20051485 Ver 1_Complete File_20050804

Triage Check List
8/5/05
Date: Project Name: Mineral Springs
& Burnt Mill Creek Restoration
DWQ#: 05-1485
County: New Hanover
To: Noelle Lutheran, Wilmington Regional Office
60-Day processing time: 8/4/05 to 10/2/05
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
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!
m -em,
s' sf
r
r?roccznn?
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Cyndi Karoly
FROM: Wyatt Brown CAJO
N135
??.•_ ..? _ ;pT:=iii :;iiw,???H
SUBJECT: Permit Application-Mineral Springs Branch & Burnt Mill Creek
Restoration, New Hanover County
DATE: 7-29-05
Attached for your review are 2 restoration plans for the subject project. Please feel free to call
me with any questions regarding this plan (715-1616). We will also send 1 copy to the
Wilmington Regional Office.
Thank you very much for your assistance.
attachment: Restoration Plan (2 originals)
_ 1d?
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 (Tail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0176 l w;v??•nceep.net
Office Use Only: Form Version October 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit uu
? Section 10 Permit ,BUG 2005
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules U,'%LITY
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 27
3.
4. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
5. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Mailing Address: 1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone Number: 919-715-1616 Fax Number: 919-715-2219
E-mail Address: [e-mail]
2. Agent 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:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 5 of 13
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 I I 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: Mineral Springs Branch & Burnt Mill Creek Stream Restoration, &
Enhancement Project
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): _
4. Location
County: New Hanover Nearest Town: Wilmington, (See Map)
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Wrightsville Ave., Colonial Drive
& Confederate Drive (See Map).
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):
(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. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application: Urban,_
Channel is entrenched
7. Property size (acres): 6.2 ac
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Cape Fear River.
9. River Basin: Cape Fear
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://li2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/neaps/.)
Page 6 of 13
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Stream & Buffer Restoration and Enhancement-
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Track Hoes, loaders
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: Urban
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.
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:
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
Page 7 of 13
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts
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 http://??,vw.fcma. ov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property:_
Total area of wetland impact proposed:
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams (SEE PLANS)
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?
(please seci )

* 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.us,ti.eov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapqucst.crnn, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 3350 FT
Page 8 of 13
Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name Waterbody
)
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)

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.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
On elan sheets 6&7 enchancement and privet removal will be performed in the NWI wetland
area. Any impact will be minimal.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
Page 9of13
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://l12o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stmi2ide.litml.
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 PLAN
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://l12o.eilr.stite.iic.tis/Nv!p/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):
Page 10 of 13
IX.
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 213 .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.
Page I I of 13
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 213 .0242 or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
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.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
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.
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
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).
Page 12 of 13

Applicant/Agent's Signat r`e Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 13 of 13
2 0 0 5 1 4 8 5
r,
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
FILE COPY
DENR • WATER QUALITY
K'EIIANOS AIyD STO{ o U' ER 9RAfyCH
Prepared for:
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
'N
ri
lflt ](111 K stem
itll ('111C'Ilf
PROGRAM
Prepared by:
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
3101 John Humphries Wynd
Raleigh, North Carolina
919-782-0495
June 30, 2005
RESTORATION PLAN
WILMINGTON, NC
Ai?r 4 "1005
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1
Goals and Objectives ....................................................................................................1
Location Information .....................................................................................................1
EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................4
Physiography, Topography, and Relief ..........................................................................4
Soils .............................................................................................................................. 4
Water Quality ............................................................................................................... 7
Existing Plant Communities ...........................................................................................7
STREAM ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................10
Field Methods .............................................................................................................10
Reach Descriptions .....................................................................................................10
Macro-benthic Habitat ................................................................................................13
Threatened/Endangered Species ..................................................................................15
Historical and Cultural Resources ................................................................................16
DESIGN ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................17
Design Objectives .......................................................................................................17
Design Constraints ......................................................................................................17
Approach ....................................................................................................................17
Methods .....................................................................................................................18
Summary and Conclusions ..........................................................................................19
RESTORATION PLAN ....................................................................................................21
Typical Design Sections .............................................................................................. 23
Typical Meander Pattern .............................................................................................23
Longitudinal Profiles ...................................................................................................23
Riparian Buffer Restoration ..........................................................................................23
Sediment Transport Analysis .......................................................................................24
Conclusion .................................................................................................................26
SUCCESS CRITERIA COMPONENTS ..............................................................................27
Monitorine Level 1 ......................................................................................................27
Monitoring Level 2 ......................................................................................................29
Method of Reporting on Success Criteria .....................................................................31
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................32
%VK Dickson & Co., Inc. TOC
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION MAP ..............................................................................................2
FIGURE 2 - SITE MAP ....................................................................................................... 3
FIGURE 3 - LAND USE MAP ...............................................................................................5
FIGURE 4 - SOILS MAP ..................................................................................................... 6
FIGURE 5 - EXISTING PLANT COMMUNITIES MAP ..................................................................8
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 - LAND USE ........................................................................................................4
TABLE 2 - BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES SAMPLED FROM SITE 1 ........................................ 14
TABLE 3 - BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES SAMPLED FROM SITE 2 ........................................ 14
TABLE 4 - OVERALL BENTHIC MACROI NVERTE B RATE ANALYSIS ............................................. 14
TABLE 5 - DESIGN DISCHARGE SUMMARY ......................................................................... 20
TABLE 6 - MORPHOLOGICAL TABLE ................................................................................. 22
TABLE 7 - REACH 1 AND BURNT MILL CREEK PLANTING PLAN ..............................................24
TABLE 8 - REACH 2 PLANTING PLAN ................................................................................24
TABLE 9 - SAMWIN STABLE CHANNEL DESIGN OUTPUT .....................................................25
TABLE 10 - COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND ALLOWABLE VELOCITIES ..................................25
TABLE 11 - COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND ALLOWABLE SHEAR STRESSES ........................... 26
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - EXISTING CROSS-SECTIONS AND PROFILES
APPENDIX B - THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST
APPENDIX C - STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE LETTER
APPENDIX D -MORPHOLOGICAL TABLE
APPENDIX E - DESIGN PLANS
APPENDIX F - SAMWIN OUTPUT
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. TOC
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Mineral Springs Branch and Burnt Mill Creek Stream Restoration Project is located within an
urban watershed in Wilmington, NC, and consists of approximately 2000 linear feet of Mineral
Springs Branch and 1350 linear feet of Burnt Mill Creek. The site was initially targeted as a high
priority project in the New Hanover County Local Watershed Plan, a joint effort between the NC
DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and the New Hanover County Local Watershed
Planning Group. The goal of the proposed enhancement and restoration practices is to maximize
improvements to riparian and aquatic habitat while overcoming the challenges presented by
urbanization.
A design approach combining both empirical (reference reach and regional curves) and analytical
techniques was utilized to design improvements for Reach 1 of Mineral Springs. Reference reaches
were used to identify initial width:depth ratios for design sections and for dimensionless ratios
describing planform geometry. Hydraulic geometry was developed using analytical methods in an
effort to identify the design discharge. Flows were generated and compared using the HEC-1 and
• XP-SWMM computer models which base calculations on a simulation of actual watershed
conditions. Channel dimensions were verified with analytical tools in the Stable channel
Analytical Model (SAMwin). This included analyses of sediment transport functions, shear stress,
• and velocity, all of which supported the morphometric parameters developed from reference reach
and analytical data. The conceptual restoration designs presented herein seek to re-establish
S habitat diversity in the channels by restoring meander geometry and ripple-pool sequences.
Stream restoration is proposed along Reach 1 of Mineral Springs for 1189 linear feet that restores a
sinuous pattern, stable cross-sectional geometry, and bedform diversity. Enhancement Level II
improvements are proposed for segments along Burnt Mill and Reach 2 of Mineral Springs because
urban infrastructure and topographic constraints prevent full restoration. Enhancement techniques
include laying back banks, cutting floodplain benches, and constructing encapsulated soil lifts.
These practices are proposed for 475 and 585 linear feet along the west and east banks
respectively for Mineral Springs Reach 2 and for 550 linear feet along the south bank of Burnt Mill
Creek. Riparian buffers will be restored throughout the project and will be protected via
conservation easement limits. A native riparian plant community is proposed to include multiple
strata and a diverse mix of species.
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. ES
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
INTRODUCTION
The NC DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) has identified a stream mitigation project
along Mineral Springs Branch and its master stream, Burnt Mill Creek. The project site is located in
downtown Wilmington, in New Hanover County, and consists of approximately 2000 linear feet of
Mineral Springs Branch and about 1350 linear feet of Burnt Mill Creek. WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
(WKD) has been retained by EEP to provide the design of watershed improvements, construction
bidding and oversight, and the first year of monitoring. A restoration plan for stream and buffer
improvements is provided in the following report.
The New Hanover County Local Watershed Plan completed in 2002 by EEP determined that the
Burnt Mill Creek Watershed displayed the most severe water quality, habitat, and flooding
e problems when compared to other basins within the county. The plan identified Mineral Springs
Branch and Burnt Mill Creek projects as priority restoration opportunities. In December 2003, a
stream restoration feasibility study was completed by others to analyze the stream mitigation
• potential along Mineral Springs Branch and Burnt Mill Creek for EEP. That assessment included
• evaluations of the existing channels and numerous constraints which include apartment buildings,
an existing and proposed sanitary sewer alignment, roads, and parking lots.
e
• GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this project is to maximize the improvement of riparian and aquatic
habitats and water quality through enhancement and restoration practices. Opportunities for
restoration are limited by urban infrastructure that restricts improvements along Burnt Mill Creek to
• localized riparian buffer enhancements and Priority IV restoration. However, the proposed
relocation of the sanitary sewer increases the restoration potential along the upper reach of Mineral
Springs Branch, and will allow for meaningful enhancements along the lower reach. Additional
• water quality opportunities have been identified in the form of stormwater best management
• practices (BMP's). These BMP's include stormwater wetlands, bioretention cells, engineered
swales, and grass swales that are designed to remove pollutants from the first-flush of urban runoff.
Proposed stream and riparian restoration/enhancement is discussed herein, while BMP
• opportunities will be presented in a separate water quality plan. The improvements designed by
WKD seek to optimize habitat and water quality while overcoming the challenges presented by
urban streams.
LOCATION INFORMATION
Mineral Springs Branch and Burnt Mill Creek drain into Smith Creek, a tributary to the Cape Fear
River. The project is also located within the Cape Fear River Basin (HUC 03030007140010) and
in sub-basin 030623. Burnt Mill Creek is currently a 303(d) listed stream and is classified as a C
(Aquatic Life, Secondary Recreation, Fresh) and Sw (Swamp) stream by the NC DENR Division of
Water Quality (DWQ). The DWQ Stream index number for Burnt Mill Creek is 18-74-63-2 and for
Mineral Springs it is 18-74-63-2-1. According to the 2000 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan, Burnt Mill Creek is impaired, receiving a "not supporting" (NS) rating due to a
degraded biological community most likely the result of urban nonpoint sources and dredging
(DWQ, 2000). See Figures 1 and 2 for general location maps of the project.
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.

1 i `` -a ,•'ti Y i c_ -r 91 J Q = rJpl'

• M 3
v m
?Fl t:

2.5 S

IVT
1 ?- \ i f 1
C b C -3
ej?
•
.
,
?Nl '.1•i '
Zsl `
`?~ _?
?
r?•`
?, ??`?o°L'2•?'S
.7r
?
r?i.
?
?
?
•
•
..
?? 1 i I
?
rt1
i
•'
rC
?
iii, ?
°`?-
-?
i
T
?
Y
. ,,y ,
?
i
.? N

{l
' V ?
- '
?'
- L
am
_
?
/
•
j{- C

t

a) Cn
o
U
_ m
E :3
00

X

` cu r__ ca L_
(n -
•'r
?
t •
,
.
'/ C: :3 %V LU
.s f?:
i ? > l ;
r. •
?..? ?•`''/?
.V
fit 3?. ? (n
? ?
^F. . y..F
?
L)
c
CY) CL
h
`?
1 1
Z C C

y t
,
/ C:j) CU
o
. ,.
, °? LL
u) E
CU
cm -
ia
`
?
E a)

l

( r Y v -V 1 1}?V
?
`
•
'
?
1
?
^
v
hr
}T
;1
!? 'iFC
s ? ?tt i- ? ? h: ?
+? V
`?1IA '
'
,? l?.a
_.
.
-
?'
?
?
' ? `co
..
i
^
1.`? ,
?
f
-
?1 X11` TT?• M
%
:W ?? 1?\`•Q ?.

yr -:
' _• .? ice'- ,wry ?K. ??'?C'F
{"'-'Z = „•! fy? 1-'. - d Cl)
.
.t
V
? 1
•
?
? CD
N
_ +1'. »! IF "3t- ?
Jl t
?
Rf ?
5
?,. k" ?S(S-
. ?.
.-.,? =
?
??
.>- _
c o
E C>
Q t
0 U')
U

O
71

old

C>

?CO

ggo
E5pq?5
m p C O
O O O a
O p
D it
' pa°s?Q
c 5
A p a
?E o
9
p
O N
y~ p m N
? C b T C
O r p O Z N°
C 7 ?
E i?2?a£
ASn t°?ua?3
o wow z

cz
m
Q
U
a?
.o

Q D
Y
C
U o
213
o
CL cz co ?U
?a?z
= cv co c O
(n .C C
U
CV C (5
•,_, C
RS
Co Q'E
0) U)
a co
v) E
cc cn
G

end ? ' '
a o a
o
C> o
- Moo 0 ? ? Ji
f
1 ? 1 ? O Q
gyp` ? ? `?ocd°` f
gLL
0
0
U
?g
?s
1-
u
0
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The primary drainage features on the site are Mineral Springs Branch and Burnt Mill Creek and
both are perennial streams. Mineral Springs flows in a northerly direction and drains
approximately 320 acres. Burnt Mill has a drainage area of 4.3 mi2 at the confluence with Mineral
Springs and flows to the west. The Mineral Springs watershed is almost fully developed and the
land use is primarily high density residential (see Figure 3). A detailed analysis of the land use for
the watershed was performed using GIS zoning and topographic data and included the digitizing of
impervious areas throughout the project. Results of the land use analysis were field verified
through windshield surveys of the watershed. The results are presented in Table 1.
Table 1 - Land Use
Land Use Percent
Commercial 21
Light Industrial 10
1/2-ac Residential 15
1/4-ac Residential 2
1/8-ac Residential 48
Woods and Open Space -t
Total 100
PHYSIOGRAPHY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND RELIEF
The project is located on the Carolina Platform high structural feature in the Atlantic Coastal Plain
Physiographic province. This region is characterized by flat land with gently rolling hills and
elevations ranging from 50 to 0 feet. This province is underlain by shallow-marine, estuarine,
shoreline and fluvial sediments and sedimentary rocks that have been deposited during changes in
sea level (Horton 1991). The project area is underlain by the Comfort Member of the Castle Hayne
Formation. Specimens collected at outcrops in Burnt Mill Creek are bryozoan biosparrudite.
Fossils and fragments are abundant, vugs are common.
SOILS
The project area is comprised primarily of Johnston soils (see Figure -t). There are areas of
Baymeade and Urban land complexes. Descriptions of these soils (USDA 1977) are provided
below:
Johnston soils 00) - These strongly acidic, level and very poorly drained soils are found on flood
plains of major streams. The native vegetation of these soils includes pond pine, tupelo-gum, ash,
water oak, cypress, red maple, sweetgum, American cyrilla, waxmyrtle, and gallberry. With a
• moderately high permeability and a high available water capacity, the shrink-swell potential is low.
Baymeade fine sand, 1 to 6 percent slopes (Be) - This soil is well drained and is found on flats and
low ridges that are not subject to flooding. Dominant vegetation is longleaf pine, turkey oak,
• bluejack oak, post oak, dwarf waxmyrtle, dwarf huckleberry, and pineland three-awn. In more
dense areas, the vegetation may include hickory, American holly, red oak, black oak, and bracken.
Permeability of this soil is moderately rapid with a very low available water capacity.
?e
II •
Urban land (Ur) - These are areas where the original soil has been disturbed to such an extent that
it is not recognizable as an existing soil series. Often these are areas that are covered with
pavement or other type of hardened structure.
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.

{rte

L
--
) I7 ill I if l 1 % `}i/ E 13 n a N

E
_ LS
g'..S Yid
??
I j t ;`-?.t 'IJ51i3 ssed
I1.T1pjv
,
? N ??.. +? , ,"_ 1 y ?'?aG, ??7t `' y+•.? fi '`??`?/"A a?c3p r
?`. f? i,L ?1 ? .

E ° m c _m m
_
1
IyI
EvE-o
5 c 2 m m vi 8,

` CO

(3 enl
' r -as f 7 ?o pw? any ??e Ad
?- J
b)J cj
ajj /
J dil Sk" f'a• ? -
, ?
J?QtL.r 4 (
J-.?-
-{`4
N?
,
m € '9 a .?
ro m

!?.,CS n;
Cm tmD o
?
?
?
a
!
I l
t
r

L (3) a
_ k
o 4 Ilod Q? U O
cCZ c /CDi
N VI. 4C? CO c)
-r
CZ cz 0)
Y

v

f
/ C
) m
fn
, j
U) CM C: C
Co

cC? _ CL
Un E
_
._
l
l
I
!St lJ .
1SthS
??'?-??-
I.S1Bt
ft
I? .r_ I I r?r
c
71hS 6thlSt
I T1 ',T I , } } , 1 r 1 • i i?rJ 1?' I 5 yl co h 74
~
3? ?SthSt
?fi y 4 ?" fl 6t?!St', 114,5 Y ,13- IT? I 1 } I I ?.^ `-?- .'. { -

?? '-• -• TI? i[1j?',i1 c!i ?-{ ? N Linco
?_l l 1 -- C, 4- r I ..111 d i -
{?- i I 1 ?4 illy 1
N
.
{ T I_• i{t?jj > C' I ilk rSL 4
rl'? . ? ?5 { I'I Sh;noin alk cl a c
-
?
' + n
- r-J
do o- SL G- I 4 IL ;
i 1C?t ?iyT'ill:.,
r
1--fll? III J- Eli'

J Ur
d
,n
E
r c E
0 0) c

"

'TT
It LI ? t {
- }I r7 I? e 11_.al.-l, It/'j?1 II I?
h I?
'
I

C N
o ar a)
e Q N Q

®? cl
Ytfl+?
4.?,1 ?
?
I
JI,
m d m ro ? ? ro
2 _
Q

a

- U1
i .k I
L k ?i
i ?I
k -
?{'.? a
a
t
-
'p c\ a w o o)

a
l
?
?
Lro
4 } t

.; s°':G',.•jp , .?_ 3'Zl? ,'? EVE
?\\\S
.-
"•
a''`
- $
tog\
-
?
„ ? ?; .?9

a pE'o°

? _ f m
D -:
eny X"93
J ?1rL ` c -8
9
?
?
T
C 32
c cJ aJ 0 8
JQ Jospul
m
z `?M aoc
t nl t

a ??1 90?J
t JQ leluol(
Y
y, v .a t - JQ S J0j ` 0
z
?
0 n '' U) c
O
U
.
\y CL
CC)

c 7
c?c PJO? dS CC M
C p
A - i N - - O<

oa M 'L C
L
p m d -
kwo
ioO

<t c c
CU
CL
U) E
cn cu
{ c
SL
S22n
? r
> 2 `-

0
S
O
? t ? o M ,
N e re -
N
f
?t
N
LL
J^
G?lto?a N
`
a r
GO
l
' J
(? o
S
H 0
g 0th St A, 2
s o _ o, 00

a m o 2
?V 2
S 19th St ??
N
c a a o ?o C z z Q. 9
N
Z S18lhSt
rn d ??
? ? S 18th St , o
J

MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
Baymeade-Urban land complex 1 to 6 percent slopes (Bh) - These soils are found on flats and low
ridges of uplands and in drainage ways that are not subject to flooding. These soils have a very
low available water capacity and a moderately rapid permeability.
WATER QUALITY
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) classifies these streams as Class C; Sw. Class
C means that they are fresh water habitat that supports aquatic life and secondary recreation. It
also indicates that these waters are considered Swamp Waters by the designation of Sw. Water
quality studies done in the Basinwide report indicate that these streams are in poor condition.
Water quality monitoring data for Smith Creek, into which Burnt Mill Creek drains, indicates that
this stream is in poor condition. The following is an excerpt from the Basinwide Assessment
Report: Cape Fear River Basin by DWQ describing water quality:
Smith Creek, 1-40
The lower section of Smith Creek was deep and slow moving, with some estuarine
influences. A wadeable freshwater segment could not be located downstream of 1-40.
Above 1-40, the stream may have been channelized at some time. The stream is
entrenched, with eroding banks and a uniform sand substrate. Land use includes forest and
residential areas. Although this stream is close to Island Creek, it is much different in
character. Island Creek is a braided and highly acidic swamp stream placed in Swamp
Region P, while Smith Creek is a channelized, nearly neutral (pH = 6.3 s.u.) stream placed
in Swamp region B.
e Smith Creek, above 1-40, New Hanover County.
• In spite of good flow and adequate habitat (score = 54), this stream was rated Severe. Total
S (30) and EPT S (1) were well below expected levels and the community was dominated
by facultative and tolerant species. Typical swamp stream species (e.g., orthoclad midges,
• isopods, and amphipods) were absent from this portion of Smith Creek.
0 SPECIAL STUDIES
Burnt Mill Creek
e Burnt Mill Creek was sampled at two locations in the City of Wilmington during 2001 as
part of a Collaborative Assessment of Watershed and Stream projects. The stream is
channelized with very poor habitat and water quality. This stream was consistently rated
• Poor using benthic macroinvertebrate data (Biological Assessment Unit Memorandum 13-
010522). (DWQ 2004)
EXISTING PLANT COMMUNITIES
• Existing plant communities were observed and recorded along Mineral Springs Branch and Burnt
Mill Creek through field investigations occurring in December 2004 and January 2005. The
S locations of the existing communities are presented in Figure 5.
Mineral Springs - Reach 1
The predominant species located within Reach 1 (from Wrightsville Avenue until Confederate
Avenue) are dense stands of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and scattered pond cypress. The
understory consists mostly of Chinese privet, Carolina laurel cherry (Prunus caroliniana) and
greenbrier (smilax rotundifolia). There is little diversity within this reach due to the dominance of
the exotic and invasive species. The stream banks are steep and the channel is incised. Further
upslope, the species variation increases to include wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), loblolly pine
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 7
Two" -7 111,
J \
Z? 1 / ?T m 2
x « s
1
i
N
v
- o
y
MIN ?10c)-
I ?' " JS 1?1 eue tit N O
? -? _ U C_ rr N
\ _o .o U c
CL C
C .?
t
J cn
W L ca
4 a:, o cz
Nei
?S
nci
lw_ t _ C
tool
00
5Q Q
J \? I) L J- ? ? ? y- Ogg i ?? ffi
o
u `t ? o
f- 4 N a 1 ?r? ?l \? i i u
otd°t vu,
,
( r
I ?
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
(Pinus taeda) and long-leaf pine (Pinus palustris). Within these pines, spots of English ivy (Hedra
helix) were observed. On the east side of Mineral Springs Branch, some kudzu (Pueraria lobata)
was identified. Many species of unidentified birds could be found foraging in this reach.
Mineral Springs - Reach 2
The dominant vegetative strata through Reach 2 changes from the shrubs and trees found in Reach
1 to an herbaceous maintained lawn. Some small scattered landscaped patches of trees could be
found in this reach with the dominant species being pond cypress, long-leaf pine, loblolly pine and
sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua). Little to no riparian buffer exists throughout this reach.
Burnt Mill Creek
The vegetative community found on the northern bank of Burnt Mill Creek is similar to that found
on Reach 1 of Mineral Springs Branch. The channel edge is largely dominated by Chinese privet
which is providing good shade along the channel edge. Approximately 10 feet past the privet-
dominated stream banks, the species are more diversified with Carolina laurel cherry, green briar,
pond cypress and bald cypress. Some of the stands of cypress are largely buttressed and line a
paleo-channel. This channel has been landscaped in the past; however, it seems that recent
upkeep has been kept to a minimum. The banks of this channel through the landscaped area are
primarily lined with Chinese privet, grasses, and various wetland sedges.
Plant Community Classification
• The surrounding region of the Burnt Mill Creek and Mineral Springs Branch project site is typical of
the Carolina Flatwoods - Mid Atlantic Coastal Plain ecoregion (Griffith 2002). The closest natural
plant community that the site resembles is the Cypress Gum Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) as
classified by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The Johnston soils that are located at this community
lend the acidity necessary for this subtype. In addition, the predominance of pond cypress versus
bald cypress provides another distinction over the brownwater subtype. Typical plant species
found in this community include:
swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora)
bald cypress (Taxodium distichum)
pond cypress (T. ascendens)
Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana)
red maple (Acer rubrum)
planertree (Planera aquatica)
swamp bay (Persea palustris)
sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana)
parsley hawthorn (Crataegus marshallii)
common buttonbush (Cephalanthus
occidentalis)
swamp titi (Cyrilla racemiflora)
coastal sweetpepperbush (Clethra alnifolia)
fetterbush lyonia (Lyonia lucida)
lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus)
giant sedge (Carex gigantean)
dotted smartweed (Polygonum punctatum)
spadeleaf (Centella asiatica)
whorled marshpennywort (Hydrocotyle prolifera)
threeway sedge (Dulichium arundinaceum)
netted chainfern (Woodwardia areolata)
Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides)
resurrection fern (Polypodium polypodioides)
mistletoe (Phoradendron serotinum).
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
STREAM ASSESSMENT
FIELD METHODS
The following sources of information were utilized: USGS Wilmington 7.5' topographic
quadrangle, field run topographic survey, NWI mapping, NRCS soil survey, Mineral Springs
Feasibility Study (Buck, 2003) and other documents. Field investigations were conducted in
December, 2004 to characterize stream, wetland and riparian buffer conditions. Quantitative and
qualitative investigations conducted on all reaches entailed measurements of hydraulic geometry,
assessments of channel stability, and general observations to identify opportunities for stream
improvements and stormwater BMP's.
Base data in GIS format, including aerial photography, topography, stream locations, and roads
• were initially evaluated. U.S. Geological Survey topographic map, North Carolina Geological
Survey maps, infrastructure maps provided by the City, and historical aerial photography were also
studied. Drainage areas were determined for several potentially key locations throughout the study
• area, and bankfull hydraulic geometry estimated from regional curves.
During ambulatory reconnaissance, qualitative observations were recorded and apparent reach
breaks, identified by changes in channel characteristics such as width, bed form, slope, bank
features, vegetation, and/or bed materials, were marked on field maps. For purposes of this study,
a reach is defined as a discrete segment of stream that consistently exhibits a set of physical
features that appear to be significantly different from the contiguous upstream and downstream
segments.
At each reach, representative hydraulic geometry data were collected according to standard
geologic field methods. (For a more thorough description of stream measurement techniques see
Harrelson et al, 1994.) All elevation data were collected using either a Pentax AFL 240 optical
level or a Topcon RL-H laser level. Newly installed WKD traverse points were typically utilized for
vertical control. Measurements were collected on segments deemed generally representative of
overall reach conditions. Upstream and downstream limits of measured segments were
determined in the field to cover at least ten (10) to twenty (20) times the channel width. The
upstream and downstream limits of measured segments were marked with wooden stakes labeled
with the reach identification. Two or three cross sections were measured at each reach and located
so that data were collected across each type of bedform (e.g. ripples or pools). Rebar was driven
into the ground near the endpoints of each section, and tagged with flagging. Wooden stakes,
labeled with the cross section identifier and station were also installed near the endpoints of each
section. Each reach was classified according to the Rosgen classification system (Rosgen, 1994)
utilizing hydraulic geometry and particle size data.
REACH DESCRIPTIONS
The area analyzed for Mineral Springs Branch began at the Wrightsville Avenue culvert and ended
at the confluence with Burnt Mill Creek. This section was divided into two reaches with the reach
break occurring at the culvert under Confederate Avenue located within the Forest Hills apartment
complex. The portion of Burnt Mill Creek from Colonial Drive downstream to Gibson Avenue was
also analyzed. For measured cross-sections and profiles, see Appendix A.
Mineral Springs - Reach 1
Mineral Springs Branch is a perennial stream with no FEMA regulations. Reach 1 flows in a
northerly direction from a 60 inch RCP under Wrightsville Avenue to a 72 inch CMP at
Confederate Drive and drains 304 acres. Both culverts appear to be in good condition. This reach
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 10
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
is an E5 streamtype having a medium/coarse sand, plane bed channel with relatively flat irregular
features. Bank materials consist of silty sand, and bank heights range from 4 to 6 feet and widths
from 10 to 14 feet. There are several areas where the channel has been impacted by structures.
Approximately 150 feet downstream of Wrightsville Avenue, a failed retaining wall disturbs the
natural flow of the channel and has caused incision. Cross-section 3 (Appendix A) describes the
geometry downstream of this retaining wall. Another feature impacting the reach is a brick wall
that provides grade control and has apparently arrested the incision caused by the retaining wall.
Other features affecting the channel are debris jams located throughout the reach that function as
grade control.
Wetlands were identified within the floodplain along the west side of the channel approximately
600 feet down the reach. This 0.04 acre wetland is not to be affected by the restoration plan.
Riparian buffer for most of this reach extended beyond 50 feet on the west side of the channel and
ranged from 20 to 50 feet on the eastern side. An existing sanitary sewer line parallels the stream
channel for the entire reach andr ?;Y:`,, T_
crosses the stream near the l
x??,? 6 I y
downstream end of the reach. The
proposed sanitary sewer alignment
moves the sewer to the west bank
along the downstream third of the
reach.
An issue that needs to be addressed
• during restoration is the level of trash
that can be found throughout this
reach. There are numerous locations
where waste piles can be found.
These may be historical or illegal
dumping grounds from the tenants of
the apartment complexes in the area.
• In addition to large sized trash, there
is also much litter in the form of cans,
cups and other floating trash.
kAl
.? ?? :. ? _,?? -`'`?., ?; max, ? •?1
"MR7 ALM-1 Another issue for consideration in the upstream section of Reach 1 is the possibility of
contaminated soils in this reach. Several underground storage tanks utilized by the now defunct
business known as Walls Custom Framing, located at 2173 Wrightsville Avenue were removed in
1981 (EDR 2003). Even though no known leakage has occurred, it is feasible that the soils were
contaminated in the surrounding area resulting from the removal of these steel gasoline tanks. The
exact location of these tanks is unknown, so the concern should be addressed solely towards the
property located at 2173 Wrightsville Avenue, which is located on the west bank of Mineral
Springs near the culvert under Wrightsville Avenue. There were 3 tanks located on this property,
two 4000 gallons tanks and one 6000 gallon tank. Each of these tanks contained gasoline. There
are no proposed construction activities located on the subject property. Since there were no
indications of contamination in the surface waters within the Mineral Springs channel such as a
sheen or oily substance, it is believed that any contamination that could have occurred on the site
has not migrated to the mitigation site; however, without further soils testing there is no certainty
that contamination did not occur.
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 11
Upstream view of Mineral Springs Branch - Reach 1
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
Mineral Springs - Reach 2
Reach 2 begins at the outlet of the 72 inch CMP under Confederate Avenue and extends
downstream to the confluence with Burnt Mill Creek. Mineral Springs passes through twin 42
inch RCP's under Gibson Avenue and outfalls at an elevation two feet above the bed of Burnt Mill.
Despite the significant drop at the outfall, both the culverts and the confluence appear to be
physically stable.
portion.
The stream through this reach is a sand bed channel with silty sand bank materials and is an E5
streamtype. Bank heights through the upper segment of the reach range from 6 to 8 feet and 4 to 5
feet towards the downstream end. The banks are fairly steep throughout the upstream half of the
valley, and the high banks ` '7
indicate a moderate to high
degree of entrenchment
through the upper segment. <, •r-
There is also evidence of ,.' Vt i.
benching within this uppers 1 4

The riparian buffer through
this reach is in poor
di
i
A
il ='_.
con
t
on.
pet tra
runs
parallel to the stream along ,
the west bank for nearly 500
d
l
i
f f
i
eet an
severe
y
mpacts _
water quality. Copious
. ,
amounts of dog waste were ?
?'?: `"¢ ' { ' `

observed during various field ,
,
-_"
--
Downstream view of Mineral Springs Branch - Reach 2
visits. There have been
discussions between EEP and the City of Wilmington to relocate the pet trail along the sewer
easement to help lessen water quality impacts. The installation of pet waste receptacles along the
pet trail has also been proposed to further improve water quality.
The buffer along the east bank consists of alternating areas of lawn, parking lots, and apartment
buildings. There are also various utility lines located within the riparian buffer and that cross the
stream. A sanitary sewer runs parallel to the east bank for the majority of the reach. There are
several aerial utility crossings, and a major sewer crossing near the downstream end that restricts
the flow of the channel bed. The channel has diverted baseflow under the 36 inch DIP sewer
crossing approximately 300 feet upstream of the confluence with Burnt Mill.
Burnt Mill Creek
Burnt Mill Creek, a FEMA regulated stream, drains approximately 2.0 mil near the Mineral Springs
• confluence and flows in a westerly direction from Colonial Drive to Gibson Avenue. The
measured reach is classified as an E5 and has a sand, plane bed with bank heights of approximately
7 feet along the south bank and 5 feet along the north bank. Channel widths vary from 23 to 26
feet. There are several areas along the stream bed where rock crops out. Burnt Mill exhibits no
i sinuosity through the project area; a result of historical straightening and dredging. Due to the lack
of sinuosity, large, alternating, vegetated bars have formed within the upper segment of the reach.
Also, small 1 inch long unidentified fish were observed within this reach.
49
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 12
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
Burnt Mill Creek's buffers are
similar in vegetation composition i 1
to Mineral Springs Branch. On
the southern side of the channel, N r
there is no buffer except lawn. °Jf{ '
Gibson Road parallels the stream
for most of this reach. Multiple ;Zoe f
inlets for storm runoff drain into
isolated rip-rap features that line
the southern channel bank. R ??1
Much of the downstream end of
the reach has artificially hardened
bed and banks (fabriform). A>
sanitary sewer pump station is Upstream view of Burnt Mill Creek
located near the confluence of
Burnt Mill Creek with Mineral Springs Branch. Along the south bank of Burnt Mill, there is little
vegetation aside from alternating sections of grass or an herbaceous layer, and Gibson Avenue runs
along the top of bank for nearly 540 feet. South of the road (approximately 35 to 60 feet from the
channel edge), tall stands of individual pond cypress trees can be found amid a maintained lawn.
• MACRO-BENTHIC HABITAT
• Benthic macro in vertebrates at Mineral Spring Branch in Wilmington, North Carolina were sampled
in February 2005. One sampling site was established in the wooded portion of Mineral Springs
Branch between Wrightsville Avenue and Confederate Drive (Site 1) and one sampling site was
e established in the grass-bound portion between Confederate Drive and Burnt Mill Creek (Site 2).
In-stream and adjacent habitat differences between these two reaches were detailed using the
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheets. Biologists referred to the Interim, Internal Technical Guide:
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Protocols for Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects,
• NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 401/Wetland Unit, dated December, 2001, for sampling
and analysis guidance.
Tables 2 and 3 summarize the benthic macroinvertebrates sampled from each reach. The first four
columns denote the taxonomic identification. Abundance categories are as follows: Rare - 2 or
fewer individuals of that taxa were collected; Common - 3 to 9 individuals were collected;
Abundant - 10 or more individuals were collected. Tolerance Values (T.V.) for each taxa were
obtained from the Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Maro invertebrates (NCDWQ, July
2003). The assigned T.V. represents a taxa's tolerance (or intolerance) to pollution with 10 being
the most tolerant and 0 being the least tolerant. The Functional Feeding Group designation
classifies taxa according to how they acquire and process organic matter which in turn indicates
the type and size of the food items available. Table 4 provides a summary of the overall Benthic
Macro invertebrate Analysis.
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 13
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
Table 2 - Benthic Macroinvertebrates Samnled from Mineral Sprints Branch Site 1

Order
Family
Genus
Species Abundance
Abundant
Common
Rare
T v
Functional Feeding
Group
Ephemeroptera Tricorythidae Leptohyphes sp. C 5.1 gatherer/collector
Trichoptera Hydropsychidae - - A 4 filterer/collector
Diptera Chronomidae - - R - filterer/collector
Odonata Aeshnidae Gornphaeschna sp. R 6 predator
Oligochaeta Tubificidae - - C 7.1 gatherer/collector
Amphipoda Gammaridae Gammarus sp. C 9.1 shredder
Decapoda Cambaridae Procambarus sp. R 9.49 gatherer/collector
Basommatophora Lymnaeidae Stagnicola sp. R 8.22 scraper
-1_l- __ n,..., 1.:,. ??...-......,...?.,1.. ??..? c-1...! 1- A:4innr,1 Cn , c nrin,k ran 7

Order
Family
Genus
Species Abundance
Abundant
Common
Rare
T v
Functional Feeding
Group
Trichoptera Hydropsychidae - - A 4 filterer/collector
Trichoptera Glossosomatidae - - A - scraper
Diptera Chronomidae - - C - filterer/collector
Diptera Tipulidae Tipula sp. R 7.7 shredder
Coleoptera Psephenidae Psephenus herricki C 2.4 scraper
Odonata (Zygoptera) - - - R - predator
Oligochaeta Tubificidae - - A 7.1 gatherer/collector
Amphipoda Gammaridae Gammarus sp. A 9.1 shredder
Decapoda Cambaridae Procambarus sp. R 9.49 gatherer/collector
Tricladida Planariidae Dugesia tigrina R 7.5 gatherer/collector
Table 4 - Overall Benthic Macroinvertebrate Analvsis

Site
SI
EPT S' (%)
NCBI3
Bio-
classification Functional Feeding Group'
of taxi) Functional Feeding Group
(% of Relative Abundances')
GC FC SH SC P GC FC SH SC P
1 8 25°6 9.78 Poor 37 % 25"6 13 .6 13% 13% 30°6 48"6 13% 4-11. 4%
2 10 20 6.5 Fair 22°6 22% 22% 22"' 11 % 24`16 26% 22% 26% 2%
Overall 13 23 % 9.25 Poor 33% 22`70 16% 16% 11 % 26 % 33'16 19% 19.11. 3 %
' S - Total Taxa Richness
z EPT S - Taxa Richness within Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (pollution-sensitive families)
' NCBI - North Carolina Biotic Index
a According to NCDWQ criteria
' Functional Feeding Group - Gatherer/Collector (GC), Filterer/Collector (FC), Shredder (SH), Scraper (SC), Predator (P)
' Relative abundance values are assigned as follows: Rare (1 to 2 individuals) is assigned a volue of 1; Common (3 to 9
individuals) is assigned a value of 3; Abundant (- 10 individuals) is assigned a value of 10.
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 14
•
0
•
0
'o
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
from Sites 1 and 2. Pollution-sensitive EPT families make up
1 and 20% of the families sampled at Site 2. The NC Biotic
Bioclassification of Poor. Site 2 has a Biotic Index of 6.5,
• A total of 13 families were sampled
25% of the families sampled at Site
o Index for Site 1 is 9.78 indicating
• indicating a bioclassification of Fair.
Gatherer/Collectors and filter/collectors are the dominant Functional Feeding Group at the family
level (37%) and the individual level (48%) respectively at Site 1. At Site 2, these groups are
generally equally distributed and together make up approximately half of the families and
individuals sampled. Gatherer/Collectors consume fine and ultra-fine particulate organic matter
found on the stream substrate. Filterer/Collectors consume organic matter suspended in the water
column. Filterer-dominated communities are often found downstream of a particulate-producing
pollution source. Shredders are the dominant feeding group in low order streams where the main
food sources is comprised of coarse particulate organic matter (i.e., animal carcasses, leaves,
needles, and woody debris). This group makes up a smaller percentage than expected of the
families and individuals present in the forested reach of Site 1 (13% of each). Scrapers are also
underrepresented at only 4% of the individuals sampled. In the open reach, shredders and
scrapers are generally equally distributed and together make up approximately half of the families
and individuals sample. Shredders and scrapers are considered to be more sensitive to
environmental disturbances because they exhibit the highest level of feeding specialization,
whereas filterer/collectors and gatherer/collectors exhibit generalist feeding habits and are therefore
more tolerant to disturbances. Predators feed on living animal tissue and are present in low
numbers at both sites. Predator populations are generally low in low order streams due to the low
numbers of prey items available.
• The low number of families (especially EPT) present, the high NC Biotic Index values, the
• dominance of the disturbance-tolerant feeding groups over the disturbance-sensitive groups, and an
overall Bioclassification of Poor indicate that this reach of Mineral Springs Branch is highly
degraded.
THREATENED/ENDANGERED SPECIES
A search of the Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database indicated that no occurrences of
threatened or endangered species have been found in the project area. A state species of concern,
the Bluefin Killifish (Lucania goodei), has been found within the Burnt Mill Creek waters. This
species is grayish white in color has a black lateral stripe. Adult size ranges between 16 to 42 mm
and is more commonly found in Florida and Alabama. The population located on Burnt Mill Creek
is considered isolated and is the only known population to have been found in North Carolina. It
is disputed whether this population is a remnant from a historically wider range or if the species
has been introduced from an aquarium collection. Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General
Statutes of the State of North Carolina in 1987 protects this species as "Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Wildlife Species of Concern". The current extent of this population is unknown due
to pollution that occurred in 1994. The population apparently does well in the considerable
current (when compared to other coastal plain streams) that is available in Burnt Mill Creek (NHP
2005). It is undetermined if the species of fish that was observed in Burnt Mill Creek during field
investigations was this particular species.
Species that are listed as federally threatened or endangered within New Hanover County (see
Appendix B) include several species that are only found in marine environments, and therefore,
were not considered for this project. These include the green sea turtle, the loggerhead sea turtle,
the West Indian manatee, the piping plover, and the shortnose sturgeon. In addition, the seabeach
amaranth was not included in our searches. Species including the red-cockaded woodpecker,
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 15
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
Cooley's meadow rue, and rough-leaved loosestrife were evaluated and determined that
appropriate habitat was not available, thereby excluding them from any searches.
HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
A letter was sent to the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic
Preservation Office on December 29, 2004 requesting a review of the project site. The review
resulted in no findings of historic resources that would be affected by the project and therefore
there are no comments pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for compliance with Section 106 codified
at 36 CFR Part 800. See Appendix C for a copy of the letter of no findings.
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 16
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
DESIGN ANALYSIS
DESIGN OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of the proposed enhancement and restoration practices is to maximize
improvements to riparian and aquatic habitat while overcoming the challenges presented by
urbanization. However, the design must also focus on flood capacity. Proposed stream
improvements should in no way retard flood conveyance or increase water surface elevations
during design storm events. Rather, the recommended stream modifications were developed to
provide both geomorphically stable in-stream habitats and increased capacity for low recurrence
interval (<QsvR) events. The conceptual designs presented herein seek to re-establish habitat
diversity in the channels by restoring meander geometry and ripple-pool sequences. It is also
recommended that native vegetation be planted across all areas disturbed by construction and on
any other contiguous lands available.
DESIGN CONSTRAINTS
• There are a number of design constraints throughout the Mineral Springs and Burnt Mill Creek
project area. These constraints include urban infrastructure, apartment buildings, pet trails, natural
topography and government regulations. The infrastructure includes existing and proposed
sanitary sewer lines, a pump station, water lines and existing roads. The apartments and sewer
• lines that currently parallel the top of banks significantly limit the potential for adding meander
patterns. The steep side slopes, proximity to buildings, and pet trail along Minerals Springs Reach
2 confine enhancement opportunities to a narrow corridor along the existing channel. Finally, the
• FEMA regulations that preside over Burnt Mill Creek restrict the potential to raise the streambed
• due to the possibility of more frequent flooding. These constraints were considered in the design
of the proposed channel improvements.
• APPROACH
There are basically three approaches that have demonstrated success in stream restoration: analog,
empirical, and analytical. All three approaches have advantages and limitations, and it is often best
to utilize more than one approach to address site-specific conditions or to verify fitness of design
elements. This is particularly true in developed watersheds, where existing conditions do not
always reflect current inputs and events, and sediment and hydrologic inputs may remain unstable
for some time to come. To develop stream improvement designs along Mineral Springs, a
• combination of analytical methods and the empirical (reference reach and regional curves)
approach were employed. The analog method was not utilized because no suitable analogs were
found during field investigations.
Empirical design is based on regional mathematical relationships among measured channel
variables. Such relationships, commonly referred to as regional curves, have been published by
the Stream Restoration Institute (SRI) at NC State University, including curves for rural streams in
the Coastal Plain region. The SRI regional relations were calculated for design reaches along
Mineral Springs Branch, but did not provide meaningful numbers since the stream is located within
an almost fully developed urban watershed.
The Rosgen approach is the most popular empirical technique and is based on reference reach
analysis of a classified stream. A limited application of this approach was performed along Reach 1
of Mineral Springs. NCDOT provides access to a reasonably large database through their website
consisting of reference reach data summaries for streams measured across North Carolina by
various firms and agencies (NCDOT, 2005). Data from twenty-four reference reach sites within
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 17
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
the Coastal Plain were obtained and analyzed for the project. No field verification was performed,
but since the reference reaches had been used on projects that were scrutinized by several state,
federal and local government entities, they were deemed sufficiently reliable for conceptual work.
Reference reach data used for the Hewlett's Creek Stream Restoration Plan in Wilmington, NC
were also obtained and analyzed for the project (NCSU, 2004)
Analytical design is based on principles and processes considered to be universal to all streams,
and can entail many traditional engineering techniques. The analytical approach utilizes
continuity, roughness equations, hydrologic and hydraulic models, and sediment transport
functions to derive equilibrium conditions. Since the project is located within an urban watershed,
restoration designs for stream improvements are based on hydrologic and hydraulic analyses,
including rainfall-runoff models of proposed conditions coupled with reference reach techniques.
Since no specific reference reaches were directly applied to channel design, an alternate approach
• was taken for proposed plant communities. Plant lists for the coastal plain were obtained from
various commercial and agency sources. Native plant species known to do well within urban
environments were selected for the planting plan.
METHODS
A combination of the empirical and analytical approaches to restoration was utilized to design
improvements for Reach 1 of Mineral Springs. The aforementioned reference reaches were
narrowed down to a total of eight based largely on slope and particle size distribution. The
selected reaches were used to determine preliminary hydraulic geometry and planform
characteristics for the proposed channel (see Appendix D). The reference reaches were used
primarily to identify initial width:depth ratios for design sections and for dimensionless ratios that
relate planform geometry to channel width. Proposed channel widths and depths were developed
using the analytical methods for design discharge described below.
Urban channels are subject to a broad range of flows capable of moving large quantities of
sediment. The conventional implications of "bankfull" discharge often do not apply to such
streams, and because watershed response to development may be on-going, channel design based
on the bankfull discharge may not provide durable solutions. An analytical technique that has
been successfully applied on many urban streams is to identify a design discharge or set of
discharges to meet project objectives.
Several methods were used to conduct hydrologic analyses of the watershed to identify and
validate the design flows for Mineral Springs. Appropriate channel geometry to convey those flows
at "bankfull" stage was calculated using width:depth ratios from the respective reference reaches as
input for roughness and discharge equations. An iterative process was then followed whereby
various planforms were developed and the resultant slopes incorporated into relative roughness
and shear velocity calculations, which were then solved for mean velocity and checked for
capacity of the design discharge.
Design Discharge
To develop the design discharges for each reach, peak flows were estimated using the following
methods:
USACE HEC-1 computer model and SCS hydrology;
XP-SWMM computer model;
WKD surveyed bankfull indicators;
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 18
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
Comparison to other WKD hydrologic studies;
NC regional curves;
USGS regional regression equations for urban and rural conditions in the Coastal Plain;
Rational method;
Flood Frequency Analysis.
A single basin HEC-1 hydrologic analysis with SCS methodologies and a multiple basin XP-SWMM
• model were prepared for the Mineral Springs watershed. These models used a City of Wilmington
distribution and both 6- and 24-hour duration synthetic rainfall events. An SCS Type II distribution
was used to estimate the peak flows for the 1- and 2-year flood events since bankfull events are
• assumed to have a recurrence interval close to the 2-year event. Results from the SWMM models
were compared to two other urban studies WKD has performed in Wilmington by converting
discharges to ft'/s per acre.
USGS annual peak series data was used to perform a flood-frequency analysis on gages in the
coastal plain as a means to estimate bankfull flows in the Mineral Springs/Burnt Mill project area.
Data were obtained for twelve gage stations located in within the Coastal Plain and having
drainage areas smaller than 10.0 mi'. Flood-frequency curves were developed for each gage and
combined into one curve using the maximum annual peak discharge data for the gage stations.
The individual flood-frequency curves were subsequently used to create a curve relating drainage
area to the mean annual flood. Commensurate discharges for specific points throughout the
watershed were thus calculated using the combined flood flood-frequency curve and the graph
relating drainage area to the mean annual flood. However, since all the gages were located in
rural areas, the results proved to be much lower than the discharges calculated from the computer
models for the subject urban streams.
In addition to channel dimensions and stability, two reference reaches were evaluated on site for
use as habitat analogs. The two sites evaluated were RR #26 (Bullard Branch at Kelly Road, Duplin
• County) and RR #29 (Kellys Creek at Little Kelly Road, Pender County). Habitat features noted in
the field included large woody debris, coarse woody debris, overhanging roots, and fine roots
along the edge of water. Attempts to mimic these habitat features have been incorporated into the
• design plans. Techniques include using log structures, "kerfing" logs to create microhabitat, brush
wattles placed adjacent to the channel, and plantings and live stakes placed at or near the waters
edge to encourage overhanging vegetation and roots.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Comparisons were made to the flows generated using the different analytical methodologies in an
effort to identify significant flows. The flows calculated using the HEC-1 and XP-SWMM computer
models are based on a simulation of actual watershed conditions with estimated times of
concentration, runoff coefficients, and effects of routing in channels and pipes. A detailed
summary of the findings from this analysis has been presented in Table 5. The following is a
summary of the hydrologic analysis:
Discharges between the 1-year and 2-year frequency, 24-hour duration peak flows (QI-24n,
and Qz-zanr) generated using XP-SWMM best unifies a range of significant discharges,
supported by the comparison to previous WKD studies and existing conditions.
The regional curves and flood frequency analysis significantly underestimated channel
forming discharges as the two methods represent rural land uses as opposed to urban.
140 cfs was selected as the design discharge for Reach 1 of Mineral Springs Branch.
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 19
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
T,kI. z _ n..;- rlic k-. Cirmm-irv
Mineral Springs Branch DA = 320 ac
s - 0.005 ft/ft
CN - 65
SRI Regional Curve HEC-1 (single basin)
Rural Abkf = 9.2 ft2 Q100 - 135 ft3/s
Rural Q = 10 ft3/s QI(24hr) - 118 ft'/5
Q2(6hr) = 187 ft3/s 0.58 cfs/ac
Rational Q2(24hr) - 213 ft3/s 0.67 cfs/ac
Q2 = 359 ft'/s
Flood Freq Analy (USGS gage data) SWNIM
Rural Q1 - 32 ft3/s 0.10 cfs/ac Q2, 24hr (one basin) =
240 ft3/s 0.75
efs/ae
Rural Q2 = 52 ft;/s 0.16 cfs/ac Q2, 24111 (9 basins) = 183 ft3/s 0.57 cfs/ac
Rural Q2.3 = 73 ft3/s 0.23 cfs/ac Q 1, 24hr (9 basins) = 126 ft3/s 0.39 cfs/ac
Q10, 24hr (9 basins) = 307 ft3/S 0.96 cfs/ac
USGS Regional Regression
Rural Q2 - 45 ft3/s 0.14 cfs/ac
Urban Q2 - 205 ft3/s 0.64 cfs/ac

2-yR Mineral Springs Q2 (cfs) using
USGS gage data DA Q2 cfs/ac cfs/ac
Hewlett's creek 1267 282 0.22 71
Landuse - 40% woods, 450 o 1/2-1/3 ac Residential, 15n/o golf course - > CN: 44 (Assu ming A soils)
Weighted Mineral Springs Q2 (cfs) using
SWMM DA Q2 CN cfs/ac cfs/ac
Riley's Branch 276 104 68 0.38 121
Lion's Gate 169 138 83 0.82 261
Bankfull Discharge Mineral Springs Q 2 (cfs)
USGS gage data DA s ABKF (ft2) QBKF cfs/ac using cfs/ac
Hewlett's creek (Pine Valley) 1267 0 30 104 0.08 26

Conclusions
1. Very significant correlation between the HEC-1 Q2(24hr) and the USGS RR Urban Q2
2. Pine Valley bankfull discharge appears low in comparison with Mineral Springs (difference in landuse)
3. Riley's Branch channel gradient is relatively flat (approx 0.002 ft/ft)
4. Lion's Gate matches well with the Mineral Springs results adjusting for CN
5. Use Design Discharge of 140 cfs
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 20
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
RESTORATION PLAN
A variety of potential restoration and enhancement practices were identified for the Burnt Mill
Creek and Mineral Springs Branch project area. Many of the reaches evaluated lack sinuosity, are
slightly incised, have poor riparian vegetation, and have excessive invasive/exotic species
populations or a combination of these characteristics. These reaches provide restoration
opportunities in the form of stream restoration or enhancement.
Stream restoration is proposed for Reach 1 of Mineral Springs Branch The proposed restoration
was designed to provide for stable cross-sectional geometry, an increase in planform sinuosity, and
restoration of ripple-pool sequences and other stream bed diversity to improve benthic habitat.
The proposed design will allow flows that exceed the design bankfull stage to spread out over the
floodplain. The design layout crosses the existing channel in several locations, and some segments
of the restoration consist of hydraulic geometry modifications to the existing channel.
The proposed layout and buffer restoration for Reach 1 is limited by both structural and
topographic constraints. For approximately 100 feet at the upstream end, buffer extension on the
western side would be difficult due to the proximity of the apartments. In addition, the steep grade
of the bank on this side would result in large amounts of cut for restoration practices. The
restoration effort on the east side is further hindered by an existing sanitary sewer line that parallels
the stream channel for the entire reach and crosses the stream near the downstream end. The
proposed sanitary sewer alignment moves the sewer to the west bank along the downstream third
of the reach. A sinuous pattern that minimizes and/or avoids impacts to the listed constraints is
provided in Appendix E.
is Bank stabilization activities categorized as Enhancement Level II and buffer improvements are
proposed for Mineral Springs Reach 2 and along Burnt Mill Creek. The close proximity to the
sanitary sewer, parking lots, roads, and other structures prevents significant planform restoration
along these segments. Proposed bank stabilization practices include cutting benches, laying back
banks, and constructing encapsulated soil lifts to maximize flood capacity and to reduce channel
stresses. The addition of woody debris as log toes and wattles are also proposed along Reach 1 as
in-stream habitat enhancements. See Appendix E for proposed stabilization cross-sections.
As presently envisioned, most of the existing stream will be filled using material excavated from the
restoration channel. Native material revetments shall be installed as needed to protect banks and
restore habitat. Forested riparian buffers shall be established within the proposed conservation
easement. An appropriate riparian plant community will be established to include multiple strata
and a diverse mix of species.
A combination of analytical and reference reach techniques were used to develop design
parameters for stream improvements along Reach 1 of Mineral Springs Branch. A table presenting
morphological characteristics for the existing and design reaches is located in Table 6 on the
following page.
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 21
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
1x_&11- R _ "..... Li. 1.... Ins 1 7- kf-
EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED DESIGN

Parameter Mineral Springs Mineral Springs Burnt Mill
Reach 1 Reach 2 Mineral Springs
Reach 1
Stream Type E5 B5c E5 E5
Draina a Areas mi 0.48 0.50 1.98 0.48
Bankfull Xsec Area, Abkf s ft 30.1 33.6 77.3 30.4
Bankfull Width, Wbkf ft 13.2 17.8 26.8 16
Bankfull W/D 5.7 9.4 9.2 9.0
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 2.3 1.9 2.9 1.9
Bankfull Max Depth, Dmax ft 2.5 3.1 3.8 2.3
Avg Dmax:Dbkf 1.1 1.6 1.3 1.2
Velocity u (fps) 4.5 4.3 5.5 4.6
Discharge 135 143 425 140
Entrenchment Ratio Entr 3.8 1.7 2.2 3.1
Min Meander Length, Lm ft ---- ------ --- 105
Max Meander Length, Lm ft ----- --- -- 125
Meander Length, Lm ft ------- ---- ----- 115
Min Meander Len Ratio, Lm/Wbkf ------ ----- --- 6.6
Max Meander Len Ratio, Lm/Wbkf 7,8
Meander Len Ratio, Lm/Wbkf 7.2
Min Radius of Curvature, Rc ft ----- ------- ------ 14.0
Max Radius of Curvature, Rc ft ------- 35.2
Radius of Curvature, Rc ft 31
Min Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf ------ ------ ----- 0.9
Max Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf ------- ---- --- ----- 2.2
Avg Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf ------ ---- --- 1.9
Min Belt Width, Wblt ft -- ----- --- 26
Max Belt Width, Wblt ft - ------ -- 53
Av Belt Width, Wblt ft --- --- -- 40
Min MW Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf ft ------ --- 1.6
Max MW Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf ft ------ ----- - 3.3
MW Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf ft ---- ----- 2.5
Sinuosity, K 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.13
Valle Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.005 0.009 0.0008 0.005
WS Sloe 0.0018 0.0017 0.0007 0.0043
Channel Slope, Schan=Sval/K ft/ft 0.0018 0.0017 0.0007 0.0043
Av Pool Depth, D pool (ft) 3.1 3.1 4.8 3.0
Avg Pool Depth Ratio, D ool/Dbkf 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.6
Avg Pool Width, W pool (ft) 14.8 13.8 26.8 16.0
Avg Pool Wid Ratio, W ool/Wbkf 1.1 0.8 1.0 1.0
Min Len th Pool Spacing, L s (ft) 48 37 46 52
Max Length Pool Spacing, L s (ft) 106 61 135 63
Avg Length Pool Spacing, L s ft 77.0 49.0 90.5 58
Min Pool Spacing Ratio, L s/Wbkf 3.2 2.7 1.7 3.3
Max Pool Spacing Ratio, L s/Wbkf 7.2 4.4 5.0 3.9
Av Pool Spacing Ratio, L s/Wbkf 5.2 3.6 3.4 3.6
Channel Particle Sizes (mm):
D16 0.26 0.26 0.32 0.26
D35 0.34 0.34 0.4 0.34
D50 0.41 0.41 0.53 0.41
D84 0.78 0.78 0.79 0.78
D95 1 1 1.21 1
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 22
e
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
• TYPICAL DESIGN SECTIONS
Typical cross sections for ripples and pools are shown on the design plan sheets in Appendix E.
Two types of typical pool sections were developed to account for pools located on left or right
meander bends. Typical cross sections at ripples were designed using an in-house spreadsheet
• based on Manning's equation and were sized to convey the design discharge. Channel dimensions
were adjusted based on the results of SAMwin, a computer model used to verify a stable channel
design. A detailed description of SAMwin is provided later in the report.
TIE TO EXISTING TIE TO
GRADE GRADE
5' To 19 51 TO 10'
MINIMUM MINIIv1UM
:5
16Q
1 QJ _-_____-__ BANKFULL ELEVATION _____1.P
7Q
TYPICAL RIPPLE DESIGN SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
25
1 F
TYPICAL MEANDER PATTERN
The plans showing the design channel alignment are provided in Appendix E. The design meander
pattern was developed using dimensionless ratios obtained from the reference reaches. The
resulting planform utilizes some existing channel features and creates additional meander bends
while maintaining appropriate distances from sanitary sewer and existing structure constraints.
0 LONGITUDINAL PROFILES
• The design profile for Mineral Springs is shown in Appendix E. This profile extends throughout
. Reach 1 for the proposed conditions channel alignment. The profiles were designed to re-establish
a ripple-pool sequence to the stream; however, sand bed channels are inherently dynamic. Dune
calculations were performed resulting in dune heights of 0.25 feet. Channel dimensions were
• adjusted to reflect these numbers. Log structures will be utilized in the design to control grade,
divert flows, and provide additional habitat diversity and stability.
RIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATION
Two riparian buffer planting areas are identified: the flat, reconnected floodplain, and the adjacent
hillslopes. In addition, Reach 2 plantings are designed with fewer tree species to maintain sight
distances from the adjacent apartment complex. After channel construction, riparian buffers shall
be ripped to a depth of at least 1.5 feet and/or subsoiled to ameliorate soil compaction caused by
construction. The floodplain and upland shrub species shall be planted on a 10' x 10' spacing to
establish 435 shrubs per acre. The floodplain and upland tree species shall be planted on a 20' x
20' spacing to establish 108 trees per acre along Reach 1 and Burnt Mill Creek. The floodplain
and upland tree species shall be planted on a 40' x 40' spacing to establish 27 trees per acre along
Reach 2. Riparian habitat plantings will be augmented with transplants, cutting bundles and live
stakes installed for stream bank stability. A wetland stabilization seed mix will be applied to all
disturbed areas to stabilize disturbed soil and encourage growth of native herbaceous species.
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 23
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
Due to the urban nature of the project area, steep side slopes, and height restrictions on Reach 2 it
was not possible to utilize a reference site for vegetative communities. The Zone 1 floodplain
bench is patterned after a coastal plain small stream swamp (Schafale 1990). The side slopes and
adjacent uplands are patterned after a coastal plain basic mesic forest (Schafale 1990).
In addition to plantings, buffer restoration along Burnt Mill Creek includes the eradication of
invasive species, primarily Chinese privet, along the north bank. The method of removal shall
involve both mechanical and chemical techniques. All privet shall be cut down and removed by
hand and a cut stem herbicide treatment applied per label instructions.
Tahln 7. Rnarh 1 and Rurnt MiII C'rnnk Planting Plan
Common Name Scientific Name Zone Spacing Percent Composition
green ash Fraxinus enns Ivanics 1 3000 25 (1 al container)
to alder Alnus serrulata 1 3000 25 (1 al container)
swam chestnut oak Quercus michauxii 1 3000 25 (1 al container)
water oak Quercus ni ra 1 3000 25 (1 al container)

red chokeber Aronia arbutifolia 1 and 2 1000 20 (tubelin )
possum haw Viburnum nudum 1 and 2 10x10 20 (tubelin )
Eastern baccharis Baccharis hallmifolia 1 and 2 10x10 20 (tubelin )
wax myrtle M rica cerifera 1 and 2 10x10 20 (tubelin )
dwarf sumac Rhus co allina 1 and 2 10x10 20 (tubelin )

American elm Ulmus americans 2 3000 25 (1 al container)
southern red oak Quercus falcata 2 3000 25 (1 al container)
white oak Quercus alba 2 3000 25 (1 al container)
black cherry Prunus serotina 2 3000 25 (1 al container)
Tnhla R _ Roark 7 Planting Plan
Common Name Scientific Name Zone Spacing Percent Composition
silk dogwood Cornus amomum 1 40x40 25 (1 al container)
to alder Alnus serrulata 1 40x40 25 (1 al container)
green ash Fraxinus enns Ivanics 1 40x40 25 (1 al container)
water oak Quercus ni ra 1 40x40 25 (1 al container)

red chokeber Aronia arbutifolia 1 and 2 10x10 20 (tubelin )
possum haw Viburnum nudum 1 and 2 10x10 20 (tubelin )
Eastern baccharis Baccharis hallmifolia 1 and 2 10x10 20 (tubelin )
wax myrtle h1 rica cerifera 1 and 2 10x10 20 (tubelin )
dwarf sumac Rhus co allina 1 and 2 10x10 20 (tubelin )

American elm Ulmus americans 2 40x40 25 (1 al container)
southern red oak Quercus falcata 2 40x40 25 (1 al container)
white oak Quercus alba 2 40x40 25 (1 al container)
black cherry Prunus serotina 2 40x40 25 (1 al container)
SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS
A sediment transport analysis was performed to ensure that the restoration design creates a stable
sand bed channel that neither aggrades nor degrades over time. Various stable channel design
functions relating channel dimension, slope, and materials were utilized to calculate appropriate
cross-section dimensions to ensure competency.
Sediment transport is typically assessed to determine a stream's ability to move a specific grain size
at a given flow. Methods include analysis of shear stress, tractive force, and critical dimensionless
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 24
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
shear stress. While the corresponding equations are important in estimating entrainment for gravel
bed streams, the equations are not as effectively applied to sand bed channels in which all particles
are mobile during bankfull flows. The following methods and functions were considered during
the sediment transport analysis:
Stable channel Analytical Model (SAMwin) - Copeland Method
Shear stress
Velocity
SAMwin (Copeland Method)
Initial cross-section dimensions were evaluated using the stable channel design functions within
the SAMwin Model (Version 1.0). These functions are based upon the methods used in the SAM
Hydraulic Design Package for Channels developed by the USACE Waterways Experiment Station.
The Copeland Method was developed specifically for sand bed channels (median grain size
restriction of 0.0625 mm to 2 mm), and was therefore selected for application at the Mineral
Springs site. The method sizes stable dimensions as a function of slope, discharge, roughness, side
slope, bed material gradation, and the inflowing sediment discharge. Results are presented as a
range of widths and slopes, and their unique solution for depth, making it easy to adjust channel
dimensions to achieve stable channel configurations (see Appendix F). See Table 8 below for the
SAMwin output.
Table 9 - SAMwin Stable Channel Design Output
Reach Bottom Width (ft) Depth (ft) Slope (ft/tt) Shear SZress
(Ib/ft )
Mineral Springs Reach 1 14 1.9 0.004 0.49
Velocity Approach
Published data are readily available that provide entrainment velocities for different bed and bank
materials. A comparison of calculated velocities to these permissible velocities is a simple method
to help verify channel stability. The following table compares the proposed velocities calculated
using Manning's equation with the allowable velocities presented in the USACE's Hydraulic
Design of Flood Control Channels manual (USACE, 1991). Results of sieve analyses determined
that Mineral Springs has a bed composed of medium to coarse grain sand.
Table 10 - Comparison of Proposed and Allowable Velocities
f *Allowable Velocity (ft/s)
Reach Design Velocity (ft/s)
ine sand coarse sand
Mineral Springs Reach 1 4.6 2.0 4.0
*(USACE, 1991)
Shear Stress Approach
Shear stress is commonly used as a tool for assessing channel stability. Allowable channel shear
stresses are a function of bed slope, channel shape, flows, bed material (shape, size and gradation),
cohesiveness of bank materials and vegetative cover. The shear stress approach compares
calculated shear stresses to those found in the literature. Shear stress is the force exerted on a
boundary during the resistance of motion as calculated using the following formula:
z=yRS
T = shear stress (Ib/ft')
(1)
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 25
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
y = specific gravity of water (62.4 lb/ft')
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
S = average channel slope (ft/ft)
Table 11 - Comparison of Proposed and Allowable Shear Stresses
Proposed Shear Stress at *Sand/Silt/Clay **Vegetation
Reach Bankfull Stage (lb/R2) (Ib/ft') (Ib/ftz)
Mineral Springs Reach 1 0.42 0.4 to 2.5 0.32 to 0.43
*(Chow 1959)
** (Fischenich, 2001)
Review of the above table shows that the proposed shear stresses for Mineral Springs fall within the
allowable limits. In localized areas of high or excessive shear stresses along the tributaries,
additional protection will be provided in the form of structures and/or vegetation.
CONCLUSION
The primary goal of this project is to maximize potential restoration and enhancement practices for
the improvement of riparian and aquatic habitats and water quality. Most of the reaches analyzed
exhibited degraded conditions characterized by one or more of the following: incision, poor
riparian habitat, no sinuosity, and/or invasive and exotic species. As a result, various opportunities
for stream restoration and stabilization and buffer enhancement were identified along Mineral
Springs Branch and Burnt Mill Creek.
Stream restoration is proposed along Reach 1 of Mineral Springs for 1189 linear feet. The
proposed design establishes a sinuous pattern, stable cross-sectional geometry, and bed diversity
for improved habitat. The numerous structural and topographic constraints along Reach 2 of
Mineral Springs and Burnt Mill prevent full restoration; however, Enhancement Level II
improvements are proposed for segments along both streams. Proposed enhancement techniques
include laying back banks, cutting floodplain benches, and constructing encapsulated soil lifts.
These techniques are proposed for 475 and 585 linear feet along the west and east banks
respectively for Reach 2 and for 550 linear feet along the south bank of Burnt Mill.
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 26
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
SUCCESS CRITERIA COMPONENTS
MONITORING LEVEL 1
Monitoring Level 1 will apply to the restoration proposed along Mineral Springs Reach 1.
Bankfull Events
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the 5-year monitoring period. The two
bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until
two bankfull events have been documented in separate years.
• Cross Sections
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 (for
• example down-cutting or erosion) or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for
example settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio).
All monitored cross-sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of
• the design stream type.
Longitudinal Profiles
The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features remain generally stable, e.g. they
• are not aggrading or degrading. The pools should remain deep and the riffles should remain
shallower than the pools. Bedforms observed should be consistent with those observed for
channels of the design stream type. However, since Minerals Springs Branch is a sand bed
• channel, all bedforms are expected to be dynamic.
Stream Vegetative Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffer on the site will
• be based on the recommendations found in the EEP Technical Note and correspondence from
review agencies on mitigation sites recently approved. The final vegetative success criteria will be
the survival of 260 5-year old planted trees, shrubs or woody stems per acre at the end of year five
• of the monitoring period.
Up to 20 percent of the site species composition may be comprised of volunteers. Remedial action
may be required should these species present a problem and exceed the 20 percent composition.
Beneficial species regeneration should be noted within the monitoring reports.
Photo Reference Stations
• Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank
erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal
photos should not indicate the absences of developing bars within the channel or an excessive
increase in channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing
degradation of the banks over time. A series of photos over time should indicate successional
maturation of riparian vegetation.
•
Stream Restoration Monitoring
Bankfull Events
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of
a crest gauges and photographs. The crest gauge will record the highest watermark between site
visits, and the gauge will be checked each time there is a site visit to determine if a bankfull event
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 27
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
has occurred. Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment
deposition on the floodplain during monitoring site visits.
Cross Sections
Two permanent cross-sections will be installed per 1,000 linear feet of stream restoration work,
with one located at a riffle cross-section and one located at a pool cross-section. Each cross section
will be marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used. A common
benchmark will be used for cross-sections and consistently used to facilitate easy comparison of
year-to-year data. The annual cross section survey will include points measured at all breaks in
slope, including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the features are
present.
Bed Material Analyses
The project stream reach is composed of bedforms in the sand size sediment fraction, and it is
unexpected that a substantial change will occur. Bulk samples will be collected and analyzed to
determine any changes in substrate. Composite samples will be taken across the channel bottom at
no less than 6 cross sections.
Longitudinal Profiles
A longitudinal profile will be completed each year for years one through five of the monitoring
period. The profile will be conducted for a representative length 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, for example, ripple, pool, and the
max pool depth. The survey will be tied to a permanent benchmark.
Vegetative Monitoring
• In order to determine if the success criteria are achieved, vegetation-monitoring stations will be
installed on approximately 5 percent of the restoration site. The size of individual monitoring plots
will be 5 m by 20 m (100 m2). Vegetation monitoring will occur in spring after leaf-out has
• occurred. Individual plot data for woody species will be provided. Plot data will not be averaged
over the entire site to obtain a single figure for stem density. Permanent plots for the sampling of
planted species shall be randomly located in each of the target communities. The enumeration of
the density of planted species will equal the number of remaining stems in the plot divided by the
• plot size in acres. 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 is achieved, the restored site will be
evaluated between July and November.
Photo Reference Stations
Photographs will be used to visually document restoration success. Reference stations will be
photographed before construction and continued for at least five years following construction.
Reference photos will be taken once a year. After construction has taken place, reference stations
will be marked with wooden stakes.
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
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 28
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
much of the bank as possible included in each photo. Photographers should make an effort to
consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Structure photos. Photographs will be taken at each grade control structure along the restored
stream. Photographers should make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each
photo over time.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Benthic macroi nverteb rate monitoring should be performed prior to restoration or enhancement
and continued for a minimum of three years after restoration or enhancement. Sampling shall take
place at the two sites established in February 2005 for the sampling of baseline data. All field
procedures should adhere to those stated in the Interim, Internal Technical Guide: Benthic
Macroin vertebrate Monitoring Protocols for Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects produced
by the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 401/Wetlands Unit dated December 2001.
Data analysis should be consistent with the protocols described in the Standard Operating
Procedures manual developed by the Biological Assessment Unit of the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ). Data should be collected during the winter/spring months (January-March) for coastal plain
streams. Reports summarizing survey results should be submitted to the Wetlands Unit of DWQ
within 60 days following survey completion.
MONITORING LEVEL 2
Monitoring Level 2 will apply to the enhancement activities proposed along Mineral Springs Reach
2 and Burnt Mill.
Bankfull Events
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the 5-year monitoring period. The two
bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until
two bankfull events have been documented in separate years.
(-rncc CPrtinnc
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 or are
minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative changes,
deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio).
Stream Vegetative Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffer on the site will
be based on the recommendations found in the EEP Technical Note and correspondence from
review agencies on mitigation sites recently approved. The final vegetative success criteria will be
the survival of 260 5-year old planted trees, shrubs or woody stems per acre at the end of year five
of the monitoring period.
Up to 20 percent of the site species composition may be comprised of volunteers. Remedial action
may be required should these species present a problem and exceed the 20 percent composition.
Beneficial species regeneration should be noted within the monitoring reports.
Photo Reference Stations
Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank
erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 29
s
s
s
s
s
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
photos should not indicate the absences of developing bars within the channel or an excessive
increase in channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing
degradation of the banks over time. A series of photos over time should indicate successional
maturation of riparian vegetation.
Enhancement Monitoring
Bankfull Events
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of
a crest gauges and photographs. The crest gauge will record the highest watermark between site
visits, and the gauge will be checked each time there is a 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.
Cross Sections
Two permanent cross-sections will be installed per 1,000 linear feet of stream restoration work,
with one located at a riffle cross-section and one located at a pool cross-section. Each cross section
will be marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used. A common
benchmark will be used for cross-sections and consistently used to facilitate easy comparison of
year-to-year data. The annual cross section survey will include points measured at all breaks in
slope, including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the features are
present.
Vegetative Monitoring
in order to determine if the success criteria are achieved, vegetation-monitoring stations will be
installed on approximately 5 percent of the restoration site. The size of individual monitoring plots
will be 5 m by 20 m (100 mz). Vegetation monitoring will occur in spring after leaf-out has
occurred. Individual plot data for woody species will be provided. Plot data will not be averaged
over the entire site to obtain a single figure for stem density. Permanent plots for the sampling of
planted species shall be randomly located in each of the target communities. The enumeration of
the density of planted species will equal the number of remaining stems in the plot divided by the
plot size in acres. 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 is achieved, the restored site will be
evaluated between July and November.
• Photo Reference Stations
Photographs will be used to visually document restoration success. Reference stations will be
photographed before construction and continued for at least five years following construction.
S Reference photos will be taken once a year. After construction has taken place, reference stations
• will be marked with wooden stakes.
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 included in each photo. Photographers should make an effort to
0 consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
s
•
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 30
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
METHOD OF REPORTING ON SUCCESS CRITERIA
An as-built report documenting stream restoration will be developed within 60 days of the planting
completion on the restored site. The report will include elevations, photographs, sampling plot
locations, and a description of initial species composition by community type. The report will also
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.
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 and submitted to NCEEP. The
monitoring reports will include:
1. A detailed narrative summarizing the condition of the restored site and all regular
maintenance activities;
2. As-built topographic maps showing location of monitoring gauges, vegetation sampling
plots, permanent photo points, and location of transacts;
3. Photographs showing views of the restored site taken from fixed-point stations from a
height of approximately five to six feet. Permanent markers will be established to ensure
that the same locations (and view directions) on the site are monitored in each monitoring
period;
4. Vegetative data, as described below;
5. 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;
6. A description of any damage done by animals;
7. Wildlife observations; and
8. Stream data.
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
In the event that the site or a specific component of the site fails to achieve the defined success
criteria, WK Dickson will develop necessary adaptive management plans for appropriate remedial
actions for the site. Remedial action required by the review agencies will be designed to achieve
the success criteria specified previously, and shall include a work schedule and monitoring criteria
that will take into account physical and climactic conditions.
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 31
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
RESTORATION PLAN
REFERENCES
Chow, Ven Te. 1959. Open-Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. 2003. The EDR-Transaction Screen Map Report with
Toxicheck Analysis - Mineral Springs Branch. EDR. Southhport, CT.
Fischenich, C. 2001. "Stability Thresholds for Stream Restoration Materials." EMRRP Technical
Notes Collection (ERDC TNEMRRP-SR-29). U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development
Center. Vicksburg, MS.
Griffith, G., Omernik, J. and J. Comstock. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina. United States
Environmental Protection Agency. Research and Development. NHEERL. Western Ecology
Division. Corvallis, OR.
Horton, J. Wright Jr. and Victor A. Zullo. 1991. The Geology of the Carolinas, Carolina
Geological Society Fiftieth Anniversary Volume. The University of Tennessee Press. Knoxville,
TN.
NCDOT- Hydraulics Unit. January 2005. Reference Reach Database.
http://www.doh.dot.state.nc.us/preconstruct/highway/hydro/
NHP database search. 2005. Onsite records available in catalog files. Site visit: January 2005.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Section. 2004. Basinwide Assessment Report: Cape Fear River Basin.
Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
2000. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina State University (NCSU). 2004. Hewlett's Creek Stream Restoration Plan. Raleigh,
NC.
North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program, Division of Water Quality. 2002. New Hanover
Local Watershed Plan. Wilmington, NC.
Rosgen, Dave. 1994. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO.
Schafale, Michael P. and Alan S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service. 1977. Soil Survey of
New Hanover Countv, North Carolina.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1994. "Engineering and Design - Hydraulic Design of
Flood Control Channels," EM 1110-2-1601. Washington, DC.
WK Dickson & Co., Inc. 32
D
v
v
O.
x
D
a,ljv:Nk.,
ml om?rscc)N
n
v
CL
K
D

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Reach 1 XS 1 Mineral Springs
16 i- -- -- -.. r - ---- - ,
15 t
_
FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
w 14 -- -- -
LL 13 I- -- -
----
z
-
12 - - - -- -----
-
-
- - - -
-- - --
- ---
Z BANKFULL STAGE
j 10

W
W
C
$

0 10 20 30 40
DISTANCE IN FEET
section: >7s7:;; r CALCULA TED HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS
XS 1 6.40 velocity ft/sec = u
stream: '?--Ii--17171 C--t?; 192.59 discharge (unity), Q cfs
location: livilr + r7t5i r;,.1;(z' 134.09 discharge Mannin 's , Q cfs
description: 0.22 shear stress, t ((Ibs/ft sq)
2.60 unit stream power, co (lbs/ft/sec)
MORPHOMETRIC PARAMETERS 0.56 Froude number
30.11 cross sectional area 16.2 wet perimeter 12.53 threshold rain size mm
13.2 width 1.85 h dr. radius 1377 relative roughness R/D50
2.3 mean depth 50.00 flood prone width 724 relative roughness R/D84
5.8 w/d ratio 3.8 ent ratio 0.34 shear velocity ft/sec = u*
2.5 max depth 3.7 bank height 19.0160 D84 friction factor u/u*
r. b measured D50 mm = 0.00131(ft) NA D50 friction factor u/u*
A
measured D84 (mm) = 0.0026 (ft) 0.0220 Manning's "n" EE
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.

Reach 1 XS 2 Mineral Springs
18 ---
17 l - -- -- - - - - --- -- - - -
16 -
w 15 ---
Z
- 14 -- - - -
13 - --
- --- ---
-- --- -
--- - - ------ - f ------ --- -
-- - - --
-
----

0 12 - - -- --- ---- - - --- ----
F-
Q
Lu :-
11 r --
10 ' - --
j
- N

-

-

---- -- -- -

w l
9 - -
- -
- -
---

- --
--

----

------
8 -- -- --- - - - - - -- - -- -

1
0 5 10 1
5 20 25 30
DISTANCE IN FEET
section
XS 2
stream: tIiC7.":1i,4!'1,1et
location: :''lilr- , at'-v.
description:
MORPHO METRIC PARAMETERS
34.15 cross sectional area 19.5 wet perimeter
14.8 width 1.75 h dr. radius
2.3 mean depth 40.00 flood prone width
6.4 w/d ratio 2.7 ent ratio
3.1 max depth 4.9 bank height
measured D50 mm = 0.0013 1(ft)
measured D84 (mm) = 0.0026 ft)

WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000•

Reach 1 XS 3 Mineral Springs
22 E T - ---
21 - - - -- - I
- -- } - --

-- --
- -
20
-
w I
19 - ---- - ttI -- 1- _ _ _ t?
LL 18 FLOODPRON ELEVATION T

Z
17 I

rt- -
0 15 BANKFULLSTAG-E
j 14 --- - - -' --- - --- -- --
w
-- I
13
I _
w 12 -- - -
11
- - - --
10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
DISTANCE IN FEET
section: !1t-1t I CALCULA TED HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS
XS 3 6.92 velocity fUsec = u
stream: n itit=x:11 7 212.44 discharge (unity), Q cfs
location: II(ivt r ml M1 t-0 148.39 discharge Mannin 's , Q cfs
description: 0.25 shear stress, t ((Ibs/ft sq)
3.51 unit stream power, ca (lbs/ft/sec)
MORPHOMETRIC PARAMETERS 0.53 Froude number
30.70 cross sectional area 15.2 wet perimeter 14.02 threshold rain size mm
10.9 width 2.01 h dr. radius 1498 relative roughness R/D50
2.8 mean depth 50.00 flood prone width 787 relative roughness R/D84
3.9 w/d ratio 4.6 ent ratio 0.36 shear velocity ft/sec = u"
3.3 max depth 14.1 bank height 19.2223 D84 friction factor u/u'
1; measured D50 mm = 0.0013 ft NA D50 friction factor u/u"
measured D84 (mm) = -? -0.0026 (ft) 0.0220 Manning's "n"
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
000000000000•000000000000000000000000000000•
Stream 11(i(7nj t !3 rr tit??? Location:
'°L?llzi?lle,-tr
Reach: Date:
Reach 1 LONGITUDINAL PROFILES
15
14
13
12
0 11
10
w 9
8
7
6
p I
--- - ------ -- -- -- --- ----
I
o' o• { ----...o.....r..................... w - -- -
? I
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Channel Distance (ft) - - - ---- - -
--o-bed -*-watersrf ? ToB a BKF G FF 6 x-section
Slope Calculator
station elevation ft/ft note
point 1 20 9.28
point 2 182 9.01 0.0017 channel bed
point 1 20 9.4
point 2 196 9.08 0.0018 WSE
point 1
point 2 --- BF
point 1 35.5 10.45
point 2 176 10.05 0.0028 FF
point 1 52 12.93
point 2 161 12.36 0.0052 ToB
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.

Reach 2 XS 1 Mineral Springs
14 _ - - -- - ---- --- - - f
13 - -- -- - -- - - -- - - - --- - - - -- -- -
F- 12 FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
LL 11

- -- --
Z 10 - -- } --- -- - - _..._._ . - - --- --- - ---- -- -
9 -- --- ------- --- BANKFULLSTAGE ----- - -
Q - --- -- - --. - -- -- --- --- -- --- - - - -- -- - -I
w 7 - --- - ----------- -- --- -------j

6 - - ---- - -- - -- - -- ---- ----- --- --- ----- -- --- ---,
5 t

0 10 20 30
DISTANCE IN FEET
section: c{ spa;„.?." _ !CALCULA TED HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS
XS 1 6.16 velocity ft/sec = u
stream: 'r1rt7.Iti?t;>itT, 206.80 discharge (unity), Q cfs
location: .'?'f1 143.67 discharge Mannin 's , Q cfs
description: 0.21 shear stress, t ((Ibs/ft sq)
2.23 unit stream power, ci (lbs/ft/sec)
MORPHOMETRIC PARAMETERS 0.63 Froude number
33.56 cross sectional area 19.2 wet perimeter 11.93 threshold rain size mm
17.8 width 1.75 h dr. radius 1298 relative roughness R/D50
1.9 mean depth 30.00 flood prone width 682 relative roughness R/D84
9.5 w/d ratio 1.7 ent ratio 0.33 shear velocity ft/sec = u'
3.1 max depth 11.9 bank height 18.8700 D84 friction factor u/u'
measured D50 mm = 0.00131 (ft) NA D50 friction factor u/u"
measured D84 (mm) = 0.0026 ft) 0.0220 Manning's "n"

WK Dickson & Co., Inc.

15
14 ! -----
w 12 i
LLI
Z 11
Z 10 - ---- - - -
8 - -
J 7 -- -? --
w g :---- -- --
I
5 - -- -- -- ---- --
4 i
0 5
Reach 2 XS 2 Mineral Springs
FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
I I I
-------- -- ----- ------ - - J
BANKFULLSTAGE
I
10 15 20 25 30
DISTANCE IN FEET
:;t;ra,; r,
section:
XS 2
stream: 'IM:•'I+?-?Tit+YT
location:
description:
MORPHOMETRIC PARAMETERS
28.93 cross sectional area 16.2 wet perimeter
13.8 width 1.78 h dr. radius
2.1 mean depth 28.00 flood prone width
6.5 w/d ratio 2.0 ent ratio
3.1 max depth 12.7 bank height
measured D50 mm = 0.051,31 (ft)
measured D84 (mm) = 0.0026 (ft)
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Stream: it'-t'rccTi7yi t.OCat10n:????flIrzr:(1:??..?fs
Reach: Date:
Reach 2 LONGITUDINAL PROFILES
16
14
12
C 10
.o
> 8
u!
6
4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Channel Distance (ft) - - --
-bed - r-water srf ? ToB O BKF - 0 FF - A x-section
2
I I --
-- O --- - ---- ............ - .... . .. . - O
-- 1- .. _ - - ---- - -- -
Slope Calculator
station elevation ft/ft note
point 1 63 5.86
point 2 173 5.71 0.0014 channel bed
point 1 [::::E 6.29
point 2 210 6.03 0.0012 WSE
point 11 1
point 2 1 1 -- BF
point 1 40 7.63
point 2 210 6.9 0.0043 FF
point 1 68 10.86
point 2 172 10.47 0.0037 ToB
WK Dickson & Co.. Inc.

Reach 1 XS 1 Burnt Mill
1
9 -- - - - - - -- - ----- -
W FLOODPRONE ELEVATION
W

L`
z 7

6 - -- --

- ---- -- - -- --- - - --- - - --- - --
--.
-- -- - -- - - - - - -
z 5
4 -- -- ---- t-- BANKFULL STAGE ---- ------- -------- -- --

w
W 3
2

1 t - - - --- - ---
--

F -r - - - - - - - - -
0 '
1
1
-
0 10 20 30 40
DISTANCE IN FEET
section: "?t-;cT is d i CALCULA TED HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS
XS 1 8.63 velocity ft/sec = u
stream: =1?P'raj?j' ilf 666.59 discharge (unity), Q cfs
location: 436.89 discharge Mannin 's , Q cfs
description: 0.34 shear stress, t ((Ibs/ft sq)
8.00 unit stream power, ra (lbs/ft/sec)
MORPHOMETRIC PARAMETERS 0.80 Froude number
77.25 cross sectional area 28.3 wet perimeter 20.00 threshold rain size mm
26.8 width 2.73 h dr. radius 4155 relative roughness R/D50
2.9 mean depth 50.00 flood prone width 1385 relative roughness R/D84
9.3 w/d ratio 1.9 ent ratio 0.42 shear velocity ft/sec = u*
3.8 max depth 5.5 bank height 20.611 D84 friction factor u/u*
measured D50 mm = 0.00071 (ft) NA D50 friction factor u/u*
measured D84 (mm) = 0.0020 (ft) 0.0230 Manning's "n"
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.

Reach 1 XS 2 Burnt Mill
10
9 - -
8
w 7 't
- ------ -
z 6
Z 5 - ---- -- ---
O
----
w 2 l - - - -- --- -- - ---
J ? -
w 1
0 ----- -r
I
-1
0 10

-BANKFULL-ST
I
20
DISTANCE IN FEET

rXS 2
strea m: ' Ilfa
location: F
descriotion:
MORPHOMETRIC PARAMETERS
70.55 cross sectional area 26.3 wet perimeter
23.2 width 2.68 h dr. radius
3.0 mean depth 50.00 flood prone width
7.6 w/d ratio 2.2 ent ratio
3.8 max depth 5.9 bank height
. ' measured D50 mm = 0.0013 ft
measured D84 (mm) = 0.0026 (ft)
I
II
30 40
8.28 velocity ft/sec = u
584.09 discharge (unity), Q cfs
394.92 discharge Mannin 's , Q cfs
0.33 shear stress, t ((Ibs/ft sq)
7.44 unit stream power, w (lbs/fUsec)
0.70 Froude number
19.66 threshold rain size mm
1995 relative roughness R/D50
1049 relative roughness R/D84
0.42 shear velocity ft/sec = u`
19.927 D84 friction factor u/u'
NA D50 friction factor u/u'
0.0230 Manning's "n"
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.

StreamVIt ReachLONGITUDINAL PROFILES
9
7
5
.2
w 3
Location:'r't(+(t
Date:
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Channel Distance (ft)
Slope Calculator
station elevation ft/ft note
point 1 16 0.91
point 2 256 0.74 0.0007 channel bed
point 1 45 1.71
point 2 256 1.64 0.0003 WSE
point 1 44 3.18
point 2 256 2.91 0.0013 BF
point 1
point 2 --- FF
point 1 82 8.22
point 2 216 8.09 0.0010 ToB
160 180 200 220 240 260
bed -?-WSE • ToB o BKF G FF L x-section
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
e
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
e
•
•

D
v
7
CL
X
W
Endangered, Threatened, Candidate Species, and Species of Concern
for Wilmington, North Carolina
Group Scientific Name Common Name State Status Federal Status
Mammal Trichechus manatus West Indian Manatee Endangered Endangered
Bird Anhinga anhinga Anhinga Significantly Rare -------- -
Bird Himantopus mexicanus Black-necked Stilt Significantly Rare -----------
Bird Passerina ciris ciris Eastern Painted Bunting Significantly Rare Species of Concern
Bird Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker Endangered Endangered
Reptile Alligator mississippiensis American Alligator Threatened Threatened
Reptile Deirochelys reticularia Chicken Turtle Significantly Rare ----------
Reptile Heterodon simus Southern Hognose Snake Special Concern Species of Concern
Reptile Malaclemys terrapin centrata Carolina Diamondback Terrapin Special Concern
Reptile Masticophis flagellum Coachwhip Significantly Rare -----------
Reptile Micrurus fulvius Eastern Coral Snake Endangered -------------
Reptile Ophisaurus mimicus Mimic Glass Lizard Special Concern Species of Concern
Reptile Pituophis melano/eucus melanoleucus Northern Pinesnake Special Concern Species of Concern
Reptile Seminatrix pygaea Black Swamp Snake Significantly Rare ---------
Amphibian Ambystoma mabeei Mabee's Salamander Significantly Rare -- ---
Amphibian Pseudacris omata Ornate Chorus Frog Significantly Rare ----------
Amphibian Rana capito Carolina Gopher Frog Threatened Species of Concern
Fish Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose Sturgeon Endangered ------
Fish Heterandria formosa Least Killifish Special Concern ------ -
Fish Lucania goodei Bluefin Killifish Special Concern ----- -
Mollusk Anodonta couperiana Barrel Floater Endangered ----
Mollusk Helisoma eucosmium Greenfield Rams-horn Endangered Species of Concern
Mollusk Planorbella magni(rca Magnificent Rams-horn Endangered Species of Concern
Insect Euphyes dukesi dukesi Dukes' Skipper Significantly Rare -----
Insect Problema bulenta Rare Skipper Significantly Rare Species of Concern
Vascular Plant Carex decomposita Cypress Knee Sedge Significantly Rare -----
Vascular Plant Crinum americanum Swamp-lily Significantly Rare -------
Vascular Plant Cyperus lecontei Leconte's Flatsedge Significantly Rare -----
Vascular Plant Dionaea muscipula Venus Flytrap Significantly Rare Species of Concern
Vascular Plant Helianthemum carolinianum Carolina Sunrose Significantly Rare --- ----
Vascular Plant Lachnocaulon minus Brown Bogbutton Significantly Rare ------------
Vascular Plant Lilaeopsis carolinensis Carolina Grasswort Threatened - -----
Vascular Plant Litsea aestivalis Pondspice Significantly Rare Species of Concern
Vascular Plant Ludwigia suffruticosa Shrubby Seedbox Significantly Rare -------
Vascular Plant Panicum tenerum Southeastern Panic Grass Significantly Rare ---------
Vascular Plant Platanthera nivea Snowy Orchid Threatened ----------
Vascular Plant Ptilimnium costatum Ribbed Bishop-weed Significantly Rare --------
Vascular Plant Ptilimnium sp 1 Carolina Bishopweed Significantly Rare ---- -- -
Vascular Plant Rhexia cubensis West Indies Meadow-beauty Significantly Rare
Vascular Plant Rhynchospora oligantha Feather-bristle Beaksedge Significantly Rare ---------
Vascular Plant Rhynchospora pleantha Coastal Beaksedge Significantly Rare ------------
Vascular Plant Rhynchospora scirpoides Long-beak Baldsedge Significantly Rare -------- -
Vascular Plant Sagittaria graminea var weatherbiana Grassleaf Arrowhead Significantly Rare - -- - -
'Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species and Federal Species of Concern search by Quad, in North Carolina
NCNHP website: http://v+vAv.ncsparks.net/nhp/search.html
Search conducted on March 21, 2005.
D
v
v
a
x
0

Te?STAT[ ?
?^jyY?'j I_t`?Ali
v,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbcck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Govemor Office of Archives and Ilistory
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Cruw, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
January 18, 2005
Marco I-Iilhorst
WK Dickson
3101 John Humphries Wynd
Raleigh, NC 27612
Re: Stream and Riparian Buffer Restoration, Mineral Springs Branch and Burnt Mill Creek,
Wilmington, New Hanover County, ER 04-3320
Dear Mr. Hilliorst:
Thank you for your letter of December 29, 2004, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources which would
be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above conunents are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
3eter B. Sandbeck
Location DfaihngAddress Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mad Scnice Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733 8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mad Srmce Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mad Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
D
v
co
7
CL
x
v
mi-tCls
MORPHOLOGICAL TABLE
REFERENCE REACH DATA EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED DESIGN
SOURCE NCDOT Hewlett's Creek Restoration Plan Project Project

Parameter Still Beaverdam Tributary Tributary Cole
Creek Branch to Town to Tyson (UIS)
(EcoScience) Creek Creek
Panther Johannah Batorora Mineral Mineral
Springs Springs Burnt Mill
Reach 1 Reach 2
Mineral Springs Reach 1
Stream Type E5 E E E E5/C5 E5 C5 E5 E5 135c E5 E5
Drainage Area (sq mi) 0.35 3.20 0.60 1.10 0.26 1.69 1.18 0.48 0.50 1.98 0.48
Min Bankfull Xsec Area, Abkf s ft 5.7 17.7 7.4 7.6 3.1 ------ ______ ______ _____ --
Max Bankfull Xsec Area, Abkf s ft 6.7 28.8 11.9 10.7 3.1 ---- --- - -- -- -- - -
Bankfull Xsec Area, Abkf (sq ft) 6.1 21.4 9.4 9.2 3.1 17.9 8.6 23.9 30.1 33.6 77.3 30.4
Min Bankfull Width, Wbkf ft 6.8 11.6 7.0 8.2 5.9 - -- --- --- ----
Max Bankfull Width, Wbkf ft 8.0 19.8 13.2 10.5 8.2 ____ ______ -- -- ___
Bankfull Width, Wbkf (ft) 7.3 14.2 9.1 9.2 7.1 11.5 10.4 15.5 13.2 17.8 26.8 16
Bankfull W/D 6.0 5.0 17.0 9-10.5 13.2 7.4 12.6 10.1 5.7 9.4 9.2 9.0
Min Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf 11 0.7 1.4 0.9 0.9 0.4 - - -- --- ----- --- - - --
Max Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf fi 1.0 1.7 1.3 1.1 0.5 ---- ------ -- ----- --- -
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) 0.8 1.5 1.1 1.0 0.5 1.6 0.8 1.5 2.3 1.9 2.9 1.9
Min Bankfull Max Depth, Dmax fi 1.1 2.2 1.7 1.3 1.0 --- - --- - - ---- ---
Max Bankfull Max Depth, Dmax ft 1.4 2.8 2.1 1.7 1.6 --- -- -- - -- --
Bankfull Max Depth, Dmax (ft) 1.2 2.4 1.9 1.5 1.3 2.6 1.0 2.1 2.5 3.1 3.8 2.3
Min Dmax:Dbkf 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.3 2.3 - ---- ---- __--
Max Dmax:Dbkf 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.6 3.4 -- ----- -- -
-- ----
Avg Dmax:Dbkf 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.5 2.9 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.6 1.3 1.2
Velocity (u) (fps) 1.2 0.0 --- -- - 4.5 4.3 5.5 4.6
Discharge (Q) 7.3 0.0 -- - -- -- --- -- 135 143 425 140
Entrenchment Ratio Entr 8.8 28.7 21.1 13.2 8.3 17.4 19.2 12.9 3.8 1.7 2.2 3.1
Min Meander Length, Lm (ft) 43 0 64 26.5 19.8 63.6 - - -- 105
Max Meander Length, Lm (ft) 84 0 - - 64 104.7 53.0 105.4 ----- ------ --- 125
Meander Length, Lm (ft) 43 0 -- - - 64 65.6 36.4 84.5 --- - -- 115
Min Meander Len Ratio, Lm/Wbkf 5.9 0.0 ----- - -- 9.1 2.3 1.9 4.1 - - - 6.6
Max Meander Len Ratio, LmlWbkf 11.5 0.0 -- -- 9.1 9.1 5.1 6.8 - - ------ ----- 7.8
Meander Len Ratio, LmlWbkf 8.7 0.0 ------ ------ 9.1 5.7 3.5 5.5 -- - -- 7.2
Min Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft) 21 0 -- - 7.5 5.8 9.4 10.9 -- -- - 14.0
Max Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft) 47 0 - 15 17.3 23.9 40.3 -- -- - 35.2
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft) 21.0 0.0 - --- 7.5 11.5 16.6 25.6 - - - 31
Min Rc Ratio, RclWbkf 2.9 0.0 -- - 1.1 0.5 0.9 0.7 -- -- - 0.9
Max Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf 6.5 0.0 - -- 2.1 1.5 2.3 2.6 ---- -- - 2.2
Avg Rc Ratio, RclWbkf 4.7 0.0 -- -- - 1.6 1.0 1.6 1.7 - -- - - - - 1.9
Min Belt Width, Wblt (ft) 15 0 -- -- - 35 21.9 13.5 45.0 --- - - - 26
Max Belt Width, Wblt (ft) 48 0 - -- 53 100.1 45.8 69.8 ----- -- --- 53
Avg Belt Width, Wblt (fi) 15.0 0.0 - ---- 35.0 61.0 29.6 57.4 -- - - 40
Min MW Ratio, WbIWVbkf (ft) 2.1 0.0 --- - 5.0 1.9 1.3 2.9 - - -- -- 1.6
Max MW Ratio, WbltlWbkf (ft) 6.6 0.0 --- - 7.5 8.7 4.4 4.5 --- - - -- 3.3
MW Ratio, WbltlWbkf (ft) 4.3 0.0 -- --- 6.2 5.3 2.9 3.7 ------ - - 2.5
Sinuosity, K 1.33 2.12 2.03 1.29 1.59 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.13
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.00880 0.00440 0.00717 0.00444 0.00590 0.004 0.0026 0.0061 0.005 0.009 0.0008 0.005
WS Sloe 0.00660 0.00210 0.00353 0.00343 0.00370 - - -- - 0.0018 0.0017 0.0007 0.0043
Channel Slope, Schan=Sval/K fUft 0.00662 0.00208 0.00353 0.00344 0.00371 0.0033 0.0022 0.0051 0.0018 0.0017 0.0007 0.0043
REFERENCE REACH DATA EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED DESIGN
SOURCE NCDOT Hewlett's Creek Restoration Plan Project Project

Parameter Still Beaverdam Tributary Tributary Cole
Creek Branch to Town to Tyson (U/S)
(EcoScience) Creek Creek
Panther Johannah Batorora Mineral Mineral
Springs Springs Burnt Mill
Reach 1 Reach 2
Mineral Springs Reach 1
Min Pool Depth, D pool ft 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.6 3.3 - -- -
Max Pool Depth, D pool ft 1.7 2.7 2.7 1.8 3.4 -- ---- -- _? _- ?___ _----
Avg Pool Depth, D pool ft 1.7 2.4 2.4 1.7 3.3 2.6 1.5 3.0 3.1 3.1 4.8 3.0
Min Pool Depth Ratio, D ool/Dbkf 2.1 1.4 1.8 1.6 7.4 --- ------- -- ______ _- ______
Max Pool Depth Ratio, D ool/Dbkf 2.1 1.8 2.5 1.8 7.5 -- ---- ---- ------- ____ ---
Avg Pool Depth Ratio, D ool/Dbkf 2.1 1.6 2.1 1.7 7.4 1.6 1.9 2 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.6
Min Pool Width, W pool ft 9.04 13.4 9.7 8.4 5 --- --- - ---- - - _--
Max Pool Width, W pool ft 9.04 18.1 12.5 14.1 6.8 -- --_ __- __-__ ---- ------- ----
Avg Pool Width, W pool ft 9.04 15.75 11.1 11.25 5.9 11.5 12.5 14.0 14.8 13.8 26.8 16.0
Min Pool Wid Ratio, W ool/Wbkf 1.2 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.7 -- -- - -- ______ ___- _--
Max Pool Wid Ratio, W ool/Wbkf 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.0 -- -- --- _-_ --
Avg Pool Wid Ratio, W ool/Wbkf 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.9 1.1 0.8 1.0 1.0
Min Length Pool Spacing, L s ft -------- -- ---- --- --- 15.0 12.5 26.4 48 37 46 52
Max Length Pool Spacing, L s ft -- - - -- -- 65.6 39.5 60.5 106 61 135 63
Avg Length Pool Spacing, L s ft 45 0 - - - - 61 40.3 26.0 43.4 77.0 49.0 90.5 58
Min Pool Spacing Ratio, L slWbkf --- - - ----- 1.3 1.2 1.7 3.2 2.7 1.7 3.3
Max Pool Spacing Ratio, L s/Wbkf -- - - -- 5.7 3.8 3.9 7.2 4.4 5.0 3.9
Avg Pool Spacing Ratio, L slWbkf 6.2 0.0 -- - 8.7 3.5 2.5 2.8 5.2 3.6 3.4 3.6
Channel Particle Sizes (mm):
D16 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 - 0.26 0.26 0.32 0.26
D35 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 -- ---- --- 0.34 0.34 0.4 0.34
D50 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 - - - - -- - 0.41 0.41 0.53 0.41
D84 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 - - - 0.78 0.78 0.79 0.78
D95 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.10 ----- -- --- 1 1 1.21 1
D
a
a
n.
x
m
vv:
11J=12 kJ?_?..1 ALj J?I J ??Ij ?J?C` 1, j ?
AND BURNTM M-SVEXIA1314
STMIR
&?RAM'
g-J, FJOIR MION IP 1 F-j FJ
REST -KAT VROJ E
2C
JUNE 30, 2005
Post St "r cY Rr/ M 2
a

c u =
u
pta?a?t 2 Princess Place Or

°
N Z w ?c9 0_ ,z____
N Ct estnut St

Of Grace St o

,
a N = ? "
., .°. r
•- rv? L7
PRO =T

±ftr
-
, 3
= G" ? ??> ' AREA
, x
ro

cs

;
.
e
R.1en; A? 0
pttn Sty G? t a o
1 t.
os
u j t' A y
CasLoSt <
n -y E
Dal
vsof)
o Wirshrre g?
d
Co f 151 . O Sys
5
tj t,tats1C113r 6, 4,L
-
4&
?? KidAe1
y Sl
- n
1 V' " `t
i

i
N U ?
C`iF?Y Q?n h`
i Green(leld St . ? ?Ye a
e,
VICINITY MAP
NTS
J'?'O?R?1 H? C?AIROITI?RIA E:C? )Sjvsj wE??? r
WDICKSON
community infrastructure consultants
3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES W ND
RALEIGH, INC 27612
[phone]
a
Q =f1.In1
COVER 1

PLAN & PRORLE(REACH 1) 2
PLAN & PROFILE (REACH 1) 3
PLAN (DESIGN REACH 2) 4
PLAN (DESIGN REACH 2) 5
PLAN (DURNTMILL) 6

PLAN (13URNTMILL) 7

DETAILS 8

DETAILS 9

-
_?. .
?. ? / CP?RCR •wl Rq(LRl1URr UH1RRf tRK
`
. 1 UR1tr DaE
.?, f` 10 BE R(ua40
arcs (aGfl+O.uaR [O+ARatl01
EAAU T LEIS) /

i ?T

-0000",

077 J{ IIWI RQC
ELECTRIC MMSFOFhkR
CUT -?OR
UNDERCR"O ELECTRIC

1 , (

? ?v<
\
- ?' ??AD ELECTRIC

RECTRIG.Rx.OLL
A ? ? ,?\
,R 11
?
•
, \ rMR RRAwf
0 R:RR .FIEF

L
1
,
..? E?
`
?
R V
tE
.
1
' RaR
N
RATER LRf
1
•?-
^I
' ?.r` t P'Yirl /+? •?? `?\\,
C i
'
/ \ pp R 5% ui

-? \ 10 BE REVOKO Sw FOICATOR Vyft

Q S.w Tt,RY SE.RIt MA-CLE
N AKR CLE OUT
?h
1 4
?k
Y
- ?rr +?? B' ??
1
`
? ??? 4 ', wj . •? _ 1-50.
?,1 _ ?.,••„•,\

3
fo

\
i Lwiwr SERF lnC
IoRa
iROGOSEO Swrwr SEWER Uf

._ Gas
TLW
ST CE MANHOLIE
., \
.? 'n 1 ... h :.,
--1 ? ,. : -••? ' ?•' '_ '•
I ?- '`? _• S _\
- -----'- U.OERW"O MUPwaR
® RUP%CK RISER

F ?? \ ...... 5,
0 - m ----- ROOT Rao
MAD pRU4t L. -E
> 50

..«
' LOG 4aCE CORU0.

[

1 b 1'_«+--,
.
® I>IANNCL PLUG
1 CE= LCIC TOE MOTEC"
11
? ?r .OGLE
LOG RAAR
1??
11,
1 '?c, .>
• II
T rtwua+Rr $TRE- CROSSnc
A-ROX t(RIYRw BOM E.SE.E.T t-r$
`1`41
SRI[.. IwtRy vRI.ws REaat i)

rt m nnrRG rm nmrG

I
.? .x1 ? t?rp lwt??i
x r0 n'
M x i nn.rx

W

M rO IY
.wVax

rR ro nlurc
WR: ?]'bRI .t m trnws-.
rx•r \
Txl x'

t! W ?
u v

-'L
r
w
?
x.RV? wwx.. ___________l•°YltlC•'IP___________ r ___________L=JK 6C!rIA___________
tf

?• Mw1 R(r•?Id • ?
F
?I

I
tl ' IIT
xwt RSI!x IICtf!R f.,rcw Rrt R•xmp?Lpl Slrx lr Ir•ttat ittl i(x+RR•FR
30 ?° .
00.
23 25

20 .. 20
(N:ROY gap(xl t pwIML lratE • 0 rrrYr

----- O.rxER AM
MPOS

5 tp p L WILD
5 ...
t In.R . Oatt
0. 00 0. 50 1. 00 1. 50 2. 00 2. 50 3. 00 3. 50 4. 00 4. 50 5. 00 5. 50 6. 00 6.50
PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
)101 Aw (E.r[5 RVrq REtt.SCD rOR OaR
pkvv R4S". xG 71617 NC ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM MINERAL SPRINGS/BURNT MILL DESIGN PLANS Z
w uY min vn) m:-afe M9PP ws y MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
/DICKSON noow
T ;?;"; GBe.L«R?• asloa? '? aLI, ll
REMSION51(NI$ STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT DESIGN REACH 1
R it wRRlBVCwR co•wlorn .«?R Coa«R tROpR
Ev w OEV DOTE ?.w ^•?- x•m C.- r_ R(C0?1 R+G J'II'. I,:I'? II'.(1i 1NLMINOTON, NORTH CAROLINA
R.r..M`R 16/Pt.Npp

/ Urt" ME
r?
*
J
/
CLT PPE 1-0
,L StABUS anALL
0017

, /^^...? ... J.i ? /
O?/ tt

__?- Li 180.E

ELECMC MMSFCRUER

wE waal
UNO[Rpr01M0 CILCiRi[
- ,i?° _. / ?W •"* L !
?/
L
? - - DLE AO ELEVATE

`

Alt L

0 A10" 01 nA,a '"" ?•• - ?,??/ ?- /.. ?, ... \\\ ? GQ '
FEW YERE
RD W(
? +
LS-MD Ax[A • OM ACRES

m

aEta'G RAr«aE
..'.-• '".
/ /? //, /
///
e 'a /// /
/ M
-.- PARR
RATER LPIE
LH(
'
h
/
0,
?'
SwTARY SERER MA-OLE
/10
_ pp .. ._

o'
v
A / ?." _ -
I . • / " - A, ,
F

- -'-

SwrARE SEWER L14

L
_
? , ?' \ "`
. ?\ .- , ?. ?
v?
-.-•- FORCE
PROPOSED SAMIwR SERER lR{
4 RA"AI ws Lrrt

?; OwTOR?G WELL
I,
F 1 ----'- IMaROR"D RLEMOhK

f
R
? '
?
' f
/
?
/?
?
\
' nY
RL[iMbS
'-.
1
,.,
V
?
.
?.`.:.._._/ ... ?.}.
.. , ? .. o,
•
- 6.57 .a-w? MAD RRVLr
LOG VAIIE
?j... / / v..u? / /,? + A?-•• r:_ -. "_.., i ® a-cl PLUG
® La ra Eaorccna
ATll

'9?
? \ ?? ? •

-•--°- LOG R?
IEUPORwt StREw CROSSWG
uonoc CONSERVATION EASEMENT wn
/ ?
?
'?• .. • ?J ~'?`? _ ?/ PRCLS-ARI EASEWNT LM( \\ ?\ ~\• \
f l \ \ S" t / (WPROXNAR CONYRVAnON
(ASEUENr LYR l
r
t M-Osll S,R[w 1-. RAL SNWCS RE W I
7
\
/

,a roumnc ,rR mnu.WC a,o umna
. •a 1
ura \ wa ,
M ror.: 1
.R ro do
rR ro EmrNC wa
•a 1 ,U,a ror.InWa
? a
Ir ,o n
v
u
r,ew rror? tv
1 ,ww, it _ Ar
t,
r
(-?
Ir RW..aI aEv.rn • .r
rl
t>ercR. olnlr a+.a sEnlal Lrrr crag m a

....
.... ....
.... ....
.... ....
.... ....
.... ....
.... ....
.... ....
.... ....
.... ....
....
00 ....
.... ...
...
27 .20
IS - Elk ACT GRA.4- A eA+uuu St.a - 0 11R1
..
. IS ..
tt D av1

E .nth . 00rt
6.50 7. 00 7. 50 8. 00 8. 50 9. 00 9. 50 10. 00 10. 50 11. 00 11. 50 12. 00
PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
TGI A .AMP Rcs -,, RELEASED FOR DATE
•( ' ?`AyY/K RALEK NG,16„ µpgDyyS I. ?'+ • NC ECOSYSTEh1 ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM MINERAL SPRINGS/BURNT MILL DESIGN PLANS 3
sa) mt-ass 11pp1w S MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
/DICKSON L,•,, STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
OESERrnpN G.R ..,? NRr.R tamwnR(nRRrL,VtIVRRRRRAIa.I, NoLNG».» C-- DESIGN REACH 1
REHSiON9 rWw.w.A„ amimos swu C>Ym Flow R[crAR ow ill :i'.I:, :CI.I! 9[LMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA

/ -. •
# F /
p? , /:
?1 e 9a
/(
CUr 7P[ AND

STAOkItE aRNL

I A, UM-11 POLE

X llar PM(

CICCRM1C TRANgOMAIe

? OUT A"0111
111 '
...........
l
? /
i
4
- ul0[awa?W
ELECTRIC
T 1
_ _`
/
`
SION ..0POINT i 1
UTA
BOMMSDES
,
Y ? .
-OKMEa a[GMIC

m CIFC?C uurOLE

,r rr¢ NIDAAnr
u
... .
n --,
- rt?J • f -:......:.....?R..? r?? i..' iI
-
C DES-- POINT I 0[va PONT T LIPS
WIMSru[
'yb LUl
` --•-MARK LINE
?n
dv r. / \ \
_ - ` . r47.70 Tr1
Mar S" LEFT SIOC a ti. INDICATOR vNK
K
?
CCC
Y _

---' SANCARY 5[KR 4AMNOL[

? ----
- . -_
Y 5[K11 C1E1x0U}
S-TARY SEWER LINE

lz rORCE MAIN
?. _/? `??. ?0-'? .=,,.,,,,,-?"'.r-..rc„ -.. ?„??,? ' , -!
1 1
3p \ _. -._ PROPOSED swru, scKA LINE
KAngN CAS CME

-'
'
/ _

•
_
' © SToR11 DRAINAGE.L E
E` >' Jam' <.. ?Ni: y / G \
?1 3A .... ...+z.llp
?
- ? / / 6?, ,' ?+ .•, \ ,
Z
/ f .- \
-?•g•
?
_. \
- 3 DP ?
2 • uanwMG WILL
__._ IMO[Ra0.M TELEPHONE
V
7t ' R
' 4 PRELwM E s<K r Lr[
1
?•5 ROOT -AD

1
0" / f (AIRRORUAR CONSERVATION
E- G' La ' / r EASCKNT WrS)
?i
? rl
i
_ ?r•.- ,?, p.
D"
'4 -- _
a
enuvl
a
L. IANE
La MADE CONTROL
. ...
r
ur
STA 1*61
?`?? Mar 9CE -^cs?ll E
i-\_ -
ce V _
ura RUG
a
/
p
?
11 ?-
c) I
/ ? ' '
?"? NI ?
•
I'A A

f r
La TOE PROTECTION

r
ant
?
/ -- r 111 ?.
?. ?,' T A II ? -
,/ ??
[(sIaN E PoX1f7
t
Mar WE
La IYP
?
% / ? V I ? E Y T RIPaAR, STR[W CRp$9NG
APNc CONSE-t" EAS[uar UWrS
' // \\ Dip \ .. I ?_rl `?• -_..___,I I - PROPOSED SIREAY (vrERN SPRMCS RCAa T)
/ ?`-
/ srA TRE LW
a1o
. e x r M
SIDE

M", tAnr.rc MADE
aME > I
_ It 10 yyMG MADE

AOPt N
ew Y
A ?(PSrrC
1 I
AM[ .[ APNNM MOPE
-0.
A'I e A O I -I rf
11
i
p
\ /
e
AI ,NRDE MOPE
1
Ir
A-e IS N I /

I 0 tPT
R
C MADE
IR TO EeST.G MADE AOn i s TO ) I
ALIPE is 1071 _? -
I S'PII TO \\ / SI

Un; AI \ / r etP [KIK
nnW eP nm a twr.LMr
YEK.-A'IM iAA WTS

-PNc. , 17P 1 rKrd (re-90. TKi D ew)
1 /

ew / \ [R11K ew
?? ? Mr02104
..P, 211071

?-

[InlrGlw? /

/
Y

?,
.. -
WE— (CU,M[R1 -+ \
-r-IY MEW BS 1100 OR
ME W. 'A 1OR
IM-eOM SRS D ew) W-17 KId
I
AiP ?
--I J

-

\
KAON IENRM II 1100 ON
vrul
Ea
.2,
'
L
MuATArtp MR. 1.
rqR AOOIrMAI Mn a, K KM1W, EPRSrIN?
10 R r .-s Ar KYMARO AO'[ Ke
Rawa ""- ON WM ARO MR. Mn A'-_ -
TOPrN[RT 10 K 1S1ALUp W R A(pTrirAl IPTS.a K ? OTSS.m,
PER.ArAIanKAT 10 TE r.-S AT KSOrATD MOPE
rf11K-S / AE W-
A IM uAA LUn
(re •wM -, b EA.)
-_
_ MCAIAAARO, LIT
-R, AfOlnul ITT a, K -SAA,

DESIGN POINT I - DETAIL DESIGN POINT 2 - DETAIL DESIGN POINT 3 DETAIL TO K IN "NOTS AT -AMID
DESIGN POINT 4 - DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE NOT 10 SCALE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE
NOTE: DESIGN NOTES AND CROSS SECTIONS ARE ORIENTED LEFT
TO RIGHT LOOKING DO'ANSTREAM.
PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
rcAE 7101 J MKIAET Wrt RELEASED FOR DAR
I•: )D' R,U", NO 2MI2 ` `"- NC ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM MINERAL SPRINGS/BURNT MILL DESIGN PLANS 4
?? '°t-0'9T DNS a MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
/DICKSON "°°'K
OR- L..,-, asTMEIa ''?I RLI511 STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT DESIGN REACH 2
v AO oDSCmPna OAR rAl r.c wo r? w Ir ^haslrrclure cw%,Itmlr .. n C..- Gwga
REVISIONS r+r ?rAA•e -,r smm CW.- n.aR NCMe P+G (,. UW" 11 WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
s
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
a I I ?i ' i 1 ;, a
LEGENO
r

? A !

T•

V I
1. { 1 '
»crval I {

_... r r I {
'
•.
Std

N ?? ? I

?

i
I
LITUTT POLE

KAWpNMT 1j

4 $ 9 L
GKLRww, E.SE-- LNE' I
n I + 1 { ?
-
I {. 1 Y"i 1 { } TE
8 LR?It P0.C
ELECTRIC KwsanP

s.m oonoru.¢ cdxRlA
d w '. a. wowR
SIDE
1
I r w• v 1 J
p ..-'
1 ' { U i ' +
--
d PUOURD ELECTRIC
... • ,m,..l '? I `a9d PONT S

DORAISR t -T __? ,
_..
1 J
STA 4.1s

.
I?
I

I a t
„ ' O'.C W ELECTRIC

ELECTRIC rw,aL

.A1
^`? • -
. -r !
LEFT SIDE

i
it
I ?

r

*
"rte r F

, Z' { /

?
FIRE yo-ANT

•

A ^
m?
`4
I
C
r '
?
I , ?'-

1
m'
{
I { i ' 0

M PATER WTEP

ATER vAl1S
?
,p! , /
11 - PRIER LINE
0
??
.'
i
{
? wCATdv4H
E ,? ? i• +
? , ,
.. _
r © S-TARI SEWER .-M
. 1

I
7 SEWER CLEAROUT
.r...
R? `• 1 ? •. ?
+ ? 1 { _ + { ?
- ?
/ ? E ?•_ •- s+wr.wr 4PcR unE
,
'• p b
•sJ'S
.
SD..
: ?
I
°
`? 7 pp.
.? .,\
' {
I -- rda uu.
G
rr
-1 .
.,,
,.
{
- \ .
._ /
{
,, - {
-1 ©
_,? ` .. .:... r
x ' i r
696 _...?? ?• I ,i {A'?/ { {
i
6.00
C) I
A.
C as _
... \ ... ,..
77 _ ?\ ?• ,` ?.?.• - 'a I I' r1 i { / i /
r Owuu _
I
/ - -
- PRCFDSED SA TART SEWER VC
xAN
- RAE GS VRC

0 sTau anAa uu.ou

ELL

_____•-dDER70.M TELEPMCK
/\? ? M. \ .,I
I 1 { ® 7CLCRKMC ai4R
4 CpSdG nERwDS
ROOT WAD
?
{

• a9d PDMr I r r \
DDMSTREAW
RT ,^? 'I I {
, ?,+dv.A. DEAD 8NU9N

I a
_. TA s.e1 1

e
la vAAf
La aruc cdTRa
j (
-- ----- \\ \
I I
?.? ?•? ?? ?
? I
?
•?.1} ?+
T _ -
® CnwRCI RUG
LOD toM07CT

WCWtT I
•A ?v ?? _.-_-.

I ?
{

I
WATTLE
.u
RICH SIDE IIJJJ

\ I
I
1
1
® LOG PA10
T TEwanw, StPE" CROSSPIC
ARRROI Cd4RYAnd CA4AfRt LAIR

I ;
MOP17AD STREW (,MORN SRRR,G$ RLAd I)

TR NI [v1M1C MAX
La 11 TD 31

o [nTIRD aAK
WE 1-h . 30M

?[nTWC ew aaE 7>ron

l?
i

1r ?
A 11M a Ea.r4[PT I v
nAR
/ 11'
R
e
s[ WEW •A• ra wAr L>+rs ?
LTn -eam ras a ew) I-'P"? K'Q'- 1 ? i

'
?
} 1P
S T? ?
1R,
? .f KKP rtP1M eR I1aa
R
?
[GUV.RERI
e.m
s e.n
EKAPSLAA"SDA Vn s- __
wrt Ammar ,sn R„ K WEassu,
Tort. .-S AT M" LEO saR. _J_^J ?T
)
s
[K/D4A.R6 s0. Irn
xOP ADo-?wr an a, K wa11AR,

DESIGN POINT 3 DETAIL TO K R. LA-1 .T KWl - -
DESIGN POINT 4 -DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE
PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
n a DExRwRd D.rz
REVISIONS

..P.
• 7101 7 R -Es wN0 RELEASED id DATE
w ,
• ?, A /K R4Eq,. RK 7)617

9n)7-0191
vv ( t6

APPROVALS

A n /DICKSON

u.[
,u wrt our. laP,on'
w^UR ?kallruRlwe cmfPlall xo,I Coon C.WPR
CDnTRaTld
..p..Me9 w/71/N09 Swu c- flan RE-1) e1'G
•? NC ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM MINERAL SPRINGS/BURNT MILL DESIGN PLANS 5
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT DESIGN REACH 2 g
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA

•

?i s e ? I? I ? J
Sa
uDOrr PEE
\vLAv ?I??
\0 ?' DESa PoNT s
WStREw WT //
SWA 0.25 aT Pa to cwORM ro
SLOPE -0 5TA IZE Lw,r Pa[
[LECMC EWwSrORWR

\ I
LEFT Do[
/ 0J ALl

?

DEW wows
\ I I
_
11
E «ECrac
R
A

C- 1 A
Z
11 I; x I ??
11 / „ ?. r
. y

B CL
O,E
cLEcmc MA-
rqE Nm"wr
WARM ISRA
D

Q v

?] • r ? r? _

r
Il V. r
( ?, ; a- r w ,,,,

TRIAM

Il 5n 5.,o

II ',I
¢rt _
Sw[
II ? '

-•
WATER

R.7. LM

NENCATOR VALVE
1 o ? • • - • • • ? •
. _ ••
.
??
1
1 II
11 © S-ARY SEWER MOLE

` . ? r • . _..
•
_.
?
r . _ a•'I-.?
_
to
?
"
' n SEWER a[war
SEWER cL AWOL,
ar r • r • • r r . r ... r • ,.._
r ? r
0.50 D00 . • h5b ?... •--"+ _.r r •
11
1 ?Lr ?.. r • r .., r 2.00 v
r
•-- ------ .... .` .--•. BURNT+M (rC r 50 •
• r .
.
w?
•
11 •
,.,.
_
J r ... • • ?r `•Nr-..:? II -•- ? _
U • • • r r • .I
r
r - r r r r r •, II
- -.-

_ -_ _

-,?-.
swtwr SEWER uWE

_ 10RCE uU

_ PROPOSED S-TARY SEWER LIK
i " 1 .. ._.--- _ • ,'•.i-.-? . 'T'E4 .. . . : • . • . . • .... r . - _
_. --. -NA"AL LAS LVx

? a
• • 3 SOP .- ..
[ o ?
-•
V,
S
m

STORM Ate.
DR-GE
P, V, V,
' JL r r . r • • . • r . . . . . . . r -.
.Or--- r S•SG - -- s • -w?. ?'
- r . R
r - a- ? .•- t MONITO?G

WELL

UMUE
T
??
i I I '.., r . .
•.• r o.. • r r r r r
I ii - '. r r • r . . . . .: • • .

?
I _' . . . • r •
?lOG M
• • . • , rcw `
• ADE ? a v•. ` jJ.• . . r a

r

-
• r . r
a• • r r r . r r r
• r + . • ~ • v .- •
V, r • • •
. +'? •
) RLLPO[-SE I

Ens-c VEnwos
I
?"'?? • • • r • • ? r
1 •
r -,
.
.. Rai rAD

`1 11 •
1?
? r • . •

?' • •
r r r .
.1
a MwM'
Y v r r r !T OA..,WWSEL , r • • ? • • • r r • • , . DEAD EMUS.

LOG vWNC
,.
Y
1- 1 _
^a
r -_ DC C.ADE COUPE
1 /,
?.. ,.,. 1
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
• ® L -[L RUC

1 t _ _
••
•
r
.
r
r
r
r •
..
?'?•? -
• • • . r • .
..___
, Cm LOC TOE PWORCROR
PREL-ARY E.SEWEWr L-11

(PPRO iyttONSERYAEO
L
I _
_
_
_-_?•?'?

B
•,,?

RYI
LOG
1 t A
Es rrw rtIL
T 1
OAMARIY
51 AGMs
-
T
t[soOR., STREAM CR 4.
C5C
•^"" E.UM T NOTE: ALL PRIVET SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN THE ----•• - w j CwsERVAnov EASEMENT LORE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT ALONG THE NORTH BANK Of BURNT
- -
PROPOSED STREAM pr[Mq 5-cs MADE q
MILL CREEK. REMOVAL SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE
CONTRACTOR AND INCLUDE CUT STEM HERBICIDE TREATMENT
APPLIED PER LABEL INSTRUCTIONS_

?UrAR -L
A• n •10 orw I L-h . DOIL

R To Emrrw oRADE TA•Nr Au
7r ro or

IJ)+ \ [m•c old
nRR aDrN

__ la 11 [Pnttl
-? ?tmnw e.w
\\ [D.[[?WwU'0
CPSnnwlgl
PRTIvIEw

_
1
T
\
\
7Y r0 77' rml Au
Em w la
I-APrMCN IY l01.
LOUVML•t rM K WvMLm PER Izr
......
DESIGN POINT 5 DETAIL `LOG CRADE -1
lP.?„?
NOT TO SCALE SECTP.A VIEv
DESIGN POINT 6 - DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
PRELIMI ARY DRAWINGS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
OT .o« WTIS Wmo
RELEASED ."a ` L Nc EcosrsrEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM S GS/BURNT MILL DESIGN PLANS
_ RL[NJIm-g6 A ALt MINERAL PRIN
w ?°' rDICKSON "19"" w" MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK 6
uom«G
arr,L-L- ,---- ?l l v tL,TI STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT BURNT MILL
C?TRXTIOM
T-1, ^Emwau.. c-11-1. , cW,o- c_,
.o oESCRaRO. 1. 9
REa9oNS •••r.'•w'ti RsAZV14M swu c- 1- REcmD WG WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
J, 4,
??L
--

- 4f A
I 1
1

? U l_J LJ I-

-

A

sa
uwn Rat
?
4 ?
x o _
???
"?

?? J

I I
`'•
J

/
.
uaT Vat

M
R
?
`` ?_?
y *
.
,
i , CtLCnfK
w7 0m4

I. y
_ li ,.m' uv3

?

----•- ar ..C?

uxaRwaxO tttc+"c
?.?
ovt"a tt(c[wc
C6
0 FIRE "111-1

1
i

-\
.- -._ C.-
L _. - `• - -•- - _- 111 © 0 ..TER U.E
RgCATOR VR%E
1
- - 0 I , - ,
© 11 11 0
0 _ 11 p su•Twr SEKR xwxat

? - ?

(j I
• O SERE* CLE-OUT
SuxrYVT $FKR UK
0
?w ?
- ?
'
I
II FORCE

?
•'?'i
] oo
^^'.? _
?-A y?yF•t f '•?
I. _
A
N-
PROPOSED SwiTMY SEKR lint

..
.._

T
t? NATURAI. GAS 1.041
?, .,, w• \ ,,.. . a +.
• • w .• .. «- w • -4• .;-•-'. ''

•-...., 1 •_--_ •,'. 00 9•SO .. - •. v , ._ -? Z.CJ - - .,0 _ - _.. 13?o0

1
?T;_- ,?..,..:,-v T
_. •?o.
qURNT MILL
.. 10.0 1Q•50 ,
11 00
-
_
--iJ.5o'-••-:

. p

a
STORM DA-GE ...HOUE
xaRTaa+wKu

,... •---
BffRN1:MIL4 CHtEH -----

?
?
m(vxa[
UNDERGROUND

11
• • • a ? ? '. \ • • ? ?
a , , ',
""?.-?... w_ • • ? . .
• r r '.. • • r • ? r •

?
r . . .
w w
• ? ? • r • r • •
• ' ? ? ? • ? • • ?
. w . ?
. . . . . ? ? ... • • `J ..
•
? ... ? _

,:1 ?

.+.•yrt,. (SfMO KRUUS
ROOT •a
DEAD 81
?•...1

'

------ - w

,
.xx -.
--- w
•

•.• ?

?

®
LOG -E
LOG GRADE C?TROL
CH-I PLUG
LOG TOE RRORCOOx
•
-----------
-
----- -------- --- ------ ---

-

T
LOG

nxornwv sm[w uoss.,c
NOTE: ALL PRIVET SHALL BE REMOVED VATHW THE - LRPRO-TE Cas[RVATgN
us[KRT uRrs) r
\ --- -
- xvvaoR Cas[RV.na us[xtxT u?rs
CONSERVATION EASEMENT ALONG THE NORTH BANK OF BURNT (xsnxO x• 'I
APP-Y
ST.cv(s
?
MILL CREEK. REMOVAL SHALL BE COORDINATED VATH THE
• xExi
xTnw Ux
-
-•
RaOROS[o sRxw )xRCRK YRR¢s RExa q
CONTRACTOR AND INCLUDE CUT STEM HERBICIDE TREATMENT /
APPLIED PER LABEL INSTRUCTIONS.

PRELIMINA T iMe . xn.
Y DRAWINGS - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
J,OT ! .IYNWRS -0 RnU5t0 FOR DATE
K "° p R1EEgtxc=,,,, " NC ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM MINERAL SPRINGS/BURNT MILL DESIGN PLANS 7
- '1WK
-c- 911) m]-wvs Rww rE - y MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
-" /DICKSON
m.x.c-, cun,una I11 tiJ IL"II STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT BURNT MILL
-c- O.rz ?u .a nu rR «x,nvn ?R ,xemwnr,. cmRaimiR xom c.x.R C.•pR I, 9
ReHVOns ?*??^`+ •'n'R00s s- c- Imes KCa?R C+G l.: d,.,.,,.;,IdI IL RILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

r
?Na
r3
phi
ILL .x, zG? o,.M1EN
( S T- GROUmp
,.,IG- P ?-15
rRlfal
wIIP 1 a
AF.N.EDLL EEFTH
-KT
"-FROF'Cf(D -PILL FED
N )I x__..r '.1SE111CI E[ ES-ED CI EEN H
PLANTING ZONES
k15

`EW 'A'
d,at.P C'I,'EN.c'IS
Pl-A'AT LIST PLLN TRk iN ?:;>
REACH I AND BURNT MILL
CommoD Nama $<I T 1L?N a 5
"

green ash
Fre s pe nsylranw.s (a CP rear At IH[ F[aLC+nNG
I. F[ SP TN I BL[ FOR PLANT SVg1I1AL FCR EACH PI AN IIIG AR
.L
CN<TA
AT'IN NOTES
C[I.FR At STEP '.5 F F
(
E:;
Pf
lad alder Alnus +errulala PATES
-S T TEAR 15 F[RCEI.T LL ..
.,
EN.CGPS..LATfD S-:L IFTS
chestnut oak
wal er pooh 0 cud
Quersus nlgra PERCENT
`
10 • LEFT AND R',HT BA-5 AS DCC-fD ON T-S S.FET APE AS CI'EPUNED
red chokeherry
ron"a arDu Tilolia
A ILPO 1 .R
TS PI
eAH
1 INrASVE A xE AND CE.eODC Y'E[IES APE TO PC RCUCtip THR
OU,HOVi ALL ARIAS w.NTIN THE
I vx[N L1'.NG DCAN$TPEAY

THE Ce15 TANG STICAVBEp IS NCI TO PE DI S tUPP[0 k E,LI RVFII u ?5t STALL IS [N F-S CARdL.EL TO CHANNEL AT LC" -IN
OF C- LIFT

AC". E
F
possum hnr VARIhVm nudum 1 )
E
IPE
(.S[V[NT tINNS [.r[Pa .LONG THE R.I.T B.N. DF PuvNT VnL CR((x (AS -D DLMNSTRC.V THE CRC•5 1Hf TNANNfI Ir[ ClC',[51 SU tAa,E ICCA - j N[ E T'.-D R <C ERC C 5 Tr[IC UC( p C ! CN[ (Ci.( 15 AT
1
East [rN haccherla Baccnare ha mrlola IffETA'?N ( L ( -T Pa a 8: 1 l C.(Fk STD FE AN S [D HE
Pr
N
GN[CR [ i 3C ' D t E 5
m5 a IAy" ca cal fera J A ARCS F - E - C E I I V TS AI[ TO FE FL [D 1( D[ LCx xNp R
H
HE
x-11.. ALL PE
T E Al---E STAGLr.TON SEED ua AND S J S[ B (i CCI AER'C GR SrNIH(.C CE.. RC fLR
C
dwarf um ae Rhuf [opal na
NG FUN IS ID V. NIAI A NNT"I' CLEAR LNE Of
x'n :000TANCN P[R 111E FpLCx N., LEAN '
n GP
F
PL TOPS (a ALL EFTS FvCq TO wRAF ir( [OR TAB' If OR
[D TO TTE
%CTL15 NS'RLCTCIS
A-,- elm NIm Re am [aRa r
n
PI
AT
PIA
"A
N; 1 P[ [uT m1n %.M1TM1. IVRL[V[h15 N'[
F
T
S `
r
t "NT.(C QOfgD D+[q TOP CN t?I A R-E SOIL CKR BCTTCU PMIION O[ FABRIC DR C{OGPC, CPRPICT AS
f y[am ore
a red oak
e Plal"nut oc["dental"a
Ouelcus la Zara ,
C u
[
A
I( ANC STN
A
C
P FAF
RE
iC GFD
I
Il
.lt[ST (R'[N.N. xFC[?S.gT 10 .CC'. CA'E EACH PI.IT SH LL BE CUT INTO SCIL FN(APSNLADCN
` [xC.r„rlA'[D ;CIL 1"FTS •,r- P[ I-ACTED 10 AI LEAST TYPICAL ACID
BULK f[N;'(S 10 Fwl u<rvT SE 11L(u[NT u;E CT 0 S 11c-11111 C1SCR.{Ilp w In.TALLATIDN NCT(5. CONIINNE PLACING -L AND C:"uo ACTING
; ILIT 5 T CES ID IL(' ON
xNVle
aak Ourlcus a da A
AN 1 r _ [S C-AIL EC Na;(
iFC CS
IAI[L,IL -3 A - : TC CR Sn[.uS n0 x0 IS
1 _
T.Cq
F
P '
'
'
^
'
10 SAf LIATC CCVPACT fN D uNG xSIµ LA TCN CK FTE
5 LCD D UdLCHOHE 0 C 5 "L OFF I ILL RFUAx GPOC[B
h ack cherry PILE., dero na l
C(.ES E G
L
-
,;.CC ?L_H 1- ] TO fi FLAM1
S tf T L .ANC .
CD
A.l IC GS
P N NO NSTANC[ SHCV D Sc, IFTS P( CCVFACT(0 0 -1 P:'L Df 6 w4AP CC"R FAB%f OR 1+NTH[1C GFOGPD CAR I'P OF EFT. PILL SNVG
STANCARD 1-CT R uA.-U CRa NN',Tr M THE RIAT;RI.L `(CN'[ PER uAVUFACTL'PER'S INSTPUCTIDNS
( -E xVS E E Nµ ED—, ME.IG AAA' F-1 STPFAU AID P
REACH 3 LS U E 11 15 S'EVS TO FE RL.C(D I A -LIR PC,[ AID FIC. r LLED xT TH T,s:.IL
1 -P:S[D I F
[p grLNarRa $4IPDI11LNama CLI5 S.ALL PE 'NSTALL[D AI ME 1- 1 T.( FCTTL'u LIFT I- Tx;u N1E S'+FAU A 1, Is
CUT'IN,S 8:'.
?Iky dag.ood GRrnu1 11 11 m [T A F w U I U _u NTTmG I[ICT. IS ILD IN_H[S CF w'IL..1
,L P[ J'A'_[C Ac uaT[Ir Flwf L. A
lag alder
amp oak
-1-1 Alnua salrulala
Oua ., -N Ir
RA LIASI INC••ES `.H.ACL FE INSTALLED FEICx GR.:C
AN1 -1.14L..AIL PE EITHER RK'[p Cu1TCR F1 CUTTNCS 1.1T -E --S'(p -IN Cl +u.NI
water Ilk OVerca n"gra AND IN'TALLIO MIEN C-IT
Tae cnokeherry aRIIa unwdm.a
possum now Vlhurnum RYdum
h
h
ll
l
1
B l
LI- AL FE INET.ILID IN 7x0 SIAI;:IR[D P:1. x"`N C+T[ AC. I(- l.E FACE - I.I (N1.11-1ID
Eastern DAf Char"s
m yrlle arla
a
m l
"
au
0
MyN[a se,"lard
S11-L I- Axp MI 0'11[R IT THE EA(x OF THE L'rT Ax 111E SIREAU CI xl `3ACIrrG S.".Ll FC
•
T S
dwarf sumac R- sopalllna AVE PC RCxZ SHRLL PE cT- RFD SutH -T
E
-Al 'L' E"GH1 r([i (40') EETATEN PLAITS IN Tr
F
RI ANTS AcE AT LC. ST f"Gnl .... 18 1? AA'AII AT LFICI `D F[P([Tal CF ALl Pt ANTS -C `TAL L EC
All
Am al can elm Ulm ua ameT Lana

C EIS D 5 E I OF L u'iD S E(0 ER CON [ AN
ALL
(vE (
ALL ON

+
+N1?CiC
ayyl-ore
........ red oak Plalmus o<[denlala i
Du e,cus fa seta 11
! IS NO V'PE THIN AN A'EEE E " CE'lwGSl Ne5
[ .t FI'E G f ( rgCES L FE LID w 1' {S +D r . [ 10 [CI[ „Ip 1""(
11 F{^w.
C
10 CP'CLP?
Ilk
h ack chalry Wem., a'oa
Pr-n se I.- D ",I FIE O"PLES
•4C rw
1'. ur- 11-1 R
N'IC
7', 1. 1
i ?1 I
1 fY.?

TILE FFT11.
ITS
T, CAL CM TAN[R (,P^AN
TIE[ '- ,?R,y
SET ,IpN
I I? !i a °I I
1 1 II ? -11 w 15
- I I -I I III
I. l 111 I `-----?
- I III '-- -
gill??l I ?I I II ?11 ? I I'-III II I Iii-'ll-III
I _I J_II IILII-Jcl II=,', II II Ili-'.I!-III
+aAn
Bi PC [ L 4 1 '
C C f - F' ( 111H G+(ATCR THAN ! [ - .D Y H
CR [D 0 ) [ : f I F
IIANI 1 F 1 r F D f(S TO F 11 1.1 p C AV[ C 5 I'll C {5
Bd ! S NV' 9 F 1.11 1
ILL'- I d A 1-11 111 u I N. x-S. N, . r Arorrt 1.(n r I ALI" 'S
Sr1 ( [ " 0 [ aT
) T s 1 ms c - N
IC-11 I -L D { [ r.. I N
. TR. [TDr[ {R*TF 1 fN.Ry C1U'S TSrn TnA xR[x -T
5 B ` n TO I [' ..0 w'C A
u R T.1 trLL
t nat. [t IH .rd mIN'T .L[x I.[ Pr,•S 5 5 CNtt C Lll? C
.Tw{Al ??.T A•., [I w r...r.l a NG La(L "..(R.*.I IN T.[
x''H -IE
_YL cVC .'•L CIV,ap'R
farrrnlP r
1-11S -11 I'Ll "I 'I"
- xf w"w f .,.L
Cr;ir. ;r; FL:'JTII''?1rli'+TI` r,i'.IL
- - -- -
L
4
50' ID )e' 1, I
Y
FA`E FL
PE?D EaS 1.4 C

\Fa,
`w
?- (?RRCtCC IIfT
FI?FI Ii111'd%`RY IiRr"..";'IPJGS - "JOT FCR CCi•JSTRUCTIC"

• 1'
ES PELIASEZ FR C.'E
5 .. f ez
? E
K P s
- ?DICKSON BD` `
rc

NC ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM L"ICJ EPAL S?'fP fJGS??UR??T l:11L GE`IG'J PL:4JS
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
Ili.RhT??lll STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT SET IFS
11''1,1 (I N ('1 ({'.,? WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA
•
•
e
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
O
O
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

?i
Eio
a13;
iS
?a
:«3

?CGR Y.T E EIE
10 /3 a l(M

I
5 F11,
P)p4?LpnY-PlI PArnAk r C. uEIC C FC E C-CC E sj 2 C.u['ER / TOR I F--
V
/
?
t n
E- 4w PR A:40 RED

r 1
??
1
a 2 {T "E"
e El.
R-
.4E. f
o
>2 D

3' C
ll
W. ,
I I'LL

eE L,m s A _esta Nv
? 4
y,N
a
Diu OF 2/3 a

DnLCR?
I R PE-DE RC[RD
N RI
3J. ID AS.J lC .( EC x
LDS .- ..
DAYE TER I-I
G.4TL w
3a TO AS' 1 ED'2
LOG TCE PROTECTIC'N - TYPICAL CET-T
F"I TO ',CAGE
P
uN So'
I
FLCw
_ _ _ _ ?\FC?AR
IA.
Oy
\ ?' RDDI wxp ?\ 0.001 weD
.? P(D. DFR
,?Fv FN,.NL(+J
r C \
V
'-fOCCP L^G
[RT.E PDwT uEI.DD "
I-16, TnE END Dr T-[ tDG w.rN A Cn ANSAR IECRE
TR'vxG'ii iN lO THE 6ANY ar'(NI RCLT wADS CPSIRGu
SD in.i Tu[ 6RETU fLCw uEUS ln[ RDDT wAP AJ A
YD CCL CC C D[ EC NG TIE IATIR AX l- T-[
fINX R [ E-Ell S-D EE PULED DN
T.( DC [ :CE C T.1 -CT AID F A 6ACR E:Cr S
I(P4L0 Pr T..E R.;OT IID
TRENC.NG IET-D
w[ RO01 I'D CWNCT EE ON'VN INTO TnE EINR OR TIE
e.xw wEDZ To EE 111I4n1Uam. InE IRrxa-C unnuD
SNOUID HC D`fD MIS uEMCD NII,111 MAl A 11 NCI eE
[NULFfD ICN mE TCG 11-IN a T.[ RDDT xAD IN TwS
(A'.E. A ICOTER LGG 54.IuLD eE IN-TATTED W+C(RNEIIR TT(
x(,DT wAD ,N A ...... E.CA V.I[0 RAR.LIlI TD InE E.NR
AND wYLL P[LI. Tn6 -1-PID IN(-ImFD Cf THE RDCT
I'D SNWLD AIU.iN EELCw F-LIAL P.;C rLCw CC'I"S
EOULGC E 10 FE CEIE4NLD Ev EN--IER
RCyT',AO FF1ETNENT - DETAIL
NDT 1) ',-A,(
-
J L ?

AS
D
F A['tC
•.IEAJ Le r
EY IN _.RC I,,
,
STREAU E<IV u I,ED
EE. r
P'_AN l`!:N
- 01 TD OA

n f 2 x([OI
IN CR FAIIk(,
FAPR(
TO LOG
2E,CED I.Aw.L DE0 1

A\`

4.IER.L "A (R [VCNEu
AIt R N. R
r=uu eAN.-?
I'll "I -
TIE,. , II
? E.SIiIr R. L.C
/9 N D4V['[R ?FL.[R IAFTCJ
Ir. (I -PILL
AN ,..AS I-AiTm IR Iy[.
r GI„IE RS 1uGS I-LILD PE OF NIR wLrD BELLIES DNLY AND
iN"wOUCxS pw) [E I.urEp I". sWRQS OF S'[
1 LOGS SNDVID PE A IN-1 If ,6 FEET iN LINCTN AND
hC FIIAT
ILs I :«ODID I ;l
J P3l1 REPS E AI L[nSl 12 ix(IIES ix D-I ILA
S-.D [ T LEAST D CMS D (.
D D IECEITLI
m
z E G LIN, 3 I'D C u -ED Couu-N
Ct 2' c. ELY.
3 IF, I E C L"' -L PE N'_T_I TIE 2 Ev?IIR
IAIII c 1.1-11I
LOG RA!'? - GETrl
FIT IJ crkE
r r I LOG
R Q r
S 5 Y A J • /
11 LEAST , I[I T
.[A-P LoG--/ °
rcrla LCG
I)
.he "In
wam
ru[A. "' r oI.
(l[uAIiDN nT 1 .?L:c mE
PAR W6PLL
MR
TILT 2 xmoT N( LI
FILTER Naf RCIERENIFD IN
Lq GIm G ,TPDC1uvC IAeL[
O LE G
REVI ACID CNA I', -ID
L
A4(I!R
[T C CPC I C 1 [ 1
R,4AI i . C (v
a m
1 x l [Rl P`C . JG 'LED
3rw
[NO,rE '. u'. R[ LR ED n1w1
cTAF.u kAwr
R.. C ED S. Lwu P[N ? f
1 /

l I
n
uD'11, DDA.IIIR
IT I RIx4

- DILN LDrS 10 FIT
'?
PA[E uwAx Lccs
? ?
R[P.R 5/B YEN DA.('ER
'
A'
ID
' LEN;TH DR ]D
Fn k fAERiC
u ?
- .
F,
DLr
iL' AN
?c
ALLFClER ..x AL
A A I "I, N.^[ LOGSS-1C EE Cl
m_-_.N: I'.RI .r_D:I'CEES INII IN!)
rEIA •,E D rR'u 11.-E S -
ALI
CC%TFCL - CETZ"L
I I;I(kt ----
CC v C EC P .l LIED P.[ L EAxxrLTl [J--
(12- L s) I 5 III
u
NEW CNANIII PIT sr.LL
C i
I[T AS SR¢sa
PLANS
F
TOl wAD (PLACED AS
c ECi[D e, INCwEEF)

c-INCI MINI
CHA%'R PLUG DETAIL
III T7 SCA,E
Fn C[R FAPRC
TN -I L
O(CEP SS TS)
ST(w[ f1A5 1?
ST ONE S A
.u
Y IF
N
I CDNSIPUCI SIPEAU CR^,SSiuL -1. 111. IS FDA'
2 N. I ALL NECESSARY 1AIE-TES AND ECIVI"Exl Ox-SITE
E[FOPC AIRN EEGNS
] uiN.." CLEANING AND ExCAIAIDN OF 51PEANDAN.S DO NOT
E.C-AIL CHANNEL ECIICV. CDUP¢'E ONE 4DE EtIOPE STARING
IN T.E OT.fR SLE
I L STREAU CRCSSNG PC E C l O C
5 ADE 5LOKS TD A 2 S [ CD 0.,'lu
C O NIL STAEAURANN DN ID SCE SLOES
6 4AxIAN CRDS9 G SD TNAI RI-NIF N Tn[ C.NS LCI'DN
RDAD DO(S III ENTER EID-D CgIN[I
A I ARE,ED PAD Of x.%RAL CLACS A STLNI. 6 NCnCS
__ uxED T. FILTER Ile'll '-LL UC u`(o 0[R In. PEPu
AND A.. IS I_ ED
e F TER FAb-C 1ID S--L EE N=T IIPE 2 tNC/iE(RNG
-1C iR CGN'AAII IT
9 n^.T. DF T.E CR,SSNG Sn ATL FE S'.:FFCCNT (D' 11 ) TO
ACC-CAIE T-E L.FO.ST I-CLE C-.-NC I.E C?AN',tl
i0 C(1P.CICR SMALL LETS 11E .N A".--- PLATE RA41 ANCLE
ACC_+T wG 10 F` IN' 1110:1D
11 rluR.RAPr CPD-ICS ALE TO E[ Ao N^^N[D IN Fi ACE
TEYr`C;ARY STFF RI CROSC" 1G - PETAL
I IJ rd
r .r

u
NC "t REP- (/2'
4 C' E [ J E
I
1 Y
,_T D PE CFD D J

T
D u(5 I'D C C L 'CE TD
EC PLACE G 17 6 C l S L I

1
EDT TD 3
RFP D DE ILA
C D a D C C PiIL 3

( ?..
( .} 1
,? "N rE,cR IC A,.
R, 2 PER LCG
T-Ir
/
w J 'S

AJ
T(n(Tn LnuNS

_ cso a.NNn
F_r.1 r?(TLLi?'? ilI
- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
I
?-
C 7,
"? n'
F'R ES
E C [G
C.T[
ILE NI 2711? A,

NO
6
DICKSON N
. KTAa, rc/2sir"a r?,o.N T, F(.. D rwc
TLLI --
orri[DIR
FLCI ca'R
Ax') ?
S E >I°FD
I
roE L
? P L:[R
-5 S.11 D K AT LFIST 11 pr(n[S a DIAUIIER, RF111-1 511.-T. AND ...I'I—
2 CAD `S TC- -11D NER-ID AT Auxiutu a 5 FEET ITO F.I.
3 eAxE LCL -S I -LD EE-ED iI'D 1..C EA,. A u-1. CA E FEET
xI nEV ,_ a I,a a Ia wess r.¢¢ ID rsRm ?EV.u[w IT sTR(.Rr[D
6 DIPTN LY'O_R Lcc 1. _D CO .I I3. w. SC,LR DEP1N
6 CAUETEF OT COR LOOS SNWTD ED.IAL 12 DAU[16R a Las
7 I_ vAN( LWS AS Snl`wY LING E' GAIII-ED Su0CIx5PAES ITN 3 SFACNG
xC1CN 5 1CRUC0 PT uA.xG COTS IR TN A GMANS- 2 APART AND I.EN YNX NG
017 S.CI CNS 17. A Cn SIL AND w_f,
R ANLL[ u' NC- snaTD YAICn .uuE FE-El IeG .R45 a LPess -( AND T.E
51REARPANx
N S
u EAR (e/0' uN-I DiAIE-(R 3' IN IENCT. TNCAI)
D HL RUI1OY103'IR"v INDIL .
_IR ID EE PIACCD .I 6' aIS[IS LaAST PCfARnSnOUCCF[
F -I Tu END rc ,rc. p, Fr PIIL AN,nTIPS NII RI
D'a p AS A SON`.I-I'4w FOR PIRAR
1 TRI-I'Ll 11 IS P `/! E R
3 C L EP I' 5 C FIVD [ S S ,nivn
( I Yv '1 L?I?l 1' S D K T/2 TO 'A "1 11 3' P .--
[CC,
'/ GE DST 'L
"ED SFREAU EAN
zP
,CG TCL
nL«
IF, T? I LGG 'i
r
PPro: ,(D S1FL?uu PA?rx?/ y-• E
?PO E [ [ -m'N
.I I .E -E
NO ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM C"?"?ERnL CPR ?lGS/EUR?JT^iILL EECGIf PLr`"i".JS 9
MINERAL SPRINGS BRANCH AND BURNT MILL CREEK
?,?T T' (111 STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT OFTNLS
I? II `, t`II li. WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
D
13
a
CD
m
M
x

71 P-
e
•
e
e
s
•
s
test-Nis. ho
it it kir kir irk ic;4ir;44r it is it it it it is is it is is is it it irt>r kisint:4:Y it it it it it it it is kir it iru:Y:};4ic;4;4;4 it it it is ict it it ick it i; it it is iruti: :: it it ..
SAMwin
single Machine License 1003031 -- WK Dickson
:Y it xic koY uic:4u>c:4>;:4ic:4 it is it ir:::4 it it it it kit it it ir;}a4 tict it tir ittkirt is k:4tkk><ir it in drk;4 kitttkkkt tit it tictt ki<k >r :4 :}
HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS `
version 1.0 i`
A Product of the Flood control channels Research Program °F
°F Coastal & Hydraulics Laboratory, USAE Engineer Research & Development center °F
t k
t in cooperation with t
k it
°F Owen Ayres & Associates, Inc., Ft. Collins, CO t
it >t
ki?kkttttkk:}t:}ktt>tkt:}itktkktktkttitktkkttkttttttkktktktkkktttttkkkktkir kir it it:}kkt:t kitkt
Msg 1: HYD. READING INPUT DATA FROM FILE [ C:\SAMwin\MS\test-MS.hi ] THIS DIRECTORY.
TABLE 1. LIST INPUT DATA.
T1
F#345678 2345678 2345678 2345678 2345678 2345678 2345678 2345678 2345678 2345678
TR
CT 14.0 1.9 .56 .56 4 0 .057 0 .057
PF 4 .26 16 .34 35 .41 50
PFC 5 65 .78 84 1 95
ES .004
WT 55
GC 140 -140 0.0065 .56 .56 0 .057 0 .057
SP 2.65
$SEND
INPUT IS COMPLETE.
BED SEDIMENT GRADATION CURVE, PERCENT FINER.
SIZE, MM= 1.000 2.000 4.000
%, = 95.000 78.699 100.000
D84(mm)= 1.000 D50Cmm)= 1.000 D16(mm)= 1.000 Geom Std Dev= 1.0
INEFFECTIVE FLOW ELEVATIONS BY STRIP NO.
1 2 3
-9999.0
TABLE 2-2. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES.
ACCELERATION OF GRAVITY = 32.174
TABLE 2-3. PROPERTIES OF THE WATER
# TEMP RHO VISCOSITY UNIT NIT
X4100000 WATER
DEG F #-S2/FT4 SF/SEC #/FT3
1 55. 1.939 1.308 62.393
1
CALCULATE CHANNEL WIDTH, DEPTH AND SLOPE BY COPELAND METHOD. GC-RECORD # 1
CALCULATE INFLOWING SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION, PPM.
INFLOWING WATER DISCHARGE, CFS
BASE WIDTH
CHANNEL SLOPE, FT/FT
140.000
14.00000
= 0.00400000
SIDE SLOPE
K5, FT
n-VALUE
CALCULATE STABLE CHANNEL DIMENSIONS.
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANK
0.560 0.560
21.43 21.43
0.05700 0.05700
Page 1
test_Ms.ho
USING BROWN LIES RESISTANCE & TRANSPORT EQUATIONS
MEDI AN BED SIZE ON BED, MM = 1 .00000
GRADATION COEFFICIE NT = 1.000
VALL EY SLOPE = 0.00650000
LEFT BANK RIGH T BANK
SIDE SLOPE = 0.560 0.560
Ks, FT = 21.43 21.43
n-VA LUE = 0 .05700 0.05700
TABL E 4-1. STABLE CHANNELS FOR Q= 140 .0 C,mgl= 3160. D50= 1.000
K: BOTTOM DEPTH ENERGY :CMPOSIT: HYD : VEL FROUDE: SHEAR: BED *
WIDTH SLOPE :n-Value: RADIUS: NUMBER: STRESS:B -REGIME
FT FT FT/FT FT FPS #/SF:
1 2. 5.6 0.009305 0.0517 2.05 4.46 0.33 3.28 UP
2 5. 4.4 0.006373 0.0459 2.16 4.32 0.36 1.77 UP
3 7. 3.5 0.005181 0.0402 2.10 4.37 0.41 1.13 UP
4 10. 2.8 0.004550 0.0351 1.96 4.46 0.47 0.80 UP
5 12. 2.3 0.004186 0.0311 1.78 4.54 0.53 0.61 UP
6 14. 2.0 0.003971 0.0280 1.61 4.60 0.58 0.49 UP
7 17. 1.8 0.005924 0.0348 1.53 4.36 0.57 0.67 TL
8 19. 1.6 0.005978 0.0336 1.42 4.31 0.60 0.60 TL
9 22. 1.5 0.006064 0.0327 1.32 4.26 0.62 0.56 TL
10 24. 1.3 0.006169 0.0319 1.23 4.20 0.64 0.52 TL
11 26. 1.2 0.006287 0.0313 1.15 4.14 0.65 0.49 TL
12 29. 1.2 0.006412 0.0308 1.09 4.09 0.67 0.47 TL
13 31. 1.1 0.006542 0.0303 1.03 4.04 0.68 0.44 TL
14 34. 1.0 0.006674 0.0300 0.98 3.99 0.69 0.43 TL
15 36. 1.0 0.006812 0.0297 0.93 3.94 0.70 0.41 TL
16 38. 0.9 0.006946 0.0294 0.89 3.89 0.71 0.40 TL
17 41. 0.9 0.007080 0.0291 0.85 3.85 0.72 0.39 TL
18 43. 0.8 0.007213 0.0289 0.81 3.81 0.73 0.38 TL
19 46. 0.8 0.007345 0.0287 0.78 3.77 0.74 0.37 TL
20 48. 0.8 0.007475 0.0285 0.75 3.73 0.75 0.36 TL
RES ULTS AT MINIMUM STREAM POWER
21 14. 2.0 0.004010 0.0286 1.65 4.59 0.57 0.51 UP
* REGIMES: L O=LOWER, TL=TRANSITIONAL-LOWER, TU=TRANSITIONAL-UPPER, UP=UPPER.
...END OF JOB ...
Printout is in FILE
C:\sAMwin\MS \test_lS.ho
Page 2