temporary stockpile areas as material is stockpiled throughout the
construction period.
6. The Contractor shall install all temporary stream crossings as shown on plans. 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.
7. The Contractor shall begin by installing in-stream structures on Bailey Fork from the upstream
project limits to the NCDOT Right of Way for 1-40. The Contractor shall not disturb any more length
of stream than they can stabilize in one day.
6. Once construction of Bailey Fork is complete, the Contractor shall begin work on UT1. Construction
shall begin at the confluence with Bailey Fork and move in an upstream direction. All work in this
reach will be performed in the dry. Pump around equipment will be required upstream of station
20+00 and the Contractor shall not disturb any area larger than they ran stabilize in one day.
9. Once a section of stream has been excavated to design grades, in-stream structures, matting and
transplants shall be installed in that section per the direction of the Engineer/Project Manager and
the channel made ready to accept flow.
10. Upon completion of UT1, the Contractor shall begin work on UT2. Construction shall begin at the
confluence with UT1 and move in an upstream direction. All work in this reach will be performed in
the dry. Pump around equipment will not be needed in this reach.
11. Once a section of stream has been excavated to design grades, in-stream structures, matting and
transplants shall be installed in that section per the direction of the Engineer/Project Manager and
the channel made ready to accept flow.
12. Once a stream work Phase is complete the Contractor will apply temporary seeding, permanent
seeding, and mulch to any areas disturbed during construction. 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 30 working days following completion of any phase of grading.
Permanent ground cover shall be established for all disturbed areas within 15 working days or 30
calendar days (whichever is shorter) following completion of construction.
13. All areas should be seeded and mulched before leaving the project site. Remove temporary stream
crossings and any instream silt checks.
14. The Contractor shall plant woody vegetation and live stakes according to planting details and
specifications. They should complete the reforestation (bare root tree planting) phase of the project
and apply permanent seeding at the appropriate time of the year.
15. The Contractor shall insure that the site is free of trash and leftover materials prior to
demobilization of equipment from the site.
Construction Sequence
A Buck Engineering Project Manager will provide construction observation during the construction phase of this
project. The following construction sequence shall be used during implementation of the plan.
UT3 and Bailey Fork Downstream of 1-40
1. Contractor shall prepare stabilized construction entrances as indicated on plans.
2. The Contractor shall mobilize equipment, materials, prepare staging area(s) and stockpile areas as
shown on plans.
3. Construction traffic shall be restricted to the area denoted as "Limits of Disturbance" on the construction
plans.
4. The Contractor shall install silt checks and temporary sediment traps at locations indicated on plans.
5. The Contractor shall install temporary silt fence around the staging area(s). Temporary silt fence will
also be placed around the temporary stockpile areas as material is stockpiled throughout the
construction period.
6. The Contractor shall install all temporary stream crossings as shown on plans. 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.
7. The Contractor shall begin by installing in-stream structures on Bailey Fork from the NCDOT Right of
Way for 1-40 to the downstream project limits. The Contractor shall not disturb any more length of
stream than they can stabilize in one day.
8. Upon completion of Bailey Fork, the Contractor shall begin work on UT3. 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 that 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.
9. The Contractor shall begin excavation of the UT3 stream channel. Excavation shall begin at the
confluence with Bailey Fork and move in an upstream direction. All work shall be done in the dry.
10. Once a section of stream has been excavated to design grades, in-stream structures, matting and
transplants shall be installed in that section per the direction of the Engineer/Project Manager and the
channel made ready to accept flow.
11. Water will be turned into the new channel once the area around the new channel and the new channel
has been stabilized.
12. 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.
13. Once a stream work phase is complete, the Contractor will apply temporary seeding, permanent
seeding, and mulch to any other areas disturbed during construction. Permanent seeding matures
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 30 working days following completion of any phase of grading. Permanent ground
cover shall be established for all disturbed areas within 15 working days or 30 calendar days
(whichever is shorter) following completion of construction.
14. All areas should be seeded and mulched before leaving the project site. Remove temporary stream
crossings and silt check at downstream end of project.
15. The Contractor shall plant woody vegetation and live stakes according to planting details and
specifications. They should complete the reforestation (bare root tree planting) phase of the project
and apply permanent seeding at the appropriate time of the year.
16. The Contractor shall insure that the site is free of trash and leftover materials prior to demobilization of
equipment from the site.
NO.
IROIECI ENGINEER

11+00
CE ,, a._..... .
CE
x
„a
boll
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UTl y? rv?`? Y 3 ?` ?
S TA /0-00.00 4
.-- ? - rYY=r'i^ v - 1 .
^ CY•r^rYi ,?
c
m
v
m
i
u
x
m
w
N
N
B
c
0
a
c
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT UeR FOR MNe RURION
C
,20
BUCK e000 Rp?q -1-515 715111
try. NaT afvYU
RMM: RI W9}sree
kN-ol-NLLRIN Eu: elcuiHao
PLAN VIETV
30 15 0 30 60
SCALE (FT)
ARMOR PIPE CROSSING fC ARMOR UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM /
WITH %57 STONE EL-1031.1 FACE OF FILL SLOPES WITH CLASS B RIPRAP 13 % ` PRE]
c
L
t
i
t
I
N
n¦
n
i
I
i
i
1e31.eaaa A
°
e

1ez5.eaaa
A /J
/ I
1
l ? I
" ,? ? I ? 1 ? ?i+ea1
B.BaaO • 25Ra I 50000'3 85.1193 BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
EL 1028.1 0 T • _ ?,
EL = 1025-B STA 10.00.00
r ?
i
?? / ? 1 I n?V , ' X11
1 .?` m' \ J
12
:
-- w - + INSTALL PERMANENT STREAM CROSSING r} \ -._ __.. •'-"`
•? \;?`?. ?A A ?--+c? - ACCORDING TO DETAIL SHEET 2L
1'Fn m ?r ,
E
Q '
E
X\
I O Lkf9TING DaM TO
9E REMOVED CE 6
1031 61, \ l o 1
3, 00
i ? ?' x N 1 r" 1
_ - t
_»... 1 1p y; p or
1,701,
I 4
MATCHLINE SH C)
_.,
? rn EET
e uT2 STA 16+00.00
_.-INSTALL 2-t8INCH CSP
1038: h ! (? FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
9039
1040 2:1 SIDE SLOPES
• CLASS B RIPRAP
EST. 10 TONS WITH a
I` 'i. 20. SY OF FILTER FABRIC ?D pO DITCH PLUG
FROIECT ENGINEER
r}l.?
Y
00117 pp? \ \ R `, \ ?1 ?,
?z SAP' 03?v
S 5 16+ 4 e? \
JE 00
I
a}0?y \ I
00
/ +00 L
n
?C3 x00
?rCy?NF
syFyrs
GT7
ST
00
c
rn
v
d
t
n
a
x
m
W
cq
N
N
m
n
r

1

A?

\ w
1 Lt 1` ' ? i. .
! ?t
I % Il

1 DANXFUl BENCH
? ,mom
v. I ?/ 1 I

I? I
?I

I
5
1
1T2
t
? I '.
?

v
I ? I J

I

I y
I

1
((11 I
f
i
END CON
STA 29c
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
PRELIMINARY PLANS
CO NOT LII Po0. CONTIAUCINNI
100
/??/ `EOW R Ni C.a- 2751 11511
?Y(¦`/CKCu. NaML? u
BUCK
P
F -- R1Q IMsu 0!
NF OTCRINO Y..: Rlwam
PLAN VIEW
30 15 0 30 60
SCALE (Ff)
PROJECT ENGINEER
m
r
n
X
C3
N
B
C
0
a
i
0
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USe FOR CONSTRUCTION

I ` I

,?

?

.

...-,... ..

-

I BUCK e / 000 Rp+^q PvFwq Sut. 100

BtJ nrv,Rdmc,roh.nsn
e
PNnw etF.fiSe.e9
.
I 1\ ....
.......... , ..I..,.. _ __
LNO Nl_z RE Na r., e,Rwis,ea

r
w 1 '
. _ .1
I 1 1 1

? y

II
I 6T \
)? \ 16+p0
1
'

e
x o

x
6
?r V tP

oo/

IN,
ji, ?N
l r? I '
r??I
I N
IO 1
?
1 l
` ?A ?
I l . V ?

-

1020.-.= - - , ,

ti
ti 4S,

' FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UT3
STA 10.00.00
PLAN VIEIV
30 15 0 30 60
SCALE (FT)
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
TA NOT C36 roa C0N=RWT10N

sy
P\F'oo
^l,f.r?
3 ,--
wm?
r?
.may . ? ? 3E
----- -------
M-
REMOVE EXISTING 54'CMP
AND 11' RCP

ml
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
m
m
6
ml
W
K
N
m
1 e00O x?pr?C-1- s.215, W ux1 I
U [SIR R=Gn?
BUCK
vnon. nRUTs?ae
LH?NLCIEIN?? Eu: olwuNSa
C
0
a
PLAN VIE{V
0
0
30 15 0 30 60
SCALE (F1)
ni
sy
AFT
(69'G
sT
q
??Ks
.0 0 N,

C
v
B
i
n
X
O1
W
2
N
N
0
C
d
d
m
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
BUCK PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
02-91R 9
PROJECT ENGINEER
`; i , • PRELIMINARY PLANS
\ `! DO NOT USX POl CONTPROCEION
\ ,
? S

eooo Rronm
2
7
5

C--
11
]1
Lery, NaM 4ne
11
C
5
BUCK

C: vF- uuee
FNOTH [[I11NZZ Per. n-iuv

v l'
,, 10 t 1313
STF 2a+5000
SNE

PLAN VIETV
30 15 0 30 60
SCALE (Fn

m
v
m
i
a
X
m
W
ft
N
N
B
C
O
a
2,1

V
aky??
5qP ?
J?3

FILL EMSTING CHANNEL
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
W NOP V58 PON COMRUMON
Gry W- C -
BUCK eaoa - P--y s.t.1 I
, 71511
PIwM'. p1pJ5}5ye
LNO7NCCRIMO? Ev: piws}Hpo
PLAN VIE{V
30 15 0 30 60
SCALE (FT)
CE
CE
E
NO.
PROJECT ENGINEER

CE
CE CE
O9y
J1
x00
"4TCNLINE If
gHEET'p
U
4'A 35+p0.Op
p
\ 88 kn.
/ \pGN
I t
? ?0x
O O
O
c
0
x
m
w
9
OO? 0x00

FILL EXISTING CHANNEL

I PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT V= ROR COKMUCnON
27511
Rpssy Cs.rybl m
BUCK -Rp Rwu
Plan' IIPkS w
c EOWP¢ all?uuRo
PLAN VIE{V
30 15 0 30 60
SCALE (FT)
REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
_1 IT-
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
W NOR URR FOR CONK UMON
t
\1 ` 8000 Pp?^?/ BUCK O.ryNaNCuGln.113„
Y???eR
\\ ? k.. 11F- . R1Ia46uTHOo
,
----- ------- -------
F
JIB vv ??
`rte
i l
_ I E
O AT .. 1
0 3+00
L1 L ? ll
40*OQ00
i
c
N
2
a
X
m
W
K
N
N
B
n
a
a
m
\
Cl? \
/JX", j END CONSTRUCTION UT3
STA 43-62.71
i
"E FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
PLAN VIETV
30 15 0 30 60
SCALE (FT)
NO.
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
00 NO 088 MR WNB RUMON
1BUCK BWO Rp?rrtB P?renB75, I I
Cvy,=Car v 231511
Peom: 919-3-W8
N[CRINO Ru: 91-6 81G8

dt
I`R a
tl 1` r
ri
a
m
w
N
N
B
C
I
a
m

REMOVE EXOTIC VEGETATION
AND SLOPE BANK
PLAN VIE{V
r
W
w
12
Vl
W
Z
J
U
I-
Q
100 50 0 100 200
SCALE (Fl)
m SUCK PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO,
0227
14
N
PROJECT ENGINEER
N
PRELIMINARY PLANS
{ DO NOT Vee PC MNeT0.uCT10N
B.Ue?K eooo7. P.Mhr eub ioa
OffN919 km 5„
o RI9a6154 NEd
Pe m'.
I 'I) `tis [N OTN[D 1 F..01"61 W
s 3
%
r I \ `
f i
t
V ?\?? i 5
CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE /
i
? rF
All,
co
r__ RESHAPE BANK ??•
l? AS SHOWN INSTALL PERMANENT
?.? BRIDGE CROSSING
Q
_ RESHAPE BANK o)
II-/? AS SHOWN `? .
U) ^^^^?-... REBUILD BANK
PUCE COIR FIBER MATTING REMOVE DEBRIS NM O
-- S.1 AND LIVE STAKE r?
co C)
__ .:_ ?'.• RESHAPE BANK Lr)
I--.r...... r _ SHOWN ??... ?...,. 1PE BAK LIVE STCOIR AKE FIBER ..T. RIGHT OF
WAY co
SLO MA,A
^t?.M.^...'.?.. ,..
cazm
U) U)
AS W .. "". / i
IN It Lo
.
CLEAN OUT DEBRIS, SLOPE BANK AND SLOPE BANK SLOPE BANK SLOPE BANK - rriP}y ' r }'J•;,, W
PLACE COIR FIBER RIATTING AND LIVE STAKE ?65?00 W
Q REMOVE PRIVET AND
RESHAPE BANK W
Z
v V J
P
U
Q
K
L
Y
Y
V
9
C
0
1
PLAN VIETV
_ FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
'Y 100 50 0 100 200
^Y ..
Y
9
SCALE )FT)
BUCK PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT UAR MR CONSIRVCTWN
B¦¦`/Y¦CK IOOp Rp?q PhTnT buw 100
R Wry, NaMGm Swu
Pnm?. %iJ!}MCA
NO N6k--i- ?RINOL P?.: Riwex+ao
t
SLOPE BANK BACK
ABOVE BANKFULL
SLOPE BANK BACK ABOVE TREE
AND PUCE COIR FIBER MATTING
AND LIVE STAKE
SLOPE BANK BACK RESHAPE BAWL
ABOVE BANIffULL AS SHOWN
iII
RESHAPE
BANK
I k
?
AS SHOWN
SLOPE BANK BACK oo
ABOVE BANKFULL
cl)
_kl
+ e 7: +
RESHAPE BANK , ?,;' i .. ?- `?- ^•.h 1,, Fy ,). R.
AS
SHOWN
,p FILL AND RESHAPE ( , _ ,w.•^^-""' ?`+.
^yr / , ?i 1 CATTLE AREAS - ?O
INSTALL PERMANENT /
BRIDGE CROSSING T I I . ',,
SLOPE BANK ABOVE
} BANKFULL AND PRESERVE
TRANSPLANT MATERIAL
? r
SLOPE BANK AND PUCE ?f COIR FIBER MATTING
AND BRUSH MATTRESS
AND FINE ST% NG
COIR Ya F
N ? CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE i 2
L
'RESHAPE BANK (APPROXIMATE LOCATION)
AS SHOWN
ASSSHOE BANK
` ? \ \ OV
m \r"j ? `
REMOVE DEBRIS
CATTLE AREAAND ?\V
v ?u F
L )COOO \?
0.
m
m
w
N
N
B
c
c
0
a
PLAN VMJV
D
m
100 50 0 100 200
SCALE (FT)
NL
BUCK PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET N0.
0,9ZIH lb
QQ
/?. PROTECT ENGINEER
nix
J
?P PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT Bea FOR CONSTRUCTION
INSTALL PERMANENT END CONSTRUCTION BAILEY FORK
BRIDGE CROSSING
STA 104+72.48
eODa W1G.M.r suit 200
BUCK .. N..,,,,,
PA. RJe}fue
V ? *No rN[t RuAlMr r: Hv+wa.,eo
?l SLOPE BANKPIACE COIR FIBER MATTING, SLOPE BANK PLACE
LIVE STAKE•AND TRANSPLANTS '•. COIR FIBER MATTING,AND
•.w.;, ;. LIVE STAKE
SLOPE BANK PLACE r
r
LIVE STAKE MATTING, AND
TO CONSTRUCnON ENTRANCE 0 2.
1 r'% ?• APPROXIMATE DISTANCE 385 YARDS y .
t
f /
/
%%% SLOPE BANK ABOVE BANKPULL
AND U STAKE FIBER MATTING V
t
s.
• s
F
,
_ •? - v to I ` ? I ?,?.,,.?, , „ ? w `,
1 1
I;
L
-° I
i
,
111 V
r i
1
?Ly .ror Jr FILL EXISTING CHANNEL i
i
®EXISTING WETLAND
c `..1 ,
E PLAN VIE{V
-;? y too 50 0 _ 100 200
SCALE (FT)
ILI
O M 3 ' - ,. 1 BUCK PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
c,
g

o
EXISTING .
.I
? `
B NKFULL.:

'•
c a
n O 4
+ O
N : m m 0 m GROUND 1 ` PROJECT ENGINEER
_ r o n v
m

1
040

a
w
II
a
II
W a
-
II
11
w

b M

? -

+ M

? v
77 No
,
E

_
.
.
N
WN,

A
_. 1
a W
.._ a W
, . II

J

J
i
O
O_ M PRELIMINARY PLANS
-" a W. d w . r

II

i

R P
N
M 0
N

m

p
RO

N DO NOT USE FOR CONRi9UCT10N
L
. _ cl C)
? a w a w

'"

+

+

o
0.
p
- - o
ro l

t IL LU,
. t
,.
_ :.
.'
?•
. i

I
-

f eoooR Pnmrs?n. Rw
C.ry. NaP C1m1n1 27511

BUCK

,
[. ? Pnon.. nws>•uee
RfIl7[RIN F-0.'0.1615180
1.

1,030
0- LU

aw
x
a w N O
$
... _ _...n_ _, _ .. _
I ...... _ .,,?. : ..

DESIGN
....,,. _ . .._?. w

f
;

a
_ .. _._..
_ ..

m
...
..... ` _.. W._._...
k

! THALWEG _
aw N o
n
t

10+00
11+00
12+00
13+00
14+00
15+00
16+00

1,040

?
i
'

EXISTING UT1 I ? ? t
BANKFULL
. -
GROUND
1
k
p !
. t.
Q
..
C
O.N.
{
y
- , _ J
a w p
? N ' , ry.N 01N ; I O I
Q i

. w
. J
I:
maw
r y) n
N N N N
._
.
_

r m

..
.
m I ? c

,p..w. M.._...... »,.,..m .. .....

.
... _ ... J W
.... ;...? _ a w,._... .
\
:. .
r ..
N O
... ..-::r R ,.r r il.
?I J II II?' ill J
`
,,.». ., r.,.
. i r
?
* N F,,,.
..._
.
.;rm . ,
.
N.
? .. W
m m ?_

'
m N
?.
?,N ,.,.
p
_ m _
? {?
•
. , .._
,
?

N»
.. ... .... v
" e.., ..m.. ..,,.,.»
r
- a W
0. W a W J O 1 O I`? In ul Q
_ _' . '- a w r
W J
W Q i O
.. O
ry N. r ry m N
v/
1,030 Z - •. ?: a a N
" N
r a m
..._.....,........,..,w.., , .J. .. .. ... ... ._..... ?n?. .... _ _ J

W ?lal J J. ..

W (L w _
. a O
N
N ? ?e..
fV
.. ., .., _ _:... ....,.»..
1'1

J
I
N

N
J
z
. C.)
,

I

4
W
Q
i

r ;
i
1

r
1
I

W
DESIGN,,.,

r
i
L

3
1 THA WEG

f
_
I
J

17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00
1,030

.
EXISTING
l GROUND!
1
ro

-,o io
.
?- 11 J .. 1 11 J
'
,.....w.......».e:..:.,..« .,.
, .. _. .,
.:w. a
w .. ..._ r
. ..,'...
._,a
W.-. a O
ul
? _:h
,._
N ?
_..,.
?
N
-.. .....:.0 O-.....I».... ,
a
.. N..p 1
._{_ ,. ,.
rn
I`
»

...
.?. .
,. _... __.' _ _._ .._ ........w,.?. _,.
?
E .. Q. ... ... ?? .d w a W
' ?
{ d J . . N
o a..... r
n N
e? ! .
r '
_
4 0 ., o
0 '
.
_ ,..
\ a W W N N n N N
CD- .
r

! ?.. .. •?.? . i J J P 3
f
N \ o

i a. LU

1,020
uLI
,
N

0
_ a w: K rv `DESIGN
I
,

C F
J
aw

N
iTHALWEG

i

o

?
a
a
(
- i
- 1

a W
1

a
u
N
'_ '.
_ i

y
! .
.
f
....?
- ,

1

1

,
I

R 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00
R
s i y e00OR w 1PYnry5 ]00

- 275
?se11
BUCLPI
N-LR
1ei5
1
025

I - ,
-
Fn 91RJ 54W
[ N O N [
-[R INO
, _ _ _
k _
Z
' 1
O
' i .. p + O

11 •+1

1+1 N

p N

m N 16

p
M
p
t7
NO
M
co
n
ry.
i?
N

' J 3 II II

?.Wa
n ..,. 1 a J
,. ?,
IIF i
.,,.11
dl #

a p
+
D

r2
-DESIGN;
' FL

w U

j
,
a
F ?I

u
'

,
THALWEG I
, a

E
e O p.. # pl -.p N N N e e ul V Q, O O .e O M e t`
. w
p i r+ o +
. .. ... ........:.. X11,.:. n. ?? r?.•?o v-io ?o m eN-?, O1n Q' ?6? N'v: O'
1 _? R R N rv o+ o : + N ^ S In n' m rn
J" - II 11
i a W_. d W R _ J _ J 11 UJ I J 11 -11 n:. N ? cl .rv V O µ? O
' -
T a W a w a W d W - J J II R II II Np N,
i d W a W W
. a W d W d W _K J, II '? O 0 1..
LL)
_.._ __.._. __ •? v __ _ . ...._
0. CL
I.. ..:- _:.... ,... : . - -.-..: ?.._.. i i __.... BUCK PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET N(
1,035 EXISTING BANKFULL 0221H I
.:-GROUND ..?. -.._ ._,._ - ..... _._ _ '_ .? .1.?. .. - - PROJECT ENGINEER
UTZ
1
03in
IPRELI<MINPARY PLANS
O'D r a t '0 R m r .,.? h umi v F?.o e? ....
to N Vail 10+00

11+00
12+00
13+00
14+00
15+00
16+00
•
,

EXISTING BANKFULL
GROUND _

.d..m ,.....?.. ..,.. .. .. ,_Q. _.. a _,
h

.+
f1
W
Il

J
A N
r
N
O.
rn
'
N
,
p ry TO-

y
I

N
1 i
1•
I

r
1
025
r

_..
..

,_ d

.. W -

... a W II

..a J

w 11

a J m c t

n•-.-n 6?
N p
O
u p N O

O
orn N

0
?
i
o..
, ? w B ?e
I CL wCi w

Z --7 C •.
. .

.... 1 1 N v

f _
I . [p ill _
` n ° : O N i
Q
4 a Ld. : ?
r +
„•-.
_.
DESIGN -
dUJ it
-
? m
i
o 6? ' I
I
TNALWEG
- '

FL w
I
w
1,015 a
l r
' - 1
1 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 1
rn
m
J
W
a
X
m
W
N
N
m
C
a
a
C
4
v
z BUCK PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SMEEI N(
4.. GRADED
EXISTING BANKFULL. _ PRO,EC ENGINEER
GROUND GROUND
UT3
1,020
cl?
• PRELIMINARY PLAN
• r .?- ?.? ?.? -.o N n U PRELOT um MR OONRRURWN
.. a
I ? ? O n 00 N O m N { Nan ro,p N O•
Q

f
L : ........ .

?.? . ..._. .

?•.? •

- .

....?

•Z

?$

^
?•?r va-a s.,f. voo
BUCK ?7. oM GmW.11511
1 OR
V/

F

Z= Fa 91o-uz-JoN
NO N[[RIN F-
ao
W ,.
Z
1,010 i m
,
N U

+
p, °.
A p
m
a w -DESIGN `„
.
-THALWEG
a w
:
•
la f
t i

O a a m t o + ° O
'. W W . II ul 'II it II II 1 it O ..p C + ...1
o O N
+ a w a w a w 1
a
w N
n

x
J

'

` N J
1

'

.. -

a
w -
a

'
W
-

u
-
1

w

.
a w t a .
cli

17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00
1,020
EXISTING
-
BANKFULL _....,_
GRADED-
GROUND GROUND ?
U?
; ,
1 :
_ _. ., .
rom) ? -
?.. O
O
p Ci m'O NI
- O Oi
ro o s Im V...
O

...
O
•
,- II
,_.a
J a a N
J I J
II .N ' ... -
II O
N
`_ I
?..t
1 N O
r .m 0

.
Ip i
O ' 0>
O
O I
y
F
m ..
. 0

I
Lr)
+- w f .. __. _ W
__.._ a W .... _. __ . - - a W .. _.... .....- J. ....,
W ._ II
6 J..,_...+..

W N Y..
...v. _

m
I
N .... :. d ..: a W_ : a W it
a !
W
'
a J;.... +

N

t
i w
Q
1
7

10
1

d 77
7777 -1
7

I

-

7

i
, z-
s a.
E , 'o Q' :' M i. M I y...9 { O n'l .. C) t

Q

-
-

rv

+ O
- O
o -.. _..... ,... .? _..._.
O
----------- -
N
a It DESIGN a N o.. ..?
.
+
O
m
°! a 0

?
THALWEG a W
aw
J LI -I
a W J

C
m
V
P
J
LL
a
m
l 77
7
U) '
t
1

I
i

t
?•
W
S w
_
R
I I
O ?
M c7 r) O f
I

,
I
DESIGN

<
Li .

I
THALWEG • : •a W t a`w
'
Q
;a

I
I I
,_ i
( F 1 ?
I ?
_? 1 R

I I
i
3 ?.
4

1,000 I
29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 331+00 34+00 35+00
I
BUCK PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
EXISTING. BANKFULL
0021H 1 20
PROJECT ENGINEER
GROUND UT3
PRELIMINARY PLANS
O O o
N o
O
Q. 8. N r0 _ .N ro N . _ m n ?: W m A Q DO NOT USE Post NNRSA lv
pW ° n W, mo O
. aW. . 4 w J
d J n J -
It

f.l
? ?. ? ?. .. 31
J If J +
1
010 Lr)
-
w?
_?? ,maw
, M
_
.,
_
..
.?.? ...r• .?
•?.
? ?. ,..
? •.?.?
.

..
"

?.

f BWO Rpww.y RV,MVY SUbi
G OUONU 11511
BUCK ry, NOM
?/?
V/ . • .? ... .........
- .- . -.
(n .... ; Rv'. 91B 3-5188
LNO(-N LLRINO A hrG B?
W
'
z
J _ J
T

V m 0Y lV , . , .... ., ..
V ..

F
1 0 . ..
rn ..
m U7 nm e m m _

it Q
THALWEG d,w ..... . a.w... .. , ?. m
aw aw
1,000
35+00 36+00 37+00 38+00 39+00 40+00
? r

,

k

I

a . _ .. _.. .... .........n...
t
.
?
F

I
r ? I
N 1 I f
9

t

,
wa
C
I ,
' e i t'
i

r 7

I

3 (

u

4
f

B
t
BUCK PROIECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
s
OZZIH 1
N
PR JECT ENGINEER
N
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE FOR NNSTRVRION
BUCK AOD00.p.M P?M.Y 5711100
U R Gry, NaPCrv n1 D511
P 1D66u1RB
F. Pu: 1i2+5.tuao
ENO `N LL RIN?
N
f_ w
U)
- z
? J
J
r
.. a _.. ..
y i
PLANTING ZONES
® 7D'MINIMUM STREAM BUFFER /UPLAND BUFFER
m
v
N
u \ WETLAND RESTORATION
i
x
m
N WETLAND ENHANCEMENT
N
C
0 NOTE'
0- SEE SHEET I-A TO DETERMINE SPECIES COMPOSITION TlC
C FOR DIFFERENT PLANTING ZONES. VEGETATION
m
a
0
100 50 0 100 200
SCALE (FT)
l
It
e.
v

n BUCK PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET NO.
m
02-91H 1 22
0
N
PROJECT ENGINEER
N
PRELIMINARY PLANS
W NOT Ve8 MR CONRTRUMON
BUCK eaooaw.M C--27511
PNOmQ19-3-W8
[NHMNL[RINO A F- 919B 5W
'I
t
r
NYSTREAM BUFFER <
x!
* 30STREAM BUFFER
? ?l 1t r.
J
fi
.f
2 - } N
U M. /
.
Q ,. o. .. ,?.... - ..
W
J?r . jr r fA
r ? t> W
f
rX>
Z
L
N PLANTING ZONES ?-
N Q
P C
0 G
x 3D'MINIMUM STREAM BUFFER /UPLAND BUFFER
Li
N
p WETLAND RESTORATION
c
a
L .,._.. WETLAND ENHANCEMENT VEGETATION
..._ ....W-. .,, 100 50 0 100 200
SEE SHEET I-A TO FOR DIFFERENT PIANTINTG ZONESPECIES COMPOSITION SCALE (FT)
Nl
4

It
0

S
BUCK PROJECT RUERENCE NO. SREET NO.
PROJECT ENGINEER
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT VW FM CONMUCTIM
eooo wD«Kr r.rc..r aon.7w
uR ,NOM Wo41u 7/511
BUCK
r DID41Uaa
F..
(<?NLLRINO ? T¢ DID.ua.m
?l
?I
y
r
\ r \ T l \??.,rJ T
/ ? ilk •? Z
?U
'T
Y.
C
C?.\J?e?\y
r CONSTRUCTbN ENTRANCE t 2
(APPROXIMATE LOCATION)
t• w
f
cl,
PLANTING ZONES
JO'MiNIMUM STREAM BUFFER /UPLAND BUFFER
yF "` \\
N
N ? \
P
0
>i WETLAND RESTORATION
m
w
N
m WETLAND ENRANCEMEM
i
a
s SHEET 1-A TO DETERMINE SPECIES COMPOSITION VEGETATION
FOR DIFFERENT PLANTING ZONES
0
0 100 50 0 100 200
SCALE (FT)
Nl
BUCK PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
n
6 0.2-91R 1 4
PROJECT ENGINEER
N ,(
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT U39 FOR OMMUMON
V
BUCK ROW Rpmq PIE-3?P " ?ilu Suit* Rfp
Cuy, NaM 11511
PMn?: PRJ6}5Wg
YN'WLi RINO Fu: 019S W
.may
t
f
a
I
v t1
1
1
l
Y
i
L?
PLANTING ZONES
(6C70 MINIMUM STREAM BUFFER/
UPLAND BUFFER,
,?l?t• ? i - i/ is I = I
WETLAND RESTORATION
?. I
C 11 j' WETLAND ENHANCEMENT
SEE SHEET J-A TO DETERMINE SPECIES COMPOSITION '
•? 1K ?- FOR DIFFERENT PLANTING ZONES.
x k
m l? i? +R ° f ?./
w i i - ??
tt ? s
c"I
m
VEGETATION
u a :;
.. 100 50 0 100 100
SCALE (FT)
Nl
BUCK ENGINEERING
6838
Invoice Number Date Voucher Amount Discounts Previous Pay Net Amount
Bailey Fork Restore 4/30/05 0004765 475.00 0.00 0.00 475.00
NC Division of Water Quality
Totals 475.00 0.00 0.00 475.00
CAPITAL CH 1