20021345 Ver 1_Complete File_20070101

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.
I. Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program
Mailing Address: 1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone Number: 919-733-5208 Fax Number: 919-733-5321
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: N/A
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 5 of 12
yet
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Riparian Wetland Restoration
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Durham Nearest Town: Durham
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Take Business 15-501 north to
751 Left onto 751 and left at first intersection onto Pickett Road. Go approximately 1 mile
and take left onto Sandy Creek Road Continue approximately 1/a mile until reach site.
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 water body.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
The proposed wetlands restoration site is on the west side of Sandy Creek and has been
impacted with fill material used to construct sludge drying beds for a former wastewater
treatment plant Sandy Creek has a featureless bed that provides poor habitat for
macroinvertebrates and fish.
7. Property size (acres): Approximately 20 acres
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): New Hope Creek
9. River Basin: Cape Fear River Basin -
Page 6 of 12

e
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at httj2:Hh2o.enr.state.ne.us/admin/maps/.)
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Restore riparian wetlands and improve in-
stream habitat in Sandy Creek. Restoration of riparian wetlands will improve wildlife habitat
as well as water quality within the Sandy Creek watershed. In addition the City of Durham
is currently constructing a park and recreation center adjacent to the restoration site. This
project will provide educational opportunities as well as improve the aesthetics of the site.
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Track-hoe and loader.
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: Residential, commercial/office, Duke
University Campus and Medical Center, and Duke Golf Course.
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.
N/A
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:
No future permit requests are anticipated.
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
Page 7 of 12
e?
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
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***
N/A

* 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://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 10 acres
Total area of wetland impact proposed:
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
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 specify)
N/A

* 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
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.tol2ozone.com,
www.mapauest.com, etc.).
Page 8 of 12
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: N/A
3. 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 of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
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.
The temporarv impacts are unavoidable due the nature of stream enhancement work. The
construction will be staged and performed in such a manner that the disturbance to the aquatic
system is minimal.
Page 9 of 12
N
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 91 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
hgp:Hh2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
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://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
3. Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Page 10 of 12
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX: 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 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify exempt activity )?
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 11 of 12
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
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).
N/A

Applicanvt/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
SANDY CREEK STREAM ENHANCEMENT
AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
2006 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3)
Durham County
EEP Project No. 322
Design Firm: Becky L. Ward Consulting
January 2007
Prepared for: NCDENR/ ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Prepared by: ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
Ecos,,vstem
jilt lit
-1 A-A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................1
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Location and Setting ................................................................................................................ 2
2.2 Mitigation Structure and Objectives ...................................................................................... .. 2
2.3 Project History and, Background .............................................................................................. 4
3.0 PROJECT MONITORING AND RESULTS ....................................................................................... 7
3.1 VEGETATION ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................. 7
3.1.1 Soil Data ................................................................................................................... 7
3.1.2 Vegetation Problem Areas ........................................................................................ 7
3.1.3 Stem Counts ............................................................................................................. 7
3.2 STREAM ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................... 10
3.2.1 Bankfull Events ...................................................................................................... 10
3.2.2 Bank Stability Assessment ..................................................................................... 10
3.2.2 Stream Problem Areas ............................................................................................ 10
3.3 WETLAND ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................. 12
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location ......................................................................................................................... 3
LIST OF TABLES
Table I Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives ............................................................................ 4
Table II Project Activity and Reporting History .................................................................................... 4
Table III Project Contacts ........................................................................................................................ 5
Table IV Project Background .................................................................................................................. 6
Table V Preliminary Soil Data ............................................................................................................... 7
Table VI Vegetation Problem Areas ........................................................................................................ 7
Table VIIa Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot ..................................................................... 8
Table VIIb Stem Counts for Volunteer Species Arranged by Plot ............................................................. 8
Table VIII Verification of Bankfull Events ............................................................................................... 10
Table IX BEHI and Sediment Export Estimate ....................................................................................... 10
Table X Stream Problem Areas .............................................................................................................. 10
Table XI Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment ........................................................ 11
Table XIII Morphology and Hydrologic Monitoring Summary ................................................................ 11
Table XIV Wetland Criteria Attainment .................................................................................................... 12
EEP Project No. 322 i Sandy Creek Restoration Site
APPENDIX A: FIGURES
Site Location
Monitoring Plan View
APPENDIX B: VEGETATION DATA
Vegetation Problem Area (Plan View)
Vegetation Survey Data Tables
Vegetation Problem Area Photos
Wetland Photo Stations
APPENDIX C: STREAM GEOMORPHOLGY DATA
Stream Problem Area (Plan View)
Representative Stream Problem Area Photos
Stream Photo Stations
Cross-Section Plot and Raw Data Tables
Pebble Count Plots and Raw Data Tables
APPENDIX D: WETLAND HYDROLOGY DATA
Monitoring Gauge Hydrographs and Precipitation Graphs
Wetland Problem Area (Plan View)
EEP Project No. 322 ii Sandy Creek Restoration Site
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site (Site) was selected to mitigate
impacts to Section 404 jurisdictional areas associated with the extension of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Parkway (Parkway) between Cook road and Hope Valley Road in Durham County. The impacts of the
Parkway on jurisdictional wetlands and non-wetland jurisdictional waters totaled 1.73 acres near Third
Fork Creek. The Site provides 3.6 acres of restoration and creation as mitigation for the impacts. The
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will be using the remaining 1.87 acres as mitigation for other
impacts within the Cape Fear River Basin. In addition to the wetland restoration, Sandy Creek has been
enhanced with the installation of log vanes. The log vanes are intended to create pool features that will
enhance habitat and water quality along 2,700 linear feet of stream.
Site construction and planting was completed in June 2003. The Site was partially replanted In January
2004. The 2006 monitoring report represents the third year of vegetation and hydrological monitoring.
The Site must demonstrate both hydrologic and vegetation success for a minimum of five years or until
the Site is deemed successful. The following paragraphs summarize the results of the monitoring that has
occurred during the third year of monitoring at the Site.
Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation success criteria for the wetland restoration areas include a minimum survival of 260 stems per
acre of planted species at the end of Year 5. In addition, six planted species must survive throughout the
Site. Four of the five vegetation plots achieved the density criterion for success at the Site. However,
since only three planted species were recorded in the aggregated vegetation plots, the Site as a whole fails
the diversity criterion.
Low survival of many of the planted species can be attributed to flooding at Plot 4 (located in an on-site
pond) and invasive exotics at plot 5. The surviving stems are most likely volunteer individuals of the
planted species recruited from the surrounding woods. Initial plantings were previously reported to be
largely destroyed by geese, and this event is assumed to be responsible for low species diversity at the site
at Year 2. Poor soil composition (Urban land soils occupy approximately 5.5 acres of the Site) is another
factor in poor survival.
Stream Enhancement Monitoring
The log vanes in Sandy Creek were observed and evaluated for stability and effectiveness. The vanes
appear stable with no visible signs of breaching. Vegetation has established on the depositional areas
behind the vane arms at many locations. The banks adjacent to all the vanes were stable and showed no
evidence of erosion. However, the enhancement of bed form from the installation of these vanes is not
currently evident. Based on cursory observations, the high sediment load in the stream has not allowed
pools to form behind any of the structures. The thalweg appears to meander from each storm event with
no discernable bed features throughout the reach. The permanent cross-section survey and pebble counts
show no significant change over the past year.
Wetland Hydrology Monitoring
The 2006 hydrologic monitoring results indicate continued hydrologic success within the Site. All three
on-site groundwater monitoring gauges exhibited saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface for at
least 12.5 percent (consecutive days) of the growing season (March 30 - November 11 or 227 days).
EEP Project No. 322 1 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
2.1 LOCATION AND SETTING
The Site is located adjacent to Sandy Creek Park (future Sandy Creek Environmental Education Center)
in Durham, North Carolina near the intersection of Highway 15-501 Bypass / 15-501 Business (Figure 1).
Site directions: from Raleigh, follow I-40 west to Highway 15-501. Take Highway 15-501 north
approximately 2 miles. Pass under 15-501 Bypass and turn left onto Tower Boulevard. Take Tower
Boulevard until it dead ends at Pickett Road. Turn left. Sandy Creek Road will be on the left directly
after crossing over 15-501 Bypass. Take Sandy Creek Road to the end and enter into the Sandy Creek
Park. The entrance to the wetland restoration area is accessed by following the greenway trail (Sandy
Creek Trail) to a dilapidated bridge crossing over Sandy Creek. The stream enhancement reach begins
approximately 1525 feet upstream of the bridge and ends approximately 1175 feet downstream of the
bridge at the stream culverts located under Highway 15-501.
2.2 MITIGATION STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVES
The Site occupies areas once used by the defunct New Hope Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility owned
by the City of Durham (City). As part of a park and greenway development plan the City Parks and
Recreation Department removed existing structures including piping, control buildings, and fencing of the
existing sludge drying beds located west of Sandy Creek within the proposed wetland restoration area.
Prior to construction of the wetland project, the City had completed phase one of the Sandy Creek Trail, a
greenway trail located along the east side of Sandy Creek. Demolition of the treatment plant east of
Sandy Creek continued concurrently with the wetland and stream restoration project.
The objectives of this project are to restore habitat and water quality in Sandy Creek and restore the
abandoned sludge drying bed locations to riparian wetlands. The restored wetland ecosystem will provide
quality habitat and food for wildlife, as well as buffer and water storage benefits within the Sandy Creek
watershed.
Wetland Restoration Activities
The area proposed for wetland restoration was excavated as an extension of existing ponds and vegetated
wetlands located adjacent to the Site (Figure 2, Appendix A). The wetland was designed so that a broad
berm set at the elevation of the seasonal high water table of the pond (262.0 feet) separates the restored
wetland into two sections. The southern section ties into the grade of the existing wetland and slopes
gradually up to the berm. From the berm the ground gradually slopes down to the north into a depression
that stores run-off from adjacent slopes and floodwaters from Sandy Creek. In the middle of the
depression, an elevated island was constructed to allow for various vegetation assemblages. Following
the completion of earthwork the Site was planted with native tree and shrub species.
Stream Enhancement Activities
Thirteen log vane structures were placed along 2700 linear feet of Sandy Creek. The log vanes consisted
of two hardwood trees, stacked together to form each structure. The logs were secured together with
rebar and tied with cables at both ends. Vegetation was planted on the banks to stabilize the disturbance
created during installation. Additional modifications to the channel included regrading and stabilizing a
small section of bank directly above the culverts located under Highway 15-501 and the removal of fallen
trees and debris to improve flow conditions.
EEP Project No. 322 2 Sandy Creek Restoration Site

r, f

CO.
? .

I
t w l ? .. I 1
Location , .

...
1
f "s Wbraa z i.
t ?
u

C'

• _ --
'
Dwn.by:
SITE LOCATION MAF FIGURE
„ _ . EcoScience Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement Ckdby: JWG
Corporation
W
l
R
i
Si
Date:
and
and
estorat
on
et
te DEC 2006
Raleigh, North Carolina
Durham County, North Carolina
Project: 06-282.03
Exhibit Table I. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives
Sand Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
a
v
Project U ° Linear
Segment or Footage or
Reach ID Acreage Stationing Comments
00+00 to Primarily achieved with placement
Reach I Ell SSS 2700 linear feet
27+00 of to vanes
Wetland
R - 3.6 acres NA
Restoration
R = Restoration
EI = Enhancement I
Ell = Enhancement II
P1 = Priority I
P2 = Priority II
P3 = Priority III
S = Stabilization SSS = Stream Bank Stabilization
2.3 PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
Exhibit Table II. Project Activity and Reporting History
Sand Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322

Activity Report
Scheduled
Completion Data
Collection
Complete Actual
Completion
or Delivery
Restoration Plan NA* NA* NA*
Final Design (90%) NA* NA* NA*
Construction NA* NA* Jun 2003
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area NA* NA* NA*
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments NA* NA* NA*
Bare Root Seedling Installation NA* NA* NA*
Mitigation Plan / As-builts (Year 0 Monitoring - baseline) NA* Jun 2003 Oct 2003
Year 1 Monitoring NA* May 2004 NA*
Site Replanting (portions of Zone 3) NA* NA* Mid 2004
Year 1 Monitoring re-sampling NA* Se 2004 Dec 2004
Year 2 Monitoring (Vegetation) Dec 2005 Oct 2005 Dec 2005
Year 2 Monitoring (Groundwater Gauges) Dec 2005 Oct 2005 Dec 2005
Year 3 Monitoring (Vegetation) Dec 2006 Nov 2006 Dec 2006
Year 2 Monitoring (Groundwater Gauges) Dec 2006 Nov 2006 Dec 2006
Bolded items represent those events or deliverables that are variable. Non-bolded items represent events that are standard over
the course of a typical project.
*NA - Historical project documents necessary to provide this data were unavailable at the time of this report submission.
EEP Project No. 322 4 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
Exhibit Table III. Project Contacts
Sand Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
Designer Ms. Becky Ward
1512 Eglantyne Court
Becky L. Ward Consulting Raleigh, NC 27613
919 870-0526
Construction Contractor Mr. Greg Kiser
6106 Corporate Park Drive
Shamrock Environmental, Inc Browns Summit, NC 27214
336 375-1989
Planting Contractor NA*
Seeding Contactor NA*
NA*
Seed Mix Sources
NA*
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Monitoring Performers EcoScience Corporation
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
919 828-3433
Stream Monitoring POC Jens Geratz
Vegetation Monitoring POC Elizabeth Scherrer
Wetland Monitoring POC Crai Terwilliger
*NA - Historical project documents necessary to provide this data were unavailable at the time of this report submission.
EEP Project No. 322 5 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
Exhibit Table IV. Project Background
Sand Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
Project County Durham
Drainage Area 7.3 square miles to culvert at Bypass 15-501
Impervious cover estimate (%) 10 percent
Stream Order 3`a order
Ph sio ra hic Region Piedmont
Ecore ion (Griffith and Omernik) Triassic Basin
Ros en Classification of As-built NA (Enhancement only)
Cowardin Classification Stream (R3UB2)
Wetlands (PFOI)
Dominant soil types Stream - Chewacla and Wehadkee soils (Ch)
Wetlands - Urban Land (Ur)
SCO #ID 010542301
USGS HUC for Project and Reference 03030002060110 / NA
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project and Reference 03-06-05 / NA
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference C, NSW / NA
An portion of any project segment 303d listed? No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a
303d listed segment? No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor NA
Percent of project easement fenced None
*NA - Historical project documents necessary to provide this data were unavailable at the time of this report submission.
EEP Project No. 322 6 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
3.0 PROJECT MONITORING AND RESULTS
3.1 VEGETATION ASSESSMENT
3.1.1 Soil Data
Exhibit Table V. Preliminary Soil Data
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
Series Max Depth

(in.) % Clay on

Surface
OM %
Mayodan sandy loam (MfC, MfD) 60 5-20 0.5-2
Chewacla and Wehadkee soils (Ch) 80 5-20 1-5
Urban land (Ur) -- -- --
White Store sandy loam (WsQ 50 5-20 0.5-2
3.1.2 Vegetation Problem Areas
Exhibit Table VI. Vegetative Problem Areas

Feature / Issue Station # / Range Probable Cause Photo #
Bare Floodplain Vegetation Plot 4 Flooding from pond creation; 4
Poor Survival Vegetation Plot 5 Invasive exotics 5, 5a
A vegetation problem area plan view and photos are provided in Appendix B.
3.1.3 Stem Counts
Plots are marked with 1.25-inch PVC pipes. Stem counts were conducted for all woody species,
including volunteer species. An inventory of planted species is given in Exhibit Table VII. A tally of
volunteer woody species is listed in Exhibit Table VIIa. Success criteria include a minimum survival of
260 stems per acre of planted species at the end of Year 5. In addition, 6 planted species must survive
throughout the site.
EEP Project No. 322 7 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
Exhibit Table VIIa: Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged b Plot

Plots Year 3 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Survival
Species
1
2
3
4
5
Totals
Totals
Totals
Totals
%
Acer rubrum 4 4 30 12 4 13
Alnus serrulata 0 1 0
Betula nigra 0 2 5 0
Carya ovata 0 4 0
Cephalanthus occidentalis 0 2 0
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 89 32 7 128 16 104 148 800
Liriodendron lulipifera 0 9 2 0
Nyssa sylvatica 0 5 0
Quercus lyrata 0 5 3 0
Quercus phellos 0 14 3 3 21
Salix nigra 67 10 5 6 88 5 73 108 1760
Sambucus canadensis 0 11 1 0
Viburnum nudum 0 8 3 0
Low survival of many of the planted species can be attributed to flooding at Plot 4 (located in an on-site
pond) and invasive exotics at plot 5. The surviving stems are most likely volunteer individuals of the
planted species recruited from the surrounding woods. Initial plantings were previously reported to be
largely destroyed by geese, and this event is assumed to be responsible for low species diversity at the site
at Year 2. Poor soil composition (Urban land soils occupy approximately 5.5 acres of the Site) is another
factor in poor survival. High occurrences of Fraxinus pennsylvanica and Salix nigra are likely due to
volunteer individuals of planted species. The original planted species could not be differentiated from the
volunteers for any identified species in Table 7.
Plot 4 is the only vegetation plot to fail the density criterion for success at the Site. However, since only
three planted species were recorded in the aggregated vegetation plots, the Site as a whole fails the
diversity criterion.
Exhibit Table VIIb. Stem Counts for Volunteer Species Arranged by Plot

Plots Year 3 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2
Species 1 2 3 4 5 Totals Totals Totals Totals
Acer negundo 1 1 2 1
Cellis laevigata 1 1 1
Cornus amomum 2 2 2 2
Gleditsia triacanthos 1
Liquidambar styraciua 6 6 1 6
Platanus occidentalis 2 1
Populus deltoides 2
Ulmus americana 1
EEP Project No. 322 8 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
An inventory of herbaceous species on the site was also taken. Dominant herbaceous species over the site
as a whole are listed below:
Andropogon virginicus (broomsedge)
Aster dumosus (frost aster)
Boehmeria cylindrica (false nettle)
Carex spp. (sedges)
Cyperus strigosus (straw-colored flatsedge)
Eleocharis sp. (spikerush)
Eupatorium capillifolium (dog fennel)
Juncus effusus (soft rush)
Lespedeza cuneata (sericea lespedeza)
Ludwigia alternifolia (seedbox)
Pluchea sp. (marsh fleabane)
Polygonum saggitatum. (tearthumb)
Polygonum sp. (smartweed)
Scirpus cyperinus (woolgrass bulrush)
Solanum carolinense (horsenettle)
Solidago sp. (goldenrod)
Sorghum halapense (Johnson grass)
Typha latifolia (common cattail)
EEP Project No. 322 9 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
3.2 STREAM ASSESSMENT
3.2.1 Bankfull Events
Exhibit Table VIII. Verification of Bankfull Events
Sand Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
Date of Data Date of Photo
Collection Occurence Method Number
01/12/07 12/26/06 Photographed evidence on-site 1,2
3.2.2 Bank Stability Assessment
Exhibit Table IX. BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates
Sand Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322

Time Segment/ Linear Very Very Sediment
Point Reach Feet Extreme High High Moderate Low Low Export
ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % Ft % Tons/year
3rd year Reach 1
monitoring Above 1770 - -- -- - -- 1770 100 -- -- -- -- 63.4
Bridge
3rd year Reach 2
monitoring Below 1093 -- -- -- -- -- 1015 93 75 7 -- -- 42.6
Bridge
3rd year Project
monitoring Total 2863 -- -- -- -- 2785 97 75 3 -- -- 106.0
3.2.3 Stream Problem Areas
Exhibit Table X. Stream Problem Areas
Sand Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
Station Photo
Feature Issue Numbers Suspected Cause Number
Aggradation/Bar
00+00 to 27+00 Excessive sediment load from upstream sources 3
Formation
A stream problem area plan view and photos of problem areas are provided in Appendix C.
EEP Project No. 322 10 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
Exhibit Table XI. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
Segment/Reach: 2,700 feet
Feature Initial MY-01 MY-02 MY-03** MY-04 MY-05
A. Riffles NA* NA* 0% 0%
B. Pools NA* NA* 0% 0%
C. Thalweg NA* NA* 0% 0%
D. Meanders NA* NA* 100% 100%
E. Bed General NA* NA* 0% 0%
F. Lo Vanes NA* NA* 100% 100%
*NA - Historical project documents necessary to provide this data were unavailable at the time of this report submission.
**The riffles, pools, thalweg, and bed features at Sandy Creek are continuously changing due to the sandy composition of the
streambed. None of these features are considered visually stable.
Exhibit Table XIII. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
Parameter Cross-Section 1
Dimension MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05
BF Width (ft) NA* 28.8 29.5
Floodprone Width (ft) NA* >500 >500
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft) NA* 75.1 92.7
BF Mean Depth (ft) NA* 2.6 3.1
Width/Depth Ratio (ft) NA* 11 9.4
Entrenchment Ratio (ft) NA* >2.2 >2.2
Wetted Perimeter (ft) NA* 32.7 34.0
Hydraulic Radius (ft) NA* 2.3 2.7
Substrate
d50 mm 0.61 0.58 0.58
d84 (mm) 1.5 0.98 0.98
*NA - Historical project documents necessary to provide this data were unavailable at the time of this report submission.
EEP Project No. 322 11 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
3.3 WETLAND ASSESSMENT
Exhibit Table XIV. Wetland Criteria Attainment
Sand Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322

ract

ell ID Well
Hydrology
Threshold
Met?

Tract
Mean

Vegetation
Plot ID
Vegetation
Density Met
(260 stems/acre)
Diversity
Met?
(6 species)

Tract
Mean
1 A ? (13%) 15% of P1 ? (7800) 2 Failed
1 B ? (13%) growing P2 ? (2100) 4 because
1 C ? (19%) season P3 ? (800) 5 of lack
REF Ref Site (4%) P4 (0) 0 of
P5 ? (300) 1 diversity
A wetland problem area plan view is provided in Appendix D.
EEP Project No. 322 12 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
Appendix A
(Click here)
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
EEP Project No. 322 Appendix A Sandy Creek Restoration Site
306

f f =?
.2
a\....•
.ew" +? ...
'
t
_
ter ura.
8 tYY r.e.r=[..
[X KF Fb7F$?

O1 ?a
4, t n?-
iL_L?00R GN .')IV SIDS-. FavNV E 'O -.-. _ , i r 4 -? b
6 {?
J=
r

n
'- y
fis a.•?_ Qleaf s :`3 u.c sr !tlMb.Natq¢„ 70 Cw'."wnta"Ir T?a?YI 1 L '+oeW -'b • 1 ,
l?oentln• ° 'V.n F?
rt
d.r ?I
ParF I
t
is • .
v
;
.
e
l
??
%

4 y?. p r1 4C\ k
R
-
t`
O
I ?
}
' CJ ?
6 Y
outE r[Nal tit - >? 11.twru1?Y. v _. 3 e'"
- -i ENO On+saN I _??? '` ?• s.: t>„ rf
f -- ! p _ ',ri C . ? ? °A 4 + ? ?-f e , ? tc .-? 70 \. a_ ?barrb Fa:.trxt
?,' ;? -\-_g[•nnat ? '4. ?`' a tyk yH 5c? •ncc?
PI ,-sr^
Site 1
751
Location DUR"AM
a r

IkL
?i 2 1 - D(.-r I
S;
- '`
X D
?
'S
'.
` \_
--1
1=RNAN L \
C
J
:
Ui?
yN:-
--
'
..,,v I
o-r
\ ? taurm Crnwn,y
"` e(`!')
•[sa. to `,??. ? f
s - v - d' I !' ? _ ?'o
M
i
3 8 wt -? i .??n°' it1
s-
n
,
.
wn
gw
- glad wmaa.1°.-
t a 1 rrol
o ? -t- 0? \•--??` ? ?tuh r'';F,, t :? r t "" ? ,- .751 ?,-
q A' N K. W=%urrf
.
,
' e>n
AV
L
C r ? ?
+v
s ?c
yr r ? ?
_
z ! .. a ??.;4 --.,5-.•,
b\aS @. y =.»muE.? :? 1 f:
. .. l''?; rs.
,
t
??44
i
f
gq Chapel HII1
ii*wq
;
- s
Es? Q ??
cm jd?

54
501
54
?`
7 . I
- ---
e Ch
.i N
t
.\ Na
ily
a(x
a
trx' s
F .wr, of c3 a
49
PdY.N
:,
/
r

- _ ? ?? ?•.
_. ?
4'?... - Cdr _ I
, .x ?..e[s.,
_ / i a?y f J
Jot
AJQ
CHA
- -? -p :? .r•? - \MW pJC Q' 751 S'
-? •-' ?YY ru.n Twin 4? t
NEB' O? PE. GAME`/ D
1 mi. 0 1 mi. 4 mi.
taw '? -
1:144,000
\1 7 ? e
Source: 1997 North Carolina Atlas and Gazetteer, p.39.' ;g v 2

. Cv :
SITE LOCATION D.- MAF FIGURE
Corporation
JWG
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement
Corporatio
Date
1
Date
and Wetland Restoration Site DEC 2006
??
Raleig^
, ?o¢h GanLra
Durham County, North Carolina P ,e ` 06-282.22

O
'
4, 0
lit
lk
LJ
LJ
�14
OQ
LA
XALO
.\1
y
�s A
lit
.\1

Z-Z 133HS HDIVW
'
i
I N
} 8

O
O
?
W J
r ?
J
d
r
\
n
2
LLJ m W J W
O
Y
V
Z
}

Z
J
8
? N
O J I z o
C
Z Z
O0: =
a W W
1a.1 O J
/ J
? I .. 'o
a N o
d 3 in W ?
& I J v
\ a
J W Z 2 p 2 Z z ; y
J
3 J
J ?
to
O x ?
0=
x
x
x
0 3
0
J ?
d

V W
a
W
W
W

? _

V1
? / g J
J ?
? 1 O_

J 4a
s J
J r % OOC

J ?
J ?C Z

r

J
J `
4J -i
N

%
a i J M U
J
?
? Z
Q c O

J a
c ? zz
J c
G ^ ~
J Z m ° z
o

W N
W -i
a:
J
O a
cc U
H t LL
L1J
2
U LU
cr
e
?

I
/
Y
d
d
i

o O Ch
/ h
1h
{

O
S W
W u
4
Z V Q =
J
/ LLJ ?
U ^

i
O
N O
u O ._
w U x
E-Z 133HS HDIVW N
O i l 4
r
W W
= W
O
W I
I J

Y p
LLJ H
0< W
-' O Z ?I J
N0f103S-SS02l09 i C
N C

-
n

1 J
Z LLJ CID a
W J J H
V f
Lai Q' O
W U H J
I g J

v J aZZ
'
3 O
N

N
LJ
C Oo
Q N
Z V 3
: N
Z $ } V W
Z Q
'
WW I J 1 ! ; ;
J 0: 2 Qp O V A
2 Z
_
2 a p O
w r
La 0
O x 0 WO O I x0 x x 0 0? _
U W m >? d Wm W W J W i- J J
8

W ?
? ?...IJ
? ?
18 I?
J
I d
J;
I J( C
?? ?ec?
S J
IU J
J
L
N
G1

I 0 J `

r
? '°
\
' ? J
1 ? R Z
?

d

a W
O
N

1

/ I J
I J

J M U

/\ L
CL +a 4.. 0
\
J
d
Z •O

v
I/
_. (
•-O

J Z
ac a
OU
O t
/ W
Y a - - v a°° _
Z w w ?d
x
l ' C
? I e
' E o
i
U ? i

Q J
eo
r Y
d
Cif 8 L , c)

` C?'f ,. -
,.of;
C

UV Q ,??` J ! }ME

W®

LLP
4 0.
40

8
?

J

J ' O
LiJ
w

Z C
N
ci: / ? ! D ?
, I J W
(j C)

6-Z 133HS HDiVVY CL
°
4U

0
r M

\
b
;
Soh.

z
a c W

Z ? 3
1
N

w
. I 0 O N
m
, ui }

W
O
Y G Z
J
z
a
G
O r '??w t
i Q

W z? J H

W
aa
J W Q N
Z O

o
J
?y?J

J Q N

9 O
Q
H
V C9 C9
U
W
Q
8
g
N
N
Z
- R T
L7 1 C
W Z O O Z Z z
2 Lj
3 3 ; Q
O
W 2 N O N N VI
C7 3
O V
a
U U W CO a W W W li f- a m
O

g

s
?n s
M
d

M
? ?
c Q
Z
W O
N
M U
J Q ? O H
J z

w.,e a +?
c 0 o
z
\ 4
`s - Z

X
1 CL D
c o
02 t W
317 0 1 j W X

` J I1 d

'
? J
I ? ? "r J
J
t L
U
I
I J
J C

I ?fl
J J
J f
.-.

I J
J
p
?

J r
Jf
J1
C1 J
I
f J Jr
J
U p
J:
J
J q- ., u
CJ c?
U 3" e
Z-Z 133HS H3.LVW ° C)
:7U
APPENDIX B
VEGETATION DATA
EEP Project No. 322 Appendix B Sandy Creek Restoration Site
a
x
mg
mIQa
ci
i. o
3'!�g
20%
Oz U�
PH
< Y
V
NOR
•
Y
W
W
W
U
0
Z
Q
N
1

Sandy Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year 3 Monitoring
Data collected 8/23/06
0.02-acre plots
Plots
1 2 3 4 5 Year 3 Total Survival % Year 2 Total Year 1 Total Y ear 0 Total
Acer rubrum 4 4 13 4 12 30
Alnus serrulata 0 0 1
Betula nigra 0 0 5 2
Carya ovata 0 0 4
Cephalanthus occidentalis 0 0 2
Fraxinus pennsylvani 89 32 7 128 800 148 104 16
Liriodendron tulipifera 0 0 2 9
Nyssa sylvatica 0 0 5
Quercus lyrata 0 0 3 5
Quercus phellos 0 0 3 3 14
Salix nigra 67 10 5 6 88 1760 108 73 5
Sambucus canadensis 0 0 1 11
Viburnum nudum 0 0 3 8
156 42 16 0 6 220 263 206 112
Density 7800 2100 800 0 300
Average density 2200
Volunteers Plots
l 2 3 4 5 Year 3 Total Year 2 Total Year 1 Total Year 0 Total
Acer negundo 1 1 2 2
baccharis 4 1 5
Celtis laevigata 0
Cornus amomum 1 3 4 2
Gleditsia triacanthos 0 1
Liquidambar styraciflua 8 8 1
Pinus taeda 7 7 0
Platanus occidentalis 1 1 2
Populus deltoides 0 1
Ulmus americana 0
4 2 16 3 0 27 0 5 2
EEP Project No. 322 B-2 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
REPRESENTATIVE VEGETATION PROBLEXI AREAS
Photo 2. Poor Tree Survival
EEP Project No. 322 B-3 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
Photo 1. Poor Tree Establishment and Recruitment
Photo 3. Poor Tree Survival
EEP Project No. 322
B-4 Sandy Creek Restoration Site

Vegetation Plot 1 - Sandy Creek Wetland Restoration
Photo 1
x r
Photo 1 A
q k f i
lot
? eta
?" t1 ? 1. 6'stii
w o tC„ ?'
s ?
r-
x i
t? .

ti
V.
The above pictures were taken on August 23, 2006, after three seasons of growth on-site.
EEP Project No. 322 B-5 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
Vegetation Plot 2 - Sandy Creek Wetland Restoration
1

I ? ry.
qp A2 ??:? ti
The above pictures were taken on August 23, 2006, after three seasons of growth on-site.
Photo 2
k ? e yr
a14,*f
y t
y 5. l
a= F.
Photo 2A
EEP Project No. 322 B-6 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
Vegetation Plot 3 - Sandy Creek Wetland Restoration
Photo 3
Photo 3A

The above pictures were taken on August 23, 2006, after three seasons of growth on-site.
t: ?;c -
EEP Project No. 322 B-7 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
Vegetation Plot 4 - Sandy Creek Wetland Restoration
Photo 4
The above picture was taken on August 23, 2006, after three seasons of growth on-site. The
water remained in this area throughout the year.
EEP Project No. 322 B-8 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
Vegetation Plot 5 - Sandy Creek Wetland Restoration
Photo 5
Photo 5A
The above pictures were taken on August 23, 2006, after three seasons of growth on-site.
EEP Project No. 322 B-9 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
APPENDIX C
STREAM GEOMORPHOLOGY DATA
EEP Project No. 322 Appendix C Sandy Creek Restoration Site
1' F
t �h
t � �
V
t LJ
W
WW .,
QLa
ga 0 �
."
a oZZ zz r
W FM M0
owo 00 x
U >2 2J W u ww
I
4k ® _.
0
W
W
tr_
Z
LLP
U
N
Oco
2 �
F
OW
cc
U.
W cr
7 O
z0
U
^z
M
Q
n
cr
LU
cc cc
� Q
No

ZO 3anDid HOIVVY V

J
J J
J

J J
J n
O
N
co
O

..

O

V ?? .. 4 D N

, $ co
8 J o

u z
3 3 o
? J
1 )
\ m
a o
u w
i
J

E J O

J m
?
M J +?+
J Gs
J
J
(/? O z
Z
J
I J
I _
W ++ J
N
D
Y J
J Q
(v) U

W O Z
J ++ O
W
J
J I Z
M =
E
3?
J a
L. Z
a =)
W N J
J
J C
C R a OU
s
w
U J LLI LU W
Z fn E D
Q
N 8 cC
O
r t V1
Z
O Z
W
Y W
z

J
<
.I <
0 0

F
z

z y

i
V
Z W m W J O
13 W (b
W < N 0 ~ Q LO LAJ

(7
W
?

W

O
?

0

V
?

0

Q
] _

G

W
;

•?
h0

O

o
a`
V) ?- r
I.-
3c

V W to W d OJ ...,, cP P{
41
}F

S ~
LLJ V
LL
U
Z O
SCI
`
/ W y cz
J O r
!
V ?
U ? O ? j
O U)
o v p
WU x

co 3an9l3 HOlVW
I
I 4 v
F r
f I J
W o o N01133S.SS02?0 i II J ° °

Y W
?
V
f-
I
1
I J c
N
co o

O
Z W Co W 0 Z 0 8 I 4 i, -
0 d' W
= ? I I J $ N
Z H N ti
O aa
Q .
..
L
) W 1 I J z t7

3 ..
tD
p

W
?
Z
Z
C)
L
Z
Q
Ct
O
W
I
I
I
' SJ
Cl
m
m
V
a
V1
Z P
N O
N O
0 >
0
p ; I
I I
}J
a

U
W
CD
W
d
OJ
L6
r /
lg JI f
I
I J
J ?

u
I
g
I I
J n
I WWW o I f
f 1 J
J =
O

'tar -
- Y I 1
I LLJ 1 S 1
°
I J
J }+
O

f _
sacs I U
'
I
I I
? } I J
J
J ++
N
G1

? , 0 J
ZZ I I
QI J
J
J
V) I

I J

J
a
r>o 1 J LLJ 4
Q? N?
I f J M O

?. /
VVV
I I y
J
J r
G= O
W Z Q:

I ++ O

d
m Z
cc E d r

2. a Q a ?
r_ 0
U
° I CL
w
i
u
W W
??.
m

C,E ` ' I
8 !
1 p

°
R ! J
I $

Li
1
j
t I
f S
/ J
Z
? /
D
/' / r!
' lI J ?
U U O
0
I I J
1 I J

I
LO
p O

y
L. z
O
LO 3unJl3 HOIVW f
°
?U =

O

m
\ ao %
Z

o Z CM
V
L

W
X
Z w
Z
J O
U ~

Z
/ Z ? CD W Z
O 4 O
r O O
O
w
w
J Z
W
Q N O a
wwZ
V W
ce

W N
m
u 4 w)
o
l
i W Z
O Z Q
O > 0
3 OD
Z
- 7: J N
Z
N F
N 3
O z a

3: g ?o

c
w O
U x
w O
m x
w x O
a J J
4a Z
I
m
m o
a`

y
I

f^ C \ ? o
? fA

J Coil
\J
\ d
C:
=
Q
V)
W 4+
NCO
Q
M
V?
\ J LU Z
?'•r m C v Z
Q d CD
317 a 0 L- Z
\
c o
a
o a U
\ ?6'
S Q C W
LLI LLI LJJ m
317 J I- D

J

J U
I J i 'C
I ° J c=v
? o N
S J
1

J J
J
J
_
E77

i

}
I j
;
i J
? J
?
t
V O

ZO 3anJIA HOIVW
w? x
Verification of Bankfull Events
January 12, 2007
January 12, 2007
EEP Project No. 322 C-4 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
Photo 2. Sediment deposited at top of bank following a bankfull event
Photo 1. Sediment layer covering adjacent greenway path after a bankfull event
Stream Problem Areas
Photo 3. Excessive sediment load from upstream sources.
EEP Project No. 322 C-5 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement Photo Stations
Photo Station 1: Log Vane #1 (Station 2 + 04)
August 23, 2006
Photo Station 2: Log Vane #2 (Station 4 + 12)
August 23, 2006
EEP Project No. 32
C-6 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement Photo Stations
Photo Station 3: Log Vane #3 (Station 6 + 55)
August 23, 2006
Photo Station 4: Log Vane #4 (Station 8 + 88)
August 23, 2006
EEP Project No. 32 C-7 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement Photo Stations
Photo Station 5: Log Vane #5 (Station 10 + 99)
August 23, 2006
Photo Station 6: Log Vane #6 (Station 13 + 83)
August 23, 2006
EEP Project No. 32
C-8 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement Photo Stations
Photo Station 7: Log Vane #7 (Station 15 + 39)
August 23, 2006
Photo Station 8: Log Vane #8 (Station 17 + 45)
August 23, 2006
EEP Project No. 32 C-9 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement Photo Stations
Photo Station 9: Log Vane #9 (Station 19 + 72)
August 23, 2006
August 23, 2006
EEP Project No. 32
C-10 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
Photo Station 10: Log Vane #10 (Station 20 + 91)
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement Photo Stations
January 12, 2007
August 23, 2006
EEP Project No. 32 C-11 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
Photo Station 11: Log Vane #11 (Station 22 + 66)
Photo Station 12: Log Vane #12 (Station 24 + 20)
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement Photo Stations
Photo Station 13: Log Vane #13 (Station 26 + 12)
August 23, 2006
Photo Station 14: Permanent Cross-Section (18 + 25) Viewed Looking Downstream
November 9, 2006
EEP Project No. 32
C-12 Sandy Creek Restoration Site

-:sr k9RT y

yrr
7?C
•
" -
1 - 7%
E r

U c
U

o E
s

- _ f
O

U
U Q L
_
S
-
z j
o

c ?
?
C C
=

_ O
!/J 5
=a
u
o
N
Y
u
u
?.i
c
:d
O

O V
Q O (D Q N O
0 0 o rn m m m
?uoilenal3 ange?aa
m S
LLI
_ - - o A
Z
- _

EEP Project No. 322 C13 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
APPENDIX D
WETLAND HYDROLOGY DATA
EEP Project No. 322 Appendix D Sandy Creek Restoration Site
wj
1.1..1 W
U C7
ZD
L,J Q
W U
L,J W
LL
EFn
If t
r '
I r •�
I / '
�2
W
N G
W W <
z
Z
z O r
Wt
U 3:O
C
N
W <
>
O Z
J
� o
h
V1
Z NW V1
O z O ;,c
U P N x
<
;
P
O
K
wj
1.1..1 W
U C7
ZD
L,J Q
W U
L,J W
LL
EFn
If t
r '
I r •�
I / '
�2

(ui) uoilelidioaad
CD to V CO N •- O
L
V
C
Cn
LCD
a
U-
U
M
Z
to a?
O 0
C
N ?
CD
C
•L
O
O

L ? jagwai
OE gcae
(ui) yldaa aale/A
C-
4-1
O
G
U
L
U)
C
0
L
_o
'IT
A
m
U_
0
C
V)
Y
(6
CO
x
EEP Project No. 322 D-1 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
O CD N M'It O Cfl N M't CD M N CD CD '9T M N CD C7
M M N N N ' N N N M M,t
(ui) uoile}idioaad
U
cn
LO
U
ti
U-
U
M
Z
m
co
CD 0
O
N
CD
•L
O
O
m
C0 LO T M N
L L aagwa,
0£ 4cit
O
O
(u!) yldaa aaleM

U
CO
w
c
O
N
3
0
0
v
A
a?
U
U
C
Y
CO
Q)
m
EEP Project No. 322 D-2 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
O C0 N ao o c0 N N o 00 N CO O V m N C0 O
? M M N N N ? ? '' ? ? N N N M M?
(ui) uoi}elid!OGJd
CO m T CO N
L ? jagwa/
-te
Q)
L
U
C
CO
m
Q
ti
LL
U
M
Z
? U
0 ?
N ?
ca
C
L
0
0
5
of 4aJ
(u!) y}daa aaleM
C
O
G
N
U
m
C
U)
70
C
7
O
O)
O
L_
O
N
O
O
Izil
A
N
L)
U_
C
Y
(6
N
m
O
EEP Project No. 322 D-3 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
O (D N x't O (D N 00 It O m N cc O It O N O O
M M N N N •- ?- ' ' N N N M M q
1
i
U
Cf)
U
W
Q
ti
LL
U
M
Z
M
v
CO ?
O ?
N
c?
L

(ui) uoilalidIOWd
(O LO CO N
l l jagW@A
OE gOJel
(u!) yldaa aalaM
? O
i-J
C
O

0
U
N
U)
c
0
is
a?
3
0
a?
0
v
n
a?
L)
U
C
Y
N
m
EEP Project No. 322 D-4 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
O (O N 00 It O (O N OIt CD 'IT O N O O 't m N (O O
021345
Sandy Creek
Stream Enhancement and
Riparian Wetland
Restoration/ Creation Project
August 6, 2002
For
The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program
320 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27603
919-733-5208 ••'"'""
J?,11 ISMO
?CS 7f)!. i

SEAL 's
1,3344
w
°*IC' NE P QZ
Prepared By. tr t
Becky L. Ward Consulting
1512 Eglantyne Court
Raleigh, North Carolina 27613
919-870-0526
and
The Catena Group, Coulter Jewell Thames,
Ecological Consultants, and Riley Surveying
1
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement

' Wetland Restoration / Creation
Table of Contents
Report
Introduction
Project Location
' Problem Statement
Goals and Objectives
' Watershed Conditions Sandy Creek
Existing Conditions Sandy Creek
Stream Bank Vegetation
' Past Stream Impacts
Stream Reference Reach Site
Reference Vegetation
Proposed Wetland Site Conditions
Existing Vegetation
Existing Soils
Reference Wetland Adjacent to the Proposed Restoration/Creation Site
Reference Vegetation
Existing Hydrology
1 Reference Wetland Soils
Wetland Investigation
Hydrologic Monitoring
' Wetland Restoration Plan
Hydrologic Restoration
Hydric Soil Remediation
Vegetation Restoration/ Planting Plan
Stream Enhancement Plan
Sedimentation & Erosion Control
i Monitoring Plan and Success Criteria
Hydrologic Monitoring
Stream Enhancement Monitoring
' Vegetation Monitoring
References
Exhibits
Location Map
Drainage Area Map Sandy Creek

r Sandy Creek Watershed Current Land Use
Project Site Soils Sandy Creek
Existing Vegetation Map
Proposed & Existing Wetland Site Photo's
Typical Sandy Creek Ripple & Pool Photo's
Sandy Creek Stream Morphological Table

1
Section.A - Wetland Development Supporting Data
Sandy Creek Well Sample Data for Wetland Design
Water Budgets from the Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan Document
prepared by CZR Incorporated
Section B - Sandy Creek Supporting Data
FIRM, Flood Insurance Rate Map
Determination of Bankfull Discharges based on FEMA data
Log/Log plot of FEMA Discharge data
Durham County Flood Study Summary of Discharges
Durham County Floodway Data Table
Durham County Flood Profiles Sandy Creek
Ripple Cross Section #1 Plot
Ripple Cross Section #1 Data
Pool Cross Section #2 Plot
Pool Cross Section #2 Data
Ripple Cross Section #3 Plot
Ripple Cross Section #3 Data
Pool Cross Section #4 Plot
Pool Cross Section #4 Data
Ripple Cross Section #5 Plot
Ripple Cross Section #5 Data
Pool Cross Section #6 Plot
Pool Cross Section #6 Data
Cross Section #7 Repair Area Plot
Cross Section #7 Repair Area Data
Pebble Count Data Ripple
Pebble Count Data Pool
Bank Erosion Potential
Section C -Mud Creek Stream Reference Reach Data
Drainage Area Map
Current Land Use
Reference site Location Map
FIRM Map Mud Creek
Durham County Flood Study Summary of Discharges
Ripple Cross Section Plot
Ripple Cross Section Data
Pool Cross Section Plot
Pool Cross Section Data
Pebble Count for Classification at Ripple
Mud Creek Pattern Measurements
Longitudinal Profile

1

1

I

1

Section D -Preliminary
Construction Plans

' Overall Plan
Sandy Creek Plan & Profile 0+00 to 9+00
Sandy Creek Plan & Profile 9+00 to 18+00
Sandy Creek Plan & Profile 18+00 to 27+00
' Sandy Creek Plan & Profile 27+00 to 30+00
Wetland Plan
Planting plan
' Details
Details
r
1

1

1
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement
Wetland Restoration/ Creation
INTRODUCTION
The Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration/ Creation project is a
project funded by the State of North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program. The
property which includes, an abandoned wastewater facility on Sandy Creek, was selected
to mitigate impacts to Section 404 jurisdictional areas associated with the extension of
the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MILK) Parkway between Cook Road and Hope Valley Road
in Durham County North Carolina. The impacts of the MLK Roadway project on
jurisdictional wetlands and non-wetland jurisdictional waters totaled 1.73 acres near
Third Fork Creek. The Sandy Creek property will provide approximately 3.2 acres of
wetland restoration/ creation as mitigation for the impacts during construction of the
MLK Parkway. In addition to the wetlands designed for this project, Sandy Creek will be
enhanced with the creation of pool features along the stream's length.
The City of Durham Parks and Recreation Department has plans to create an
Environmental Center at the abandoned treatment plant on the property. The program for
the Sandy creek life Long Learning Center will advance environmental awareness,
knowledge and skill through education, research and demonstration. This site also acts as
an entry point to the New Hope Trail Corridor Master Plan. The new Hope Corridor
Master Plan is an " open space corridor linking the Eno River State Park, the New Hope
Creek, Corps Lands and the growing communities of Durham and Chapel Hill for
aesthetic, environmental, educational and recreational purposes, and as a means of
shaping the urban form of the area." Currently Sandy Creek Trail Phase One, a
walkingibiking trail, is under construction from the abandoned treatment plant to Pickett
Road.
The wetlands created in this project will be visited by many people using the Sandy
Creek Environmental Center and the Sandy Creek Trail.
PROJECT LOCATION
The Sandy Creek Mitigation Site is located in Durham County approximately 1000 feet
north of the intersection of Chapel Hill Boulevard (US Business 15/501) and Sandy
Creek. The site is on an abandoned treatment plant facility owned by the City of Durham
on Sandy Creek Road The area is located on the U.S. Geologic Service (USGS)
Southwest Durham 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle at latitude 35°58'00" North and
longitude 78°57'45" West. The site is in the Cape Fear River Basin in Cataloging Unit
03030002.
1

1
1

1
1

1

1 77
J

L

PROBLEM STATEMENT
The land on the west side of Sandy Creek has been impacted with fill material used to
construct sludge drying beds for the treatment plant. This project will include the
removal of fill dirt and debris to a design elevation that will restore/ create wetlands that
may have been found there naturally before the construction of the treatment plant.
Sandy Creek has a featureless bed. The only significant pools along the stream length are
currently being formed by debris. The lack of features in the stream as well as large
woody debris creates poor habitat.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goal of the project is to restore riparian wetlands and improve in-stream habitats in
sandy Creek for the NCWRP. In so doing, it presents an opportunity to take an existing
waste and spoil area that is overrun with nuisance weeds and trash and change it into a
functioning wetland ecosystem that provides quality food and habitat for wildlife and
improves water quality within the Sandy Creek drainage basin. Since the City of Durham
is currently constructing areas adjacent to the mitigation site as a park and recreation
center, the site offers a unique opportunity for the general public to view a wetland
restoration project and learn the benefits of the wetland ecosystem.
The enhancement of Sandy Creek will provide additional bedform features to a currently
uniform bed and introduce woody debris into the stream to create habitat and enhance
water quality.
' WATERSHED CONDITIONS SANDY CREEK
The Sandy Creek watershed extends from the southern most boundary of 15-501 north to
Hillsborough Road. The watershed is approximately 6.4 square miles. The Sandy Creek
watershed is currently almost completely developed with the predominate uses and
approximate areas as follow:
Low density residential (< 4 du/acre) 20% of the watershed
Medium density residential (4 to 8 du/acre) 10% of the watershed
High Density residential (> 8 du/acre) 5% of the watershed
Commercial./Office not including Duke University 10% of the watershed
Duke University Campus and Medical Center 25% of the watershed
Duke Golf Course and other permanent open space 25% of the watershed
Roads 5% of the watershed
100%
Duke University Campus can be characterized as a suburban density development, with
an average impervious surface of about 30%. The golf course and other open space areas
have less than 5% impervious surface. See watershed drainage area and current land
usage maps included with the exhibits ant the end of the report section.

1

The watershed has seen the few remaining undeveloped parcels build out over the past '
few years. That development has primarily consisted of medium to high-density
residential development, infill construction of the Duke Campus, and re-development of
some of the commercial centers to higher density uses.
The Future Land Use Maps (FLUM's) prepared by the City of Durham as a component
of the 2025 Plan call for preservation of existing neighborhoods as well as higher
intensity development in the existing commercial centers, particularly along the proposed
Durham/Chapel Hill Transit Corridor. This will be concentrated in the Erwin Road/Duke '
Corridor, as well as in the South Square Mall area. However, as these areas are already
developed to a fairly high land use impact, re-development will only have a minor impact
on impervious surface amounts. Duke University will continue to expand at their Main '
Campus and Medical Center, probably increasing impervious surfaces by 5 to 10% in
those areas.
EXISTING CONDITIONS SANDY CREEK
Sandy Creek classifies as a sand bed, "B" stream type. The D50 sediment in the channel
is 0.50 mm. The bankfull width is approximately 27 feet and the mean bankfull depth is
2.76 feet. The bankfull cross sectional area is approximately 75 square feet. The width
depth ratio of the stream is 9.9. The stream shows incision with a low bank height to ,
maximum bankfull depth of 1.46. The stream is located in a well developed floodplain
that extends from 280 ft. to 600 feet, making the average entrenchment ratio 17. The
stream is a regulated FEMA stream with an approximate bankfull discharge determined
from FEMA discharge data of 2,600 cfs. The morphological data collected for Sandy
Creek is listed in the Morphological Table included with the exhibits at the end of the
report section.
Sandy Creek throughout the project area has been assigned Index No. 16-41-1-11 by the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) and has a Best Usage Classification '
of C NSW. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. The supplemental classification NSW
denotes Nutrient Sensitive Waters, which require additional nutrient management,
because of their susceptibility to excessive growth of microscopic and macroscopic
vegetation.
The stream banks are composed of mostly the same sandy soils found in the creek bed.
The bank erosion potential ranged from moderate to high along the stream. A mature
piedmont forest has developed on both sides of the stream. This forest provides root
mass that has stabilized the stream banks.
STREAM BANK VEGETATION Three community types were identified along the
section of Sandy Creek surveyed: piedmont levee forest, emergent (low elevation seep),
and bottomland forest. The relative locations of these plant communities are identified '
on Existing Vegetation Map included with the exhibits at the end of the report section.
Along the stream banks canopy trees have heavily shaded the ground below.

1
1

i1
J

s

t
1

1

1

1
The dominant plant community identified adjacent to Sandy Creek was the piedmont
levee forest. The canopy trees were composed of river birch (Betula nigra), box elder
(Ater negundo), black willow (Salix nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica),
sweetgum (Liquidambar strraciflua), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and red maple
(Ater rubrum). Understory trees included American elm (Ulmus americana) and
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). False indigo (Amorpha fruticosa), Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), box elder and red maple encompassed the shrub/sapling layer.
Trees were growing to approximately 20 feet. from the creek and tree crowns reached to
40 feet across. Many trees were mature with canopy heights reaching 40 to 50 feet. The
most dominant species observed was box elder. This common maple was the dominant
streambank species and grew as thickets in the understory as a shrub/sapling.
An emergent (low elevation seep?) area was encountered between the creek and the road
near the former sewer plant site. No mature trees were in this emergent area. Red maple
and sweetgum samplings were along the edge of the site. Standing water covered the
lowest portion of the site. The herb layer included smartweed (Polygonum spp.), sedges,
soft-rush (Juncus effusus), and false nettle (Boehmeria clindrica).
Adjacent to Sandy Creek a bottomland forest community is located near the southern
terminus of the project. At this location the area appears to have been disturbed as tree
canopy formation is scattered. This area offers the opportunity to establish a denser
canopy layer by the addition of selected tree plantings. Presently, the canopy is
composed primarily of green ash, sycamore, and red maple.
PAST STREAM IMPACTS Sandy Creek was straightened for the sewer line
placement in the early 1970's from the City property line north. In the 1955 aerial
photographs the stream was in the same alignment as it is currently on the City property.
From the photographs confirmation of an alternative stream pattern before the
construction of the treatment plant was not available. However the stream is very straight
and uniform on the property and therefore it is likely that the stream was adjusted at the
time of the treatment plant construction.
STREAM REFERENCE REACH SITE
The stream reference reach site used for this project is in the adjacent watershed of Mud
Creek. The reference reach length studied is located in the Garrett Farms Subdivision
on Cottonwood Drive off of Garrett Road. A schematic of the reference reach along with
a vicinity map are included in Section C of this report. The watershed for Mud Creek is
approximately 5.8 square miles. The Mud Creek watershed is largely undeveloped due to
a large percentage of the land being owned by Duke University as Duke Forest, as well as
the lack of public utilities in the western portion of the watershed. The predominate uses
and approximate areas are as follow:
4
Duke Forest
Undeveloped
Low density residential
Medium density residential
High Density residential
Commercial/Office
Roads
(<1 du/acre)
(I to 4 du/acre)
(4 to 8 du/acre)
(> 8 du/acre)
40 % of the watershed
30% of the watershed
21 % of the watershed
3% of the watershed
2% of the watershed
I% of the watershed
3% of the watershed
100%
The watershed has primarily seen low density single family development take place over
the past few years. There have also been a few pockets of apartments and condominium
construction along Garrett Road and in the northern portion of the watershed. Mud Creek
watershed drainage area map and land usage map are included in Section C.
The Future Land Use Maps (FLUM's) prepared by the City of Durham as a component
of the 2025 Plan call for preservation of existing neighborhoods, and a continuing pattern
of low density residential growth in the un-developed areas as public water and sewer are
extended. Few if any opportunities exist for higher density development patterns. Duke
Forest is expected to remain as research forestland for the future.
Mud Creek is a sand bed "E type stream. The bankfull discharge predicted by the FEMA
HEC-1 models for this stream is 1,600 cfs. This discharge is significantly lower than the
discharge predicted for Sandy Creek although there is not a significant difference in the
watershed size. This discharge is expected however because the watershed is
significantly less developed than the Sandy Creek watershed. Maps of Mud Creek
drainage area and land use are included in Section C of this report.
This stream was selected as a reference reach because it had fair pattern and it seemed to
have pools that were correctly spaced and developed along the reach studied. Mud creek
is starting to show some signs of incising however the data required for our stream
enhancement reference regarding pool to pool spacing seemed stable. Mr. Todd St. John
of the North Carolina Water Quality Division came to the reference site and reviewed it
for an applicable reference reach for this study.
Mud Creek is an E5 stream with a bankfull width of approximately 17.5 feet, bankfull
mean depth of 3.24 feet, width to depth ratio of 5.4, and bankfull cross sectional area of
57 square feet. The pool to pool spacing for the reference reach was 118 feet on average
with a range to 91 to 154 feet. A complete listing of the Mud Creek stream data may be
found in the Sandy Creek Stream Morphological Table, under the reference reach
column, included with the exhibits at the end of the report section.
REFERENCE VEGETATION One community type was identified along the section
of Mud Creek surveyed: piedmont levee forest. This plant community was identified
along both sides of the creek. The dominant plant community identified adjacent to Mud
Creek was the piedmont levee forest. The canopy trees were composed of river birch
(Betula nigra), sweetgum (Liquidambar strraciflua), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
5
1
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and red maple (Acer rubrum). Understory trees
included paw paw (Asimina triloba), American elm (Mmus americana), dogwood
(Corpus amomum), and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). Privet (Ligustrum spp_), red
maple, and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and paw paw encompassed the
shrub/sapling layer. Trees were growing to approximately 20 feet from the creek to the
east interrupted by a sewerline easement. To the west, tree cover was uninterrupted.
Vegetation along the west side of the creek included Jack in the Pulpit (Arisaema
triphyllum). Tree crowns reached to 50 feet across. Many trees were mature with canopy
I heights reaching 50 to 60 feet. The most dominant sub canopy species observed was paw
paw. This species, of custard-apple family, is occasionally found along river bottoms and
streams. Paw paw grew in thickets in the understory as a small tree and shrub/sapling.
The sewerline easement was maintained and "vegetation grew to approximately 6-8"
height. Shrub-sapling of red maple and sweetgum were observed. Also, the herbs Indian
' hemp (Apocynum cannabinum) and false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica) were present.
Microstegium (Microstegium vimineum) was the dominant grass along the sewerline
easement.
To the east of the sewerline easement there was a narrow bottomland forest. Cherry bark
oak (Quercus pagoda) and willow oak (Quercus phellos) were encountered. Sub-canopy
' trees included American elm and ironwood.
PROPOSED WETLAND SITE CONDITIONS
The area proposed for mitigation was once a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) for the
city of Durham. The WWTP, which was abandoned in 1984, consisted of an
approximate 2.4-acre complex of eight sludge ponds separated by concrete berms and
enclosed by a metal fence. During the construction of the WWTP in 1954 and as recently
' as Hurricane Fran in 1996, approximately 1.96 acres south of the WWTP has been
utilized as a dump site for construction and storm debris. Both the 2.4-acre WWTP and
the 1.96-acre fill site will be utilized for the wetland mitigation area. Sandy creek
' borders the mitigation site to the east and a wetland abuts the south and southwest
boundary. North and northwest of the site is bounded by wooded uplands.
' EXISTING VEGETATION The existing vegetation is described in detail in the
Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan for martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway is as
follows: "The site supports a variety of slightly mesophytic and wetland vegetation
typical of piedmont floodplains, disturbed successional areas and man-dominated areas.
The site proposed for mitigation is surrounded by open alluvial forest on three sides with
small sloughs occurring to the west and small sloughs and levees found on the creek side.
The eastern side of the mitigation area near the creek is dominated by species more
tolerant of periods of flooding such as American sycamore, red maple, green ash, river

' birch, box elder (Acer negundo), Chinese privet, Nepal microstegium (microstegium
vimineum), and various knotweeds. Scattered specimens of tulip poplar (Lirionendron
tulipfera) are also found. The slightly higher elevations on the more mesic portions of

6

1
the floodplain to the north west and north of the mitigation area contain white oak
(Quercus alba), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple and a sparse herb layer containing
Japanese honeysuckle, Virginia creeper, and poison ivy. The south west edge of the
mitigation site adjoins the upper fringe of a beaver impoundment and contains several
small sloughs and depressions. The canopy is predominantly red maple and green ash
with a few scattered sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). The open herbaceous
community south of the site is comprised of a collection of wetland and upland species
common to disturbed areas. Plants found in this vicinity are red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), black willow, various bushclovers (Lespedeza spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.)
grassed (Panicum spp.) Nepal microstegium, and sedges (Carex spp.). The wettest areas
in the adjacent floodplain contain false stinging nettle (Bohemeria cylindrica), Jack in the
Pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), and slender spike grass (Chasmimthium laxum) among
others." Areas of wetland vegetation can be found in the abandoned sludge drying beds
where standing water collects at times.
EXISTING SOILS The soils in the wetland mitigation site are mapped as Chewacla and
Wehadkee soils on the Durham County Soil Survey, which are typical of North Carolina
piedmont floodplains. A soils map of the project site is included with the exhibits at the
end of the report section. A portion of the land in the mitigation site is mapped as Urban
Land on the Soil Survey in the area of the sludge drying beds. Some of the soil in the
exsting wetland near the restoration area is comprised of the same fill material that is
found throughout the restoration site. An attempt was made to hand auger below the fill
material to reach the original soil. While this was successfully accomplished in some
borings, usually the soil was disturbed beyond five feet, which was the length of the
auger. In some cases, the separation between the fill material and the original soil surface
was not always apparent. It appears that the original soil was either mixed in with the fill
material or had been removed and simply replaced by the fill material. Further
complicating the site was the presence of redoximorphic features in the fill material.
Determining which of these features are relict and which have developed on-site was
extremely difficult to impossible. Therefore, it was not possible to determine the
hydric/non-hydric soil boundary. These soils would be classed as Udorthents under the
current taxonomic criteria - manmade soils resulting from recent cut, fill, mixing, etc.
REFERENCE WETLAND ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED RESTORATION/
CREATION SITE
The approximately 6-acre existing wetland lies mostly south of the mitigation site in the
floodplain of Sandy Creek. The wetland was delineated by Ecological Consultants and
verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in December 1997. The wetland is
essentially a large depression along the floodplain that traps water within it. This process
is aided by the presence of beavers that have built numerous dams in the low areas along
the levee separating the wetland from Sandy Creek. These are relatively small, shallow
dams that have filled in with soil debris over the years such that little, if any, maintenance
is required from the beavers.
7

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

REFERENCE VEGETATION The forest is comprised of green ash, red maple, black
gum, ironwood ( Carpinus caroliniana) American elm, box elder, sweet gum, tulip
' poplar and hackberry (Celtis laevigata). The herbaceous layer is diverse in the marsh and
includes cattails, smartweed, bull-rush, sedges, fox tail, soft-rush, and false nettle.
Vegetation plants in created wetlands will include similar species as found in the forested
and herbaceous layer of the adjacent marsh including cattails, bull-rush, sedges, fox tail,
soft-rush, and false nettle.
EXISTING HYDROLOGY The hydrology of the wetland is principally derived from
two sources, precipitation and overbank flooding from Sandy Creek. Precipitation and
resulting storm runoff from the surrounding upland collects in the wetland. A storm
which generates over 2800 cfs. of flow is required for Sandy Creek to breach the levee
and flood the wetland. Such a storm has a greater than 1.5-year return interval. Once the
wetland floods, the water becomes impounded and slowly recedes throughout the
' growing season until partially replenished by rain events or fully replenished by the next
flooding event.
The hydrologic regimes described in Classification of Wetland and Deepwater Habitats
of the United States (Cowardin, 1979) are appropriate to describe this wetland:
Permanently Flooded - Water covers the land surface throughout the year in all years.
Vegetation is composed of obligate hydrophytes.
Intermittently Exposed - Surface water is present throughout the year except in years
of extreme drought.
Semipermanently Flooded - Surface water persists throughout the growing season in
most years. When surface water is absent, the water table is usually at or very
near the land surface.

Seasonally Flooded - Surface water is present for extended periods especially early in
the growing season, but is absent by the end of the season in most years.
' When surface water is absent, the water table is often near the land surface.
1
1
1

1

Temporarily Flooded - Surface water is present for brief periods during the growing
season, but the water table usually lies well below the soil surface for most of
the season. Plants that grow both in uplands and wetlands are characteristic of
the temporarily flooded regime.
The majority of the wetland is permanently flooded with some trees and shrubs scattered
on small islands and tussocks throughout. Near the edge of the pond, the wetland
becomes less inundated, herbaceous vegetation becomes established, and the amount of
woody vegetation increases. The transition between the hydrologic regimes from
permanently flooded to seasonally flooded is not readily apparent. Therefore, it is more
practicable to divide the wetland into three sections based on the more obvious and larger
8

hydrologic regimes: Permanently Flooded, Seasonally Flooded, and Temporarily
Flooded.
REFERENCE WETLAND SOILS The soil throughout most of the wetland is an
alluvial soil that has a low-chroma matrix of less than 2 well within the top 12 inches of
the soil surface, clear evidence of hydric soils. This corresponds with the Wehadkee soil
series, which is the typical hydric soil found on Piedmont floodplains. This assessment
agrees with the Durham County Soil Survey (197-), which has mapped the area as a
Chewacla/Wehadkee complex.
WETLAND INVESTIGATION
HYDROLOGIC MONITORING. Three open access groundwater monitoring gauges
were placed on the site on April 21, 2002 and monitoring of these wells commenced on
April 23, 2002. These were placed on the site in an effort to characterize groundwater /
surface water relationship as early as possible in the growing season. These gauges were
then supplemented with four Model #138 Infinities Water Level Data Loggers on June
11, 2002, as indicated in the exhibit labeled Sandy Creek Well Sample Data for Wetland
Design included in this report.. Data Loggers 1 and 4 record water to an approximate
depth of 3.7 feet, Data Logger 2 to a depth of 4.5 feet, and Data Logger 3 to a depth of
5.5 feet. Data Logger 4 was placed in the adjacent (reference) wetland while Loggers 1-3
were strategically placed around the restoration site. The Data Loggers are programmed
to record water levels twice a day.
While the monitoring data collected from the original three open access gauges did not
provide technical data of the level of detail that was anticipated, it was sufficient to
describe the general groundwater / surface water relationship. This was imperative since
due to the drought conditions, the water table had dropped below the level of the Data
Loggers within a week after they were installed. The information from the gauges was
then merged with field indicated water levels and a detailed topographic map of the site.
This information was then utilized to ascertain an overall picture of the hydrologic
regime that was used to design the mitigation site.
During the early part of the growing season, groundwater levels beyond the limits of
standing water were higher than that of the pond, as is to be expected due to capillary
action within the soil. As the growing season progressed, the difference between the
pond elevation and that of the gauges lessened until the pond was higher than the
groundwater, indicating the evapotranspiration within the vegetated regions exceeded that
of the pond, or non-vegetated regions. Hence, the pond becomes a recharge area for the
wetland until the end of the growing season. After significant rain events, this recharge
function becomes even more evident as the pond level rises while the groundwater water
elevations remains essentially unchanged. Therefore, the storage of runoff and
floodwater within the ponded portion of the wetland is the key component to the
hydrology of the existing wetland.
9

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Considering the hydrologic forces that will drive the wetland mitigation area, it was not
necessary to assess the hydraulic conductivity of the soil, but sufficient to understand the
groundwater / surface water relationship. Accordingly, the water balance provided in
Appendix D of Reference 2 was deemed sufficient for designing the wetland mitigation
site. This appendix has been included in this report.
WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN
The objective of the mitigation project is to restore/create a wetland that acts as an
extension of the existing wetland. Therefore, the wetland will also receive its hydrologic
input from precipitation and overbank flooding from Sandy Creek. Similar to the
reference wetland, the target wetland is designed to also have three basic hydrologic
regimes. However, the permanently flooded regime of the reference wetland will be
replaced with semipermanently flooded regime. This decision was predicated on the
concept that less flooded areas with at least non-persistent herbaceous vegetation will
provide more wetland functions and values, especially with respect to water quality, than
permanently inundated areas devoid of vegetation. The wetland restoration preliminary
construction plan is included in Section D.
HYDROLOGIC RESTORATION. As with the existing wetland, it is essential to
allow a portion of the restoration area to retain runoff and floodwaters to provide
hydrology to the remainder of the wetland. However, it is also important not to simply
create an extension of the existing wetland that would also remain permanently flooded.
To this goal, the site has been designed such that a broad levee set at the elevation of the
seasonal high water table of the pond, 262.0 feet, will separate the site into two sections.
The front section will tie into the grade of the existing wetland and slope gradually up to
the levee. The site will then gradually slope down to the back section of the site. At the
rear of the back section where the old sludge ponds will be removed, a ponded area will
be built that is expected to store runoff and floodwaters well into the growing season. In
the middle of the ponded area, an elevated wetland "island" will be constructed. This
island is expected to allow for a different assemblage of vegetation.
Once the growing season commences and the pond level begins to recede, precipitation is
expected to have little impact on the back section of the restoration area. This is to allow
for the seasonal "drying out" of the wetland. The wetland "island" will aid in this
process by increasing the evapotranspiration within this section of the wetland.
The total amount of wetland restoration/creation that is anticipated from this project is 3.2
acres. The wetland will have the following benefits:
• The site can retain enough of the floodwaters to provide hydrology to the site at
the beginning of the growing season and after flooding events.
• The back portion of the site will not be dependent upon the beaver dams that are
currently controlling the level of water in the existing wetland
10

• The levee provides a lane for constructing a boardwalk through the wetland that
be incorporated into proposed park
• The site provides an ephemeral pool in the back section that should provide
habitat and breeding opportunities to a number of different species
The excess spoil from the restoration area is expected to be partially disposed of on-site
in order to keep construction costs within budget. A 2.3-acre wooded upland northwest
of the restoration area has been targeted as the waste area. Trees removed from this
upland will be utilized in the stream restoration activities.
HYDRIC SOIL REMEDIATION. The hydric soil remediation proposed at Sandy
Creek is a passive process. Hydric soil development is already evident at the site.
Grading of the site will create the hydrologic regime necessary to further promote and
increase hydric soil development. The current fill material has a significant topsoil
component that appears to be able support a variety of vegetation types. Therefore, no
additional soil will be brought into the site. During the grading process, if areas of well
developed topsoil are encountered, for example in the sludge pits, this soil will be
stockpiled and spread back over the site to obtain final grades and provide a seed bank for
rapid revegetation of the site.
VEGETATION RESTORATION / PLANTING PLAN. The objective of the
revegetation plan is to plant a suite of native species that will maximize wetland
functions. The target species will be based on the three target hydrologic regimes of the
wetland as follows:
Planting Zone 1 - Semipermanently Flooded (0.9 ac)
Black Willow Salix nigra OBL
Tag Alder Alnus serrulata FACW+
Button Bush Cephalanthus occidentialis OBL
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata OBL
Planting Zone 2 - Seasonally Flooded (1.8 ac)
Elderberry Sambucus Canadensis
Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Willow Oak Quercus phellos
Planting Zone 3 - Temporarily Flooded (1.9 ac)
Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera
River Birch Betula nigra
Laural Oak Quercus laurifolia
FACW-
FACW+
FACW
FACW+
FAC
FAC
FACW
FACW-

1

1

1
1
r
1
11
u
In addition to the wetland restoration planting, there are areas that are also targeted for
revegetation. Planting zone 4 entails the upland spoil area. Zones 5 - 7 include wetland
areas that have been cut as a result of debris removal for the city park. Zone 6 will be
' located at the entrance of the bridge leading to the wetland trail and has therefore been
targeted with a more aesthetic vegetation mix. Zone 8 will repair stream bank area that
will be disturbed due to stream restoration activities.
Planting Zone 4 - Upland Spoil Area (2.3 ac)

White Oak Quercus alba FACU
Southern Red Oak Quercus falcata FACU-
Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica FAC
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera FAC
Planting Zone 5 - Disturbed Seasonally Flooded Area (0.23 ac)
Elderberry Sambucus Canadensis FACW-
' Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum FACW+
Wax Myrtle Myrica cerifera FAC+
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica FACW

Planting Zone 6 - Disturbed Temporarily Flooded Area (0.05 ac)

Wax Myrtle Myrica cerifera FAC+
American beautyberry Callicarpa americana FACU-
' Red Chokeberry Aronia arbutifolia FACW
Laural Oak Quercus laurifolia FACW-
Planting Zone 7 - (0.03 ac
Wax Myrtle Myrica cerifera FAC+
' Spice bush Lindera benzoin FACW
Planting Zone 8 - Stream bank Reforestation 0.12 act
Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis
Carolina Willow Salix caroliniana
All of the listed species in Planting Zones 1 - 3 and 5 - 8 are found in Piedmont
palustrine forested floodplains and some are present in the reference wetland. The plants
chosen for each planting zone were based on their facultative status, professional
judgement, and the reference wetland. Plants chosen for the panting zone 4 are typical of
' a mesic mixed hardwood forest. Once established, these assemblages of plants are

12
1
expected to provide water storage, nutrient storage/transformation, sediment retention
and bank stabilization, carbon storage, and habitat and food for a variety of wildlife.
Planting of seedlings should occur between December 1 and March 31 when trees are ,
dormant. A total of 680 stems/acre of the appropriate species mix will be planted in each
designated area on approximately 8 ft. by 8 ft. centers. The proposed planting plan
assumes the availability of high quality planting stock at the time of planting. If quality
seedlings of a particular species are not available at the time of planting, that species will
be eliminated and an appropriate substitute found. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (1993) were utilized in developing the
planting plan.
STREAM ENHANCEMENT PLAN
Log vane structures will be used along the creek to create bed form in the creek. During
the longitudinal profile study of the existing creek, good pools were found only at debris
locations in the creek. The goal with the stream enhancement will be to create pool
features with log vane structures. Two rock cross vane/ W-type structures just upstream
of the culverts under 15-501 and the treatment plant access bridge will be used to ,
stabilize the grade of the stream and direct the water into and under the existing
structures. The rock structures will be constructed from quarry stone.
One area of the stream just upstream of the culverts under 15-501 will be repaired by
reparing and existing blowout and regrading adjacent banks. This area will also include
the installation of two root wads to protect a newly constructed slope.
The placement of log vanes to create pools in sandy creek were spaced using the Mud
Creek as a reference reach for our design. Mud creek watershed is adjacent to sandy ,
Creek. Sandy Creek is a E5 stream with a watershed area of 6.4 square miles. Mud Creek
is a E5 stream with a watershed area of 5.84 square miles. The Sandy Creek watershed is
more developed and according to FEMA has a bankfull discharge of approximately 2,600
cfs. Mud Creek has a bankfull discharge of approximately 1,600 cfs. Mannings's "n"
values were developed at the ripple sections for both streams based on the above
discharges. Approximately the same Mannings "n" value was obtained confirming the
reasonability of the FEMA discharges. The pool to pool spacing of average 180 ft., and
range 140-240 feet was used in the proposed design of Sandy Creek. The stream
enhancement design is shown on the preliminary construction drawings in section D.
The canopy is very good through out most of the stream bank top on the project and
would need little if any supplemental plantings. The stream enhancement plan includes
planting along the stream in areas in which disturbance will occur, such as at the box
culverts and in areas where equipment needs to take access to the creek for construction.
Other opportunities for plantings adjacent to the stream are as follows: Between the
sewer line and the access road on the south side of the bridge across Sandy Creek
(wetland area), on the north side of the bridge between the creek and the sanitary sewer
easement, and at the north end of the property between the stream and the sanitary sewer.
These areas are shown on the planting plan included in the preliminary construction
drawings found in section D.
13
1
SEDIMENTATION & EROSION CONTROL
A sediment and erosion control plan will be developed for all work proposed for this
project. The plan will have provisions detailed in all disturbed areas to contain any
runoff sediment to the site and a stabilized construction entrance to the site. The wetland
grading operation will include temporary sediment basins, diversion ditches, and silt
fences as necessary to prevent the sediment from reaching Sandy Creek or the existing on
site wetlands. Work preformed in the creek will involve bypass pumping around work
areas and stabilization of slopes with biodegradable erosion control blankets. Disturbed
areas will be seeded and vegetation established as soon as final grading is completed to
stabilize the site. The project will include the protection of existing vegetation adjacent
1 to work areas. The erosion control plan will be submitted to the State of North Carolina,
Land Quality Division for approval and permits.
MONITORING PLAN AND SUCCESS CRITERIA
Following completion of the proposed restoration activities, the Sandy Creek Mitigation
Site will be monitored for no less than five years to establish success of the vegetation
and hydrologic criteria. If the site fails to meet success at any point during the five years,
the reason for the failure must be established. If the failure is attributable to a flaw in
design, remedial action will be considered in coordination with regulatory review
agencies and additional monitoring initiated.
1 HYDROLOGIC MONTORING. Upon completion of the restoration activities, one
automated Water Level Data Loggers will be installed at the top most elevation of each
of the three target hydrologic regimes. Success at this elevation assumes success for
entire regime. For the intermittently exposed and semipermanently flooded regions,
(262.0 feet and less) hydrologic restoration will be considered successful if the soil is
ponded, flooded, or saturated within 12-inches of the surface for at least 12.5% of the
growing season during years with normal precipitation. For the temporarily flooded
region (262.1 to 263.5 feet), hydrologic restoration will be considered successful if the
soil is ponded, flooded, or saturated within 12-inches of the surface for at least 5% of the
' growing season during years with normal precipitation. In addition, a Data Logger will
be installed in the reference wetland at the same elevation as the one installed in the
temporarily flooded region. If the hydrology in the seasonally flooded region fails to
meet the 5% criteria, success will still be assumed if the hydrology matches or exceeds
that which is recorded in the reference wetland.
STREAM ENHANCEMENT MONITORING Permanent cross sections will be
established at determined locations along the stream to evaluate the effectiveness of the
in-stream structures in the creation of pool features. All constructed structures will be
evaluated for stability and effectiveness yearly. The longitudinal profile of Sandy Creek
will be monitored to determine the effects of the in-stream structures on the stream bed
form. Vegetation monitoring for areas planted adjacent to the stream will conform to the
monitoring proposed for the wetland vegetation as listed below. The stream and
structures will be monitored for a period of five years.
1
14
r
VEGETATION MONITORING. Vegetation monitoring will be conducted within the
wetland mitigation site only. The planting proposed on this project along the stream
corridor is for aesthetics and bank stabilization. Therefore, only Planting Zones 1
through 3 will be monitored. Vegetation monitoring procedures are designed in
accordance with EPA guidelines enumerated in Mitigation Site`Type (MIST)
documentation (1990) and USACE Compensatory Mitigation Guidelines (1993). After
planting has been completed, the site will be inspected to verify that proper planting
methods were used, including proper plant spacing, density, and species composition.
Assuming successful planting, 0.05 acre vegetative plots will be established in
representative locations across the site. Plot locations will be placed in proximity of
water table monitoring gauge points where possible to help correlate data between
vegetation and hydrology parameters. Quantitative sampling of vegetation will
performed during each growing season for five years or until vegetative success criteria
are met.
Vegetative success will be determined by the survival of target species within the sample
plots. The required minimum survival rate is 320 stems/acre of target species at end of
the fifth year. Included in the required survival criteria are planted seedlings and natural
recruitment of the same species. At least six different representative species should be
present on the entire site. If the vegetative success criteria are not met, the cause of
failure will be determined and appropriate corrective action taken, if necessary.
REFERENCES
1. Soil Survey of Durham County, North Carolina United States Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 1971.
2. Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan for Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway, DWQ
Project No. 991177, Action ID No. 200020073 & 200020074, CZR Incorporated,
September 2000.
3. North Carolina State Highway Commission Raleigh, North Carolina Hydrologic
Department Culvert Survey & Hydrologic Design Report Project No. 9.8050591
4. Conceptual Master Plan for Sandy Creek Environmental Center for the City of
Durham Parks & Recreation, Coulter Jewell, Thames PA., 1998
5. Environmental Assessment for the Sandy Creek Life Long Learning Center Sandy
Creek Trail - Phase One Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. (HSMM), 2000
6. Base map prepared by HSMM for Sandy Creek Trail Phase One, August 2000
7. Flood Insurance Study Durham County, North Carolina & Incorporated Areas
Effective Date February 2, 1996
8. Sandy Creek Conservation Easement Triangle Township, Durham County, North
Carolina August, 2001.
9. "Wetland Delineation Survey, Sandy Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility" by
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering Inc. dated 12/1/1997, revised 12/5/1997, delineation
by Ecological Consultants.
10. Project Narrative for Sandy Creek Environmental Center, HSMM, January 2000.
11. City of Durham Zoning Maps
15
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
' o
.o
FAIL
0
i
O
?? `\O F?wy
HIM
o TO
o a
z =
o
o
? D
o <
x a
0
J
F
' y9
,All
?r
15
P
0
ON
1
or

41
4
Cornwallis
HILL Road Park
'L c
sse 8 J
4
000111302
?O
o
1331-
?? ? 15-5p1
RUCTURE
H0
0
PROJECT SITE
vvmor rMa
D R AM
S GF
0 ?
coo
A
-;K
? N\VF
OINNAC
RIDGE
i'? T?? 9yyo VALLE 9G Ivi
y RUN
HE
101,
V lfcN
LOCATION MAP 1
m
NTS d?f
Shan
EDGE
w w = w m m r w w w = i = w w m m w m
m m m m r m m = m = = m m m m r m m r
SANDY CREEK WATERSHED
CURRENT LAND USE
SCALE 1"= 2000 FEET

r/
1\

/ NSB T' f
CREEDMOOR SANDY LOAM

N- eo'
-? , p ASS' ,
'?. WHITE STORE SANDY LOAM
y \
URBAN LAND
-CHEWACLA & WEHADKEE SOILS
i

PROJECT SITE SOILS
SANDY CREEK
REFERENCE MAP
DURHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Not To Scale
t
M
>rwvt it
I?
' FORESTED
i
gn
yc w w •
t
wW L /
i
.`\ ICI
r
- 1 I w
\I r
1 1
' I
I 1
1 \
1 \
1 \
re?
11
1 1 ¦
rr
/r
FORESTED
r
11
1 `
N 1 I
1\ 1\ l/? v? Riw i?
/ . r
/ I 1 It
ox i
r >oc AMC --? -\\
\
( \ J
I I 1 1 r „? 1??\s
• ?? :: s
rr
/ j 1 1 Ij
1 1 1
? ? ? / ,1 11 r 1;
l 1 ? ? 11
LEVEE FOREST
WETLAND '
it 1 r
r
r /
1 ? r {
{
1 , ; 1 UPLAND FOREST
11 r /
OPEN AREA ABANDONED i. i
SLUDGE DRYING BEDS / S
/ r
WETLAND
r
r
r
I
ERGENT
OPEN AREA EXISITNG ABANDONED SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT FACILITY
FOREST
EXISTING VEGETATION MAP
NTS.

C

1

I
Sandy Creek Durham County, North Carolina
May 2002
Proposed Wetland Site
Existing Wetlands to the South of the Proposed Mitigation Site
Sandy Creek Durham County, North Carolina
May 2002
11
II
11
ti
u
11
II
11

M
11
11
r

I

Typical Ripple
Typical Pool
I

1

Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement
Durham, North Carolina
Variables Existing Channel Proposed Reach Reference Reach
Stream type E5 E5 E5
Drainage Area 6.4 6.4 5.84
(S q. Mile
Bankfull width 27.3 NC 17.55
(Wbkf) Ft. (27-27.7)
Bankf ll mean 2.76 NC 3.24
depth dbk Ft. 2.71-2.82)
Width/depth ratio 9.9 NC 5.4
Wbkf/db 9.6 -10.23
Bankfull Cross 75.5 NC 57
Sectional Area (75-76.1)
(Abkf) S q. ft.
Bankfull Mean 34 NC 28
Velocity (VbM fps.
Bankfull Discharge, 2600 NC 1600
c£s (Qbkf) Us. FEMA FEMA
Bankfull Maximum 3.19 NC 4.14
depth dmax Ft. (3.12-3.3)
Max driff/dbkf ratio 1.16 NC 1.28
1.43-1.18
Low bank Height to 1.46 NC 1.15
max dbkf 1.41-1.49
Width of flood 450 NC 400
prone area (Wfpa) (280-600)
Ft.
Entrenchment ratio 16.6 NC 400
(WfpdWbkf) (10.4-22)
Meander length 2400 NC 93
m Ft. (86-147)
Ratio of meander 88 NC 5.3
length to bankfull (4.9-8.4)
width (Lm'Wbkf)
Radius of Curvature 240 NC 36.5
c Ft. 175-335 17.5-75
Ratio of radius of 8.8 NC 2.08
curvature to (1-4.3)
bankfull width
(Rc/Wblcf)
1

1

I
1
1
Belt width (Wblt) 120 - 400 NC 39
Ft. (25-59)
4.4-14.6 NC 2.2
Meander width ratio (1.4-3.36)
Wblt/Wb
Sinuosity (stream 1.08 NC 1.13
length /valley
distance
Valley slope (ft/ft) .0018 NC .0015
Average slope .0017 NC .0013
Sav - Svalle /k
Pool Slope (Spool) .0005 NC .0003
Ft./ Ft.
Ratio of pool slope 0.29 NC 0.23
to average slope
(spool/Sbkf)
Maximum pool 4.2 To be increased 7.4
depth (dpool) Ft. (3.2-5.2) with log vane (6.2-8.1)
placement
Ratio of pool depth 1.52 To be increased 2.3
to average bankfull (1.15-1.9) upwards towards 2.3 (1.9-2.5)
depth (dpool/dbkf) value w/ to vanes.
Pool width (Wpool) 27 NC 15.2
Ft. 19-32
Ratio of pool width 0.99 NC 0.87
to bankfull width
(WpooMk fl
Ratio of pool area to 1.17 Increase in Pool 1.26
bankfull area (1.1-1.46) area with increased
of depth,
Pool to pool spacing 130 180 118
Ft. (40-400) (140-238) (91.5-1 54
Ration of p-p 4.8 6.7 6.7
spacing to bankfull (1.5-14.8) (5.2-8.8) (5.2-8.8)
width /Wbk

1

1

1

1
Materials: Exist' Proposed Reference
Particle Size
distribution of
channel material
D16 0.20 mm NC 0.16 mm
D35 0.43 nun NC 0.22 mm
D50 0.50 mm NC 0.36 mm
D84 1.14 mm NC 0.90 mm
D95, 5.2 mm NC 1.30 mm
Particle Size
distribution of bar
material
D16
D35
D50
D84
D95
Largest size particle
at the toe ( lower
third of bar
Sediment Transport Validation
(Based on Bankfull shear Stress Existing Proposed
Calculated value
Value from Shield Diagram (1b/sq.ft.)
Critical dimensionless shear stress
Miminum mean dbkf calculated using critical
dimensionless shear stress equations
Note:
1. Sand bed stream "Rosgen" sediment transport methods not valid. Assumption made
that all sediment will be transported through the system,
2. NC - No change in design from existing to proposed with this enhancement design.
1
1

1
3

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
0
a?
a?
a?
A
po
a
a?
0
a
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sandy Creek Well Sample data for Wetland Design
Date Gau e 1 Gau e 2 Gau a 3? Pond
04/22/2002 262.69 262.59
05/01/2002 262.14 262.41 261.48
05/14/2002 262.09 262.3 262.26 261.42
05/22/2002 261.92 261.99 261.56 261.2
05/29/2002 261.61 261.69 260.77 261.07
06/04/2002 261.41 261.6
06/23/2002 260.06 260.45
07/05/2002 260.55
Sandy Creek Well Readings For Wetland
Design
- 0 Gauge 1 --*-Gauge 2 Gauge 3 - -Pond
264

263

262

261
260
N
O N
O N N
O O N N
O O N
O N
O N
O N
O N
O
O
N O
N O O
N N O O
N N O
N O
N O
N O
N
? O
N
N 0) (0 M O ?
N N M
O O ?
V- d
N O

O
O to O
O O O O
O O 0
O (0
O w
O Co
O I-
O
1

' APPENDIX D
WATER BUDGETS
1

11
As Prepared By
CZR Incorporated
September 2000
For The
Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Plan
Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway
Extension Between Cook Road and Hope Valley Road
Durham County, North Carolina

1

T

F
1
1

1
1
1
t
1

1
1
Table D-3. Sandy Creek mitigation site input water budget for average conditions without overbank
flooding on a 4.36-acre site.
35.6-ACRE DRAINAGE BASIN INPUT
RAINFALL"
(1970-1999) PETb NET
(rainfall-PET) TOTAL
(basin factor x
net)
January 4.39 0.2 4.15 33.9
February 3.74 0.4 3.34 27.3
March 4.76 1.1 3.66 29.9
April 3.3 2.29 1.01 8.3
May 4.85 3.64 1.21 9.9
June 3.87 5.22 -1.35 0
July 4.02 6.55 -2.53 0
August 4.34 5.9 -1.56 0
September 4.31 4.29 0.02 0.2
October 3.86 2.26 1.6 13.1
November . 3.44 1.12 2.32 19.0
December 3.47 0.45 3.02 24.7
a
b

Rainfall data was provided by the State Climate Office of NC State University and collected at
the Durham County weather station and/or Raleigh-Durham Airport.
Potential evapotranspiration (PET) was calculated using the Thornthwaite method.
C:\MyFiles\jobs\ 17 53\h20budget. wpd
1

t
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table D-4. Sandy Creek mitigation site output water budget for average conditions without
overbank flooding on a 4.36-acre site.
TOTALINPUT OUTPUT NET
(Rainfall and
basin)
PET°
Infiltration'
January 38.3 0.24 18.6 19.5
February 31.0 0.4 16.8 13.8
March 34.7 1.1 18.6 15.0
April 11.6 2.29 18.0 -8.7
May 14.8 3.64 18.6 -7.5
June 3.9 5.22 18.0 -19.3
July 4.0 6.55 18.6 -21.1
August 4.3 5.9 18.6 -20.2
September 4.5 4.29 18.0 -17.8
October 17.0 2.26 18.6 -3.9
November 22.4 1.12 18.0 3.3
December 28.2 0.45 18.6 9.1
Potential evapotranspiration (PET) was calculated using the Thornthwaite method.
' Infiltration rate used was the mid-point for Natural Resources Conservation Service hydrologic
Group D soil.
C:\MyFiles\jobs\ 1753\h20budget. wpd
1

t
1
1

t

i

1

U

a

a

At V Pp
FIRM PANEL 151
30 ?
FIRM PANEL 152
? ?P P/CKFTT R N
?q0
ZONE X ??,? 30
U
/ ZONE X
F
ZONE X ?c
i ty Of Durham ZONE X
1 370086 ZONE x 50,
E /
E
ZONE X 270 270
X ZONE ?' 270 -- -
c?u.) ZONE AE /
m
FIRM PANEL 154
ZONE
FIRM PANEL 153 X
5
r-
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
DURHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA & INCORPORATED AREAS
MAP PANELS 151, 152, 153, & 154
EFFECTIVE DATE: FEBURARY 2, 1996
SCALE I"= 500 FEET

I
12-081
t
LO6.;/Gd67 a&7- OF /rvr»A 10)6a 1fx6.E bt,?-r?9
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 50 6 7 8 9 100 2 3 4 5QO 6 7 8 9 1
4 A A A
1.5 r T f t T
y oZyr.Ev<.? 10?,. 50,?? looyr ,?,?,
Full Logarithmic, 3 X 3 Cycles

TABL'3
--
- > 'SUMMARY OF DISCHAR GES - conti nued
--
-
M
FLOODING SOURCE -
MAI GE AREA PEAK DISCHARGES (cfs)
AND LOCATION (sa es) 10_YEAR 50_YEAR 100-YEAR 500-
SANDY CREEK' ?.:
At confluence with
New Hope Creek 6.83 3.,538. 5,019 5,778 8
013
At Bypass 15;50_ 650 - 3,624 ,
5,155 5,941 ,
8
260
At aicACll. tCOao 5 3;671 5;209 5,997 ,
8
318
y.: At confluence" of Sandy ,
Creek. Tributary D.' C? 2,067. 2,911 3,343 4
610
At State Route 751, 1.50.', 1,99:8: 2,794 3,200 ,
4,38.5
_
SANDY CREEK TRIBUTAR
4
Y
,
At confluence with'
New Hope Creek 1:66 1,.556' 2,167 2,478 3
383
At Southerti Parkwaylt 1..16 1,47:3 2,040 2,327 ,
3,159
SANDY CREEK TRIBUTARY D.
` At confluence with
Sandy Creek
At:-Camerom:BoulevardF 2.66
1.:56 1;932
1,468 2,741
2
072 3,155
2
381 4,374
3
288
. ,
: , ,
SEVENMILE CREEK
At confluence with Eno
? River 2.72 1,754 2,858 3,448 5
331
At'Inverness Drive
Approximately 1,100 feet .1,87 1,230 2,027 2,469 ,
3,904
stream of •:Tnvern?ss
e `0.; 59 420 705 858. 1,354
LU'H ELLERBE CREEK
onfluence With ;
'
llerbe Creek
.
lnterstate'Route 85 ,
2.89
1
4
6
3,44.6
4,872
5,602
7,747

Guess Road .
.
0.82 1,252..'
874 1,764
1,233 2,025
1
417 2,790
1
957
, ,
LLERBE CREEK
CRY
?Zifluezice 'with. South
?r,p'Creek
ximately 250 feet 1.32 2,325 3,271 3,754 5,169
eamof.Vest Knox
et _ 0.84 1,795 2,521 2,892. 31978

K1
f
?I
i
w
O-INU'1r? 000ooO?t
U OOOOOr-Jr-1,...?pr...?O
z
H
z
0
H
Q 001,0MUyr-, NpoMO?rIO?
> Hq ?C?Nf?ON'y 00O
W H CO CO 0? O, Orn O O r-1 '_4 '.4 N
A W g> N N N N N M C7 ev1 MM M
01 Cy C?
Lv U ? '?
fW ?it,, >4 M 'n -4 O O N o0 M ,4 ,4 fly
CQ co 000000M MmooaA'_ C',
[t Q N N N N N M M M M M M
-w 9' 1.4 .
E-d PLO
a' Nt11r?OON00Mr-4,4
O' O' N P 0A M n o% - f? O
CO co ON ON rn 0 0 0 r-d r-• cv
A NNNNN cn M 'n M M M
>4 IX
• EW
7,HOr? M10In10muy00NOIM't
Q O M N N M
aE;W NNNNNe-il?
> W?
3 z in -4t CO N %.o M r? ?O M N
H? E -4 000O04MM ?M"0W
Q E ?W ?'-I N?nO?tOC0r4
I W Of44 r-1 N N r 1 r-I C' r-i r-1 r-1 r-f
G4 fn (n
W
!L'
O
z
H
A
O
O
a
W
O O H 0?.0 O O?'f? t?`f? O O O a` O?
>\ M 'qcjcrJ%D%0O M cM M M M
Ln M " CO ai,,4r4
NNN"CV'NN'NNNNMM
"'C'l dam
000%O?pp y
uyCnZ%o
NNNNN ^'i
ncntn 0Nu1
O0; 0I0'O1r
in Ln CO Z0
NNNN IN'N
i?oO'?7?0ai 0N0
M I-,N CV N N M
N N `CV N N:-<4 cn' M
O? OO ? %OD 0% 0"
^.NN:cvNM"
01 r-1'e-f
N . M cn
ONMu1MN? ON 00,0%O'nCO
rl r•'•f M M r{ r1 NOp-.N.t'+S:_O Or-1 O O
?Plcnr- Ntr?'Nrtop.^MOO
O .. ^ CO CT ?D. f-, M '00
r-f r-I ?7'CV N i? ch M'r-i t M

H E
A W rnuy0f,?0
v7 O ID M rf 0 tr00 y 4 O M r r,
N M c"1 N N M r I N r 1 r 1 u100'00
co m p 'I N uy'O``v1.'i%1 O r- m 4 C) to
60'f? ifl:q?
0

H

3 v+ .
-4, O 00 O
%0 %D M M M' to
`M
M;N M. M N`N M
U M 0% k0 %D -4 00 r, r d 4 N try
M f'- M Orn w r, N M O w tr1 N N N 'N N K N, .r5 N
f?,%p M N-N• N N N
,0
'

E OMNr4WNOf,IMM
_ 00
LnMM V1
Mr"fOMCn
u1 M 01%D N r-i?Op co OOOOMr4

H NM ul u11:
00m .--iNM
?O%D

A
r-1 r4 c-I _
NMM
f? O O O .-I N uy %D'1, O.
-4
.
r-d . r-1 r-1 r-f. r-f r/ r-4 N N
Li?4cAUO _
u:z*-4 xa?zo
,.1L
Gl
d
3a
U
x
w
W
b
6
O
$4
44
M
V
U
N
44
44
d
w
O
U
Cd
.0
N 4-f
ox o
>4 o
U d 0
1-Ai
$4 co
?: a
?x0 10
•r+ 3 G
E--4 z U
x 41
-4 0
3 3 .C
O N ,q
ww"
0 0 Q'
U U O
U
> >
O O O
cdcd co Q -4
/..1
1.J 4J >
N tU v
?Tt N W
Q
Q
low
Q
O
J
Lo- }
U
Z
UW U
Q L
H
Z
W
G
Z
Q O
? V
U
Z
W
C7
fr
z 2 cl:
Q
W
A
W
f1 Y
TABL
CA)

1F
.

.a.._i.-4 1.. .
..i..i..a .I

l._ _.:.. +..:..l...a.....a.. _. i
4-4 II
.? ._?...i , _. 1_.
V -Hil
1
..
.4-4.71-1 .._1...,._ .
l..
.}.,
333... ,., ..: ... ... _
41_,11..{ . ... ......... . . .._.
f... 4....i l.., 1 1. i-.. .;._..
t, 4-t
i ?
f
FEDEP&
el IV
DURHAM:
.AND LNCORPOR/#t..

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

OK
M
M

U
?
V
,
* 00
to
3 06

09
CD
_ OL
O ?..
V 09 0

09
)
Ns
-
?w
0
om ov

0£
CL
CL OZ

U

0
?
O O
O O 00 I
O O ` C
O fl
O ?
O d'
O M
O N
O ? O
O O
r ?
(1 001) UOI ILA 013

J
II ?

a
h

II
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
1
1
1
1
Cross Sectional Area Computations
Ripple Cross Section #1- Adjusted Bankfull Height
Bench Mark Elevation = 100 HI = 101.21
BS = 1.21
Bankfull Cross Section Bankfull Elevation 95.2
Elevation Incremental Incremental Incremental
Station FS Elevation from Bankfull Avg.Height Ft. Distance Ft. Area Sq.Ft.
69 5.72 95.2 0
0.54 0.60 0.32
69.6 7.08 94.13 1.07
1.55 1.40 2.16
71 8.03 93.18 2.02
2.97 0.60 1.78
71.6 9.92 91.29 3.91
3.48 1.40 4.87
73 9.05 92.16 3.04
3.48 2.00 6.95
75 9.92 91.29 3.91
3.37 1.50 5.05
76.5 8.83 92.38 2.82
2.74 1.50 4.10
78 8.66 92.55 2.65
2.68 1.00 2.68
79 8.71 92.5 2.7
2.78 0.80 2.22
79.8 8.87 92.34 2.86
2.90 1.70 4.93
81.5 8.95 92.26 2.94
2.92 2.00 5.84
83.5 8.91 92.3 2.9
2.87 2.00 5.74
85.5 8.85 92.36 2.84
2.87 1.50 4.30
87 8.9 92.31 2.89
2.96 2.00 5.91
89 9.03 92.18 3.02
3.08 1.00 3.08
90 9.14 92.07 3.13
3.13 1.60 5.01
91.6 9.14 92.07 3.13
3.14 1.90 5.97
93.5 9.16 92.05 3.15
3.10 0.90 2.79
94.4 9.05 92.16 3.04
1.52 1.60 2.43
96 5.72 95.2 0
flood prone el= 98.35 ft. Total Area 76.11 Sq. Feet
Wfpa = 280.00 ft. Wbkf = 27 ft
ER = 10.37 dbkf = 2.82 ft
D50 = 0.50 mm. W/d = 9.58
BH Ratio 1.56 dmbkf = 3.15 ft.
1
1
1
1
1

09L
09L
OK
0£L
-? OZ L

L
V
- -
-----
-- .. -
----- _ _. _
01. L

00L
06

09
_------ __
0L
v

09
09
O
V 01v
p 0£
IL
OZ
OL

0
co
o) 0 ti (
) 0 0 tn I
) 0) 0 t
) 0 M
) 0 N r-
) 0)
(4001) U014 BA013
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cross Section 2
BM Top of MH A = 100
Station BS HI FS Elevation Notes:
1.09 101.09 BM top of MH-A
0 6.94 94.15
12 6.72 94.37
17 6.17 94.92
23 6.2 94.89
28 6.16 94.93
34 5.89 95.2
40 5.69 95.4
46 5.17 95.92
57 5.04 96.05
64 4.75 96.34
68 4.19 96.9
72 4.12 96.97
74.8 4.34 96.75 TOB-L
75 5.37 95.72 Bkf- L
76.3 7.54 93.55
77.1 8.72 92.37 Toe
77.6 8.73 92.36 EOW WS
78.9 8.92 92.17
79.6 8.94 92.15
81.3 9.65 91.44
82.6 9.65 91.44
83.8 9.58 91.51
84.7 9.35 91.74
85.9 9.18 91.91
87.5 9.01 92.08
89.3 8.77 92.32 EOW WS
92 8.65 92.44
94 8.59 92.5
96 8.49 92.6
98 8.36 92.73
100 8.33 92.76
102 8.25 92.84
105 8.29 92.8 Toe- R
106.5 7.71 93.38
108 5.62 95.47 Bkf- R
109.3 4.61 96.48 TOB
110 4.33 96.76
115 4.34 96.75
124 4.76 96.33
142 5.7 95.39
148 6.07 95.02
158 Edge of Terrace
1
1
1
1
1

M

OIL

0£L
?f
3
OU

OLL
L
v
00 L
' 06

08 -"?-
? c
O 1 OL H

C? G
09

U) -0 ` 05

,i
.0

V ov .

CL OE
C.

OZ
OL
0

0) CD m rn CD 0 )
(1001) U OIIBAG1 3

a

3

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cross Sectional Area Computations
Ripple Cross Section #3- Estimated Bankfull Height Field observations
Bench Mark Elevation (MH A) = 100 HI = 100.34
BS = 0.34
Bankfull Cross Section Bankfull Elevation 94.97
Elevation Incremental Incremental Incremental
Station FS Elevation from Bankfull Avg.Height Ft. Distance Ft. Area Sq.Ft.
67.7 5.21 94.97 0
0.18 0.60 0.11
68.3 5.74 94.6 0.37
1.61 1.00 1.61
69.3 8.22 92.12 2.85
2.90 2.70 7.82
72 8.31 92.03 2.94
3.00 1.70 5.09
73.7 8.42 91.92 3.05
3.08 1.10 3.39
74.8 8.49 91.85 3.12
3.06 1.20 3.68
76 8.38 91.96 3.01
2.96 2.00 5.93
78 8.29 92.05 2.92
2.99 2.00 5.98
80 8.43 91.91 3.06
3.02 2.00 6.03
82 8.34 92 2.97
2.94 2.00 5.89
84 8.29 92.05 2.92
2.91 2.00 5.83
.86 8.28 92.06 2.91
2.94 2.00 5.88
88 8.34 92 2.97
3.01 2.00 6.02
90 8.42 91.92 3.05
3.01 2.00 6.02
92 8.34 92 2.97
2.80 1.30 3.64
93.3 8 92.34 2.63
1.69 1.00 1.69
94.3 6.12 94.22 0.75
0.38 1.10 0.41
95.4 5.52 94.97 0
Total Area 75.02 Sq. Feet
Wbkf = 27.7 ft.
dbkf = 2.71 ft.
w/d = 10.23
dmbkf = 3.12 ft.
D50 = 0.50 mm. Fpa elev.= 98.09 ft.
BH Ratio 1.49 Wfpa = 480.00 ft.
ER = 17.33
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
i
i

M
M
0£ I.
OZL

OLL

L
V 00L

06 ...

w
_ 09 ?-
O
O
IL
01 ?
N.

09

;0
09
V
s 0t?

0£
O

V OZ
OL

III-to
co I
O ` c
O o t
O o d
O '
O M N r
O O - O
O O
(48 01) UO IIBA0 13
t
t
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
Cross Section 4
BM Top of MH -B = 100
Station BS HI FS
0.05 100.05
0
7
13
20
27
33
38
44
45.3
46.6
49
49.3
50.1
51.7
53.6
56.5
58.8
60.2
62.5
65
68
72.6
74.3
75.4
80
85
88
100
120
135
150
Elevation Notes:
BM top of MH-B
5.96 94.09
5.69 94.36
5.66 94.39
5.48 94.57
4.99 95.06
4.8 95.25
3.94 96.11
3.64 96.41
3.82 96.23
5.91 94.14
7.64 92.41
9.25 90.8
9.37 90.68
9.23 90.82
9.01 91.04
8.76 91.29
8.66 91.39
8.38 91.67
8.29 91.76
8.26 91.79
8.19 91.86
8.04 92.01
5.66 94.39
4.53 95.52
4.53 95.52
5.02 95.03
5.61 94.44
5.77 94.28
5.6 94.45
5.35 94.7
3.26 96.79
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
0V?
M

Oz I.
M
N
V <J-- 00

06

CO)
08
La
OL

O
09 0

CO) 09
U)
?
O
017
L
V of

oz
?
M
0
C) rn
r
(10 81) U OIIBA G13

it

r

a
n -

1,
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
I
Cross Sectional Area Computations
Ripple Cross Section #5- Estimated Bankfull Height Field observations
Bench Mark Elevation (Wooden stake at Rd.) = 100 HI = 102.81
Width = 27.3 BS = 2.81
Bankfull Cross Section Bankfull Elevation 96.4
Elevation Incremental Incremental Incremental
Station FS Elevation from Bankfull Avg.Height Ft. Distance Ft. Area Sq.Ft.
81.7 6.22 96.4 0
0.48 0.80 0.38
82.5 7.36 95.45 0.95
2.04 0.50 1.02
83 9.53 93.28 3.12
3.10 2.00 6.19
85 9.48 93.33 3.07
3.13 2.00 6.26
87 9.6 93.21 3.19
3.25 2.00 6.49
89 9.71 93.1 3.3
3.25 3.00 9.74
92 9.6 93.21 3.19
3.18 2.00 6.35
94 9.57 93.24 3.16
3.11 2.00 6.21
96 9.46 93.35 3.05
3.07 2.00 6.13
98 9.49 93.32 3.08
3.15 3.00 9.44
101 9.62 93.19 3.21
3.22 3.70 11.90
104.7 9.63 93.18 3.22
1.95 2.30 4.47
107 7.08 95.73 0.67
0.51 1.00 0.51
108 6.75 96.06 0.34
0.17 1.00 0.17
109 96.4 0
Total Area 75.24 Sq. Feet
Wbkf = 27.30 ft.
dbkf = 2.76 ft.
W/d = 9.91
dmbkf = 3.30 ft.
Fp elev = 99.70 ft.
Wfpa = 600.00 ft.
ER = 21.98
D50 = 0.50 mm.
BH Ratio 1.45

I

1

t
F1
1
1

t
L
1

00?
06
09

CD
L
V OL

= 09 ..

0 09
CL cc
co to
ot,

0
?
as o£
CO)
N
U)
0 oz

v
M

0
c
m o V
m ) d
m '
m MT
m N T
O -
O V O
T' c m
o
(IG OI) U OIIBA 813

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
Cross Section 6
BM Top of MH -C = 100
Station BS HI FS
0.61 100.61
0
12
20
29
40.2
41.5
42.4
42.7
44
45.8
48
50
52
53
55
57
59
61.4
64
66
69
71
72
73.5
76
80
90
Elevation Notes:
BM top of MH-C
5.9 94.71
6.1 94.51
5.91 94.7
5.36 95.25
5.23 95.38
4.85 95.76 TOB-L
6.87 93.74
7.49 93.12 Bkf - L
10.15 90.46 Toe
10.32 90.29
10.49 90.12 TW
10.39 90.22
10.17 90.44
10.03 90.58
10.09 90.52 Eow - WS
9.63 90.98
9.4 91.21
9.34 91.27 Toe
7.7 92.91 TOB- R
7.38 93.23
7.25 93.36
7.14 93.47 Bkf - R
6.84 93.77
6.77 93.84
6.49 94.12
5.34 95.27 TOB - R
5.22 95.39
5.69 94.92
t
1
t
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
1
1
1

M
M
OLL
.d 00L

06
V
08

OL

09
c
O 05

v 0v
CD
V?
0£

OZ
V
0L

0
co N ?- O 0") 0 0 r ` C 0 U') It

(10 01) UOI I A0 13
1
1

1
t
I

1
Cross Section 7
Top of hub at creek bank top = 100
Station BS HI FS Elevation Notes:
3.45 103.45 BM hub set at top of bank
0 5.79 97.66
10 5.57 97.88
20 5.02 98.43
30 4.53 98.92
44 5.13 98.32
49 3.93 99.52
65 3.8 99.65 TOB -L
67.4 6.04 97.41 Toe
70.2 5.63 97.82 Bkf - L
76 6.3 97.15 Tob
76.7 7.85 95.6 Toe
78 8.1 95.35
76.5 8.15 95.3 Eow - ws
80.5 8.43 95.02
82 8.6 94.85
84 8.65 94.8 TW
86.4 8.53 94.92
87.2 8.12 95.33 Eow - ws
89 6.99 96.46
95.3 6.81 96.64
96 6.27 97.18 Bkf - R
101 7.03 96.42
105 7.19 96.26
107.2 7.16 96.29
112 7.62 95.83 Toe
112.7 6.29 97.16 Bkf-R
114 5.1 98.35
119 1.85 101.6 TOB -R
124 2.02 101.43
126 1.32 102.13

I
1

t

1

r

t
1

1
PEBBLE COUNT
Project: Sandy Creek Date: 5115/02
Location: At Cross Section #1
Particle Counts
Inches Particle Millimeter Riffles Pools Total No. Item %-1 % Cumulative
Silt/Clay < 0.062 0 0 00/0 00/0
Very Fine .062 - .125 4 4 4% 4%
Fine .125-.25 17 17 17% 21%
Medium .25-.50
::::::::::
29
29
29%
50%
Coarse .50-1.0 ::::::D:;:;:;:;:; 26 26 26% 76%
.04-.08 Ve Coarse 1.0-2.0 15 15 15% 91%
.08 - .16 Very Fine 2.0-4.0
0
00/0
91%
16 - .22 Fine 4.0-5.7
6
6
6%
97%
.22 - .31 Fine 5.7-8.0 1 1 1% 98%
.31-.44 Medium 8.0-11.3 2 2 2% 100%
.44-.63 Medium 11.3-16.0 0 00/0 1000/0
.63-.89 Coarse 16.0-22.6 0 0% 100%
.89-1.26 Coarse 22.6-32.0
0
0%
1000/0
1.26 -1.77 Very coarse 32.0-45.0 0 0% 100%
1.77-2.5 V Coarse 45.0 - 64.0 ::::::::::::::::::::::::: 0 00/0 1000/0
2.5-3.5 Small 64 - 90 ::C::; 0 0 0 0% 1000/0
3.5-5.0 Small 90 -128 0 0 0 0% 100%
5.0-7.1 Large 128-180 ' 0 0 0 0% 100%
7.1-10.1 Large 180 - 256 ::::::::#:::::::::: 0 0 0 00/0 100%
10.1-14.3 Small 256 - 362 i#::::::::: 0 0 0 0% 1000/0
14.3 - 20 Small 362 - 512 :# 0 0 0 00/0 1000/0
20 - 40 Medium 512-1024 :::::::::::::: 0 0 0 0% 100%
40 - 80 - Very 1024 - 2048 :::::::::::::::::::: 0 0 0 00/0 1000/0
Bedrock ::::JWRK: 0 6 0 0% 100%
Totals 100 0 100 100% 100%
Particle Size Distribution Sample #1
100%- WOBBEEBON8810
90%6
> 80%
70%
E 600A
V
60%6
F- 40%
30%
20%-
10%,
0%
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size - Millimeter
11

1

I

1

g

J

V

m
a
A

e -

E
?^
N S
N
m
V
?
T
a

0
?t
o
'o
CIn

O

(eAMnwno) usyl jeul d %
T
0
Q

r
i
t
t
1
1
PEBBLE COUNT
Project: Date: 5/15/02
Location: At Cross Section #2 - Pool
Particle Counts
Inches Particle Millimeter Riffles Pools Total No. Item % % Cumulative
Silt/CI < 0.062 lG;::::::: 0 0 0% 09:0
Very Fine .062 -.125 :*":.,.*..-.,.-.-.... 3 3 3% 3°r6
Fine .125-.25 ::;:;:;A;::::::::: 12 12 12% 15%
Medium .25-.50 42 42 42% 57%
Coarse .50-1.0 29 29 29% 860A
.04-.08 a Coarsq 1.0-2.0 12 12 12% 98%
.08-.16 Very Fine 2.0-4.0 0 0% 98%
.16-.22 Fine 4.0-5.7
..... .
0
096
98%
.22-.31 Fine 5.7-8.0 1 1% 99%
.31-.44 Medium 8.0-11.3 0 0% 99%
.44-.63 Medium 11.3-16.
::::::::U::::::::::
1
1
1%
100%
.63-.89 Coarse 16.0-22.
:::::::
0
0%
100%
89-1.26 Coarse 22.6-32. 0 0% 1000/0
1.26 -1. ery Coa 32.0 - 45. ::: 0 0% 100%
1.77 - 2.5 a Coa 45.0-64.
::
0
0%
100%
2.5-3.5 Small 64 - 90 0 0 0 0% 1000/0
3.5-5.0 - 5.0 Small 90-128 0 0 0 0% 100%
5.0-7.1 Large 128 -180 0 0 0 0% 100%
7.1-10.1 Large 180 - 256 0 0 0 0% 1000/0
10.1-14.3 Small 256 - 362 0 0 0 096 1000/0
14.3 - 20 Small 362 - 512 : 0 0 0 0% 100%
20 - 40 Medium 512 -102 :::::::::::D:;:::::::: 0 0 0 0% 100%
40 - 80 rg- Ve 024 - 2 " :::::::::*:R:::::::::: 0 0 0 0% 1000/0
Bedrock 0 0 0 0% 100%
: Totals 0 100 100 100°k 100%
Particle Size Distribution Pool
100%
90%
80%
70%
E 6096
V
c?
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size - Millimeter

1

I

r

g

0
c ?
o £

N
iE
N
.m
V
R
a
c?
O
M
V,
co

7
T
Q

(en lMnwno) ueyl jeu ld %

0
Midland Hydrology Field Data Form 1999RAM
. .I. . ' . BANK EROSION POTENTIAL
Stream Name , analc G 1. Date: ??a b/o
Xsec. No. -41 Crew:_A ro(, .-
Bankfull Height (ft) .AA- n
Root Density (%) _ a44L
Bank Angle (degrees)
Surface Protection ( % _ '100
BANK EROSION POTENTIAL
CRITERIA VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
VALtl!
IMDOC YAWL WDDC v . 8VD01 VAM =11X VAM MU VAIN! WM
Bank lit/Bkf Hl 0
1.
.1.1 1.0.1.9 1.1.1.19 2A,i.9 1.2.15 4.0-&9 1.6.24 64.7.9 2.1.24 8.0-94 102.E 10
Root Depth/8ank Ht lA4.9 1.0-1.9 0.89.m 2.0-3.9 0.49.6.30. 4.0.3.9 029.1.15 6.0.7.9 0.14-.06 8.0.94. CZ 10
Roa DaWW (1i) 80100 1.0.1.9 LS-79 2.0-3.9 30.54 4.0-&9 15.29 6.0.7.9 5.14 8.0-94 d.0 10
Milk Angle MCOCCS) 020 1
0
.
1.9 21.60 2.03.9 61.80 44,5.9 81.90 6.07.9 91-119 8.0-9.0 >119 10
&ffh a Roc (!i) 80100
1.01.9 55.79 24-3.9 3054 4.0,5.9 15.29 6.0-7.9 1015 8.0.94.. <1o 10
?s

- YO -1.3 810-11.
&(?lo
2S. (e
w 5.9.5 10-191 ?? 20291 30391 40-45 46-50
Mural
Adjus w0- ,l-10 20 3d:L
BANK MATERIALS: BEDROCK: BANK EROSION POT'EN'TIAL ALWAYS VERY IOW
BOULDERS: BANK EROSION POTENTIAL LOW
COBBLE: DECREASE BY ONE CATEGORY UNLESS Mwn= OF GRAVEUSAND IS OVER 50%.
THEN NO ADJUSTMENT
GRAVEL: ADJUST VALUES UP BY 5-10 POINTS DEPENDING ON COMPOSITION OF SAND
SAND- JUST VALUES UP BY 10 POINTS
w/CLAY: NO ADJUSTMENT
STRATIFICATION: 5-10 POINTS (UPWARD) DEPENDING ON POSITION OF UNSTABLE LAYERS IN RELATION TO
BANKFUU STAGE
NO 5T1 4.77 F 1C4TZM- v F S of t•.S
.HI -3o- 3e;-& ?Yle,H)
e
Midland Hydrology Field Data Form 1999RAM
s, BANK EROSION POTENTIAL
Stream Name Date: 7
Xsec. No. a. Crew:
Location/Note:__ IS_CA00
Bankfull Height (ft)
1219
Root Density (x) -ov?ce?lk /a4 y
Bank Angle (degrees _ do- Ivo
Surface Protection ( X) Sg e

CRITERIA

Bank tfUBkf Nt
VERY LOW
VALM 9NDIX
1.01.3 10.1.9
LOW
VAIAM MU
1.1.1.19 2A-3.9 BANK EROSION POTENTIAL
MODERATE HIGH
VAUX . wax VAWL INDEX
12.1.5 4.0.5.9 1.6.2.0 6.0.7.9
VERY HIGH
VALUX 3MOCt
2.1.24 8.09.0
EXTR
VAUM
3-2.8
EME
OdDDt
10
}toot DgdVBank It 1-04.9 1.0-1.9 0494M 24.3.9 0.49-030, 4.05.9 1.15 6.07.9 0.14•.055 d.0.9.0 c05 10
Root DaWW (%) x0100 1.0-1.9 5579 2.0-3.9 4"9 1529 6.07.9 5.14 8.09.0 45.0 10
BWAAn* Ne
mes) 020
g 1.0-1.9 21.60 2.0,3.9 6140 44.5.9 81.90 6.0-7.9 91-119 84.9.0 >119 10
Stubm PML (?) 80100

TOTALS 1.0•1.9 55.79 24.3.9 3054 4.0,5.9 15.29 6.0-7.9 1015 1 9.0-9.0.1 <10 10
of Y - d?(o 593 10.19s 20-29s Sa39s 4o?ls +6•so
BANK MATERIALS: BEDROCK BANK EROSION POTENTIAL ALWAYS VERY Low
BOULDERS: BANK EROSION parnn AL LOW
COBBLE: DECREASE BY ONE CATEGORY UNLESS MDCIURE OF GRAVELISAND IS OVER 50%.
THEN NO ADJUSTMENT
GRAVEL- ADJUST VALUES UP BY 5-10 POINTS DEPENDING ON COMPOSITION OF SAND
SAND: JUST VALUES UP BY to POINTS
Y: NO ADJUSTMENT
STRATIFICATION: 5-30 POINTS (UPWARD) DEPENDING ON POSITION OF UNSTABLE LAYERS IN RELATION TO
BANKFULL STAGE
.#vU 6M*nj::% C +rt&',?
BEHI - 3 y_ yes. /o ( jh.,
0
Midland Hydrology Fled Data Form 1999RAM
BAN EROSION POTENTIAL
Stream Name Date:
Xsec. No. *0 3 Crew: /.
Bankfull Height (R) - /? /I
Root Density (X) 7S- , ico0A yok
Bank Angle (degroes) - a 4AJl 74-
Surface Protection ( % - 75 „ -,3 41
BANK EROSION POTENTIAL
CR
ITERIA VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME
VAU1e 1N000 vAUAe WDac vALCre wDOf V" uroex VAIN! iwcex vAi ue o+DO:
Bank N1Bkf Ht
I0•1.1 10.1.9 1.1-1.19 2.04.9 is-13 4".9 1.6.2.0 6.0-7.9 11-21 8A9A .Z e I 10
Root Depc11/dank It 10.0
9
. 20-3,9 0.49-030, 40.5,9 0.29.1.15 6.0-7.9 0.14-.06 8.09.0 .05 10
Root DaL* (?) 80.100 2.0-1.9 30,54 4".9 1529 6.0•7,9 5-14 &D-9.0 46.0 to
BWk Ae
4le (Dever 0-20 j
, 2.0.3.9 61-80 4.0,5.9 81.90 6.0-7,9 91.119 8.0_9.0 >119 10
SU&M PWL (?) 80-100

roT 1S
1
o
2.0-3.9
30.54
4.0.5.9
1529
6.0-7.9
10.15
8A_9A .
.

<10

10
"s 10.195 2029.5 30395 40.E 46-50
- to
BANK MATERIALS: BEDROCK BANK EROSION POTENTIAL ALWAYS VERY LOW - -
BOULDERS: BANK EROSION POTENTIAL LOW
COBBLE: DECREASE BY ONE CATEGORY UNLESS MIXTURE OF GRAVEIJSAND IS OVER 5096,
THEN NO ADJUSTMENT
G ADJUST VALUES UP BY 5-10 POINTS DEPENDING ON COMPOSITION OF SAND
JUST VALUES UP BY 10 POINTS
SILT/CLAY. NO ADJUSTMENT
STRATIFICATION: 5-10 POINTS (UPWARD) DEPENDING ON POSITION OF UNSTABLE LAYERS IN RELATION TO
BANICFUL.I, STAGE F 1 C.AT1*j
BEH I /9,a - 31• S' C rYla at

T
A
a?
a?
U
U
0

''• X1`3/
e+ler
^,L
. ??Q \` 'tv 11
li " h
0 ? .u
I 4,
\\ 21?. i
REFERENCE REACH LOCATION
+

t
i
?W
y
1
n
J
Durham .
Academy)
'07
I _C
Z
??> =
Cf)
pr'o
Lin
11 cil
....
l ?
U~.tiLL 8,r ,
zt-
TI
CA
}
k ?
r ?
I
07/03/02 18:00 FAX [phone] PUBLIC WORKS 10002

S}j7Jr
° TABLE 3
LOODING - 8„j2,Y '
REA OF DISCHARG ES - continued
PEAK DI
R
f
F
SOURCE DRAINAGE A
miles
AND MCATION lee
10-XEAR §CH
50-YFAR ASG
S f U
a, )
100 ;YEAR „^_„?;
500-Y a8 .
.
LITTLE RIVER TRIBUTARY 1
At confluence with
Little River 3.78 1,401 2,245 2,600 3,658
Approximately 3,600 fast
upstream of State Route
1003 3.25 1,249 2,029 2,364 3,356
LITTLE RIVER NORTH FORK
' At confluence with
Little River 40,37 5,644 8,022 8,743 11,418
Approximately 2,300 feet
upstream of State Route
1461 38.72 5,468 7,800 8,816 11,150
LITTLE RIVER NORTH FORK
TRIBUTARY 1
At confluence with
Little River North Fork 2.59 1,054 1,746 2,053 2,953
Approximately 0.9 mile
upstream of State Route
1461 0.79 427 788 972 1,501
I LITTLE RIVER SOUTH FORK
Approximately 500 feet
upstream of confluence
with Little River 33.28 4,893 7,070 7,763 10,250
Approximately 1,100 feet
upstream of State Route
1003 29.46 4,460 6,516 7,189 9,562
MUD CREEK
' At confluence with
New Hope, Crook 5.94 2,389 3,585 4,210 6,115
At Pickett Rand 5.33 ., 498 -J,146 4 , J V d 3$r-'
Approximately 500 feat
upstream of Pickett Road 4.11 2,254 3,392 3,987 5,803
At State Route 1308 3.38 2,327 3,503 4,118 5,995
At, State Route 1306 2,54 1,832 2,786 3,287 4,826
At State Route 751 1.39 1,1$1 1,720 2,016 2,915
NEW HOPE CRM
At Chapel Hill Road 52.01 8,566 12,739 14,945 21,656
At confluence of Sandy
Creek Tributary A 49.40 8,401 12,525 14,706 21,330
At confluence of Sandy
Creole
At confluence of Mud 42.46 5,419 8,440 10,068 15,165
creek 36.37 5,116 8,022 9,575 14,442
At confluence of New Hope
Creek Tributary 1 33,81 5,041 7,924 9,465 14,300
22

a
i

1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1

O
O

U')
O
O
O

co

L
?.+ O
o

C o

LO
.

O t°
0
lA

W L V
3
w,
A

M
O
? O
M
CD
B
A N

y
O
N
O
L LO
V
CD
O

¦?
R
to
O

rn 0) c o CD C D CD M
(}a a}) uO RBAG1 3

a-
u.

W

N

Q- v

d
SC?J
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
1
i
i
i
Project: Mud Creek Reference Reach for Sandy Creek Enhancement Project
Date: 06118/2002 Elevation
Benchmark: Manhole = 100
Section #1 Location: Ripple cross Section for Classification At bend even with MH
Station BS HI FS Elevation Comments
0 1.88 101.88 5.1 96.78
6 5.22 96.66
13 5.02 96.86
19 5.1 96.78
28 5.24 96.64
32 5.26 96.62
35 4.92 96.96
38 4.67 97.21
38.5 4.67 97.21 Tobl Bkfl
40.2 6.67 95.21
41 7.61 94.27
42 8.17 93.71
42.5 8.51 93.37 Toe
43.6 8.79 93.09
45 8.89 92.99
46.8 9.07 92.81
48 9.25 92.63
49.5 9.42 92.46
51 9.34 92.54
52.5 9.12 92.76
54.4 9.13 92.75 Toe
55.8 7.42 94.46
56.5 5.36 96.52 Bkfl
57 4.61 97.27 Tobr- bkfl?
61 4.46 97.42
64 4.48 97.4
71 4.98 96.9
76 5.09 96.79
86 5.21 96.67
92 5.19 96.69
Ripple Cross section as viewed looking downstream

96
_ 97 GI x
ea
c

i
9/
W
93

92
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 60 95 90 95 100
Distsnos (Test)
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cross Section #1
Width= 17.55
Bankfull Cross Section Bankfull Elevati on 96.6
Elevation Incremental Incremental Incremental
Station Elevation from Bankfull Avg.Height Ft. Distance Ft. Area Sq.Ft.
39 96.6 0
0.70 1.20 0.83
40.2 95.21 1.39
1.86 0.80 1.49
41 94.27 2.33
2.61 1.00 2.61
42 93.71 2.89
3.06 0.50 1.53
42.5 93.37 3.23
3.37 1.10 3.71
43.6 93.09 3.51
3.56 1.40 4.98
45 92.99 3.61
3.70 1.80 6.66
46.8 92.81 3.79
3.88 1.20 4.66
48 92.63 3.97
4.06 1.50 6.08
49.5 92.46 4.14
4.10 1.50 6.15
51 92.54 4.06
3.95 1.50 5.92
52.5 92.76 3.84
3.84 1.90 7.31
54.4 92.75 3.85
3.00 1.40 4.19
55.8 94.46 2.14
1.07 0.75 0.80
56.55 96.6 0
Total Area 56.93 Sq. Feet
Dbkf = 3.24 feet
1
1

1
11

1

1

1

w
Go
0
co
W
I`

? O

L

3
o co

c LO

o
o
?
?
U
3 "

y
a Mo
_• M
O
V N

to

,A O
N

0 ?
L `-
V

O O
0
a LO

0
O

O D 1

) M - c

m o L

( o

D M M

M N

C

D ( C

M l

C
0
O c
0
o
(IGG I) u oi;en a13

1
1
1
1
1

1

r
M

Cross Section # 2 Pool section just downstream of Ripple cross section
Station BS HI FS Elevation Comments
0 101.88 5.01 96.87
5 4.92 96.96
10 5.02 96.86
14 4.93 96.95
18 4.83 97.05
21 4.96 96.92
23 5.37 96.51 TOBL
24 5.91 95.97 Bkfl
25.3 7.06 94.82
26.4 10.29 91.59
28 11.86 90.02
30 12.66 89.22
31.5 12.53 89.35
33 12.9 88.98
33.5 11.26 90.62
35 10.64 91.24 EOW ws
36 9.88 92 Toe
37.3 7.45 94.43
37.6 6.02 95.86 Bkfl
38.2 5.33 96.55 TobR
39 4.94 96.94
42 4.95 96.93
45 4.82 97.06
49 4.89 96.99
56 4.85 97.03
61 4.77 97.11
75 5.27 96.61
79 5.23 96.65
Pool Cross Section As viewed looking downstream
98-
97

96

0 95
94-
o 93
92
W 91

90

89

88

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 W M M M 80 M
Distance (feet)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
i
1
1
I
1
Cross Section #2
Bankfull Cross Section Bankfull Elevation 96.55
Elevation Incremental Incremental Incremental
Station Elevation from Bankful Avg.Height Ft. Dista nce Ft. Area Sq.Ft.
23 96.55 0
0.29 1.00 0.29
24 95.97 0.58
1.16 1.30 1.50
25.3 94.82 1.73
3.35 1.10 3.68
26.4 91.59 4.96
5.75 1.60 9.19
28 90.02 6.53
6.93 2.00 13.86
30 89.22 7.33
7.27 1.50 10.90
31.5 89.35 7.2
7.39 1.50 11.08
33 88.98 7.57
6.75 0.50 3.38
33.5 90.62 5.93
5.62 1.50 8.43
.35 91.24 5.31
4.93 1.00 4.93
36 92 4.55
3.33 1.30 4.34
37.3 94.43 2.12
1.38 0.30 0.42
37.6 95.9 0.65
0.32 0.60 0.19
38.2 96.55 0
Total Area 71.69 Sq. Feet
Width 15.20 Feet
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
i
1
1
i
i
1
PEBBLE COUNT
Project: Mud Creek Date: 06/18/02
Location: At Ripple location at bend near manhole for classification
Particle Counts
Inches Particle Millimeter Riffles Pools Total No. Item % % Cumulative
Silt/CI < 0.062 0 0% 00/0
Very Fine .062-.125 0 0 0 0% 0%
Fine .125-.25 39 0 39 39% 39°x6
Medium .25-.50 23 0 23 23% 62%
Coarse .50-1.0 28 0 28 28% 90°k
.04-.08 Very Coarse 1.0-2.0 10 0 10 10% 100%
08-16 Very Fine 2.0-4.0 0 0 0 0% 100%
.16-.22 Fine 4.0-5.7 0 0 0 0% 1000/0
.22 - .31 Fine 5.7-8.0 0 0 0 0% 100%
.31-.44 Medium 8.0-11.3 0 0 0 0% 100%
.44-.63 Medium 11.3 -16.0 0 0 0 0% 1000/0
.63-.89 Coarse 16.0-22.6
0
0
0
0%
100%
.89-1.26 Coarse 22.6-32.0 0 0 0 0% 1000/0
1.26-1. Very Coarse 32.0-45.0 0 0 0 0% 100%
1.77-2.5 Very Coarse 45.0-64.0 0 0 0 0% 1000/0
2.5-3.5 Small 64 - 90 :;:: 0 0 0 0% 1000/0
3.5-5.0 Small 90-128 0 0 0 0% 100%
5.0-7.1 Large 128-180 0 0 0 0% 1000/0
7.1-10.1 Large 180 - 256 0 0 0 0% 100°k
10.1-14.3 Small 256 - 362 0 0 0 00/0 1000/0
14.3 - 20 Small 362 - 512 0 0 0 0% 100%
20 - 40 Medium 512-1024 0 0 0 0% 100%
40 - 80 Lr Ve
_La 1024 - 2048 0 0 0 0% 100%
Bedrock ::BDRK': 0 0 0 0% 100%
Totals 100 0 100 100% 100°A
Particle Size Distribution Mud Creek
100%-
90%
;80%
70%
U 60%
c 50%-
40%
c 30%
3E 20%-
10%-
0%
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size - Millimeter
P

n
L

Ll

fl

8

a
3
?

E
o
:R

D ?
N
CO)
V
%E
n
`?

0

0
C94 o 9
(GAMInwno) U841 J8UId %

c?a
a
c
o
o
L
tC)
LO
Lo c
rn
?c
w
0

t
LJ

Elevation (feet)
co
co
coco (0
co O —�
co c co co
N W O)
to (0 co
-1 OD co
0
a
10
S
I
�
20
ay,s
30-
0
40
40
50-
0
60
60
su
�
70
J
Q
■
ic
CL
c�
100
0
�
v
110
120
I ►
_
Z
30
130-
140-
140150
150-
o
o,
160-
6017t}180190200
170-
180-
190-
200-
r
10
210-
0
220-
220a
CL
230-
30240
240-
o
0
250.
n
■
C
CL
260
I
.
0

240
0,.
a
--fir 250
�
Q.
. � 260
n
a 70 IV
v
..
' 280-
80290
290-
ate%
V
z
300
■
n
310-
10320330340
320-
330-
340-
16
-
50
350-
360-
360370O
370-
0
59-390
C-
-
400-
410
" v
�
I' 420
�
c
CL
430
n
COD
40
440-
0
� v
450
C
460
V
Z
470
+ n
480-
80490500
490-
500
510

J
A
1
t
/
i _
1<
t
f
1
Ik
1 a.;,
rl
F
4
-
1-/
_
f
` �- 11 �
: � � ,
'�':' , I � .,
C
.x'\ ':'
I
r11:'
',
-
_
a ,
-il
T ` '
L,
r
f
f—
.,
- i � ;
x
r-'�
- a
_
i
? l x
_t
M
" {
S
/
i /
)
�,
J
ry \
1,
T
y i
¢ x ,.r
t !�
'
k \ i.;
{"�
F'
'
r �" t
)>
_
C
{
i.
".
��
-
r
-. _
_ _
_
/ _
- a
_
- -
'�
y
t
`'-1
\
d
r
��'
,
;:,
�- �,
---���...--JJJ
<<I
2 ,. w ....x,
._.
/
)
rt"�
1. t
4J
l
�;
"',
RI
11 ?.'
i
r r
�':
A
, a- - ...
.. .. .
_ . _,

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
H:\Becky ward\Sandy Creek\C-f011-5ite.dw9 Wed Jul 31 10:01:41 2002
?
a
M
C, r N < .N.
Z .3. p Gt y n
Z N
N M
S V fTl
£ Z
r -1 0
A N
~ T .TI A
a° o
m o
ti v i v
r

f'1 D Z m
p
A +l
f
Z Z G D z p
v
D A -1 A D
n
D
y a
A
i n N °
m 3
D
1 Z m
G r

-I
NDI
Z N
N m

C,

? m
r
p
n
0
z p

3
-i
m
o

D
Z

i

j? ,Ll'6F£ 3 4t,91.6BS??
ss `
.
1 .k
__ I m ? jrT' `ll.
v
Zl 1(
//? \ I y \ ' £l IC
1+
1 / C? I ' '? 9l 1C
/ I<
(-e?-. st l<
q?. m
1
,
Ng A
/ ? mN
O i ry / l ?' M1 ~z°
'sl nc,o V A
a.' zn C \??'rv o
ZS 'd all 88
i0l
1 D --
\'
I o
s
- f
'd 98 8d
t L01
i
1-d01 z 10, N '
Z-L-V 9-
-L-tl
9\? ??. .) l l l / /l r. tj° 1 -s 'd ss ed , °
:as f' 3 WH3LI
\ ', 1? • ._. ?\ ? . i / >:vz„ " / ? J /" '; I \\ w / .. y? , q/ . I''I ? ' l ., 1, . .. £ loi i \
(
l v, ! ' ./ q I ?' 9 107
> 7a
'?4ILI^? -I -{1co Zo, Ila?.?$' a$m 5 ' :,3t.?o
Ion o
`I Ertl p! °O I m I B
` i
/ I Z,! I gym= ?' { <D zj )
a?
m
I
I/ L. / ; I 0 t1'
/*
11 °
a t?
S O e A C ,7
,
_Z
\ 1 ? y
, dl
a-tl
i
zt tl
ma
'I
3NOZ
2
9
pgpg
I
v I l ° z
?,( 4?£ Ll?L M 9Z, S.9 ? ) I ;?• I 'm` I a m o

2 SANDY CREEK STREAM sue: sue:
Becky Ward Consulting

I'
m
ENHANCEMENT & WETLAND ZN OZ,
;•/\°•. Storm, Water Management Engineering

A
RESTORATION/CREATION , 1512 Eglantyne Court [phone]
NC 27613 FAX [phone]
Raleigh
0
,

' OVERALL PLAN `1N P?•,
`
(Y
?
'? THE CATENA GROUP
N P
NNE
? 303 POND LILY COURT
HLL8BOROUBH, NO 27278
[phone] FAX [phone]
M M M M M M M M M S M M S M M w
R \Becky Ware\Saney Creek\pp-creek/.eeg Wee Jul 31 fO M 54 2002

6

O
---------------
i O?oY\\ \ \ m o \

--

?
G
mN \\
/ \\
O ?\
o \
\\ P

SI A1 1 +4J 40

`vA? ?-
\ \ ?`? 5111( `
/ ;/ P
1
N o
'i,
/ f O? 1 1
I ?
II

o 1 / 1 V
I
/ 40 ? A
? ? a.((, 5 11 I I?I
/
?ry \I
I
?
N
L
5
? \ \I R
1I
I
I
`?
1\
I
y
?
?, I I
?
II
I(
I
11' i
I• ?? g, Ii
o°
II A I ?:? ti':
i

I ,
\
+ I I
P I
% 0 1 lit I
I j
'? ?
I ?4 m l
N.
I

o
o '
. I
I R I
tl l 5 1 I\ II
/i I - -
?
?
„fit
I R I? I j\ m 1
1)\\ 1 1
_-
N

I
?
k
'I
I I I
/;
°I
g .'
i
i l
\
0 1 A I
Z
i'
`
D
\ i I g :; I '. 111
M
\ A I I I ?. \,,

D
z ? j A I it
I
1 I R I I I? ?.
I
'
l I .I: \?
a I y
o \
i
\
I R ' I? I ??
tlI I
`
I O \
I w
t
I a 4
x ,
1
d j
Ii
i I
? i
r,
l
-
?
?
'I Ii I?j?; VIII
I
+
I
,
1
S i I I R
I i
I
?
I •
A
; 1 II
\\j i I I ?Ii I ?' I.
9 /VO l1 0--13S R U,
\ R \ 1 I
??
? I
I
l _
\
?°' I o I p 5 '1 .% ? I
1 1 l
-
E 1
1 6
I
' '

+ A: + 1 48 li
I ?? N i
I
r
A
NZ '
1

O I
\
? A C
. ?I
I 1 1
_ Q v O

??
?
I
n 1 ??
?
'C\
i I
I r
,
j
??
i
'I
?\ m
1
AI
I
u
1
?
I 1
I
\
`
,
A p
I
i
?
? yo
.
I
I ?
I,
.I ? 1 ? I 1
\\. i ? Jjl it i
?
/
I I W (( I I I i '1
\ I \'\16,x`. \ a R f l I
1:
F
I
\
\
\
A A
I
I I
I
A
---
\
\
I
pp i

dki
j I
l;, f

I
"-? \ i ?_ ?? 11 11 i t o l I

• ?
\\
I
\°I p I I \?\
iI
R F ? a to
?? I ?..? \ \, 111 R tl 1
I 1 III
I I j '.\
'
?``
M 1
?
5 ? I
a d
1
rJ •
ti< n rn G v
=y m F _ _ A
D
o
+ I
1 jl
'I
Il?ill Ilpi 1 ,
! II
I {?

y I+'?1 n y v `0 O
n D z `^ a A A rn
00
I--_ II
,
III A A R/
I I
I

r? y ? v a? i v 1
? !'
m I
I
1 ? I I I I
II /
tl Ifl a tt p I I' .%
.
I
i ;
I
N A ti o O y
n X N m m
z° a cn r_ o a
0 Z
i
,Ti w° 61
W
I
-= ,,
I
11+ I )I/
C F R I .I -_
. I I R/I I I I is 'A
I
D n
rn
-1 D

O
z z
z i

11
rn I'
x.
0 0,

, _ /A A I
1
\

I I III pI I,
a 1
I I?
I
a
j D= ?i oe' , I
II I iiI g II Ii' ,I
p I
tl
I
> ? I
I
I
I ? ,I ,,
I
II
?q 1 qq C I ? l?

m ?? N g

9

E

N
S

H
A

A
N

N
D

C
Y

E
C

M
R

E
E

N
E

T
K

&
S
T

W
R

E
E

T
A

L
M

A

N

D ic III;
Ste: SEAL:
Becky Ward Consulting
Storm Water Management Engineering
919) 870-0526
?
1512 E
l
t
C
t
N R E S T O R A TI O N / C R E AT I O N ?y
51
an
yne
our
(
g
NC 27613 FAX [phone]
3? Raleigh
,

N PL A N AN D P RO F IL E 0+ 0 0 TO 9 + 00 1.
° "" RAWS DESKIED B" THE CATENA GROUP
303 POND LLY COURT
nm Imo H LL8BOR000N, NO 27278
[phone] FAX [phone]
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
H: \Becky Ward\Sanay Creek\OD-creek2Awg Wed Jul 31 10:14:05 2002

O2
5
f
"n
S
w
o li ? ? I I I .%
d Ili I a R/ 5 , 1 '' y
.
I
I tl
i /I I ;i i
R G R I
-
/
I 11:d
I
} ?

D%
to '. cn
O ? A A I !; ! I 11

X E TIO 5 I I II I I i

5
+8
.17 :'I
A x _`
I'
0
o
rn R A ? '! I
?,c
I tl
I I A ' I I
?
I
I
' I AA
;
I -
?"_
I
III
' m
;I
Axi .jl , ? w
tl' I (
I 'I
W I I R I i.
i
I ? II
?? I ?? I A
?
R I
R x I ?<?.?''

O
({?
tl Imp
I I

m
o
0 tl

I

? R
I
?
? ; I,
Y
a ^,
k

? I+ I I ? ?iy r
I
1
?
__I
,
R x j IO IY /;?
I I
?
n rn
l
yw
o o I !I I.; ?, °
I I R ?'I I'
?
c
-
? ?k
s awl I
?
. 0
f
I;, o
I e
,

--
------ ----- - - - - - - - ---
I 11j,

s ?
yI'90? x i I r ?2, _,
I R ?'I I .
/ ?• x

I
F > \
A I r? ,? ? I s
I A I ;, :
I
I ? ? ' iI
I
%? f
I
I
1
I
I
=
a I
?
'
I
I O \
/
R I? i
??, xi I
, ?? I N\
II

A II ' I r \
mom '
AcN p ?' I I 11 \ I Dgo

A
R 1

I 1?1 eC? ? I xi
1 10 a \ n,mvmm
m
I i ?
`
??
A
!
o 1
mA
1 ? \
D
?n ?
I

Iv in I xi 1 111•
I
1
I

. /
-10
1 •? ' 161
!'
I
? Ij xi 11 ?'`.?. I f
I x
II i I
?i
j I 1. G I
I;'
I xi I; I
?
I
C
I I I I; ;o I
x
a I
N I
l
I I
, I
I ? I ? I
I
I
o I I I I 1 I' ?/
:
I 1
,I
'
I II II
1
I
?
I
1
1
1
'`y
?
1
1
?
i I
. ?
I
I 1
1
I
I,
1
I A` \
\
`,
i
1
I
\
1
'
I
j
1
I

I
A I 0 I
x II I I \;ti
N
l

+ o
a
i
I
I
U1
A I I , `?
,\ I
,
`
I I i I• I a
????i ;??

T I ? I 1 ? ? I '1 `'I 1 1'1 `•?
?
1 I ? ? I I
3
I 1 I I \+ I
J
j I
I
I r
3
a
0

?

I I I I
.
w I
o , I
I xi
p r v . o y p 1

r2 -1
I
I
I
I
1 1 I
I ?
o
i
I
11
A
m
m \
I
11 11
°z C3 ,r, a
o °
Z
y 3 v ? a
n 3
N C h O m y '? A m
r•t \ xi 1 I I I
I I I 1
_ ----------
-
Z \ I
`
'{ 3 y m r 0 _ 1
1
w \ x I I i
m
0
-ZI Z H ? ? D _ -1
\ I I I I I ?
r r r M
? m

H a v I ' 1 x xi I. 1 1 ! ?,

1 I
" \\ v I A II o f ??'

z
o
0
1 II
? li
z
m
, 1
?
1 II I II II
.
1 aA ?I I:
O
0? N
? r N
? N w N
o I I I ?
0 1 l i I i `?
I 1 ? III ? f!
m E SANDY CREEK STREAM sue: SEAL:
Becky Ward Consulting
' Z
ENHANCEMENT & WETLAND tH ,.w Storm Water Management En ineerin
g g
401b N

N RESTORATION/CREATION ` S 4
E
1 Eglant Court X 9) 870-0528
Ralei
NC C27813
FAX [phone]
h
Ralei
h
o m _ g
,
g
,
N PLAN AND PROFILE 9+00 TO 18+00 °-? NPR °E° BY THE CATENA GROUP
$08 FOND LLY COURT
HLL8BOR000H, NO 27278
[phone] FAX [phone]
M = M M M M M
R \Becky Ward\Saney Creek\pp-creek3.dwg We0 Jul 31 10:19:01 2002
M M M

J
?
?
l
!
l l /
/
a R

R

+
+

/
' /'

°
o STA 2 02 89 ? p / / .
Oti

z
o

A '

"
N Po,
%
°
O

SE
ON
3 l 1 rI
g:
ST 2 +31
.68 t
R ?''II

l
b
+
+ I? + ` I
'
I
tt O i

D
i
4
.
'
Z
X SE 0 2 m,
1
ST +5 .85 a 1 I ' j

m
\
_
P \
\
\ 2
? N{
\
x- Cn \ \ h`. p
--------------
A: 244 57M
\ 4\4 \ \ A
4 !1, ._
-----------------
I
\
\•0.\?, ? `? ? \\\ ___ ~-
\
\
A

? \ .a 4\p
.
2s
\\
?
i I I \
%O
\
?
,\
\
, _
\
\'
Dr
\
x
0'\µ
\
f
'1

`\
m
`? \\
\ 4 P \
o ? 'v < ?' O N rr. 0 m O \.
II \ \ \
C S '~ A ..
N D D I 1 \\ \
\?
O t1 O C7 y 9 O
M \
1 \ 1
\ \?
`
?
I
m
m \
\
\
\
z m x
Z °z r a
ti i? a i ? 1
4'
\y \\\ ?,
I ,
r1
i ti x ti m r?i o c
P r A

z ._.
,
Z z
N
H

I ?
'i
fb' \ b r , I 42
tt?
\

z O
Z

N a
4 •I I ? I
? ? 4 '? ?"
? \ ? II
\
tt
+
°
N
N
N
N P N I
tt 4
( /I '
? C

g SANDY CREEK STREAM SEAL: S
Becky Ward Consulting
° w m < ENHANCEMENT & WETLAND .•
;= . o store Water Management Engineering
o
W
RESTORATION/CREATION ,
.
..,
3 `a,i a
;; 1512 Eglantyne Court [phone]
NC 27613 FAX [phone]
Ralei
h
o F o g
,
N N PLAN AND PROFILE 18+00 TO 27+00 y?

BY,
WETLANDS DERVIED
? ?Y GROUP THE
anmm a° COLORT
g
H8IBBOR000K NO
27278
[phone] FAX [phone]
M M M M M r r M M M M M M M M M M M M
H:\Becky W ASandy Creek\pp-creek4.cwq Wed Jul 31 10:41:15 2002
pNp
VO
O I O
O to O ?
N V
O
m
y
It
W
o
o
W

?

0
W
O
O
P T
r
r?
I z
O
O

L7
G
D

I Z
m
N
O
O

D ?
O
C
r Z
1 ?
N
O

O
O L A

v I r

o v< o y r o m
m y r m ~NI S A 0

D A Z C'1 D V 0
D z m A m
t1
z z o
r D Z O 0

m y v
3 v ? x
3
i a
v
m ? N X m om m a
y

Zi z
r
i
-1
N y

m y
r
o

-1
O
Z m
r
n
y
o
?

°
y
°z
v

D
m
o

D
0
O
2
SANDY CREEK STREAM 1 Becky Ward Consulting
ZN`,ctiz
O ENHANCEMENT & WETLAND .;% Storm Water Management Engineering
1512 Eglantyne Court [phone]
m RESTORATION/CREATION SEAL Raleigh, NC 27613 FAX [phone]
'i z N PLAN AND PROFILE 27+00 TO 30+03.78 BY
303 E BELLY GROUP COURT
N
Ii9.LSBOROUGH, NC 27278
1918) 732-1300 FAX [phone]
M M M M M M M r r M M M M M M M M M M
R \Secky Ward\Sandy Creek\c-weQand.dwg Wed Jul 31 10;56:10 2002
I ? I
I \
\ ca?\ /' / I I \
\ \ \ p?a?0 11 I\ fi i I
\ I
Q? 'y
I
\"
\ ?
a s 1
1 i I
lit
i )
04/
/
r
1 .
Can \
A lb
Vv
,\ \\O \ // /9 \ \ \ \ i
S PP\ ?? \ ?0\. y\s / vo N+?wo \\ \ r Mpg / i / ,i. \ \\ ? ;? \
r,
c?
\ t
jig ' \ `. \ ?\ •. ? \ \` // i ? \ \
f? .'..?P/: \ ?. m'\ +, z \ \\ /? / --. moo,... •?o \ \\+'
/ P \ :\ ?`s P \ \ \
I \ \ P \`` + ? \•• ?N? ? ' ?' 4922 0ti \Q
1 9?i-' /? 1 \ .0.\\P \\ \\\\ \'.9\ \ 1 \\!O": 'aN lL/?' 'p9 ' - /49y?j9 ? \v
9
° \ \ off, •\ rn \ '' ? ?yl ,... -
10 A
cp,
\' \
g SEAL: SEAL:
E SANDY CREEK STREAM Becky Ward Consulting
y ° w ENHANCEMENT & WETLAND Storm Water Management Engineering
1512 Eglantyne Court [phone]
Raleigh, NC 27613 FAX [phone]
° m RESTORATION/CREATION ` ;L (919)
i N WETLAND PLAN "E"""D8 °?'°"®B" THE CATENA GROUP
PRELIMINARY DESIGN ??g OWUGK "?78
[phone] FAX [phone]
M M M M M M M ' M M M M M M M M M M M
H:\Becky Ward\Sandy Creek\C-plant-plan.Owg Thu Aug 01 09:50:17 2002
' ml
o m
I !/
ti
a
r
m
m
z I
o
H
I ?
r 1
II
Ci U
0 1
i
/
i
ee a3pdSJlwil
113N' /
I z
?' m °o
11
!? i v
• I ,,? ,-?? ?? ,.;•? •? ,? `' \ \ ay \ , ? `, \ ,` ? \,' \\ \ to 1 `, fi
'I", SIP
rn
co I ^ 1 ,+? \ xl g ? / v ? i .i' , 914
,
rn y?`' , I (!I I t 1 I. It I w` ?/ a r`.11.
?Iw •
'`:, III / \!
I I I I 1 ?J t ?1 i I'
I Il l i l I;
z M -\ \
I II '- ( z P
1 1 I 1 0, \
\
r P
1
0
---.
vvv
ooo
SPN-i
boo
boo
i Z2
wmrn
00
_a_aA7 0
O00°W..° rpmm?O????N b b95 WWWW 5, 0.
pp ,per A?
------- o A
w ??w DCJ 3; --n -----
N NnW - V ° O1X ?N? ZDQ? W N -'
x° 1 o l° o l-° c = v i o w I c0 m i z l c0 0 o I I N
° w CR I Sw° yl°i K.? NO(J IS N?
o -.3.M3 ° 3w n,3m claw °o a ow 3 `w w w g1D??x3,wa
30>>.°.n. rso <R 3 ?? om2.w <
Soc 30:o ..30 0- w v'
o 3oa?c om ? ?o
:F o o.
wow a a° wa° w° o n z
o n ri
o
° x O o
wo w w c a w c y
c mm N?t°i AD F A G) ° -I ON ss w N <O< W ?m? Aly+l
6 N-% w% N C G 0 3 C .-4V, c m F w»° O tp 3 N
Q a- °o o; _0 l; ?sFa =F>° mXv°oc f D ?0 g?Do3
c c.. ° D o°w ?c3o° - mo o° mw°_S_ °
?'n? - ?.-f 3 e 3 On at0 .p O •• o z
f
o p O w
0

I °I q,
1.11'1
111
1 \
i
1 ? 1
\
\
\?\
01

\t
r,
1 I ? ? t
SANDY CREEK STREAM SEAL sue: Becky Ward Consulting
_m ENHANCEMENT & WETLAND s a/ Storm Water Management Engineering
f i = c 1512 Eglantyne Court [phone]
z o m N RESTORATION/CREATION ? j e `mac- Raleigh, NC 27613 FAX [phone]
N '
j V? 5-)1F-?Q-` fp?, Vft-rLM= DEBNNM BYE
CATENA
PLANTING PLAN THE POND LL GROUP
PRELIMINARY DESIGN 'TSB ROUOK NC 27278
[phone] FAX [phone]

H:\Becky Rarg\Sandy Creek\c-6etaillAwg Ned Jul 31 15:35:05 2002
?3
x m
$ gg
?n
> H ?

- H E o <

F '?
O

z

ylJ o
?
9z
x ci
z

°z

'
z

FC

I I
i
v

z

z

r°I•'°da1"1

O
y Np NF O
O 1l?/ p[
`.d ?i E a °p??a?o?_rSl
? '°,,?? °, °, 7d•,
0
,

> "
V
'? ?2

> li

r p w N

g g mQ ~i7 ?Qmi>O

??gy{?°? O

C 0

'
P-W 28--
?a
Sg Z z
, Q

L-1 L
2
•• ?? 5

O? z m
A ow
wC .'
,
c-g D
z Yz {". }?iQmtirz
xSafNn.
0
m C
m w ymKmA? C? M Ny2
?
y
I

A ?'
4
o Y ..
?i,'dco z
Ii

4 .
2.
1
u
n 1
u

?z
O M
A

-

0
e
E
?

z A 4
c fa N
1H
I? A 4
m y
? >
m CA
H
Q
z li
H
C
Q Q o o
0 z' a' os °x >,o o
6
s
g Z ? WZ elm
[-y
g
w Nl'JN3l NI3A g f.t 02
O ?T:D ?!nm
m? N m
=?O 2
m
i ? W
X m
i ?
? m
g'^ 1MoI
L2
°
O
z z §

m
9 °

A
7d

M 45
H
'
Z Y -' Y-0
28"
a
2 ?

D 8
?
OOS mON?
0
Q C1 N
°

3Y MIN. WIDTH

F g ? () Dom
-
? 0
r

'? n i?cF
p°uzi c m= ?gg \ 8
8 a 1`? g
?? A Q
if £ m ?0 0 TM o m F ?r N
d ?: N o 'd
f!ii Q ° t?.a
O z A
ZZ

V V ` W

m H
H
z
OW
o

O v

I
0,

O

01
yy
V

NO

ti-OW
>N ?

O 0

i
r
Ca1?
C
O?? mr Z
(

m IMcy
r
t?

''
m z
.'OWN
?m?
O ° No
.?miNO No
O O
8
I N HQ GTH VARIES
\?J1
r-
Ed
U AK JC N
N ??
yy
V ,? .D
O? 0
A3
pK
ZC . I.??.?.y? ?
-F
-- c T
8

7K
-i

g

y 081
0 210
MY
m

s m ? r 10
01

r

D 3

K

r

z
`
\./
a
7g
O g
M

y
\-,
9
~
z D

A
_

Z

m

?

N

?
A

?

O

r p
?Q
M
W/
m Nm A 511
?
s`ys
uY
o
D 4rog
;p

-
--q M

fi
Z
Z' Z
{ r., .
y
o
2
v
T) C•)
M
D o }
I
?? C GTH VARIES '
Q

z
' m A?
ux TRUC K HEIGHT p
g$
Z
OW
Tc OVERALL HEIGHT y
p o
00
rz
N4
o?
i
N
SANDY CREEK STREAM '?`
ENHANCEMENT & WETLAND
RESTORATION/CREATION ° S^{{
jW 7J344 E
N DETAILS
Becky Ward Consulting
Storm Water Management Engineering
F' 1512 Eglantyne Court [phone]
Raleigh, NC 27613 FAX [phone]
S DESKOM BY.
THE CATENA GROUP
303 POND LLY COURT
HLLSBOROUGK NC 27278
1818) 732-1300 FAX [phone]
M M M M M M M M M 1=1 M w r M M IM M M M
H:\Becky Ward\Sanay Creek\c-detaill Awg Wed Jul 31 15:19:45 2002

D

n

m W

W
to

.?
?°
r"

1-1
O
y
y

z

4

H

H
z
A

a

a

l

b

^

0 ?

D

10

a
m +

?

0

Z

1

O

°

;'

z=
0

O

z

7

°

0

°

) o
a
a
m
D

A

o

3

ZF
??

<
sm
JC m

-

D
01

Zm
F°
?A

II
III

1I 1
'

T

)
-Ilil ° N°
ill 0 ANo
00 CO
000 =
000 m-°
00 Am
00
000

000
mo
000 °
00
0000 A
0 ° D
m
?
i I?III ° H F
-1 a
50
mm
o
m
K
° --
`? I I A \\
\\ k \
\
D D
/? k \
//\
//

?IIII N Dm D\\/\\\
-1 I

i l or
N U) rn

\\

k
\
\
I P n o /
D %/\\ j z D
=1 it I
I z 9 C \
?
1?
'-
'

I I
I
o
?// /
70
\\\
\\
m
_
•
`.
//j//j//j/
'',•? ';
-I I I
-, k \ m
I pd M M
N
k
?I-
Il 1 I I-, I I m
IEI I= »»>? '> w n m
Y' Z
1:11 z
= m N
ro \ \ \
/i
° ?
X11 z _n m 3
z
D D \

t l l
I N -1 rn
C)

//
i

o

I I I I
°u

Z g Z z \\

/ <

Fn <
p
p

\
\\

/
I I ??> I n \
\ \\ ?: rn \\
3\
III
I =
I n \ \\ \\
/
\
/ J M z ?'\\ \\
//
?' i I ?\\ 3
N
?
?\\ k _ \\\/\
-1
- ro k =
D
z
z
rn
r
4 1-
m M

0 y
.?
3
b 3

z
d ?

2
O F5
m o H ? ?
C -' s
ti
r
H A
A
R y
N y m§
?? m m
m

p N
i a.. of
o - Km

o m
?
i
N
SANDY CREEK STREAM sBA"
ENHANCEMENT & WETLAND -,?-.,-
SEA
RESTORATION/CREATION yt{`?
N DETAILS
Becky Ward Consulting
4 Storm Water Management Engineering
1512 Eglantyne Court [phone]
Raleigh, NC 27613 FAX [phone]
s oEaiorEn BYTHE CATENA GROUP
303 POND LLY COURT
H.LSBOR000H, NC 27278
[phone] FAX [phone]
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Naturals • '
Michael F. Easley, Governor I dMNNd0WAdM?..?..
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary NCDENR
August 22, 2002
MEMORANDUM
A AW22?
To: Todd St. John
? ?tANpS QROUP
From. Cherri Smith ATER VALITY SECTION
Subject: Permit Application for Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Riparian
Wetland Restoration, Durham County
Please find the enclosed permit application and design for a treameahAncement project
on approximately 3,000 linear feet of Sandy Creek and restoration of approximately 3.2
acres of associated riparian wetlands. The City of Durham donated property to the North
Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) to satisfy mitigation requirements for
impacts associated with Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway. The NCWRP is responsible for
.restoring at least 1.73 acres of riparian wetlands at this site.
This project involves using log veins to improve in-stream habitat in Sandy Creek. The
planting plan indicates areas along Sandy Creek that will be re-vegetated. Tie-proposed
wetlands;restoration area has been impacted-with fill material used.to construct sludge
dr-yl <bedsfor wformer.:wastewater treatment plaht. Please note that the overall plan
inaccurately indicates that fill will be disposed of within an upland spoil area. All fill will
be disposed of off-site within an upland spoil area.
If you would like to discuss this project or need additional information, please feel free
to call me at 715-3466. Thank you for your assistance with this project.
cc: Dave Penrose

1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: 919 - 733-4984 \ FAX: 919 - 715-3060 \ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY \ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED / 10% POST CONSUMER PAPER
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
August 22, 2002
MEMORANDUM
To: Todd St. John
From: Cherri Smith
ern
"4?$#CDENR
Subject: Permit Application for Sandy Creek Stream
Wetland Restoration, Durham County L`` MI622M
wETIANDS CROUP
WATER .UAI.1T's'
rent an ipanan
Please find the enclosed permit application and design for a stream enhancement project
on approximately 3,000 linear feet of Sandy Creek and restoration of approximately 3.2
acres of associated riparian wetlands. The City of Durham donated property to the North
Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) to satisfy mitigation requirements for
impacts associated with Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway. The NCWRP is responsible for
restoring at least 1.73 acres of riparian wetlands at this site.
This project involves using log veins to improve in-stream habitat in Sandy Creek. The
planting plan indicates areas along Sandy Creek that will be re-vegetated. The proposed
wetlands restoration area has been impacted with fill material used to construct sludge
drying beds for a former wastewater treatment plant. Please note that the overall plan
inaccurately indicates that fill will be disposed of within an upland spoil area. All fill will
be disposed of off-site within an upland spoil area.
If you would like to discuss this project or need additional information, please feel free
to call me at 715-3466. Thank you for your assistance with this project.
cc: Dave Penrose
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: 919 - 733-4984 \ FAX: 919 - 715-3060 \ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY \ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED / 10% POST CONSUMER PAPER
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.
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 27
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program
Mailing Address: 1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone Number: 919-733-5208 Fax Number: 919-733-5321
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: N/A
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 5 of 12

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings. rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the. final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Riparian Wetland Restoration
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Durham Nearest Town: Durham
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Take Business 15-501 north to
751 Left onto 751 and left at first intersection onto Pickett Road. Go approximately 1 mile
and take left onto Sandy Creek Road Continue approximately 1/a mile until reach site.
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 water body.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
The proposed wetlands restoration site is on the west side of Sandy Creek and has been
impacted with fill material used to construct sludge drying beds for a former wastewater
treatment plant Sandy Creek has a featureless bed that provides poor habitat for
macroinvertebrates and fish.
7. Property size (acres): Approximately 20 acres
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): New Hope Creek
9. River Basin: Cape Fear River Basin
Page 6 of 12
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
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).
N/A

Applicai`t/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
i
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): NIA
IX. 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 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify exempt activity )?
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
Gone 1 extends out 3U teet perpendicular in near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 11 of 12
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as. proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are, not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such.as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strm2ide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
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://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
3. Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Page 10 of 12
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: N/A
3. 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 of Waterbody

(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,

bay, ocean, etc.)
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
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.
The temporary impacts are unavoidable due the nature of stream enhancement work. The
construction will be staged and performed in such a manner that the disturbance to the aquatic
system is minimal.
Page 9 of 12
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
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***
N/A

* 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://www.fcma.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: 10 acres
Total area of wetland impact proposed:
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
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 secif )
N/A

* 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
www.us,es.gov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.to22zone.com,
www.mgPguest.com, etc.).
Page 8 of 12
..
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/admin/maDs/.)
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Restore riparian wetlands and improve in-
stream habitat in Sandy Creek. Restoration of riparian wetlands will improve wildlife habitat
as well as water quality within the Sandy Creek watershed. In addition the City of Durham
is currently constructing a park and recreation center adjacent to the restoration site. This
project will provide educational opportunities as well as improve the aesthetics of the site
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Track-hoe and loader.
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: Residential, commercial/office, Duke
University Campus and Medical Center, and Duke Golf Course.
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.
N/A
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:
No future permit requests are anticipated.
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
Page 7 of 12
H.\Becky Nara\Sandy Creee\c-qiant-Olan.ovg TM: Aug 01 09:50:17 2002
' my
o I I/
a
r
n
m
z
-I
0 1
i?
m f
rI P, I
a
v '3J P
'v p9 I /?
r
a --
Z f:
-i ,
N
O i?.
m
CO)
?I
?l
?, l y
b I II. \
'A I
/ ? II
?I I
1 \\,yl
I.
I.
I II
!
,I I
I.
1
I\` fl
oao
,11111
l y l l 1
i
Sv)
e a?p'iSj Oil
1? l
?'`
j

- V11
" /
P

T.

NNN
J > >
4N-'
map
N ' O
p O N
m m
O O
\ II ??
y?
\`,
m \ ;?? pYk ? 1 y \? ?,
° ? ?yy j a I I / I \
i e \

z

i
fic 1? y; I I.' h

P I I
1 I
ly
q
?
A \

- ,
I
- - - 4
i
r M
?
?
? I
I I I. q
I ?

Z
y

m
e
i f
i '?
-0 Cf)
1\5
11 D rri p

C
j I 1 0m _ a
\
iIm cc)
f
;I
0r- R
I \
1
I
.
i
0
\
1°
{ lIei \ TI 1
1

o m SANDY CREEK STREAM SEAL: SE4:
> If
Becky Ward Consulting
i og o , 1\N !+Rq 0 Sto,"n Water Management Engineering
om
m z ENHANCEMENT & WETLAND
Qe 1 '- 1512 Eglantyne Court (919i9) 870-0526
= o mm RESTORATION/CREATION t
z o m a Raleigh, NC 27613 FAX
PLANTING PLAN IM
THE CATENA GROUP
YNNE p`° 303 POND LLLY COURT
PRELIMINARY DESIGN FLLBBOROUGH. NC 27278
[phone] FAX [phone]

r

MapQuest: Maps

Durham NC
us
Notes:
i
I
14?1Za 11 E`ST Camelot Ct
Ta n gy - ?i_vrrx) d Rd
Angus Rd

DoRnigaw Ave P7
r €kkett Rd

,?
t
i
ILI
0
C
U
Page I of I

cso DI
-.
{std t= k-?at r, lill p r5
annon Plaza
02007 N AVTEQAll rights reserved. Use Subject to Lice nse/Copy right

This map is informational only. No representation is made or warranty given as to its content. User assumes a4l
risk of use. MapQuest and its suppliers assume no responsibility for any loss or delay resulting from such use.
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/print.aclp'?mapdata=GMCh6ITzs95 DI V WqA%252bjGcF2... 3/271/2007
2�§

TopoZone - USGS Southwest Durham (NC) Topo Map Page 1 of 1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 km G
0 0.09 0.18 0.27 0.36 0.45 mi
UTM 17 683347E 3982608N (NAD27)
USGS Southwest Durham (NC) Quadrangle 6 1
Projection is UTM Zone 17 NAD83 Datum 1.195
http://www.topozone.com/print.asp?lat=3 5.97249&lon=-78.9665 8&s=24&size=l&u=4&la... 2/15/2007
E-Z 133HS HOIVW N
a o J` N
w
z 3
N F
O J
Ii J
I
Nw
Q
Y
w
F

° }} ' J
o N

N Z I J

N01133s-ssoao6
I c 0

Q
Q
Z

W
O c a V

? J J ~
_ W

a
? a' ? O
V J
I $ J
i
J
J

S
a

? O
N

N

L 0 OZ Z
a N 3} w= W II , J 2 V $ so
LI
L V Q W
Q 0 t9 0 t9 D
O W i v °
N r? WO
Z LA 1-- (.5 Z Z
O X O WO O - F-Z H
O Ln:) N N
= XO X X '
3
(2 Z O
O O J 3

= '?
` m mo a
W
U w 00 >2 2 a wm w w J 2 w r l $ J })J

T
° I
}Ji
$ W
y
1111
i
S II J<
J
i J c
O

.??os.?
I J
J
81 J
LL
U J

+'
L
4"
4A
G1

i 0 J
J
Q
r
J J
z
+
/ an
a j
J + J
W

J
° N
J M U

J
J Z
O =
cl:
a c z

\

J ? CL =)
O
0
U

M
a
c Z
W
Z w w ?d
r
a
=

\ /' •
J
, ? I
C °
? if
v
i
Cie
o
x u)

?
? ? / ? ? / l } MLI
O
Z
w? I
t
L& W
LL) 9-
?N d `./ ?

N J I

J

a w
w

z
-

cC
?

J
w
4 ' / ? V) y
U cz
U C,
r
A

l-Z 133HS HOIVW c
,: z

x
U
i
1
i
SANDY CREEK STREAM ENHANCEMENT
AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
2005 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 2)
Durham County
EEP Project No. 322
Design Firm: Becky L. Ward Consulting
Prepared for: NCDENR/ ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Prepared by: ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
r

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Location and Setting ................................................................................................................ 2
2.2 Mitigation Stricture and Objectives ........................................................................................ 2
2.3 Project History and Background .............................................................................................. 3
3.0 PROJ ECT MONITORING AND RESULTS ....................................................................................... 6
3.1 VEGETATION ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................. 6
3.1.1 Soil Data ................................................................................................................... 6
3.1.2 Vegetation Problem Areas ........................................................................................ 6
3.1.3 Stem Counts ............................................................................................................. 6
3.2 STREAM ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................... 8
3.1.1 Bank Stability Assessment ....................................................................................... 8
3.1.2 Stream Problem Areas .............................................................................................. 8
3.3 WETLAND ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................... 9
LIST OF FIGURES
Table 1 Site Location ........................................................................................................ Appendix A
Table 2 Monitoring Plan View .......................................................................................... Appendix A
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Project Structure ................................................................... ....................................... Page 3
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History ................................ ....................................... Page 3
Table 3 Project Contacts .................................................................... ....................................... Page 4
Table 4 Project Background .............................................................. ....................................... Page 5
Table 5 Preliminary Soil Data ............................................................ ...................................... Page 6
Table 6 Vegetation Problem Areas .................................................... ....................................... Page 6
Table 7 Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged in Plot ................... ...................................... Page 6
Table 8 Stream Problem Areas ........................................................... ...................................... Page 8
Table 9 Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment ...... ...................................... Page 8
Table 10 Baseline Morphology Summary ............................................ ...................................... Page 8
Table I 1 Wetland Criteria Attainment ................................................. ...................................... Page 9
EEP Project No. 322 i Sandy Creek Restoration Site
APPENDIX A: FIGURES
APPENDIX B: VEGETATION DATA
Vegetation Problem Area (Plan View)
Vegetation Survey Data Tables
Vegetation Problem Area Photos
Wetland Photo Stations
APPENDIX C: STREAM GEOMORPHOLGY DATA
Stream Problem Area (Plan View)
Representative Stream Problem Area Photos
Stream Photo Stations
Cross-Section Plot and Raw Data Tables
Pebble Count Plots and Raw Data Tables
APPENDIX D: WETLAND HYDROLOGY DATA
Monitoring Gauge Hydrographs and Precipitation Graphs
Wetland Problem Area (Plan View)
EEP Project No. 322 ii Sandy Creek Restoration Site
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site (Site) was selected to mitigate
impacts to Section 404 jurisdictional areas associated with the extension of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Parkway (Parkway) between Cook road and Hope Valley Road in Durham County. The impacts of the
Parkway on jurisdictional wetlands and non-wetland jurisdictional waters totaled 1.73 acres near Third
Fork Creek. The Site provides 3.6 acres of restoration and creation as mitigation for the impacts. The
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will be using the remaining 1.87 acres as mitigation for other
impacts within the Cape Fear River Basin. In addition to the wetland restoration, Sandy Creek has been
enhanced with the installation of log vanes. The log vanes are intended to create pool features that will
enhance habitat and water quality along 2,700 linear feet of stream.
Site construction and planting was completed in June 2003. The Site was partially replanted In January
2004. The 2005 monitoring report represents the second year of vegetation and hydrological monitoring.
The Site must demonstrate both hydrologic and vegetation success for a minimum of five years or until
the Site is deemed successful. The following paragraphs summarize the results of the monitoring that has
occurred during the second year of monitoring at the Site.
Vegetation Monitoring
Vegetation success criteria for the wetland restoration areas include a minimum survival of 260 stems per
acre of planted species at the end of Year 5. In addition, six planted species must survive throughout the
Site. Four of the five vegetation plots achieved the density criterion for success at the Site. However,
since only five planted species were recorded in the aggregated vegetation plots, the Site as a whole fails
the diversity criterion.
Low survival of many of the planted species is attributed to permanent flooding and mowing by City of
Durham maintenance staff. The surviving stems are most likely volunteer individuals of the planted
species recruited from the surrounding woods. Initial plantings were previously reported to be largely
destroyed by geese, and this event is assumed to be responsible for low species diversity at the Site at
Year 2. Poor soil composition (Urban land occupies approximately 5.5 acres of the site) is another factor
in poor survival. Maintenance on the Site is scheduled to be performed during Spring of 2006. The
maintenance will include grading and planting of appropriate species to help remedy poor vegetation
establishment.
Stream Enhancement Monitoring
The log vanes in Sandy Creek were observed and evaluated for stability and effectiveness. The vanes
appear stable with no visible signs of breaching. Vegetation has established on the depositional areas
behind the vane arms at many locations. The banks adjacent to all the vanes were stable and showed no
evidence of erosion. However, the enhancement of bed form from the installation of these vanes is not
currently evident. Based on cursory observations, the high sediment load in the stream has not allowed
pools to form behind any of the structures. The thalweg appears to meander from each storm event with
no discernable bed features throughout the reach. The permanent cross-section survey and pebble counts
show no significant change over the past year.
Wetland Hydrology Monitoring
The 2005 hydrologic monitoring results indicate overall continued hydrologic success within the Site.
Two of the three on-site groundwater monitoring gauges exhibited saturation within 12 inches of the
ground surface for at least 12.5 percent (consecutive days) of the growing season (March 30 -
November 11 or 227 days). The third gauge narrowly missed the success criteria with saturation occuring
for 12 percent of the growing season. This particular gauge met the wetland hydrology success criteria
EEP Project No. 322 1 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
during the previous monitoring year. A lower percentage of saturation for all gauges during the 2005
growing season is attributed to an overall drier year than observed in the first year of monitoring.
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
2.1 LOCATION AND SETTING
The Site is located adjacent to Sandy Creek Park (future Sandy Creek Environmental Education Center)
in Durham, North Carolina near the intersection of Highway 15-501 Bypass / 15-501 Business (Figure 1,
Appendix A). Site directions: from Raleigh, follow I-40 west to Highway 15-501. Take Highway 15-501
north approximately 2 miles. Pass under 15-501 Bypass and turn left onto Tower Boulevard- Take
Tower Boulevard until it dead ends at Pickett Road. Turn left. Sandy Creek Road will be on the left
directly after crossing over 15-501 Bypass. Take Sandy Creek Road to the end and enter into the Sandy
Creek Park. The entrance to the wetland restoration area is accessed by following the greenway trail
(Sandy Creek Trail) to a dilapidated bridge crossing over Sandy Creek. The stream enhancement reach
begins approximately 1,525 feet upstream of the bridge and ends approximately 1,175 feet downstream of
the bridge at the stream culverts located under Highway 15-501.
2.2 MITIGATION STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVES
The Site occupies areas once used by the defunct New Hope Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility owned
by the City of Durham (City). As part of a park and greenway development plan the City Parks and
Recreation Department removed existing structures including piping, control buildings, and fencing of the
existing sludge drying beds located west of Sandy Creek within the proposed wetland restoration area.
Prior to construction of the wetland project, the City had completed phase one of the Sandy Creek Trail, a
greenway trail located along the east side of Sandy Creek. Demolition of the treatment plant east of
Sandy Creek continued concurrently with the wetland and stream restoration project.
The objectives of this project are to restore habitat and water quality in Sandy Creek and restore the
abandoned sludge drying bed locations to riparian wetlands. The restored wetland ecosystem will provide
quailty habitat and food for wildlife, as well as buffer and water storage benefits within the Sandy Creek
watershed.
Wetland Restoration Activities
The area proposed for wetland restoration was excavated as an extension of existing ponds and vegetated
wetlands located adjacent to the project (Figure 2, Appendix A). The wetland was designed so that a
broad berm set at the elevation of the seasonal high water table of the pond (262.0 feet) separates the
restored wetland into two sections. The southern section ties into the grade of the existing wetland and
slopes gradually up to the berm. From the berm the ground gradually slopes down to the north into a
depression that stores run-off from adjacent slopes and floodwaters from Sandy Creek. In the middle of
the depression, an elevated island was constructed to allow for various vegetation assemblages.
Following the completion of earthwork the Site was planted with native tree and shrub species.
Stream Enhancement Activities
Thirteen log vane structures were placed along 2,700 linear feet of Sandy Creek. The log vanes consisted
of two hardwood trees, stacked together to form each structure. The logs were secured together with
rebar and tied with cables at both ends. Vegetation was planted on the banks to stabilize the disturbance
created during installation. Additional modifications to the channel included regrading and stabilizing a
small section of bank directly above the culverts located under Highway 15-501 and the removal of fallen
trees and debris to improve flow conditions.
EEP Project No. 322 2 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
Table 1. Project Structure
Sand Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
? U

Project a Pt a Linear
Segment or Footage or
Reach ID Acreage Stationing Comments
Reach I Ell SSS 2700 linear feet 00+00 to Primarily achieved with placement
27+00 of to vanes
Wetland
R - 3.6 acres NA
Restoration
R = Restoration P1 = Priority I
El = Enhancement I P2 = Priority II
Ell = Enhancement II P3 = Priority III
S = Stabilization SSS = Stream Bank Stabilization
2.3 PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Sand Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322

Activity Report
Scheduled
Completion Data
Collection
Complete Actual
Completion
or Delivery
Restoration Plan NA* NA* NA*
Final Design (90%) NA* NA* NA*
Construction NA* NA* Jun 2003
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area NA* NA* NA*
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/se ents NA* NA* NA*
Bare Root Seedling Installation NA* NA* NA*
Mitigation Plan / As-builts (Year 0 Monitoring - baseline) NA* Jun 2003 Oct 2003
Year 1 Monitoring NA* May 2004 NA*
Site Replanting (portions of Zone 3) NA* NA* Mid 2004
Year 1 Monitoring re-sampling NA* Se 2004 Dec 2004
Year 2 Monitoring (Vegetation) Dec 2005 Oct 2005 Dec 2005
Year 2 Monitoring (Groundwater Gauges) Dec 2005 Oct 2005 Dec 2005
Bolded items represent those events or deliverables that are variable- Non-bolded items represent events
that are standard over the course of a typical project.
*NA - Historical project documents necessary to provide this data were unavailable at the time of this
report submission.
EEP Project No. 322 3 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
Table 3. Proj ect Contacts
Sand Creek Stream Enhancement and Wet land Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
Designer Ms. Becky Ward
1512 Eglantyne Court
Becky L. Ward Consulting Raleigh, NC 27613
919 870-0526
Construction Contractor Mr_ Greg Kiser
6106 Corporate Park Drive
Shamrock Environmental, Inc Browns Summit, NC 27214
336 375-1989
Planting Contractor NA*
Seeding Contactor NA*
NA*
Seed Mix Sources
NA*
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Monitoring Performers EcoScience Corporation
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
919 828-3433
Stream Monitoring POC Jens Geratz
Vegetation Monitoring POC Elizabeth Scherrer
Wetland Monitoring POC Craig Terwilliger
*NA - Historical project documents necessary to provide this data were unavailable at the time of this report submission.
EEP Project No. 322 4 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
Table 4. Project Background
Sand Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
Project County Durham
Drainage Area 7.3 square miles to culvert at Bypass 15-501
Impervious cover estimate (%) 10 percent
Stream Order 3`d order
Ph sio a hic Region Piedmont
Ecoregion (Griffith and Omernik) Triassic Basin
Rosgen Classification of As-built NA
Cowardin Classification Stream (R3UB2)
Wetlands (PFO1)
Dominant soil types Stream - Chewacla and Wehadkee soils (Ch)
Wetlands - Urban Land Ur
SCO #ID 010542301
USGS HUC for Project and Reference 03030002060110
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project and Reference 03-06-05
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference 16-41-1-4
Any portion of any project segment 303d listed? No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a
303d listed segment? No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor NA
Percent of project easement fenced None
EEP Project No. 322 5 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
3.0 PROJECT MONITORING AND RESULTS
3.1 VEGETATION ASSESSMENT
3.1.1 Soil Data
Table 5. Preliminary Soil Data
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
Series Max Depth
(in.) % Clay on
Surface OM %
Mayodan sandy loam (MM, Mf )) 60 5-20 0.5-2
Chewacla and Wehadkee soils (Ch) 80 5-20 1-5
Urban land (Ur) -- -- --
White Store sandy loam (WsQ 50 5-20 0.5-2
3.1.2 Vegetation Problem Areas
Table 6. Vegetative Problem Areas
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
Feature / Issue Station # / Range Probable Cause Photo #
Poor Tree
Establishment Buffer Areas Mowing 1
and Recruitment
Semi-permanent flooded Flooding from pond creation; poor soil
Poor Tree Survival 2
zone: Vegetation Plot 4 composition; mowing
Poor Tree Survival Island: Vegetation Plot 5 Poor soils, competition by lespedeza 3
A vegetation problem area plan view and photos are provided in Appendix B.
3.1.3 Stem Counts
The existing five 30-foot by 30-foot plots were relocated. Plots are marked with 1.25-inch PVC pipes.
Stem counts were conducted for all woody species, including volunteer species. An inventory of planted
species is given in Exhibit Table VII. A tally of volunteer woody species is listed in Exhibit Table VIIa.
Table 7: Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
Plots Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Percent
Species
1
2
3
4
5
Totals
Totals
Totals
Survival
Acer rubrum 1 3 30 12 4 13
Alnus serrulata 1 0
Betula nigra 2 5 0
Carya ovata 4 0
Cephalanthus occidentalis 2 0
Fraxinuspennsylvanica 68 73 7 16 104 148 925
EEP Project No. 322 6 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
Table 7: Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
Plots Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Percent
Species 1 2 3 4 5 Totals Totals Totals Survival
Liriodendron tulipifera 1 9 2 0
Nyssa sylvatica 5 0
Quercus lyrata 5 3 0
Quercus phellos 3 14 3 3 21
Salix nigra 83 3 16 6 5 73 108 2160
Sambucus canadensis 11 1 0
Viburnum mrdum 8 3 0
Table 7a. Stem Counts for Volunteer Species Arranged by Plot
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
Plots Year 0 Year 1 Year 2
Species 1 2 3 4 5 Totals Totals Totals
Acer negundo 1 2 1
Celtis laevigata 1 1
Cornus amomum 2 2 2
Gleditsia triacanthos 1
Liquidambar styraciua 6 1 6
Platanus occidentalis 2 1
Populus deltoides 2
Ulmus americana 1
An inventory of herbaceous species on the site was also taken. Dominant herbaceous species over the site
as a whole are listed below:
Andropogon virginicus (broomsedge)
Aster dumosus (frost aster)
Carex spp. (sedges)
Cyperus strigosus (straw-colored flatsedge)
Eleocharis sp. (spikerush)
Eupatorium capillifolium (dog fennel)
Juncus effusus (soft rush)
Lespedeza cuneata (sericea lespedeza)
Ludwigia alternifolia (seedbox)
Pluchea sp. (marsh fleabane)
Polygonum sp. (smartweed)
Scirpus cyperinus (woolgrass bulrush)
Solidago sp. (goldenrod)
Sorghum halapense (Johnson grass)
Typha latifolia (common cattail)
EEP Project No. 322 7 Sandy Creek Restoration Site

3.2 STREAM ASSESSMENT
3.1.1 Bank Stability Assessment
A detailed BEHI and NBS assessment are required in years 3 and 5, post construction. This monitoring
report represents the second year monitoring, therefore no assessment was conducted.
3.1.2 Stream Problem Areas
A stream problem area plan view and photos of problem areas are provided in Appendix C.
Table 8. Stream Problem Areas
Sand Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
Station Photo
Feature Issue Numbers Suspected Cause Number
Aggradation/Bar 00+00 to 27+00 Excessive sediment load from upstream sources 1
Formation
Table 9. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
Segment/Reach: 2,700 feet
Feature Initial MY-01 MY-02 MY-03 MY-04 MY-05
A. Riffles NA* NA* 0%
B. Pools NA* NA* 0%
C. Thalweg NA* NA* 0%
D. Meanders NA* NA* 100%
E. Bed General NA* NA* 0%
F. Lo Vanes NA* NA* 100%
*NA - Historical project documents necessary to provide this data were unavailable at the time of this
report submission.
Table 10. Baseline Morphology Summary
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
Parameter Cross-Section 1
Dimension 1VIYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft) NA* 28.8
Floodprone Width (ft) NA* >500
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft) NA* 75.1
BF Mean Depth (ft) NA* 2.6
Width/Depth Ratio (ft) NA* 11
Entrenchment Ratio (ft) NA* >2.2
Wetted Perimeter (ft) NA* 32.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft) NA* 2.3
Substrate
d50 (mm) 0.61 0.58
d84 (mm) 1.5 0.98
*NA - Historical project documents necessary to provide this data were unavailable at the time of this report submission.
EEP Project No. 322
Sandy Creek Restoration Site
3.3 WETLAND ASSESSMENT
Table 11. Wetland Criteria Attainment
Sand Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322

ract

ell ID Well
Hydrology
Threshold
Met?

Tract
Mean

Vegetation
Plot ID
Vegetation
Density Met
(260 stems/acre)
Diversity
Met?
(6 species)

Tract
Mean
1 G1 ? (27%) 23% of P1 ? (7550) 2 Failed
1 G3 (12%) growing P2 ? (3850) 3 because
1 G4 ? (31%) season P3 ? (1500) 5 of lack
REF G2 ? (27% P4 (0 0 of
P5 ? (300) 1 diversity
A wetland problem area plan view is provided in Appendix D.
EEP Project No. 322 9 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
G
r 4" 16

Monitoring Report Review - Notes
Site: Sandy Creek (EEP/WRP)
DWQ #: 20021345 Date of Report: 2/2006 Monitoring Year: 2
Reviewer: Tammy Hill Date of Review: 2/13/07
Background:
1. 401 Requirements
- Mitigation associated with extension of MLK Pkwy in Durham
- Total site = 3.6 acres of restoration & creation (1.73 used for this impact)
- Additional to WL restoration, log vanes in Sandy Creek 4 habitat enhancement
via pool features along 2700 linear feet of stream
- Future of site: environmental ed center & greenway trails)
- Past: WWTP 4 part of restoration is sludge drying beds -> riparian WL
- Goals: habitat & food for wildlife, water quality, buffers, water storage
Success Criteria:
1. Vegetation
- Construction & planting complete 6/2003
- Partial replanting 1/2004
- Criteria = survival of planted (target) species stems/acre at end of Year 5
[Report = 260 stems; Initial Plan (Aug 2002; p.15) = 320. **check on
this discrepancy**]; minimum of 6 planted species surviving throughout the
site
Current report: 4 of 5 plots meet density criterion; only 5 target species
surviving, therefore diversity criterion not met ('due to permanent flooding and
mowing..." & geese &"'poor soil composition" due to urban land on the site &
competition by lespedeza)
Based on Table 7: Everything woody (target species) is dying except Fraxinus
pennsyivanica (Green Ash) and Saiix nigra (black willow) - even Acer rubrum is
at 13% survival
- Based on Table 7a: A few volunteers are moving in (mostly sweet gum)
- Maintenance scheduled for Spring 2006 = grading, planting
Note: Table 7 splits over 2 pages - a little confusing - assuming Table 7 contains
target species, while 7a contains volunteers? Not sure why red maple is on
target list...
2. Hydrology
- Report notes 2 of 3 gauges met >12.5% of growing season; 3rd was at 12%
- Lower % saturation during Year 2 (compared with Year 1) due to drier weather
3. Soils
- Sandy loams (MfC, MfD, WsQ, Chewacla & Wehadkee (Ch), some urban land
n
it ti
s
Additional Issues / Questions:
1. Concerns about Monitoring
- Report (p.15)notes that veg plots are placed near gauges so that veg &
hydrology can be-correlated. That's fine, but gauges are placed at high points
(p.14); therefore, we don't know anything about veg in lower elevations, where
saturation/inundation may hinder growth
- 3.1.3 states ""the existing five 30-foot by 30-foot plots were relocated." When,
where,& why?
2. For Site Visit
Veg:
o Diversity
o does it appear that maintenance was done in 2006?
o look at lower elevations for survival issues (inundated?)
o check veg plots for representativeness (were they moved this year?)
o check lespedeza & cattails
Wetland acreage vs. open water

E
3.0 PROJECT MONITORING AND RESULTS
3.1 VEGETATION ASSESSMENT
3.1.1 Soil Data
Table 5. Preliminary Soil Data
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
Series Max Depth
(in.) % Clay on
Surface OM %
Mayodan sandy loam (MfC, Mf 3) 60 5-20 0.5-2
Chewacla and. Wehadkee soils (Ch) 80 5-20 1-5
Urban land (Ur) -' -- --
White Store sandy loam (WSC) 50 5-20 0.5-2
3.1.2 Vegetation Problem Areas
Table 6. Vegetative Problem Areas
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland-Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
Feature / Issue Station # / Range Proliible Cause Photo,#1
Poor Tree
Establishment Buffer Areas Mowing 1
and Recruitment
Semi-permanent flooded Flooding from pond creation; poor soil 2
Poor Tree Survival
zone: Vegetation Pint 4
composition; mowing

Poor Tree Survival t
Island: Vegetation PW 5 1
Poor soils, competition by lespedeza
3
A vegetation problem area plan view and photos are provided in Appendix B.
3.1.3 Stem Countf
The existing five 30foot by 30-foot plots were relocated. Plots are marked with 1.25-inch PVC pipes_
Stem counts were co ducted for all woody species, including volunteer species. An inventory of planteta
species is given in Exhibit Table VII. A tally of volunteer woody species is listed in Exhibit Table VIIa_
Table 7: Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
Plots Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Percent.
Species 1 2 3 4 5 Totals Totals Totals Survival`:: `
Acer nsbrum 1 3 30 12 4 13
Alnus serrulata 1 0
Betula nigra 2 5 0
Carya ovata 4 0
Cephalanthus occidentalis 2 0
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 68 73 -7 16 104 148 9727
EEP Project No. 322
Sandy Creek Restoration Sitte
Table 7: Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
S
ecies Plots Year 0 Year I Year 2 Percent
p 1 2 3 4 5 Totals Totals Totals Survival
Liriodendron tulipifera 1 9 2 0
Nyssa sylvatica 5 0
Quercus lyrata 5 3 0
Quercus phellos 3 14 3 3 21
Salix nigra 83 3 16 6 5 73 108 2160
Sambucus canadensis I I 1 0
Viburnum nudum 8 3 p
Table 7a. Stem Counts for Volunteer Species Arranged by Plot
Sandy Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322
Species Plots Year I Year 2
I 2 3 4 5 Totals Totals Totals
Acer negundo M 1
Celtis laevigata' T I
Cornus amomum 2 2
Gleditsia triacanthos I
Liquidambar styraciJlua 6 1 6
Platanus occidentahs 2 1
Populus deltoides 4 4 4 2
Ulmus americana - - I
An inventory of herbaceous species on the site vias also taken. Dominant herbaceous species over the site
as a whole are listed below:
Andropogon virginicus (broomsedge)
Aster dumosus (frost aster)
Carex spp. (sedges)
Cyperus strigosus (straw-colored flatsedge)
Eleocharis sp. (spikerush)
Eupatorium capillifolium (dog fennel)
Juncus effusus (soft rush)
Lespedeza cuneata (sericea lespedeza)
Ludwigia alternifolia (seedbox)
Pluchea sp. (marsh fleabane)
Polygonum sp. (smartweed)
Scirpus cyperinus (woolgrass bulrush)
Solidago sp. (goldenrod)
Sorghum halapense (Johnson grass)
Typha latifolia (common cattail)
EEP Project No. 322 7 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
3.3 WETLAND ASSESSMENT
Table 11. Wetland Criteria Attainment
Sand Creek Stream Enhancement and Wetland Restoration Site / EEP Project No. 322

ract

ell ID Well
Hydrology
Threshold
Met?

Tract
Mean

Vegetation
Plot ID
Vegetation
Density Met
(260 stems/acre)
Diversity
Met?
(6 species)

Tract
Mean
1 G1 ? (27%) 23% of P1 ? (7550) 2 Failed
1 G3 (12%) growing P2 ? (3850) 3 because
1 G4 ? (31 %) season P3 ? (1500) 5 of lack
REF G2 ? (27%) P4 (0) 0 of
P5 ? (300) 1 diversity
A wetland problem area plan view is provided in Appendix D.
EEP Project No. 322 9 Sandy Creek Restoration Site
Monitoring Report Review - Notes
kA 1A /?.1? 7
Site: Sandy Creek (EEP/WRP)
DWO #: 20021345 Date of Report: 2/2006 Monitoring Year: 2
Reviewer: Tammy Hill Date of Review: 2/13/07
Background:
1. 401 Requirements
- Mitigation associated with extension of MLK Pkwy in Durham
- Total site = 3.6 acres of restoration & creation (1.73 used for this impact)
- Additional to WL restoration, log vanes in Sandy Creek 4 habitat enhancement
via pool features along 2700 linear feet of stream
- Future of site: environmental ed center & greenway trails)
- Past: WWTP 4 part of restoration is sludge drying beds 4 riparian WL
- Goals: habitat & food for wildlife, water quality, buffers, water storage
Success Criteria:
1. Vegetation
Construction & planting complete 6/2003
Partial replanting 1/2004
- Criteria = survival of planted (target) species stems/acre at end of Year 5
[Report = 260 stems; Initial Plan (Aug 2002; p.15) = 320. **check on
this discrepancy**]; minimum of 6 planted species surviving throughout the
site
- Current report: 4 of 5 plots meet density criterion; only 5 target species
surviving, therefore diversity criterion not met ("due to permanent flooding and
mowing..." & geese & "poor soil composition" due to urban land on the site &
competition by lespedeza)
- Based on Table 7: Everything woody (target species) is dying except Fraxinus
pennsyivanica (Green Ash) and Sa/ix nigra (black willow) - even Acer rubrum is
at 13% survival
Based on Table 7a: A few volunteers are moving in (mostly sweet gum)
Maintenance scheduled for Spring 2006 = grading, planting
Note: Table 7 splits over 2 pages - a little confusing - assuming Table 7 contains
target species, while 7a contains volunteers? Not sure why red maple is on
target list...
2. Hydrology
- Report notes 2 of 3 gauges met >12.5% of growing season; 3rd was at 12%
- Lower % saturation during Year 2 (compared with Year 1) due to drier weather
3. Soils
- Sandy loams (MfC, MfD, WsQ, Chewacla & Wehadkee (Ch), some urban land
Additional Issues / Questions:
1. Concerns about Monitoring
- Report (p.15)notes that veg plots are placed near gauges so that veg &
hydrology can be correlated. That's fine, but gauges are placed at high points
(p.14); therefore, we don't know anything about veg in lower elevations, where
saturation/inundation may hinder growth
- 3.1.3 states "the existing five 30-foot by 30-foot plots were relocated." When,
where, & why?
2. For Site Visit
Veg :
o Diversity
o does it appear that maintenance was done in 2006?
o look at lower elevations for survival issues (inundated?)
o check veg plots for representativeness (were they moved this year?)
o check lespedeza & cattails
Wetland acreage vs. open water
Date: 4 y G2
Triage Check List
Project Name: DWQ#: O Z- l3q5
County: ??-..._
From:
To: ? ARO
? FRO
? MRO
?RRO
ZCIIA?
The file attached is being forwarded to your for your evaluation.
Please call if you need assistance.
Mike Parker
Ken Averitte
Zt k _ __ _?
ve Mitche
? WaRO. Deborah Sawyer
? WiRO Joanne Steenhuis
? WSRO Jennifer Frye
Telephone : (919)
? Stream length impacted
? Stream determination
? Wetland determination and distance to blue-line surface waters on USFW topo maps
? Minimization/avoidance issues
? Buffer Rules (Meuse, Tar-Pamlico, Catawba, Randleman)
? pondli.11
Miti ation s
? Di hing
? 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:
..-qdn..w.w,rr?lr.lelM+?.s.+Wwr:?rr..,,• _.....?a. re..•.
-Al
Y ?j N' 1 ./. al + y i ; v ir?# X41
'i "tT 'I *'v r j !y ?f ?1AI{ y? it
't
``+g Aµ M y'(,i, .???'-?I ? 1 ?,.a' /?'?, Jy ii _j y11?a 1E1r7 /? 1,•. .I J, ,?•t-?I P?.S '.?3 Ai ' .,+ *k?;

0, 4
..'trsa Yx.y, :i fi
ISM ?, / f ?,cy4);Ers f••?:•, 1. ? NJWNa?
t
p;. iy??l?:..l'?' ? ,y,.; % ,11'IN ? a:A ?,?:r ?;Sy!+l?r•
' ./? ? 1/,??s: it '? x?• ... '
.[S.n?f o
Em
• e
.Yf? (f? a yk ¢M' ? ? t' ?? JJ;;????1'v?? Is`t• r u. ? A t?.? ? ? ?• ? l •, yap r t
[ , 4'f T-. I s i f I? soh hyt ! i l Y? r v? i
V ? - ?R 1 t t 'S
!
!. t i a; ?'r a d r Ivs ?' '? 1 h ' ?t¢ ° ,' ' t.t r fl.
??? ??i ?r ??? all ;' ' ???j 1?:!?It ? t?R1? ? ??"•?it ? I?I, iry?'j,. ` x ?f 1, `? ?I? ? 1„ 4? i?lY??
p :'?•.? n?.$ .:. c.! ?i. r-F??l,l!yiI--.r .eei,l.?' ?.,.?'?•?f R. ?:a.:°??p"