20041512 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan_20050802

STONEBRIDGE STREAM MITIGATION PLAN
MOORE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
fi
2 - 2005D
"""' ITY
HATER BRANCH
04-1512
® Submitted by
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
220 Chatham Business Drive
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
[phone]
Prepared by
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
3101 John Humphries Wynd
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
[phone]
June 24, 2005
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• The Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Project is located on an 1,196-acre site five miles north of
Carthage in northeastern Moore County, NC. Three unnamed streams that traverse the site exhibit
diminished habitat value as a result of past and on-going agricultural activities. The site was
identified by EBX-Neuse I, LLC, as having potential to help meet the compensatory mitigation
• requirements of the NC Department of Transportation (DOT) for impacts in hydrologic unit
03030003 of the Cape Fear River Basin. The mitigation units would be accomplished through the
restoration of stream and riparian habitats as defined in the inter-agency Stream Mitigation
• Guidelines (USACE, 2003).The proposed project will improve physical habitat and water quality
• by establishing more natural hydraulic geometry to previously impacted stream segments and by
restoring riparian forest buffers by means of cattle exclusion.
• A natural channel design approach has been applied to identify stable morphometric parameters.
A reference reach located approximately two miles southwest of the site was used in the
development of design pattern, cross-sections, and profiles. The reference reach approach was
• verified using analytical tools in Stable channel Analytical Model (SAM). This included analyses of
sediment transport functions, shear stress, and velocity, all of which basically supported the
morphometric parameters developed from reference reach data. The proposed design calls for
• filling the existing stream with material excavated from proposed channel and floodplain areas.
` Several segments of the channel will be only partially filled, to support vernal pools and other
wetland habitats.
• Riparian forest buffers will be established throughout the project at widths of at least fifty feet on
both sides of all restored streams. Cattle shall be excluded from all stream and buffer restoration
areas by fences. A native riparian plant community will be established to include multiple strata
and a diverse mix of species. The proposed stream and buffer restoration will arrest the bank
• erosion and mass wasting that are both active and locally severe.
The proposed restoration practices will result in the restoration of approximately 6,247 linear feet
• for stream. In addition to channel restoration, 16.3 acres of conservation easements will be
provided. The total proposed improvements constitute 6,247 stream mitigation units (SMU's).
• Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC ES-1
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................I-1
Project Description ............................................................................................................ ..1-1
Project Site ........................................................................................................................ .. I-1
SECTION II: STUDY AREA ................................................................................................... II-1
Physiography, Topography and Drainage and Landuse ...................................................... . II-1
Soils ................................................................................................................................. . 11-2
Vegetation ........................................................................................................................ . II-3
Natural Resources of Special Concern ............................................................................... . II-4
UT2 Dam ......................................................................................................................... . 11-5
Existing Stream Conditions ................................................................................................ . II-5
SECTION III: STREAM FLOW ANALYSES ............................................................................... III-1
Hydrologic Evaluations ..................................................................................................... III-1
SECTION IV: RESTORATION PLAN ...................................................................................... IV-1
Restoration Summary ........................................................................................................ IV-1
Reference Reach Analysis ................................................................................................. IV-1
Typical Design Sections .................................................................................................... IV-3
Typical Design Meander Pattern ........................................................................................ IV-3
Longitudinal Profiles ......................................................................................................... IV-3
Riparian Buffer Restoration ................................................................................................ IV-3
Stream Crossings .............................................................................................................. IV-4
Structures ......................................................................................................................... IV-5
SECTION V: SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS .......................................................................V-1
SAM (Copeland Method) ....................................................................................................V-1
Velocity Approach .............................................................................................................V-1
Shear Stress Approach ........................................................................................................V-2
SECTION VI: POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND SUCCESS CRITERIA ..............................VI-1
Success Criteria Components ............................................................................................VI-1
Method of Reporting on Success Criteria ...........................................................................VI-2
Stream Restoration Monitoring ..........................................................................................VI-2
Remedial Actions ..............................................................................................................VI-4
SECTION VII: ADMINISTRATIVE AND REGULATORY ..............................................................VII-1
Summary ......................................................................................................................... VII-1
Conservation Easement ....................................................................................................VII-1
Current Ownership of Property ........................................................................................VII-1
Categorical Exclusion .......................................................................................................VII-1
SECTION VIII: REFERENCES .............................................................................................VIII-1
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC TOC-1
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures
Figure 1. Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Site Location ............................................................... 1-2
Figure 2. Drainage Features and Sub-watersheds at the Stonebridge Site .................................... II-1
Figure 3. NRCS Soils Mapping at Stonebridge ........................................................................... II-2
Figure 4. Map of Vegetative Communities ................................................................................ II-4
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics .............................................................. II-6
Table 2. Summary of Hydrologic Evaluation ............................................................................ III-1
Table 3. Summary of Morphometric Design Parameters ...........................................................IV-2
Table 4. Riparian Buffer Species ..............................................................................................IV-4
Table 5. HEC-RAS Stable Channel Design Output .....................................................................V-1
Table 6. Comparison of Proposed and Allowable Velocities ......................................................V-2
Table 7. Comparison of Proposed and Allowable Shear Stresses ................................................V-2
Appendices
Appendix A: Existing Conditions
Appendix B: Soil Boring Logs
Appendix C: Letter from NC Natural Heritage Program and Categorical Exclusions
Appendix D: Dam Safety Inspection Report
Appendix E: Hydrologic Analyses
Appendix F: Reference Site Stream Data
Appendix G: Design Plans
Appendix H: Stream Details
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC TOC -2
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
SECTION
INTRODUCTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This report supports the stream mitigation design to restore portions of three unnamed streams in
Moore County, North Carolina. The project is being developed to provide full delivery stream
mitigation to the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) for impacts in hydrologic
unit 03030003 of the Cape Fear River Basin. The proposed project involves the restoration of
6,247 linear feet of stream channel that has been disturbed by historic agricultural activities and
active cattle grazing. The conceptual design presented herein demonstrates that 6,247 feet of
stream can be restored, which should generate an equal number of Stream Mitigation Units (SMU).
The Stonebridge Site has an extensive history of agriculture and timber production. The project
area was most recently clear-cut in 1982 and converted to hay and pasture. The site currently
supports a cow/calf operation, and up until a few years ago also produced hogs. The cattle have
severely degraded riparian buffers along Crawley Creek and its tributaries, and prohibit the growth
of a natural riparian plant community. Hoof shear has caused extensive stream bank collapse, and
the abundance of fine sediment is an impairment to benthic habitat. Additionally, water quality is
impacted from animal waste. The proposed project will improve in-stream habitat by restoring the
streams to more natural stable geometry, and will benefit water quality by restoring riparian forest
buffers and excluding cattle from the restoration area.
PROJECT SITE
The project site is located approximately five miles north of Carthage in northeastern Moore
County, NC (Figure 1). The property comprises about 1196 acres of fields and woods. The
surrounding area is entirely rural and only sparsely inhabited.
The area of detailed study is depicted on the Existing Conditions Map in Appendix A, which
includes stream locations, topography, plant communities, soil boring locations and locations of
stream measurements. Field run topographic survey was completed in the fall of 2003 with NAVD
1988 as vertical datum and NC state plane coordinates as the horizontal datum.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC 1-1
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
SECTION
INTRODUCTION
1 0 1 Miles
EIW?
Figure 1. Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Site Location
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC 1-2
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
SECTION 11
EXISTING CONDITIONS
PHYSIOGRAPHY, TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE
The Stonebridge Site is in the Piedmont Physiographic Province and the Triassic basins geologic
belt. It is underlain by sandstones and mudstones of the Chatham group, which occasionally crop
out along the subject streams and on a few hillslopes. Diabase dikes of Jurassic age also cross the
site, generally trending northwest to southeast. Gently rolling topography on the property is
punctuated by several steep slopes which tend to be associated with exfoliated diabase float.
Elevations range from 250 in the Crawley Creek valley to approximately 400 feet.
The primary drainage features on the property are UT-1, UT-2, UT-3 and Crawley Creek, which
drain in east and north-east direction as shown in Figure 2. Crawley Creek discharges into
Governors Creek, which in turn flows into the Deep River. The NC Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) stream classification for Crawley Creek is 'C'.
UT-2 DA ,
182 AC Total DA= 688 Acres
•N
C,Y
i
UT-2
UT-3
UT-3
DA 189 ,
Y
UT-1
Stream
Restoration
Limits
UT-1
Crawley Creek
Watershed
Boundary
Brady Rd.
t
ti
=Glendon
Reference ' Site
Figure 2. Drainage Features and Sub-watersheds at the Stonebridge Site (DA = drainage
area in acres)
The UT1 catchment has a drainage area of 688 acres (1.1 square miles) to its confluence with
Crawley Creek. It is a perennial stream represented as a blue line on USGS maps. Field
investigations by a DWQ biologist in June 2003 identified benthic fauna characteristic of perennial
flow conditions in all sections of UT1, UT2 and UT3 proposed for restoration. Land cover is
approximately 60% pasture and 40% woods. At the present time, this area of Moore County is
exper` ncing very limited development growth a large increase in development is not anticipated.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC II-1
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
SECTION II
EXISTING CONDITIONS
For this reason, the design of the proposed channel is based on hydrology and regional design
curves that reflect the existing rural conditions and landuse.
SOILS
According to the Moore County Soil Survey (NRCS, 1995), the subject site is mapped within the
Mooshaunee, Hallison, Mayodan, and Pinkston soil association. The three primary soil types found
on the site are in the Pinkston, Congaree, and Creedmoor soil series (Figure 3). All soils within the
watershed are classified as SCS hydrologic soil groups B and C, which range from fair to well
draining soils.

Y.' ?PMt..
a

WK Dickson installed a total of nineteen soil borings along UT-1, UT-2 and UT-3 to verify soils
mapping and generally evaluate growing conditions, as well as to identify potential design
constraints imposed by bedrock. Boring locations are shown on the Existing Conditions Map in
Appendix A, and Boring Log descriptions are provided in Appendix B.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC II-2
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
Figure 3. NRCS soils mapping at Stonebridge (Co- Congaree loam; CrB- Creedmoor fine
sandy loam; MdE- Mayodan fine sandy loam; MoB, MoD & MoE- Mooshaunee-Hallison
complex; PkD & PkF- Pinkston silt loam).
n
u
SECTION 11
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Congaree soil series consists of well-drained and moderately well drained soils on nearly level
flood plains along streams in the Piedmont. These soils formed in recent fluvial sediments and
• range in slopes from zero to two percent. Typically the surface layer is dark yellowish brown loam
to ten inches thick. The subsurface extends to seventy inches consisting of yellowish brown loam
to silt loam. Soil samples collected from these areas were yellow and reddish-brown in color. The
soil texture was comprised of silty, sandy, and blocky-clay, and silt-loam. Some boreholes
advanced in this area yielded weathered parent material or saprolite at depths of forty to sixty
inches.
• The Pinkston soil series is moderately steep and steep, well drained to excessively drained soils.
These soils formed in material weathered from coarse-grained Triassic rocks and range in slopes
from 15 to 40 percent. They are on strongly dissected uplands from the southern piedmont in the
• Triassic basin. The surface layer is typically dark brown silt loam to six inches thick. The subsoil
• extends to a depth of thirty-one inches and is brown fine sandy loam to red brown sandy loam. The
underlying material to thirty-six inches is dark reddish gray very fine sandy loam. Hard mudstone
and conglomerate bedrock is at a depth of thirty-six inches. Soils observed in this area were of
• yellow and reddish-brown in color. Soil textures were of silt-loam, silty-clay, and clay-like
characteristics.
• One borehole advanced along UT-1 lies within the Mayodan series. This series consists of well-
drained soils on Piedmont uplands. These soils formed in material weathered from Triassic rocks
and range in slopes from two to twenty five percent. Mayodan soils are typically fine sandy loam
with the surface layer extending to seven inches thick. The subsurface, consisting of yellowish red
silty clay loam to red clay and red silty clay loam, extends to a depth of fifty-one inches where soft
bedrock of fine sandy loam is reached. Soil observed from this borehole was yellowish-brown silt-
loam and silty-clay.
The soil characteristics observed on the subject site that lies within the Congaree and Pinkston
series differ from the Moore County Soil Survey description. These soils exhibited a subsurface
trend of brown clays closely related to characteristics of the nearby Creedmoor series. The
• Creedmoor soil series is commonly found adjacent to Mayodan and Pinkston soils. Creedmoor
soils consist of moderately sloping, and well drained to somewhat poorly drained soils. These soils
formed in material weathered from fine-grained Triassic rocks. The surface layer is typically silty-
loam. Extending further into the subsurface, Creedmoor soils become clay-like and more closely
resemble the soils observed in the samples collected along UT-1, UT-2 and UT-3.
• The WKD soil borings confirmed that soils at the Stonebridge Site are primarily a silty-loam and
• will not present any unforeseen problems with identifying native plants to stabilize the riparian
areas. A review of this soils evaluation shall be made during the selection of plants for the riparian
buffer planting plan.

VEGETATION
Vegetation was surveyed along the designated stream reaches to identify and characterize the
existing plant communities along the approximately 100-foot wide riparian corridors of UT-1, UT-2
and UT-3 on November 24, 2003. The Stonebridge Site consists of three different vegetation
communities designated as Areas A, B and C on Figure 3.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC II-3
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
e
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
SECTION II
EXISTING CONDITIONS
?,CRAWLEY
CREEK
V
UT-3
Figure 4. Map of Vegetative Communities
• Area A has several mature trees (average 12 inch Diameter Breast Height (DBH)) and a less
• developed herbaceous layer. Canopy trees include: tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), water
oak (Quercus nigra), river birch (Betula nigra), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), white oak (Q. alba), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), and pignut hickory
• (Carya glabra). Shrubs and understory plants consists of elderberry (Sambucus canadensis),
• ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), and dense patches of
autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), as well as, Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). The
herbaceous community was dominated by Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), multiflora
• rose (Rosa multiflora), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), fescue, and soft rush (Juncus
effusus). This natural community is a mesic mixed hardwood forest. Cattle and invasive species are
• currently heavily impacting this community.
The vegetative community in Area B has fewer understory plants than Area A. Dominant species
• include Chinese privet and ditch willow (Baccharis halimifolia) in adjacent tributaries. These
• plants are mature and represent a significant seed source that should be eradicated to prevent
e future out-breaks in newly graded areas. The plant community has similar species to Area A.
• Area C is more wooded than Areas A and B. Cattle have not impacted this area to a great extent.
• This area had many small (3-6 inch DBH) with some larger trees (greater than 12 inch DBH). The
• trees in Area C include: white oak, willow oak (Quercus phellos), red oak (Q. rubra), and water
oak. Understory plants include, red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), flowering dogwood, ironwood,
• and American holly (Ilex opaca). This area has significantly less invasive plants and a higher
• potential for the natural recruitment of native hardwoods than Areas A and B.
• NATURAL RESOURCES OF SPECIAL CONCERN
• A letter was sent on behalf of EBX to the NC Natural Heritage Program requesting information
• regarding natural heritage areas within and around the Stonebridge Site. In a written reply dated
• October 21, 2003, the Natural Heritage Program stated that no record of rare species, significant
• Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC II-4
e Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
•
•
•
I?
•
•
•
•
•
•
SECTION I)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
natural communities, or priority natural areas was found at the Stonebridge Site. A copy of this
letter is provided in Appendix C.
UT2 DAM
The dam located just upstream of the proposed UT-2 restoration area was visually inspected by a
• North Carolina registered professional engineer using the NCDENR Dam Safety form entitled
"Dam Safety Inspection Report". The visual inspection was performed according to guidelines
described in the "Dam Operation and Inspection Manual", which was prepared by North Carolina
• Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Division of Land Resources Land
Quality Section. In general, the dam is in good condition, appears to be structurally sound, and
poses no imminent threat to potential restoration activities. A copy of the completed inspection
report for this dam is included in Appendix D.
EXISTING STREAM CONDITIONS
Base data including aerial photography, topography, stream locations, roads and project
boundaries were initially evaluated. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24000 scale (Putnam 7.5'
quadrangle, 1974) topographic map and 1950, 1973, 1993, and 1999/2000 aerial photos were
also studied. Drainage areas were determined for several potentially key locations throughout the
study area, and anticipated bankfull hydraulic geometry calculated from regional curves.
Aerial imagery of the project area was obtained from USGS for the years 1950, 1973, and
1999/2000 (color-infrared). Coverage for 1993 was obtained from in-house commercial software.
A combination of the aerial images and USGS mapping were used to identify changes in landuse
and channel location. The three unnamed tributaries were located and compared on the aerial
images for the years 1950 and 1973 using imaging software. If the stream or land cover had been
altered during that time span, the type of modification and time period were documented. If the
stream showed no signs of alteration during that time, the aerials for 1973 and 1993 were
compared. This process was repeated for each tributary.
Standard field methods were used to obtain geomorphic field data from representative stream
• reaches on the three unnamed tributaries. Measurements included longitudinal profiles and cross-
sections at riffles and pools. Calculations of hydraulic geometry based on field indicators of
bankfull stage correlated well with regional curve for the rural Piedmont. Bank Erosion Hazard
Index (BEHI) values were estimated for each of the reaches to estimate the potential for bank
• erosion. Reach locations are shown on the Existing Conditions map in Appendix A. All field data
are summarized below and presented in greater detail in Appendix A.
Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) ratings support the need to stabilize stream banks to reduce
erosion. Ratio's of bank heights to bankfull heights ranged from 1.8 to 3.3 indicating high to
extreme channel incision. Channel banks are primarily composed of silt and fine sand, and due to
erosion and cattle grazing had little or no vegetative root systems to provide stability. Table 1
summarizes the channel characteristics found along UT-1, UT-2 and UT-3.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC II-5
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
•
•
•
•
e
•
•
•
•
e
e
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
e
•
•
e
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
e
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
SECTION I)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Table 1-Summary of Existing Channel Characteristics

Location Drainage Area

(acres) Bank Height

(ft) Channel Area

(s q. ft.) Bankfull Area

(s q. ft.)
BEHI Rating
UT-1 Reach A 688 4.5-6.0 47.2 23.7 33.75 (High)
UT-1 Reach C 164 3.5-4.0 10 6.8 36.75 (High)
UT-2 182 3.5 12.8 6.2 35.60(High)
UT-3 189 1.0 7.5 7.5 34.7 (High)
Note: Channel area is to top of existing bank
UT1
This stream flows across the property in a northeasterly direction and makes an abrupt turn to the
east near its confluence with Crawley Creek. It generally exhibits a very flat gradient and low
sinuosity. Measured slopes range from 0.0003 to 0.006, and base flows are backed up over 250
feet upstream of the culvert near Crawley Creek. Portions appear to have been straightened or
otherwise relocated. Bedforms are generally indistinct and accumulations of fine sediment are
abundant. The stream bed and banks are comprised almost entirely of sand and silt. Most of this
stream classifies as an E5, with the upstream-most segment (UT1 Reach C) exhibiting C6
characteristics. However, bank height:bankfull height ratios are typically around 2, indicating
significant incision. In addition, as shown in Table 1, the total channel capacity exceeds the
bankfull channel capacity by 40 to 99 percent. Field data document degradation and channel
enlargement, however, historic air photo analysis could not determine whether these features were
natural responses to perturbations or the result of direct channel manipulations.
UT2
UT2 drains about 182 acres in the central portion of the property, flowing southeast and
discharging into UT1 in the middle of the project area. The restoration reach is from UT1 upstream
to about 120 feet below the pond. The upstream limit of proposed restoration coincides with a
potential break between intermittent and perennial flow identified by a DWQ biologist in June
2003. This stream has been relentlessly trampled by cattle along its entire length. Bank erosion is
locally severe and riparian buffers are in poor condition. Bed and bank materials are predominantly
silt. This stream is similar to UT1 in that its classification is E6 despite high bank height:bankfull
height ratios and the total channel capacity suggest degradation and channel enlargement.
UT3
This stream is mapped in the soil survey (Figure 3) but not on the USGS 7.5' topographic
quadrangle. However, the stream appears perennial based on observed baseflows, fluvial
bedforms and fauna identified by the DWQ biologist. UT3 is largely stable and classifies as a 136c.
Much of the riparian zone is forested and cattle impacts are decidedly more localized. The
channel exhibits good cross sectional geometry and the existing capacity is appropriate for the
drainage area; however, the stream has low sinuosity and often lacks appropriate bedforms.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC II-6
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
SECTION III
STREAM FLOW ANALYSIS
HYDROLOGIC EVALUATIONS
Hydrologic analyses of the watershed were performed to validate the design channel geometry and
bankfull flows. Peak flows and corresponding channel cross sectional areas were determined
through standard hydrologic methods for comparison to design parameters. Peak flows in this
study were estimated using the following methods:
NC regional curves
USACE HEC-1 computer model and SCS hydrology
USGS regional regression equations for rural conditions in the Piedmont
Rational method
Evaluations were made at the downstream limits of UT-1, UT-2 and UT-3 and in all cases the
bankfull flows found using the regional curve compared well with those determined for the 1-year
event in HEC-1 or the 2-year flood event using the USGS regression equations. A summary of the
hydrological analysis is shown in Appendix E. The bankfull flows were generally lower than those
developed in the HEC-1 model for the 1-year flood event.
table 2- 5ummarv of Hvdrolop-ic Evaluation
Stonebridge Site Reach
Methodology UT1-A UT1-B UT1-C UT-2 UT-3
Drainage Area (mil) 1.075 0.941 0.552 0.284 0.295
Drainage Area (ac) 688.0 602.0 353.0 181.8 188.8
Existing Conditions WKD Surveyed Bankfull Indicator Flow 74.51 139.81 63.24 36.58 33.96
Existing Conditions Regional Curves 94 73 58 36 37
Existing Conditions USACE HEC-1 - 1-year Q 160 134 97 37 51
Existing Conditions USACE HEC-1 - 2-year Q 271 225 168 57 89
Existing Conditions USACE Reg. Regression Equation- 2-year Q 142 129 89 32 57
Existing Conditions Rational Method Equation - 2-year Q 179 157 92 45 49
Brady Road Reference Reach Locat ion
Methodology Downstream Upstream
Drainage Area (mil) 0.478 0.766
Drainage Area (ac) 305.9 490.2
Existing Conditions WKD Surveyed Bankfull Indicator Flow 78.4 65.6
Stonebridge Site Location
Methodology UT1- A UT1- B UT1- C UT-2 UT-3
Drainage Area (mil) 1.075 0.941 0.552 0.284 0.295
Drainage Area (ac) 688.0 602.0 353.0 181.8 188.8
Proposed Conditions WKD design Bankfull capacity 78.8 NA 64.8 30.6 30.3
Notes: WKD Bankfull flow was determined from field indicators of Bankfull stage
Rational method may not be accurate for reaches where DA > 200 acres - shown for comparison only
All flows given are in cubic feet per second (cfs)
WKD Bankfull for proposed conditions was determined at design riffles with Ma nning's equ ation
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC III-1
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
•
•
e
•
•
•
•
•
e
•
•
•
e
•
e
•
•
Section IV
Restoration Plan
RESTORATION SUMMARY
Natural channel design methods have been applied to maximize stream potential at UT1 and UT2.
Design parameters have been developed from reference reach data and applied to the subject
streams. The designs presented herein provide for stable cross-sectional geometry, an increase in
planform sinuosity, and restoration of riffle-pool sequences and other stream bed diversity to
improve benthic habitat. A total of 6,247 linear feet of stream have been designed, most of which
will be installed on the existing floodplain. The proposed design will allow flows that exceed the
design bankfull stage to spread out over the floodplain. The proposed stream crosses the existing
channel in several locations, and some segments of the restoration consist of hydraulic geometry
modifications to the existing channel.
As presently envisioned, most of the existing stream will be filled using material excavated from the
restoration channel. Native material revetments shall be installed as needed to reduce bank stress,
provide grade control and increase habitat diversity. Because the restored stream bed would
generally be at a higher elevation than the existing bed, a significant increase in riparian wetland
area is anticipated.
e Forested riparian buffers shall be established to have widths of at least fifty feet on both sides of all
e restored streams. After channel construction, riparian buffers shall be ripped to a depth of at least
e 1.5 feet and/or sub-soiled to ameliorate soil compaction caused by grazing and construction. An
appropriate riparian plant community will be established to include multiple strata and a diverse
mix of species. Cattle shall be excluded from all stream and buffer restoration areas by fences.
• Restricting cattle access to these areas will maximize the water quality improvement benefits of the
buffers.
•
• The proposed stream and buffer restoration will arrest the bank erosion and mass wasting that are
both active and locally severe. By reducing the supply of fine sediments from the banks, restored
e bedforms will remain stable. Finally, the reductions in nitrogen, biological oxygen demand and
e other pollutant loadings that will be achieved with the Stonebridge restoration work are substantial
e benefits to the watershed. Incidental to the stream restoration at the Stonebridge Site, new riparian
wetlands will be created. No effort has been made to quantify these wetland areas.
•
e REFERENCE REACH ANALYSIS
Reference reach data were collected from an unnamed stream located about two miles southwest
of the Stonebridge site at Brady Road (Figure 2). This unnamed tributary to McLendons Creek was
selected as the reference site due to its apparent physical stability, proximity to the mitigation
e project, and similar hydro-geomorphic setting. The Brady Road reference stream exhibits the
e following characteristics:
e A geomorphically active floodplain that is hydrologically connected to the stream
e Pronounced riffles, pools, runs and glides
Sinuosity ranging from 1.45 to 1.67
e Healthy riparian forest buffer
Location within the same geographical and meteorological region as the Stonebridge Site
Valley types and slopes are very similar to the Stonebridge Site
Channel bed and bank materials of fine sand and silt comparable to the Stonebridge Site
• The reference stream is classified as an E5 streamtype. Valley slopes at the Stonebridge Site ranged
from 0.0044 to 0.008; while the unnamed tributary at Brady Road had a valley slope 0.0066. The
•
• Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC IV-1
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
•
•
Section IV
Restoration Plan
measured longitudinal profile and cross sections are shown in Appendix F. Reference reach data
were reduced to dimensionless ratios for design applications to account for differences in
catchment size utilizing the NC regional curves that describe relations between hydraulic geometry
and drainage area. Table 3 describes the stream restoration design parameters derived from the
reference reach.
Table 3 - Summarv of Mornhometric Desien Parameters
Reference Reach Design Reach
Reach Name: UlS Brady D/S Brady UT 1 - A UT 1 - B UT2
Drainage Area (sqmi): 0.48 0.77 1.08 0.94 0.28
Sinuosity: 1.45 1.67 1.51 1.34 1.51
Bellwidth (ft): 26.6 33.9 58 46 29
Width (ft): 8.1 6.4 12.8 11.6 6.2
Cross Sectional Area (sqft): 12.2 16 26.9 20.7 8.1
Mean Depth (ft): 1.51 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.3
Max Depth (ft): 2.03 2.6 3 2.5 1.7
Width to Depth Ratio: 5.36 2.56 6.1 6.5 4.8
Flood-Prone Width (ft): 50 200 50 50 40
Entrenchment Ratio: 6.17 31.25 4 4 6
Wetted Perimeter (ft): 9.76 15.6 13.9 7.9
Hydraulic Radius (ft): 1.25 1.65 1.45 0.97
Valley Slope (ft/ft): 0.0066 0.0044 0.0044 0.013
Water Suface Slope (ft/ft): 0.0025 0.0023 0.0025 0.007
Avg Riffle Slope (ft/ft): 0.00148 0.01 0.011 0.011
Avg Riffle length (ft/ft): 11.9 17 14 8
Avg Pool Slope (ft/fl): 0.0014 0.0013 0.0012 0.0038
Pool-Pool spacing (ft): 48 70 61 35
Pool-Pool spacing/Width Ratio (ft/ft): 5.9 5.5 5.3 5.6
Pool Slope/Avg Slope Ratio: 0.56 0.54 0.48 0.54
Pool width (ft): 7.5 12.8 11.6 6.2
Pool width/ Width Ratio (ft/ft): 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0
Avg Pool length (ft/ft): 9.8 14.0 11.0 5.0
Avg Pool depth (ft): 2.0 3.0 2.6 1.8
Pool depth/BF depth (ft): 1.33 1.2 1.2 1.7
Meander length (ft): 75.2 75 120 108 75
Meander Width Ratio (ft/ft): 3.3 5.3 4.5 4.0 4.7
Meander Length/Width Ratio (ft/ft): 9.3 11.7 9.4 9.3 12.1
Radius of curvature (ft): 17.5 13.5 27 24 13
Radius of curvature/Width Ratio (ft/ft): 2.16 2.11 2.11 2.07 2.10
Minimum Bench Width (ft): NA NA NA NA
Lowest Bank Height Ratio (ft/ft): 0.74 0.85 0.70 0.72 0.76
Channel Materials D50 (min): 0.75 0.75 0.37 0.53 1.77
Channel Materials D84 (mm): 0.83 0.83 1.43 1.58 4.33
Classification: E 5 E 5 E5 E5 E5
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC IV-2
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
•
•
•
0
•
•
Section IV
Restoration Plan
TYPICAL DESIGN SECTIONS
• Typical cross sections for riffles and pools are shown on the design plan sheets in Appendix G.
Two types of typical pool sections were developed to account for pools located on straight reaches
and pools on meander bends. Side slopes of channel banks and centerline location of thalweg for
• the reference reach channel were noted and used as a guide when developing the proposed cross
0 sections. Typical cross sections at riffles were designed using an in-house spreadsheet based on
Manning's equation, using roughness "n" values determined from Limerino's equation. NC
regional curves were used to confirm hydraulic geometry and channel capacity.
TYPICAL MEANDER PATTERN
The plans showing the design channel alignment are provided in Appendix G. The design
meander pattern was developed using both sine generated curves and basic geometry. The initial
design was modified in the field using realtime GIS and GPS technologies to minimize loss of large
trees and reduce land disturbance. The resulting planform utilizes some existing channel features
and creates additional meander bends that will provide energy dissipation while maintaining
sediment transport.
Proposed sinuosity, wavelengths, beltwidths, amplitudes and radii of curvature were generated
using commercial spreadsheet software and standard equations. Dimensionless ratios developed
from the Brady Road reference site were used as input data. These values have been adjusted by
the software to account for the design slopes and bankfull flows calculated for the Stonebridge Site.
LONGITUDINAL PROFILES
The design profiles for UT-1 and UT-2 are shown in Appendix G. These profiles extend
throughout the entire project for the proposed conditions channel alignment. The profiles were
designed using the reference reach bed features with adjustments made for changes in drainage
area and design bankfull energy gradient. Longitudinal geometry for riffles, runs, pools and glides
were developed from reference reach dimensionless ratios and applied to the proposed profile at
the Stonebridge Site. Log structures, and possibly rock structures, will be utilized in the design to
control grade and provide additional habitat diversity and stability.
RIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATION
• Two riparian buffer planting areas are identified: the flat, reconnected floodplain, and the adjacent
• hillslopes. Species to be planted in each area are listed below, and are intended to restore
communities comparable to the Basic Mesic Forest (Piedmont Subtype) and Piedmont/Low
Mountain Alluvial Forest as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Species selection was
• based on reference reach vegetation and reference literature. Plant materials will be a mixture of
containerized stock, bare-root whips, seedlings, live stakes and cuttings. After channel
construction, riparian buffers shall be ripped to a depth of at least 1.5 feet and/or subsoiled to
. ameliorate soil compaction caused by decades of intense grazing. The floodplain species mix shall
be planted on an approximately 8' x 8' spacing to establish 688 trees and shrubs per acre. Upland
plants will be installed on 8' x 9' spacing for 622 plants per acre. Riparian habitat plantings will be
augmented with transplants, cutting bundles and live stakes installed for stream bank stability.

Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC IV-3
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
Section IV
Restoration Plan
Table 4 - Riparian Buffer Species
Flood lain Species UPI nd Species
Winged Elm Ulmus alata Red Oak Quercus rubra
River Birch 6etula ni ra Green Ash Fraxinus enns Ivanica
Red Maple Acer rubrum Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis White Oak Q. alba
Blue Beach Car inus caroliniana Black Locust Robinia seudoacacia
Water Oak Quercus ni ra Gray Dogwood Cornus racemosa
Sweet Bay Magnolia Magnolia virginiana Redbud Cercis canadensis
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis Loblolly Pine Pinus taeda
Silk Dogwood Cornus amomum
STREAM CROSSINGS
An existing culvert on UT-1 near Crawley Creek is in reasonably good condition and will remain in
place. Locations for seven additional crossings along UT-1 are identified on the plans. These
locations were selected based on the restored channel location, adjacent valley morphology and
discussions with the landowner.
The landowner has requested a crossing that would meet road design requirements to support
development that may occur in the future. One crossing along UT-1 (STA 39+50) was sized and
evaluated according to Moore County and NC DOT design requirements. The hydrologic and
hydraulic analyses performed for the crossing design are presented below. The remaining six
crossings along UT-1 are either culvert crossings sized to convey bankfull discharge or are ford
crossings.
Hydrology
e The hydrological analysis phase involves the determination of discharge rates of runoff that the
• drainage structure will be required to convey. The two methods utilized for the peak discharge are
as shown in the North Carolina Division of Highways Guidelines for Drainage Studies and
Hydraulic Design. The first method is presented in U.S. Geological Survey Report 87-1096 (4) and
• is used for watersheds exceeding one square mile. The second method is the hydrological
procedure and charts presented in Appendix C, N.C. Division of Highways Hydrological Charts.
The drainage areas for each method were obtained by using the latest U.S. Geological Survey
maps. The percent impervious area was calculated to be less than three percent. This, combined
with observations of current landuse, validated the original assumption to use the rural
classification versus the urban classification. The entire project site is zoned as agricultural;
therefore, it is assumed that the proposed conditions and runoff values will be similar to the
• existing conditions.
Hydraulics
The hydraulic analysis of UT-1 was performed using the US Army Corps of Engineers' HEC-RAS
computer program. The option chosen within the program calculates the water surface profile for
steady, gradually varied flow in channels and floodplains. Cross-sections for the HEC-RAS model
were created and input automatically by extraction software along with the previously described
topographic mapping (DTM). The Cross-sections were developed from the 2-foot contour interval
topographic mapping generated from field-surveyed data collection. As part of the Quality Control
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC IV-4
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
Section IV
Restoration Plan
for this project, a field visit was made by WKD personnel to verify the surveyed data and to
determine other various stream characteristics.
The HEC-RAS model calculates water surface profiles for steady, gradually varied flow, both sub-
critical and supercritical, for user-specified discharges. The standard step backwater analysis for
sub-critical flow was modeled for UT-1. The model calculates the effect of obstructions, such as
culverts, and building structures in the channel and floodplain on the water surface profile. The
hydraulic computations are based on the solution of a one-dimensional energy equation with
energy loss due to friction evaluated by Manning's equation. Input data for the HEC-RAS computer
model include the following:
Cross-section geometry of the channel and floodplain
Roughness coefficients to describe the characteristics of the channel and floodplain
Size, shape, and characteristics of culverts and roadways along the stream reach
Energy loss coefficients for flow in the channel and at roadway crossings
Design Requirements
The culvert design includes the following requirements: Roadways with culverts larger than 3 feet
in diameter have 1.0 foot of freeboard during the 25-year storm event; Headwater depth to culvert
depth ratio shall be less that 1.2; and water surface elevations do not flood habitable structures for
elevations equal to the 100-year storm event + 1.0-foot elevation. Alternatives were identified
through an iterative process of modifying culvert sizes, and lowering culvert and channel inverts.
STRUCTURES
Structures will be incorporated into the channel design to provide additional bank stability. Native
materials and vegetation will be used for revetments and grade control structures when applicable.
During construction, new stream banks will be stabilized with sod mats harvested onsite. Other
bank stability measures include the installation of cuttings bundles at three to five foot intervals
along the tops of banks. Typical details for proposed structures and revetments are in Appendix H.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC IV-5
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
n
r
• SECTION V
• SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS
• A sediment transport analysis was performed to ensure that the restoration design creates a stable
sand bed channel that neither aggrades nor degrades over time. Channel stability is achieved when
• the sediment inflow equals the sediment outflow. Various stable channel design functions relating
• channel dimension, slope, and materials were utilized to calculate appropriate cross-section
• dimensions to ensure competency.
• Sediment transport is typically assessed to determine stream's ability to move a specific grain size
• at a given flow. Methods include analysis of shear stress, tractive force, and critical dimensionless
shear stress. While the corresponding equations are important in estimating entrainment for gravel
• bed streams, the equations are not as effectively applied to sand bed channels in which all particles
• are mobile during bankfull flows. The following methods and functions were considered during
the sediment transport analysis:
• Stable channel Analytical Model (SAM) - Copeland Method
• Shear stress
Velocity
•
• SAM (COPELAND METHOD)
• Initial cross-section dimensions were evaluated using the stable channel design functions within
• the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) HEC-RAS Model (Version 3.1.1). These functions are
based upon the methods used in the SAM Hydraulic Design Package for Channels developed by
• the USACE Waterways Experiment Station. The Copeland Method was developed specifically for
• sand bed channels (median grain size restriction of 0.0625 mm to 2 mm), and was therefore
selected for application at the Stonebridge site. The method sizes stable dimensions as a function
• of slope, discharge, roughness, side slope, bed material gradation, and the inflowing sediment
• discharge. Results are presented as a range of widths and slopes, and their unique solution for
• depth, making it easy to adjust channel dimensions to achieve stable channel configurations. See
Table 5 below for the HEC-RAS output.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Table 5 - HEC-RAS Stable Channel Design Output
Reach Bottom
Width (ft) Depth (ft) Slope (ft/ft) Shear Stress
(Ib/ft )
UT-1 (D/S of UT-2) 11.0 2.1 0.0023 0.30
UT-1 (U/S of UT-2) 10.0 1.7 0.0025 0.27
UT-2 5.0 1.3 0.007 0.42
VELOCITY APPROACH
Published data are readily available that provide entrainment velocities for different bed and bank
materials. A comparison of calculated velocities to these permissible velocities is a simple method
to help verify channel stability. The following table compares the proposed velocities calculated
using Manning's equation with the allowable velocities presented in the USACE's Hydraulic
Design of Flood Control Channels manual (USACE, 1991).
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC V-1
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
SECTION V
SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS
Table 6 - Co?nnarison of Proposed and Allowable Velocities
Design *Allowable Velocity (ft/s)
Reach Velocity (ft/s) fine sand coarse sand fine ravel
UT-1 (D/S of UT-2) 3.6 2.0 4.0 6.0
UT-1 US of UT-2) 3.4 2.0 4.0 6.0
UT-2 3.7 2.0 4.0 6.0
*(USACE, 1991)
Results from HEC-RAS show that the velocities for both UT-1 and UT-2 fall within the acceptable
range of 2.0 to 4.0 ft/s for a sand bed channel.
SHEAR STRESS APPROACH
Shear stress is commonly used as a tool for assessing channel stability. Allowable channel shear
stresses are a function of bed slope, channel shape, flows, bed material (shape, size and gradation),
cohesiveness of bank materials and vegetative cover. The shear stress approach compares
calculated shear stresses to those found in the literature. Shear stress is the force exerted on a
boundary during the resistance of motion as calculated using the following formula:
'r=7RS
T = shear stress (lb/ftz)
y = specific gravity of water (62.4 Ib/O
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
S = average channel slope (ft/ft)
Table 7 - Comparison of Proposed and Allowable Shear Stresses
(V-1)
Proposed Shear Stress

Reach
at Bankfull Stage *Sand/Silt/Clay
z **Vegetation
z

(Ib/ft (Ib/ft
) (b/ft
)
UT-1 (D/S of UT-2) 0.30 0.32 to 0.43 0.4 to 2.5
UT-1 (U/S of UT-2) 0.27 0.32 to 0.43 0.4 to 2.5
UT-2 0.42 0.32 to 0.43 0.4 to 2.5
*(Chow 1959)
** (Fischenich, 2001)
Review of the above table shows that the proposed shear stresses for UT-1 and UT-2 all fall within
the permissible limits. The channels are able to withstand shear stresses ordinarily thought to be
erosive for sand bed channels due to the cohesive nature of the bank soils. In localized areas of
high or excessive shear stresses along the tributaries, additional protection will be provided in the
form of structures and/or vegetation.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC V-2
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
SECTION VI
POST CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND SUCCESS CRITERIA
The stream restoration success criteria for the Stonebridge Site will follow accepted and approved
success criteria presented in the site specific mitigation plans developed for the EBXN-1 Neu-Con
Mitigation Banking sites as well as the Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued on April 2003. Specific
success criteria components are presented below.
SUCCESS CRITERIA COMPONENTS
Bankfull Events
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the 5-year monitoring period. The two
bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until
two bankfull events have been documented in separate years.
Cross Sections
There should be little change in as-built cross-sections. If changes do take place they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (for
example down-cutting or erosion) or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for
example settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio).
Cross-sections shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method and all monitored
cross-sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design
stream type.
Longitudinal Profiles
The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features remain generally stable, e.g. they
are not aggrading or degrading. The pools should remain deep and the riffles should remain
shallower than the pools. Bedforms observed should be consistent with those observed for
channels of the design stream type. However, since the Stonebridge tributaries are sand bed
e channels, all bedforms are expected to be dynamic.
Stream Vegetative Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffer on the site will
be based on the recommendations found in the WRP Technical Note and correspondence from
• review agencies on mitigation sites recently approved under the Neu-Con Mitigation Banking
Instrument.
e The interim measure of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 3-year old
planted trees per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period. The final vegetative success
criteria will be the survival of 260 5-year old planted trees per acre at the end of year five of the
monitoring period.
Up to 20 percent of the site species composition may be comprised of volunteers. Remedial action
may be required should these species (that is, loblolly pine, red maple, sweet gum, etc.) present a
problem and exceed the 20 percent composition. Beneficial species regeneration should be noted
within the monitoring reports.
Photo Reference Stations
Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank
erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal
photos should not indicate the absences of developing bars within the channel or an excessive
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC VI-1
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
SECTION VI
POST CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND SUCCESS CRITERIA
increase in channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing
degradation of the banks over time. A series of photos over time should indicate successional
maturation of riparian vegetation.
Reference Site
A reference reach will be identified with a stream order, habitat designation and Rosgen
classification similar to the project stream.
METHOD OF REPORTING ON SUCCESS CRITERIA
An as-built report documenting stream restoration will be developed within 60 days of the planting
completion on the restored site. The report will include elevations, photographs, sampling plot
locations, and a description of initial species composition by community type. The report will also
include a list of the species planted and the associated densities.
The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress
toward achieving the success criteria. The restored stream morphology will be assessed to
determine the success of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken for 5 years or
until the final success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer.
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year and submitted to NCDOT. The
monitoring reports will include:
1. A detailed narrative summarizing the condition of the restored site and all regular
maintenance activities;
2. As-built topographic maps showing location of monitoring gauges, vegetation sampling
plots, permanent photo points, and location of transacts;
3. Photographs showing views of the restored site taken from fixed-point stations from a
height of approximately five to six feet. Permanent markers will be established to ensure
that the same locations (and view directions) on the site are monitored in each monitoring
period;
4. Vegetative data, as described below;
5. Identification of any invasion by undesirable plant species, including quantification of the
extent of invasion of undesirable plants by either stem counts, percent cover, or area,
whichever is appropriate;
6. A description of any damage done by animals;
7. Wildlife observations; and
8. Reference and stream data.
STREAM RESTORATION MONITORING
Bankfull Events
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of
a crest gauges and photographs. The crest gauge will record the highest watermark between site
visits, and the gauge will be checked each time there is a site visit to determine if a bankfull event
has occurred. Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment
deposition on the floodplain during monitoring site visits.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC VI-2
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
•
•
•
•
•
e
SECTION VI
POST CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND SUCCESS CRITERIA
Cross Sections
• Two permanent cross-sections will be installed per 1,000 linear feet of stream restoration work,
with one located at a riffle cross-section and one located at a pool cross-section. Each cross section
e will be marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used. A common
benchmark will be used for cross-sections and consistently used to facilitate easy comparison of
year-to-year data. The annual cross section survey will include points measured at all breaks in
slope, including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the features are
present. Riffle cross sections will be classified using the Rosgen stream classification system.
Bed Material Analyses
The project stream reach is composed of bedforms in the sand size sediment fraction. Since the
e median grain size Q50) is similar to the reference reaches studied, it is unexpected that a
substantial change will occur. Bulk samples will be collected and analyzed to determine any
e changes in substrate. Composite samples will be taken across the channel bottom at no less than 6
cross sections.
Longitudinal Profiles
A longitudinal profile will be completed in years one, three, and five of the monitoring period. The
profile will be conducted for a representative length of restored channel. Measurements will
include thalweg, water surface, inner berm, bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of these
measurements will be taken at the head of each feature, for example, riffle, pool, and the max pool
depth. The survey will be tied to a permanent benchmark.
Vegetative Monitoring
In order to determine if the success criteria are achieved, vegetation-monitoring stations will be
installed on approximately 2 percent of the restoration site. The size of individual monitoring plots
will be 0.1 acre. Vegetation monitoring will occur in spring after leaf-out has occurred. Individual
plot data for woody species will be provided. Plot data will not be averaged over the entire site to
obtain a single figure for stem density. Permanent plots for the sampling of planted species shall be
randomly located in each of the target communities. The enumeration of the density of planted
species will equal the number of remaining stems in the plot divided by the plot size in acres.
Individual seedlings will be marked such that they can be found in succeeding monitoring years.
Mortality will be determined from the difference between the previous year's living planted
seedlings and the current year's living planted seedlings.
At the end of the first growing season, species composition, density, and survival will be evaluated.
For each subsequent year, until the final success criteria is achieved, the restored Site will be
evaluated between July and November.
• Photo Reference Stations
• Photographs will be used to visually document restoration success. Reference stations will be
photographed before construction and continued for at least five years following construction.
e Reference photos will be taken once a year. After construction has taken place, reference stations
will be marked with wooden stakes.
e Lateral reference photos. Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross section.
Photographs will be taken of both banks at each cross section. The survey tape will be centered in
• the photographs of the bank. The water line will be located in the lower edge of the frame and as
• Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC VI-3
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
•
SECTION VI
POST CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND SUCCESS CRITERIA
much of the bank as possible included in each photo. Photographers should make an effort to
consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Structure photos. Photographs will be taken at each grade control structure along the restored
stream. Photographers should make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each
photo over time.
Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish Sampling
No benthic macro-invertebrate or fish sampling is required on the restored site at this time. Should
sampling eventually be required by the review agencies, appropriate sampling methodologies and
success criteria will be implemented and will be based on those accepted and approved by the
review agencies for the Neu-Con Mitigation Banking Sites.
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
In the event that the site or a specific component of the site fails to achieve the defined success
criteria, EBXN-1 will develop necessary adaptive management plans and/or implement appropriate
remedial actions for the site in coordination with the review agencies. Remedial action required by
the review agencies will be designed to achieve the success criteria specified previously, and shall
include a work schedule and monitoring criteria that will take into account physical and climactic
conditions.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC VI--t
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
SECTION VII
ADMINISTRATIVE AND REGULATORY
SUMMARY
The Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Project will improve physical habitat and water quality through
the restoration of stream and riparian habitats as defined in the inter-agency Stream Mitigation
Guidelines (USACE, 2003). The design plan presented herein provides a total of 6,247 linear feet
of stream restoration for the project. Therefore, the resultant SMU's are 6,247 based on the 1:1
mitigation credit ratio received for stream restoration.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
A conservation easement will be placed over the preservation acreage consisting of a fifty-foot
buffer extending out from the beltwidth of the proposed restoration design. The total easement
area is 16.3 acres. Livestock and cattle will be excluded from all areas protected by conservation
easement. The easement limits will be clearly marked by the use of fencing, marker posts, signage,
or other appropriate means. Crossings shown on the plans shall be assets within the easement.
CURRENT OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY
EBX-Neuse I, LLC ("EBXN-1") acquired an Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Easement from Floyd
Strader and wife Mildred Strader who are the current land owners of the Stonebridge site. The
Agreement allows EBXN-1 to acquire an easement on the portion of the 1200-acre site, which is
needed for the Restoration Plan.
EBXN-1 is prepared to convey an easement to the NCDOT on the acreage necessary to achieve the
restoration objectives outlined in the Restoration Plan.
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
The Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form for the Stonebridge site is provided in
Appendix C.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC VII-1
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
SECTION VIII
REFERENCES
Chow, Ven Te. (1959). Open-Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Fischenich, C. (2001). "Stability Thresholds for Stream Restoration Materials," EMRRP Technical
Notes Collection (ERDC TNEMRRP-SR-29), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development
Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Harrelson, Cheryl C., C.L. Rawlins, John P. Potyondy. (1994). Stream channel reference sites: an
illustrated guide to field technique. USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO.
NRCS, (1995). Soil Survey of Moore County, North Carolina. USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
Shafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley, 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 325 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (1991) (change 1, 1994). "Engineering and Design -
Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels," EM 1110-2-1601, Washington, DC.
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC VIII-1
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
SEP-03-04 03:17 PN WNRC
8234653050 P.06
RVITL4.L, INTEREST IN PARTICIPATION 11Y THE EXPRESS PERNUTTING PROGRAINI
FOR THE 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION,
ISOLATED WETLAND PERMITTING
OR STREAM ORIGIN DETERMINATION PROGRAINIS
February 25, 2004
Version 2
Applicant Name:
Applicant Address:
Applicant's phone number: q 6. 44i ? qo? Fax number. q&3 51 !0
Applicant's email address: ?A L? tgL?4c°y.?;Ar?,USfS? _ L/?
Consultant Name (if applicable):
Consultant address (if applicable): X 2 _
L--,w Tl;-kV
Consultant's phone number: 3 2L Fax number:
Consultant's email address: WN?S.L(? T 'L, Cr&
Type of action requested under the Express Review Program (check all that appiy):
O 401 Water Quality Certification
? Isolated Wetland Permit
? Riparian Sutler Approval
0 Stream Origin Determination
# of Determinations Requested
NameofProject: :S \\Z kl(\A ?/\MG,fMCN
Property size (acres) (?. (\[J(lk County:
Nearest named stream (from USGS topo map): CDAWLG?A CQO?
Please provide a brief description of this project (attach site plan if available):
.pRoPC!a?n M ?Tt G home 2LA RG S W? ,? uv? T- KNJ
0N) F 5?? ,
T-NJ
P?O? < t1 C7NT 1? ACJP? DF QV 1=??"?2 _
Please attach a map of site location using USGS 1:24,000 map and county soil survey.
SEP-8-2004 WED 13:44 TEL:[phone] NANE:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 6
8284653050 P.08
SEP-08-04 03:18 PM WNRC
SEP-08-04 03:18 PM WNRC 8284655050 P.07
Location of project site - please include reference to the county, nearest name town and highway number:
T1-l p Os - t OF
1\IO?RT1 O?::
INMO 2?1 d OF 6LrL1N DdN - CAVLT 1*r*lE-t.C ? 1rN?
Proposed impacts:
Acres of wetlands
Acres of isolated wetlands
?,g o Linear feet of streams
Linear feet of isolated streams
Square feet of protected stream buffers
Has consultant or applicant attended any DWQ-s onsored training sessions in the past two years? If so.
please list which ones. ? l Z txraRr 31.2 L
Which other environmental permits will be needed for this project? Please list them below-
SE:DM\MCe o 1: ?a OLz_ C 0??C)t, `
PIE=Q.:LT
Does this project require approval under the State Environmental Policy Ac: or National Environmental
Policy Act''
Does tNO his project require approval of a Variance from the NC Environmental Management Commission"
Are you aware of any local controversy concerning this project? If so, please describe the controversy and
any measures that have been taken with respect to public involvement.
This form must be submitted via email (c/o 401ex [e-mail] fax [phone]) or hand-delivered
(Parkview Building, 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604) within the first three (3) working days of the
month for the first three months of the Express Review Program (until January 1, 2004). Application
procedures after that time will be provided at a later date. Applicants who are selected to participate in the
Express Review Program will be notified via email or fax with one additional working day. Successful
applicants will then be instructed regarding detailed procedures for fail application. Unsuccessful applicants
will be queried to determine if they want to be in the following month's selection process or whether they
want to follow the normal application process.
Please contact Debbie Edwards at 919-733-9502 if you have any questions regarding this form.
2
SEP-8-2004 WED 13:44 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 7
SEP-08-04 03:18 PM WNRC 8284653050 P.07
Location of project site - please include reference to the county, nearest name town and highway number:
-ClJrC-: pQOQOSt Q ?T?`Z t'S NC?TI?c 0?
C-a.?? ?? 'S\Ct= K I?lORT1? D? '?} r --
11v -? O Off' 6tAEN00tV - C AVT1*4&(5 OQ
Proposed impacts: Acres of wetlands
Acres of isolated wetlands
ZN Q Linear feet of streams
Linear feet of isolated streams
Square feet of protected stream buffers
Has consultant or applicant attended any DWQ-s onsored training sessions in the past two years? If so.
please list which ones, 1? 06MAt? 3 (. L_
Which other environmental permits will be needed for this project? Please list them below:
S t?'D t?M ??'cr (N1p S= Q l bc? C r> T,-- c)1, p _ J_
Does this project require approval under the State Environmental Policy Act or National Environmental
Policy Act'? ' NO -
Does tW his project require approval of a Variance tirom the NC Environmental Management Commission"
Are you aware of any local controversy concerning this project? If so, please describe the controversy and
any measures that have been taken with respect to public involvement.
This form must be submitted via email (c/o 401ress @ncmail.ne fax [phone]) cr hand-delivered
(Parkview Building, 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604) within the first three (3) working days of the
month for the first three months of the Express Review Program (until January I, 2004). Application
procedures after that time will be provided at a later date. Applicants who are selected to participate in the
Express Review Program will be notified via email or fax with one additional working day. Successful
applicants will then be instructed regarding detailed procedures for full application. Unsuccessful applicants
will be queried to determine if they want to be in the following month's selection process of whether they
want to follow the normal application process.
Please contact Debbie Edwards at 919-733-9502 if you have any questions regarding this form.
SEP-8-2004 WED 13:44 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 7
SEP-08-04 03:18 PM WNRC 8284653050 P.08
Stonebridge Mitigation Site
Wetland Impact Number Square Footage
1 1103.1
2 240.1
3 188.1
4 210.9
5 21
8 845.4
7 46.8
8 818.4
3213.6 = Total Squaro Feet
SEP-8-2004 WED 13:44 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 8
SEP-08-04 03:19 PM WNRC 8284653050 P.09
79° 29'10. W • 25 0. "W 79 24 0. W 791 23- 0.0T W 7Q1 27 0. ^W?? 72° 21'
! t'j, 7 ? 1 -; ? / ?\?? ?pl ?' (- + ! r• t I' C'` ',t r. t, tr t•,\l ( ? ,(. ?, A'.
il' ? ? ?, ti• ` ?i ?7' (/?•,? ?t,I? Ji. l f'?/ .1 ?' :?J r /?,? ? 7 ' ? ??/L?. (i .
irl' i t CI ' t't.; (Ji .Li ,n• \ 1 /' iii rte. _
- - l 1 1'• f
,? r.??0 ? f l%}' 1. `v?.??..? •? 7`1 1 T????, • C ,'r??? ?? r.,, f? (? v U Y?j?i,? ;l'?i
r f? is _ f??,??, ._/- .i•, I t ,A ., JS 'S- `' ? ? Cpl' . F?
1w? l
1 ti; J O "I ` ? 1' ,'r ?? r ? It 1 ; ? ` .1 t ) •r 9 I ,1: ?. ,F? ( 1 (
y ,
1 ? ? ? y, iR -! -1• •? ,?J1 \ I? ,.f ?t` C?^? ?? y.. , r ?? 1 Sf'•?' ,?11 ? r -ii •'` ? rr ,Y
(? r ,l 1 I ` + C. ? 'M 7? ? I!1 i P / y?, ? 'i ? + r { i r ? A F! Z
.l '<: /,>•:-' ?` ?,. ? ?` _°/ ,T '••i?/r•`. ? ?+.' 1 - ?' /' { ?'- '; i. j1 1.
..,•? i?v?r t?f ? P , ?? +'tl ? S' ? •.IXV?^ - ? / I ?"(? ?: ifs l O
.1 • ? z `? f ? „'?, . • / r • ? .? } /J i 1' ; ,?i,,? ( .t~ 1 ' .+}.. F yrg
? ? / il..l: I.• ( aF r ir. Ir .?y •'rJ JI\`y? .?! /( /F I,il S?? I^ r?7 ? Ci ?',( t??,
•? ?{` `, t}1 ? / rrrr,I t ?? 1,./ I} 1 11?. !i? I ?'?, ? bt•rnfrd?• ( 1?t , ? f . i °?
' - fLl r.?* • ?? 1 r Sl ??'? ? C. j ?::J is ' r s., 5?na?AUrl?•tten ? 7')rC,•? ?
7 `? < / J `,. ? 11?I `: ? 4 cl.. n? r `C Sr lii _Aj ,
r II / ?I / .? 5.9, .ate / f?,,?:i::?._a ` 1/I/ f ?C, ;'? •T ,?' ..
? { ?) ,ti ?' F • ?.n. ( :? /.' it ?' ?/,',{'// ,7 .J iE' r•^? <.
',J 1;??`?i,- •Cs? .J•-?y''7 r \', fit '?}• _h ?. ' cy i, ,
?• "-inri / ?J?)J ? 7?E?..Ci.,1/' ;??,C.`I r-_/?!,l•' 1 - l •C? r•? ! ?/ ? _ sl'?y ?! !/ '??
• .qti ,• , a ( r ? ? '?;,,? -y%I /j r+'I?'' i ? , ? li' l\.? pc; - -' ?.?' i, ? r I ??C %,?
>?,y-, ?? J 7? ?? Si ?+?-?d1' !S ??i'I ?.'?' r. ? a? ,a r , ???j >•r1< •,? ?, ? ? ??% ???
r ?, , '?? r ? Jr•l 1.. + ? 1 h ,'?, r?i 5 ' J i j k.?+ \t,t'rl ? i
r ? , ? li i I 1
r lr .v.r '4 t. ?7A t 1 (,( r J' / '?' S I ?+? r I 7 ?j ? ( ( ?t l(nrr/
O 'i, ? !'? ? • '? ? ,. '?, r /)f' 1 " y'?( ?. ? )ifielr t e '?., t l'`?r(• ?•? Sri rJI q ?L1,1•,
?. ,.., ? .? ; ? Y ?I?fr ?` ""s) ? ?i»?r , ,?-rte;. ?? ?-"( i',?? k, ?:
} -rl ?' V' ,i a !•, i' v, /? ` i
1/,' r \ ? -- a ' { ,. .,i ? , r t. ? ' /? 1 t , , J . ? ? ?/' l ?, , .ti / ?• 1. •' ?•. / `? ??'
Z
I 1 fie, ?,J v ?\ / ,?
-AN
- ' tills` ( ? ? ,L' ?.,?? ,.C! 1. ?• 1.? ? 1J ?? , ? / O ? A "? Y
.f .1 y?r ( r!J"? r? ? ,1 (,r.u U i /lj'n M` '''-r -/ ? ? r ??\ ? \ ?.? ?1 ?
I
?,` `• 1.
C'i
8 J
o. 79 25 O. 79 2410.4 79 28' 0. ©22 0. 'o79121 0. .
Na e- PO AM Location; 605883 ft N 1881622 ft. E
Doe. 9/812004
ScOle: 1 Inch equals 4000 feet
SEP-8-2004 WED 13:45 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 9

UT-1 PROFILE AT REACH A
100--
98--

96--
0
m
> 94--
(D
W
9
901-
0
50
100
150
Distance along thalweg (ft)
• CH
WS
BKF
• WS
TO B
200

UT- 1 PROFILE (REACH B)
10^
9

9
O
C?
> 94--
(D
W
92--
go
0
50 100 150 200
Distance along thalweg (ft)
• CH
WS
BKF
• WS E
TO B
250

UT3 & UT-1 REACH C PROFILE
1

O
CCU
N
W
• CH
WS
• BKF
• - WSE
TOB
FF
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
P4
Distance along thalweg (ft)

UT-1 PROFILE UPSTREAM OF
UT-3
100
. CH

98
- WS
O
4-j
C6
_O
W
96
94
92
• BKF
• WS E
TOB
90
0
50
100
150
Distance along thalweg (ft)
200
FF

UT-2 PROFILE
100--
98

96--
0

> 94--
(D
W
92--
90-
0
50
100
Distance along thalweg (ft)
• CH
WS
BKF
• WS E
TOB
FF
P4
150

C/S 1 @ UT-1
Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 10.6 Dbkf = 2.3 Abkf = 23.8
105
10
9
O
(6
_O 9
W
9
9
Horizontal Distance (ft)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

C/S 2 ALONG UT-1
Ground Points • Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 9.7 Dbkf = 2.2 Abkf = 21.1
4 nn

r-
0
4-a
W
Horizontal Distance (ft)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

C/S 3 ALONG UT-1
Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 7.2 Dbkf = 2 Abkf = 14.3
10
y 10
O
A-a
_O
W
9
9
Horizontal Distance (ft)
0 10 20 30 40

r-
O
4-+
C6
N
W
C/S 4 ALONG UT-1
- Ground Points
105
Wbkf =
10
9
9
• Bankfull
Indicators
15.8 Dbkf
v Water Surface
Points
_ .7 Abkf = 11.6
Horizontal Distance (ft)
0 10 20 30 40
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
C/S 5 ALONG UT-1
Ground Points • Bankfull Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 8.1 Dbkf = 1.7 Abkf = 14.1
100
98
96
O
C6
94
W
92
90
Horizontal Distance (ft)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

O
4-+
N
W
C/S 6 ALONG
Ground Points o Bankfull
Indicators
Wbkf = 12.7 Dbkf =
10
9
9
9
9
9
UT-1
v Water Surface
Points
.8 Abkf = 10.8
Horizontal Distance (ft)
0 5 10 15 20 25

C/S 1 ALONG UT-2
Ground • Bankfull Water / Overlay
Points Indicators Surface
Points
Wbkf = 31.9 Dbkf = .3 Abkf = 8.7
103
101
T
O
99
O
W
97
95
Horizontal Distance (ft)
0 20 40 60 80

C/S 2 ALONG UT-2
Ground + Bankfull v Water / Overlay
Points Indicators Surface
Points
Wbkf = 6.4 Dbkf = 1 Abkf = 6.2
104.
100.
L}J
O
4-0
97.
O
W
93.
90.
Horizontal Distance (ft)
0 42

C/S 3 ALONG UT-2
Ground Points • Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 4.2 Dbkf = 1.6 Abkf = 6.9
102--T-
9
1`
Cr_
r-
O
9
N
W
9
9
Horizontal Distance (ft)
0 19

105
104
103
102
101
10C
9c
O 9E
m
> 97
N
W 9E
9r
V
94
91
9le
91
9C
C/S 1 ALONG UT-3
Ground Points ? Bankfull Indicators ? Water Surface Points
Wbkf = 11.3 Dbkf = .7 Abkf = 7.9

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1213 1415161718192021 222324
Horizontal Distance (ft)
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
C/S 2 ALONG UT-3
Ground Points Bankfull Water Surface
Indicators Points

C
O
Ej
Wbkf = 8.5 Dbkf = 1.1 Abkf = 9.2
105
1
103
10
1
100
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
-
2- -
i-

9-
8

7

?

'

?-

-

y

.
; - -
4
3
2-
-
-
--
--
- }
- I
--- I
-

? -
-

? I

-
- -
o - - -- i T -I
7- _ - - -? - ?
1

6
-
5 - L L I
-
-
-
-
-
-

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 1 6 17 1 8 1 9 2 9
9
0 21 22 23 2,
Horizontal Distance (ft)

C/S 3 ALONG UT-3
Ground Points Bankfull Water Surface
Indicators Points
wbkf = 9.2 Dbkf = .8 Abkf = 7.7
105.
101.

r-
O
97.
O
W
93.
90.
0.0
26.6
Horizontal Distance (ft)
RIVERMORPH NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN REPORT
River Name: Stonebridge Project
Reach Name: UT-1 (D/S limit)
--Reference Reach--
Stonebridge Reference Reach; Ref Reach (D/S Brady Rd) ( E 5)
--Boundary Conditions—
Drainage Area:
valley slope:
Bankfull Discharge:
Bankfull cross sectional Area:
Mean Depth calculation Tolerance:
--Sediment Data--
Riffle Bed Material ID:
Riffle Bed Material D84:
Riffle Bed Material D50:
Bar Sample ID:
Bar sample Dmax:
Bar Sample D50:
--Entrainment options--
shields Entrainment Function
1.08 sq mi
0.006 ft/ft
92 cfs
22 sq ft
0.2 ft
UT-1 riffle
0.35 mm
0.09 mm
5 mm
1.5 mm
---------------NCD Results---------------
--Alignment--
Meander wavelength: 52.8 ft
channel Length: 88.18 ft
sinuosity: 1.67
Radius of curvature: 10.71 ft
Bankfull slope: 0.0036
Meander Belt width: 32.1 ft
meander width Ratio: 4.28
Deflection Angle: 1.39 rad
--Riffle cross sectional Properties—
width to Depth Ratio: 2.56
Entrenchment Ratio: 39.06
Floodprone width: 293 ft
Bankfull width: 7.5 ft
Bankfull Mean Depth: 2.93 ft
Bankfull velocity: 4.18 ft/s
Bankfull Hydraulic Radius: 1.65 ft
Bankfull shear stress: 0.37 lbs/sq ft
Required Roughness (n): 0.0298 ftA(1/6)
Entrainable Particle size: 19.7 mm
--Rosgen stream Classification—
Reference Reach : E 5
Proposed Reach
Existing Reach
--sediment Transport Competency--
Ratio - Riffle slope / Bankfull slope:
Ratio - D50bed / D50bar:
Critical Dimensionless shear stress (1):
Required Mean Depth (1):
Ratio - Di bar / D50bed:
Critical Dimensionless shear stress (2):
Required Mean Depth (2):
E 5
E 5
0.2
0.060
0.9697
7.29 ft
55.556
0.0011
0.01 ft
minimum Required Mean Depth: 0.01 ft
RIVERMORPH NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN REPORT

River Name: stonebridge Project
Reach Name: UT-1 (UT-2 confluence)
--Reference Reach--
stonebridge Reference Reach; Ref Reach (U/S Brady Rd) ( E 5)
--Boundary conditions--
Drainage Area:
valley slope:
Bankfull Discharge:
Bankfull cross sectional Area:
Mean Depth Calculation Tolerance:
0.94 sq mi
0.0044 ft/ft
65.6 cfs
16sgft
0.2 ft
--Sediment Data--
Riffle Bed
Riffle Bed
Riffle Bed
Bar sample
Bar sample
Bar sample
material ID:
Material D84:
Material D50:
ID:
Dmax:
D50:
1
1.4 mm
0.21 mm
5 mm
1.5 mm
--Entrainment Options--
shields Entrainment Function
---------------NCD Results---------------
--Alignment--
Meander wavelength:
Channel Length:
sinuosity:
Radius of curvature:
Bankfull slope:
Meander Belt width:
Meander width Ratio:
Deflection Angle:
--Riffle cross sectional Properties—
width to Depth Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Floodprone width:
Bankfull width:
Bankfull Mean Depth:
Bankfull velocity:
Bankfull Hydraulic Radius:
Bankfull shear stress:
Required Roughness (n):
Entrainable Particle Size:
--Rosgen Stream Classification--
Reference Reach :
59.2 ft
88.8 ft
1.5
11.83 ft
0.00294
30.6 ft
3.29
1.27 rad
5.36
6.17
57.4 ft
9.3 ft
1.73 ft
4.1 ft/s
1.26 ft
0.231 lbs/sq ft
0.0229 ftA(1/6)
13 mm
E 5
Proposed Reach
Existing Reach
--sediment Transport Competency--
Ratio - Riffle Slope / Bankfull Slope:
Ratio - D50bed / D50bar:
critical Dimensionless shear Stress (1):
Required Mean Depth (1):
Ratio - Di bar / D50bed:
critical Dimensionless shear Stress (2):
Required Mean Depth (2):
E 5
E 5
0.59
0.140
0.4632
4.26 ft
23.810
0.0023
0.02 ft
minimum Required Mean Depth: 0.02 ft
RIVERMORPH NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN REPORT
River Name: stonebridge Project
Reach Name: UT-1 @ UT-3 confluence
--Reference Reach--
stonebridge Reference Reach; Ref Reach (U/S Brady Rd) ( E 5)
--Boundary Conditions—
Drainage Area:
valley slope:
Bankfull Discharge:
Bankfull cross sectional Area:
Mean Depth Calculation Tolerance:
--sediment Data--
Riffle Bed Material ID:
Riffle Bed Material D84:
Riffle Bed Material D50:
Bar sample ID:
Bar sample Dmax:
Bar Sample D50:
--Entrainment options--
Shields Entrainment Function
0.55 sq mi
0.0044 ft/ft
58 cfs
14 sq ft
0.2 ft
ST2 riffle
1.4 mm
0.21 mm
5 mm
1.5 mm
---------------NCD Results---------------
--Alignment--
Meander wavelength:
Channel Length:
sinuosity:
Radius of curvature:
Bankfull slope:
Meander Belt width:
Meander width Ratio:
Deflection Angle:
--Riffle cross sectional Properties—
width to Depth Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Floodprone width:
Bankfull Width:
Bankfull Mean Depth:
Bankfull velocity:
Bankfull Hydraulic Radius:
Bankfull shear stress:
Required Roughness (n):
Entrainable Particle size:
--Rosgen stream Classification--
55.4 ft
80.3 ft
1.45
11.1 ft
0.00303
27.1 ft
3.11
1.23 rad
5.36
4.94
43 ft
8.7 ft
1.62 ft
4.14 ft/s
1.18 ft
0.223 lbs/sq ft
0.0221 ftA(1/6)
12.6 mm
Reference Reach : E 5
Proposed Reach
Existing Reach
--sediment Transport Competency--
Ratio - Riffle Slope / Bankfull slope:
Ratio - D50bed / D50bar:
Critical Dimensionless shear Stress (1):
Required Mean Depth (1):
Ratio - Di bar / D50bed:
Critical Dimensionless shear Stress (2):
Required Mean Depth (2):
E 5
C 6
0.59
0.140
0.4632
4.14 ft
23.810
0.0023
0.02 ft
minimum Required Mean Depth: 0.02 ft
RIVERMORPH NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN REPORT
River Name: stonebridge Project
Reach Name: UT-2
--Reference Reach--
stonebridge Reference Reach; Ref Reach (U/S Brady Rd) ( E 5)
--Boundary Conditions—
Drainage Area:
valley slope:
Bankfull Discharge:
Bankfull cross sectional Area:
Mean Depth calculation Tolerance:
--sediment Data--
Riffle Bed
Riffle Bed
Riffle Bed
Bar Sample
Bar sample
Bar sample
material ID:
Material D84:
Material D50:
ID:
Dmax:
D50:
--Entrainment Options--
shields Entrainment Function
0.284 sq mi
0.008 ft/ft
57.07 cfs
7.9 sq ft
0.2 ft
ST1 riffle
0.05 mm
0.03 mm
5 mm
1.5 mm
---------------NCD Results---------------
--Alignment--
Meander wavelength:
channel Length:
sinuosity:
Radius of curvature:
Bankfull slope:
Meander Belt width:
Meander width Ratio:
Deflection Angle:
--Riffle cross sectional Properties—
width to Depth Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Floodprone width:
Bankfull width:
Bankfull Mean Depth:
Bankfull velocity:
Bankfull Hydraulic Radius:
Bankfull shear stress:
Required Roughness (n):
Entrainable Particle size:
--Rosgen stream classification--
41.6 ft
62.4 ft
1.5
8.31 ft
0.00533
21.52 ft
3.31
1.27 rad
5.36
6.17
40.1 ft
6.5 ft
1.21 ft
7.22 ft/s
0.88 ft
0.293 lbs/sq ft
0.0138 ftA(1/6)
15.9 mm
Reference Reach : E 5
Proposed Reach
Existing Reach
--Sediment Transport Competency--
Ratio - Riffle Slope / Bankfull slope:
Ratio - D50bed / D50bar:
Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress (1):
Required Mean Depth (1):
Ratio - Di bar / D50bed:
Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress (2):
Required Mean Depth (2):
E 5
E 6
0.59
0.020
2.5274
12.83 ft
166.667
0.0004
0.00 ft
minimum Required Mean Depth: 0 ft
RIVERMORPH NATURAL CHANNEL DESIGN REPORT
River Name: stonebridge Project
Reach Name: UT-3
--Reference Reach--
stonebridge Reference Reach; Ref Reach (U/s Brady Rd) ( E 5)
--Boundary Conditions--
Drainage Area:
valley slope:
Bankfull Discharge:
Bankfull cross sectional Area:
Mean Depth calculation Tolerance:
--sediment Data--
Riffle Bed
Riffle Bed
Riffle Bed
Bar sample
Bar Sample
Bar sample
material ID:
Material D84:
Material D50:
ID:
Dmax:
D50:
--Entrainment Options—
shields Entrainment Function
0.295 sq mi
0.006 ft/ft
68.6 cfs
6.8sgft
0.2 ft
UT-3 riffle
0.05 mm
0.03 mm
0 mm
0 mm
---------------NCD Results---------------
--Alignment--
Meander wavelength:
Channel Length:
Sinuosity:
Radius of curvature:
Bankfull slope:
Meander Belt width:
Meander width Ratio:
Deflection Angle:
--Riffle cross sectional Properties—
width to Depth Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Floodprone width:
Bankfull width:
Bankfull Mean Depth:
Bankfull velocity:
Bankfull Hydraulic Radius:
Bankfull shear stress:
Required Roughness (n):
Entrainable Particle size:
--Rosgen Stream Classification--
38.6 ft
56 ft
1.45
7.7 ft
0.00414
18.9 ft
3.15
.1 rad
5.36
4.94
29.6 ft
6 ft
1.13 ft
0 ft/s
0.82 ft
0.212 lbs/sq ft
0 ftA(1/6)
0 mm
Reference Reach : E 5
Proposed Reach
Existing Reach
--Sediment Transport competency--
Ratio - Riffle Slope / Bankfull Slope:
Ratio - D50bed / D50bar:
critical Dimensionless Shear Stress (1):
Required Mean Depth (1):
Ratio - Di bar / D50bed:
critical Dimensionless Shear Stress (2):
Required Mean Depth (2):
E 5
B 6c
0.56
error
0.000
0.00 ft
0.000
0.000
0.00 ft
minimum Required Mean Depth: 0 ft
PROJECT: EBX -Stonebridge Site B EH I 'S
PREPARED BY : DJK
DATE : 11/6/2004
Location: #1- UT-1 (downstream limits)
PARAMETER VALUE
Bank Height 4.5
Bankfull Height 2.5
Root Depth 4
Root Density 5
Bank Angle 80
Surface Protection 5
Bank Materials Sandy Silt
ftwi<
I<SON
I
Bank Erosion Hazard Parameter *Bank Erosion Potential
Value Index Criteria
Bank HUBF Ht 1.80 6.95 High
Root Depth/Bank Ht 0.89 1.90 very low
Root Density (%) 5 9.00 very hight
Bank Angle 80 5.90 moderate
Surface Protection (%) 5 10.00 extreme
Bank Material Sandy Silt adjust
TOTAL 33.75 High
PROJECT: EBX - Stonebridge Site
PREPARED BY : DJK
DATE : 11/6/2004
Location: #2- UT-1 (upstream of UT-3)
PARAMETER VALUE
Bank Height 2.75
Bankfull Height 1
Root Depth 2.75
Root Density 4
Bank Angle 65
Surface Protection 5
Bank Materials Silty Sand
Bank Erosion Hazard Parameter *Bank Erosion Potential
Value Index Criteria
Bank Ht/BF Ht 2.75 8.90 very high
Root Depth/Bank Ht 1.00 1.00 very low
Root Density (%) 4 9.00 very high
Bank Angle 65 4.40 moderate
Surface Protection (%) 5 10.00 extreme
Bank Material Silty Sand adjust
TOTAL 33.30 High
PROJECT: EBX - Stonebridge Site
PREPARED BY : DJK
DATE : 11/6/2004
Location: #5- UT-1 dust downstream of UT-3)
PARAMETER VALUE
Bank Height 4
Bankfull Height 1.2
Root Depth 3.5
Root Density 6
Bank Angle 80
Surface Protection 4
Bank Materials Silty sand
Bank Erosion Hazard Parameter *Bank Erosion Potential
Value Index Criteria
Bank Ht/BF Ht 3.33 10.00 extreme
Root Depth/Bank Ht 0.88 2.00 low
Root Density (%) 6 8.80 Very high
Bank Angle 80 5.90 moderate
Surface Protection (%) 4 10.00 extreme
Bank Material Silty sand adjust
TOTAL 36.70 High
PROJECT: EBX - Stonebridge Site
PREPARED BY : DJK
DATE : 11/6/2004
Location: UT-3
PARAMETER VALUE
Bank Height 3
Bankfull Height 1
Root Depth 2.5
Root Density 3
Bank Angle 30
Surface Protection 3
Bank Materials Silty Sand
BEHI's ft?WK
DICI<SON
Bank Erosion Hazard Parameter *Bank Erosion Potential
Value Index Criteria
Bank Ht/BF Ht 3.00 10.00 extreme
Root Depth/Bank Ht 0.83 2.30 low
Root Density (%) 3 10.00 extreme
Bank Angle 30 2.40 low
Surface Protection (%) 3 10.00 extreme
Bank Material Silty Sand adjust
TOTAL 34.70 High
PROJECT: EBX - Stonebridge Site
PREPARED BY: DJK
DATE : 11/6/2004
Location: UT-2
PARAMETER VALUE
Bank Height 2.5
Bankfull Height 1
Root Depth 2
Root Density 8
Bank Angle 80
Surface Protection 6
Bank Materials Silty sand
Bank Erosion Hazard Parameter *Bank Erosion Potential
Value Index Criteria
Bank Ht/BF Ht 2.50 8.60 Very high
Root Depth/Bank Ht 0.80 2.40 low
Root Density (%) 8 8.70 Very high
Bank Angle 80 5.90 moderate
Surface Protection (%) 6 10.00 extreme
Bank Material Silty sand adjust
TOTAL 35.60 High
47
APPENDIX B
Stonebridge Site Soil Characterization
Unnamed Tributary Number One (UT-1) Borings 1-7
UT-1 #1
Description:
0-16" Subang ular/Blocky (SUB), Silty Clay, 10YR 5/6; Few, distinct mottles present between 8-
16" of color 2.5YR 4/6
Buried decomposed organic matter (OM) noted at 16"
16-34" Blocky Clay, 7.5YR 5/6
34-44" Blocky Clay, 7.5YR 6/8 with few, faint mottles, 7.5YR 7/2
44-58" Blocky Clay, 7.5YR 6/8 with common, distinct mottles, 7.5YR/7/2
No gravel or bedrock present in the boring. Water present at 56" in the boring.
UT-1# 2
Description:
04" SUB, Silty Clay, 10YR 3/3 with a layer of ash at 34"
4-20" SUB, Silty Clay, 10YR 5/6
20-24" Partially decomposed organic matter with some silty clay intermixed.
24-38" Blocky Clay, 7.5YR 4/6; few, faint mottles 7.5YR 4/6
38-56" SUB, Fine Sandy Clay, 7.5YR 4/6; few, faint mottles 2.5YR 418
No gravel, bedrock, or water present in the boring.
UT-1 # 3
Description:
0-2" Granular Silt Loam, 10YR 5/6
2-16" SUB, Silty Clay, 7.5YR 4/6
16-52" Blocky Clay, 5YR 5/6
52-62" SUB, Fine Sandy Clay, 5YR 516
No gravel or bedrock present in the boring
Water present at 56" in the boring.
UT-1 # 4
Description:
0-2" Granular Silt Loam, 10YR 5/4
2-24" Granular Silt Loam, 10YR 6/6
24-40" SUB, Silty Clay, 5YR4/6
40-56" SUB, Silty Clay, 7.5YR 4/6; Common, faint mottles 48-56", 7.5YR 6/8
56-61" SUB, Silty Clay, 7.5YR 4/6; Common, distinct mottles, 7.5YR 6/8
No gravel, bedrock, or water present in the boring.
UT-1 # 5
Description:
0-2" Granular Silt Loam, 10YR 4/4
2-14" SUB, Silty Clay, 7.5YR 4/6
14-48" SUB, Clay, 5YR 5/6
48-60" SUB, Fine Sandy Clay, 5YR 5/6
No gravel or bedrock present in the boring
UT-1 # 6, LHS, 50' TOB
Description:
0-2" Granular Silt Loam, 10YR 4/4
2-10" SUB, Silty Clay, 7.5YR 4/6
10-40" Blocky Clay, 5YR 5/6
40-56" SUB, Fine Sandy Clay, 5YR 5/6
Water present at 52" in the boring.
APPENDIX B
56-60" SUB, Weathered Parent Material/Sapprolite (WPM), 5YR 3/4;
Common, distinct mottles, 5YR 7/1
No gravel or bedrock present in boring. Water present at 42" in boring.
UT-1 # 7
Description:
0-2" Granular Silt Loam, 10YR 4/4
2-10" SUB, Silty Clay, 7.5YR 4/7
10-28" SUB, Silty Clay, 5YR 4/6
28-40" WPM, 5YR 3/4
Auger refusal at 40". Sandstone bedrock or stones.
No gravel or water present in the boring.
UT-1 # 8
Description:
0-4" Granular Silt Loam, 10YR 4/4
4-6" Granular Silt Loam, 10YR 6/8
Auger refusal at 6". Attempted three additional borings in the area. Each of these borings
presented auger refusal at 4-6". Large sandstone flags and stones on the surface suggest that
sandstone bedrock or large colluvium was encountered at about 6".
No water present in these borings. Some gravel sized fragments present in auger spoil.
An additional boring was taken in the small floodplain in the area of boring # 8.
Encountered 40" of silt alluvium, with 8" of silt alluvium mixed with sandstone flags below that, and
refusal at 48" due to sandstone bedrock. Water was present in this boring at 36".
UT-1 # 9
Description:
0-2" Granular Silt Loam, 10YR 4/4
2-18" Fine Sandy Loam, 5YR 5/6
Auger refusal at 18" due to resistant WPM. Sandstone flags and stones present on the surface.
Auger spoil contained platy, gravel sized parent material.
No water present in the boring.
UT-1 #10
Description:
0-3" Granular Silt Loam, 10YR 4/4
3-16" Granular Silt, 10YR 6/8
16-60" SUB, Silty Clay, 10YR 5/8
No gravel, bedrock, or water present in this boring
UT-1 #11
Description:
0-20" Granular Silt, 10YR 6/8
20-28" SUB, Silt, 10YR 6/8
28-44" SUB, Silty Clay, 10YR 5/6; Common, distinct mottles 7.5YR 5/3; Few 20-30 mm sandstone
gravels.
44-48" SUB, Silty Clay, 5YR 8/1; Common, faint mottles 10YR 7/6
48-58" Platy WPM-Sandstone, 2.5YR 3/4
Auger refusal at 58". No water present in the boring.
UT-1 # 12Description:
0-4" Granular Silt Loam, 10YR 4/4
4-8" SUB, Silty Clay, 10YR 5/8
8-30" SUB, Very Gravelly Clay, 7.5YR 5/6; Common sandstone gravels, 10YR 2/1, 10-40mm
APPENDIX B
30-44" SUB, Clay, 7.5YR 4/4
44-57" SUB, Clay (and WPM), 2.5YR 3/4; Few, distinct mottles 10YR 811
Auger refusal at 57". Sandstone bedrock or stones. No water present in the boring.
UT-1 # 13
Description:
0-3" Granular Silt Loam, 10YR 4/4
3-8" SUB, Gravelly Silty Clay, 7.5YR 5/6; Few sandstone gravels, 10YR 2/1, 5-30 mm
8-24" SUB, Fine Sandy Clay, 735YR 4/4
Auger refusal at 24". Sandstone bedrock or stones. No water present in the boring.
\ UT-1 # 14
Description:
0-2" Granular Silt Loam, 10YR 4/4
2-6" Somewhat Gravelly Silt Loam, 10YR 5/4; Few 10-15 mm gravels
Auger refusal at 6". Sandstone bedrock or stones. No water present in the boring.
Attempted three additional borings in the area of boring # 14.
O Encountered refusal due to sandstone bedrock or stones at each attempt within 6" of the surface.
0
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
e
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
UT-1 # 15
Description:
0-8" Granular Loam, 10YR 2/2; very few 5-10mm gravels
8-48" SUB, Clay, 2.5YR 2.5/4; Few, faint mottles, could not determine color
48-60" SUB, Silty Clay, 7.5YR 5/6; some fine sand; Common, distinct mottles-greenish yellow
(2.5Y 6/8) and black
Lower horizon was more resistant and contained abundant WPM.
The lower portion of this profile was very different from anything seen on the rest of the site.
However, there did not appear to be any evidence of any bedrock other than sandstone in the
boring.
Unnamed Tributary # 2 (UT-2) Borings 1 and 2
UT-2 # 1
Description:
0-1" Granular Silt Loam, 10YR 4/4
1-10" Granular Silt Loam, 10YR 6/8
10-22" SUB, Silty Clay, 10YR 6/8; few distinct manganese concretions
22-34" SUB, Clay, 2.5YR 3/6; Common, faint mottles, 5YR 7/1; Few 10-20 mm gravels in a two in
layer at 28-30".
34-60" SUB, Clay (and WPM), 2.5YR 3/4
No bedrock or water present in the boring.
UT-2 # 2
Description:
0-20" Granular Silt Loam, 7.5YR 3/3; One inch ash layer at 16".
20-34" SUB, Silty Clay, 10YR 5/3; Common, faint mottles, 5YR 4/6
34-60" SUB, Fine Sandy Clay, 10YR 5/1; Common, distinct, 7.5YR 4/6; Oxidized root channels
No gravel or bedrock present in the boring. Water at 36" in the boring.
•
•
APPENDIX B
Unnamed Tributary #3 (UT-3) Borings 9 and 2
UT-3 #1
Description:
0-6" Granular Silt Loam, 10YR 5/4
6-28" SUB, Silty Clay, 7.5YR 5/6
28-30" WPM 2.5YR 4/4
Auger refusal at 30". Sandstone bedrock.
No gravel or water present in the boring.
UT-3#2
Description:
0-2" Granular Silt Loam, 10YR 5/4
2-12" SUB, Silty Clay, 7.5YR 5/6
12-26" SUB, Silty Clay, 2.5YR 4/4; WPM in lower portion of horizon.
Auger refusal at 26". Sandstone bedrock.
No gravel or water present in the boring.
aA
_ ? q _'? I
?? 7 ? 1 . ? ?? j ??
-O?
1G:10 FROM:PERRY OFFICE
NCDENR
ID=2525230050
PAGE 2/3
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
October 21, 2003
Mr. Chris Huysman
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc.
P.O. Box 224
Newton, NC 28658
Subject: Moorc County Stream Restoration Sites; Putnam quadrangle, Moore County
Dear Mr. Huysman:
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, Significant natural communities, or
priority natural areas at the sites nor within a mile of the sites. Although our maps do not show
records of such natural heritage elements in the project area, it does not necessarily mt;art that
they are not present It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The use of Natural
Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if the
project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or priority
natural areas.
You may wish to chock the Natural Heritage Prograrn databaso website at
<www.ncm;Irks.ncUnh2! cg1yh,btm for a listing of rare plants and animals and significant
natural communities in the county and on the topographic quad map. Please do not hesitate to
contact me at 919-715-8697 if you h3vo questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Hurry E. LcGrund, Jr., Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
BEUhcl

1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Pllone; 919-733-4964 \ Fax: [phone] \ Intemet: www.cnr.state.nc.us
A- r'.......1 n..........w?w 1 Affix nriva Ar'fihn Fmnlnver - 50% ReCN'c1Ld\ 1(rl. Prat Cb=n1wr Pap-C-r
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION :ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
Cape Fear River Basin Stream Mitigation
Stone Bridge Site
Moore County, North Carolina
Prepared for the North Carolina Department of Transportation
by EBX-Meuse I, LLC
A. Project Description:
The project will provide compensatory wetland and stream mitigation as required
under Section 401/404 of the federal Clean Water Act for unavoidable wetland impacts in
the Cape Fear River Basin.
B. Purpose and Need:
The mitigation project as proposed includes approximately 6,240 linear feet of
stream restoration. The mitigation credits from this project will be used by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation to fulfill Section 401/401 permitting requirements
for unavoidable wetland impacts in the Cape Fear River Basin (CU 03030003).
C. Proposed Improvements:
As stated previously, 6,240 linear feet of stream are proposed to be restored
through the project. The restoration shall restore the nature and condition of the land to
provide the ecological functions that were in place before the land was historically
manipulated for agricultural purposes.
The following Type H improvements which apply to the project pre circled:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction,
adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking, weaving, turning,
climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement (3R and 4R
improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets,'and drainage pipes, including safety
treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor brid-.:e widening (less than one through lane)
Cate,,orkat Eve-Insion - Cape Fear River Basin Stream Miti,,ation
Stone Brh qe Site
Prepared ky F,it,\-,veuse 1, L L C
Awe 1 of 6
i. Structural I NIP's for water quality improvement
2. Ilighway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the installation
of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realigrunent
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards and
flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade
separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour repair, fender
systems, and minor structural improvements
d. Replacing a bridge (stricture and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of right-of-
way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Acquisition and constnuction.ofmitigatior sites.
9. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such constriction is not
inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a street with adequate
capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.
Cah,oricat Exclusion - Cape Fear River Basin Stream ;t/iti,ation
Stone Hrhd,-e Site
Prepared by ERX-weuse /, LLC
Pa-e2of6
10. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and ancillary
facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required and there is not a
substantial increase in the number of users.
1 1. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger shelters,
boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements) when located in a
commercial area or other high activity center in which there is adequate street
capacity for projected bus traffic.
12. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used predominantly
for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is not inconsistent
with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise impact on the
surrounding community.
13. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land acquisition
loans under section 3(b) of the UNIT Act. Hardship and protective buying will be
pennitted only for a particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These types of
land acquisition qualify for a CE only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned construction
projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No project development on
such land may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Constriction S N/A
Right of Way S N/A
Total S 1,248,000
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II actions
Acquisition & Construction of IVlitifmtion Sites YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or
important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur? 1
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
IN
Cule,orical Exclusion - Cape Fear Ricer Basin Stream ,11ili-atiun
Slone Brid; e Site
Prepared by E&\-Meuse 1, L L C
Palle 3of6
(1) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (1/10) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been
evaluated?
PERMITS AND COORDIN:yriON
(10) If the project is located within a CANIA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources'?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes?
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business?
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any minority
or low-income population?
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? N/A
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or land
use of adjacent property?
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
x
YES NO
x
x
1
Y
1
YES NO
Y
X
x
Y
1
Cate,,oricat E.vclusion - Cape Fear River Basin Stream .tliti,,ation
Slone Bri(l,e Site
Prepared by EISX-wense /, L L C
Pa-, e -1 of 6
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? N
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean :fir Act of 1990)?
N
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? N
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? N/A
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge be
replaced at its existing location (along the
existing facility) and will all constriction proposed in
association with the bridge replacement project be contained on
the existing facility? N/A
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? N
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws
relating to the environmental aspects of the project'? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places?
X
(29) . Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which are
important to history or prc-history?
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966)? Y
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreations uses, as
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation
Act of 1965, as amended? 1
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a component of or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and
Scenic Rivers? X
Cah;,orical Exclusion - Cape Fear River Basin Stream Mili,ation
Stone Brh ,e Site
Prepared by EB,\-;verrse /, L L C
Pam 5 of 6
F. Additional Documentation Re uired for Unlavorable Responses in Part F
(Discussion regardin`, all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided below.
Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
Project has no tmfavoi-able responses in Putt E. Please see attached inOrmation
supporting javorahle responses, includit?g an envir-onntetttctl.screening report,
correspondence from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, and the State
Historic Preservation Office.
G. CC Approval
Project Description: Compensatory § 404/401 Mitigation
Categorical Exclusion Action Class ifncatioan:
TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
Date 'Contract Representative, NC DOT
Date i
_K_ ?_ A ? =--j E i - -
z
Date
-ri-4`-1
Cate,,oricat Lvditsion - Cape Four /river Basin Stream ,ltiti,ution
Stone Hrid,e Site
Prepared hY EBX-Meuse t, L L C
Pa,,e 6 of'6
n
eNj

Wetland and Natural Resource K!?.;?r;r.•:
• Consultants, Inc.
-
7 200.3
ctooer ,
U

NC Natural Heritage Program
NC Division of Parks and Recreation
• Attn: Mr. Stephen Hall
1615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1615

Re: Request for Federally Threatened & Endangered Species Review and Comment
Moore County Stream Restoration Sites

Dear Mr. Hall:

The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that
might emerge with respect to federally threatened and endangered species from
wetland and/or stream restoration projects conducted on the attached sites (USGS site
• maps with approximate property lines enclosed).
The Moore County Stream Restoration Site has been identified for the purpose of
providing in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel impacts. Three separate
• sections of charnel have been identified as significantly degraded and denaturalized.
These stream restoration sites were selected based on their high probability to restore
high quality stream habitat where it has ceased to exist.

• The stream channels slated for restoration are all currently straightened ditches through
agricultural fields. These sites have been actively farmed since the 1960's on a rotation
of various row crops. These straightened channels have been maintained to function as
agricultural field drainage features, with routine maintenance consisting of dredging,
• mowing, and the application of defoliants.
• Conceptual mitigation plans call for the restoration of these channels to their historical
state. This process will involve the restoration of natural channel pattern and profile
• and the reestablishment of forested riparian buffers. No mass grading is proposed; we
propose only minimal grading and as such do not anticipate any conflict with any
protected species.
• All mitigation sites will be protected through a conservation easement. These
easements will not encompass any structures. The easements on the preservation sites
will maintain the current ecological state of the site. Please forward any conceptual
protection mechanisms or verbiage germane to your expertise that you would like for us
• to consider as an amendment to the easement.
Newton Office
PO Box 224
. Newton, NC 28658
828 -465 w 3035
828-465-•3050 Fax
vrrrw.wnrinc.ccm
Clyde Office
217 Paragon Parkway, # 142
Clyde, NC, 28721
828627 0051
828.627 -, 0052 Fax
wvrrv.wnrinc.com
0

We believe that it is appropriate to reach a "No Effect" determination for each of the
federally threatened and endangered species listed as no adverse impact will occur from
the proposed restoration efforts. These determinations are supported by the following
• facts specific to each listed species within Moore County and in the vicinity of the
proposed mitigation site:

Red Cockaded Woodpecker: (Endangered--Current Occurrence)
• No potential foraging or nesting habitat will be lost through the
restoration of stream channels on agricultural lands. No forest suitable
for this species lies within portions of theses properties that will be
protected through conservation easements.
Cape Fear Shiner: (Endangered--Current Occurrence)
No aquatic habitat will be lost through the channel restoration of these
channels. The preferred habitat of water willow beds were not observed
• during our site visit.
Michaux's Sumac: (Endangered--Current Occurrence)
No specimens were observed during our review of the site. Intensive
• agronomic applications of pesticides and defoliants have resulted in a
community type that is tolerant to these chemicals. The preferred
habitat of roadsides, old fields, and woodland openings is not currently in
r existence within the agricultural fields slated for restoration
American chaffseed: (Endangered--Current Occurrence)
No specimens were observed during our review of the site. Intensive
agronomic applications of pesticides and defoliants have resulted in a
• community type that is tolerant to these chemicals. The preferred
condition of frequent fire has not been a part of the cycle within the
agricultural fields slated for restoration.

We wish to obtain your concurrence that no impact assessment or additional studies are
needed. Your correspondence will be forwarded to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation for consideration as part of our due diligence for each mitigation site.
• Our due diligence for the project will consist of a site map, the above list of the species
and its preferred habitat, and the conclusion that there will be no effect on federally
protected species.

• We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to
contact us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site
disturbance associated with these projects.

C5i, c re ly,
ris uYsman
e
•
•
•
•
•
e
•
•
•
•
•
s
•
•
•
s
•
s
•
•
•
•
•
s
•
•
•
•
s
•
•
•
•
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
October 21, 2003
iVlr. Chris Huysman
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc.
P.O. Box 224
Newton, NC 2868
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Subject: Moore County Stream Restoration Sites; Putnam quadrangle, Moore County
Dear Mr. Huysman:
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or
priority natural areas at the sites nor within a mile of the sites. Although our maps do not show
records of such natural heritage elements in the project area, it does not necessarily mean that
they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The use of Natural
I-leritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if the
project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or priority
natural areas.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at
<www.ncsparks.net/n}hp/se:rrch.hhnl> for a listing of rare plants and animals and significant
natural communities in the county and on the topographic quad map. Please do not hesitate to
contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely,

Harry E. LeGrand, Jr., Zoologist
Natural Heritage Program
HEL/hel
1601 flail Service Center. Raleigh. North Carolina 2-7699-1601
Phone:')19 3--11)S-1 F:ix: 1)19 15-300) Internet:
An H)", ili)q t ,lll?llll:i? P j'c'

I
?

Wetland and Natural Resource t*'.-lit •:=•
Consultants, Inc. :V:'

c ooer , zUUJ
State Historic Preservation Office
North Carolina Division of Archives and History
Attn: Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Re: Request for Historic Preservation Office Review and Comment
Moore County Stream Restoration Sites
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley:
° The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that
might emerge with respect to architectural or archaeological resources from wetland
and/or stream restoration projects conducted on the attached sites (USGS site maps
• with approximate property lines enclosed).
The Moore County Stream Restoration Site has been identified for the purpose of
providing in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel impacts. Three separate
S sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded and denaturalized.
These stream restoration sites were selected based on their high probability to restore
high quality stream habitat where it has ceased to exist.
•
No architectural structures or artifacts have been observed or noted during preliminary
surveys of the sites for mitigation purposes. We have enclosed copies of USGS topo
maps that include the proposed stream mitigation project sites. We ask that you review
these sites based on the USGS topo maps in your office to determine the presence of
S any architectural or archaeological resources.
Conceptual mitigation plans call for the restoration of these channels to their historical
state. This process will involve the restoration of natural channel pattern and profile
• and the reestablishment of forested riparian buffers. No mass grading is proposed; we
propose only minimal grading and as such do not anticipate any conflict with your
guiding legislation.
All mitigation sites will be protected through a conservation easement. These
easements will not encompass any structures. The easements on the preservation sites
Newton Office
PO Box 224
Newton, NC 28658
828-465 -3035
828-465-•3050 Fax
vrrrw.wnrinc.com
Clyde Office
217 Paragon Parkway, # 142
Clyde, NC, 28721
828-627-•0051
828-X627-C052 Fcx
w.-Avmnrinc,com
will maintain the state cf the site. If there is any conceptual protection mechanisms
germane to your expertise that you would like amended to the easement please forward
them when you reply to this request.
We believe that no impacts will occur from restoration efforts, however, no surveys by
archaeologist have been conducted, and we wish to obtain your concurrence that no
impact assessment or additional studies are needed. Your correspondence will be
forwarded to the North Carolina Department of Transportation for consideration.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to
contact us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent or site
disturbance associated with these projects.
Sincerely,
Chris Huysm n
1L'(;,
r?, ono ??`
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Dlichael F. Easley, Governor Division of Historical Resources
Li9beth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
November 24, 2003
Cluis IIuysman
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc.
Newton Office
PO Box 224
Newton, NC 28658
Re: Reviews of County Stream Restoration Sites and One Review for Tar-Pam Wetland
Midgation and Stream Restoration Sites, Multi-County, ER03-3022 through
ER03-3026
Dear Mr. I-Iuysman:
Thank you for your letters of October 7, 2003, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic
resources which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the
undertaking as proposed.
The above continents are trade pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council oil Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
`I1ank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
? t?c'._r 1-- 11bC _ l?C U?' ' %' t`l sal' 1?s}
i1?Savid Brook
?j
N?-Nvw.hpo.Ilcr.stnte.nc.us
Location %failing.Wdrm Telephone/rah
ADM INISTR:A CIOV 507 N. 131ounl SL, Rakt??h N4617 Mad Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4017 (91 9) 733-47,63 • 733.81x53
11EsI OR,ATlo.' 515 N Mount St, Raleigh tiC 4x7,17 S1ui1 Service Ccntcr. Raleigh 7,:C'-7699-1617 (91 9) 733-65.17 • 71 5-4801
St ltVEN, & I'LANINING 515 N. Mount St , Ralciuh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh `:C'-7699-1617 (()1 91733-t)5.45 • 715-1,7,01
s a
Transaction Screen Assessment
Stotlebridge Project Area
Moore Coiitity, North Carolitia
15 December 2003
Prepared for:
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
10055 Red Run Boulevard, Suite 130
Owings Mills, Maryland 21 1 1 7-18600
Prepared by:
Environmental Resources management, Inc.
200 Harry S Truman Parkway, Suite •100
Annapolis, Maryland 21101
and
Environmental Resources Management-Southeast, Inc.
7300 Carmel ExCClltiv'e Park, Suite 2U0
Charlotte, North Carolina 28220
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 2
3.0 CONCLUSION
2
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A COMPLETED TRANSACTION SCREEN QUESTIONNAIRE
STONEBRIDGE PROJECT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On 28 October 2003, Environmental Resources h,lanagement (ERNl)
performed an environmental transaction screen assessment at the 20-acre
Stonebridge property located in Moore County, North Carolina. The
transaction screen assessment was performed in accordance with the
Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Transaction Screen
Process as defined by ASTivi E 1528-00, and the scope of work outlined in
ERM's proposal to Environmental Banc & Exchange LLC, dated 21 October
2003.
Ms. Dena Castonguay of ERM's Charlotte, North Carolina office
conducted the site reconnaissance. During the site reconnaissance, ERM
completed a transaction screen checklist in conformance with the scope
and procedures of ASTM E 1528-00, which is attached as Appendix A. In
addition, ERM supplied Mr. Burton Rudolph with ail environmental
questionnaire to be completed by the property owner(s). ERM reviewed
the completed questionnaire following the assessment.
The site comprises approximately 20 acres of mixed wooded/agricultural
land situated along a tributary stream. The stream flows northwest into
Crawley Creek, which runs along the northeastern boundary of the subject
property. Access to the subject property is via Glendon-Carthage Road, to
the east. ERM observed clear, flowing water in the tributary stream at the
time of the site visit. No structures or debris were observed on the subject
property.
According to Mr. Rudolph, the subject property is currently owned by Mr.
Floyd Strader. Mr. Strader purchased the subject property in 1984 and has
used the property as a cattle pasture since that time. Prior to 1984, the
property was a pine tree plantation.
According to Mr. Rudolph, no private drinking water wells or
underground septic systems are present on the subject property. In
addition, Mr. Rudolph is not aware of airy underground storage tanks
(USTs) located on the subject property. No indication of water wells,
septic systems or UST's were observed during ERNI's site reconnaissance.
The site currently utilizes fertilizer to establish and maintain pasture
grass; however, no other chemicals such as herbicides or pesticides are
utilized on the subject property.
ERM performed a visual survey of adjacent properties during the site
visit. Adjacent properties to the south, west, and east appear to be
undeveloped, wooded areas. Adjacent property to the north appears to be
cleared for agricultural use.

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Key findings from the transaction screening assessment are presented
below:
• No bulk quantities of hazardous chemicals were observed during the
site visit. According to Mr. Rudolph, the site currently utilizes
fertilizer to establish and maintain pasture grass; however, no other
chemicals such as herbicides or pesticides are utilized on the subject
property.
• ERNI did not observe any aboveground storage tanks during the site
visit; nor any evidence of underground storage tanks, such as fill
holes and vent pipes Nvere observed at the site. Mr. Rudolph is not
aware of any underground storage tanks located on the subject
property.
• ERNI did not observe any debris or evidence of solid waste dumping
on the subject property.
• According to Mr. Rudolph, no private drinking water wells or
underground septic systems are present on the subject property.
• ERM did not observe any transformers or other oil-filled equipment
on the subject property; therefore, PCBs do not represent an
environmental concern to the subject property.
• No areas of stained soils or stressed vegetation were observed during
the site visit.
• Based on ERNI's review of the adjacent properties, no obvious
environmental concerns were identified.
3.0 CONCLUSION
Based on the reconnaissance, interviews, and review of relevant files, no
recognized environmental conditions, as that term applies to ASfM E
1528-00, were identified at the subject property.
110.1 2 -
Transaction Screen Assessment
Facility Name: 21w Mr-ore &j-., Date of Site Visit: /o%..r/O 3
Location: /1gn?r . o?+.rlo PVC klor-E6, o/' tlld"_(Ilafe On
Interviewiee Namerritle: 1A How Long? /J 1A
y
Time at this location: NO Previous Locations? IVIA
Facility Operations: _M-><crlvtt 418.
Number of Employees: ?/V/? Shifts: PIA
Building Specifications: -/70 dY.1( z(sP.! Lot Size: ?0 aCrCS
Water Service: N/A Sewer: 111,4
Electric: Nat. Gas: NI,4
Permits:
Site History: 1)/ ?,e
Adjacent Properties: GGh ?r6i7P6/ Agr;iu /,It, 6"=
Were any of the following observed? Provide comments as necessary
Hazardous Chemicals/Petroleum: / LI
Waste Oil: Na
Pesticides: Go-sib/y, 6(Na-
'1? RfriCa/fk?,t-C KJL
Drums/Bulk Storage Containers: /Vo
Aboveground Storage Tanks: /Vo
Underground Storage Tanks: go
Solid Waste: NO
Hazardous Waste: Ai"
Parts Washing Stations: Af?
Vehicle Maintenance: JV,
Oil-filled Equipment/PCBs:
Sources of Air Emissions: NO
Coating/Painting Operations: / 11
Boilers: No
Asbestos: A/0
CFCs: A/,,
Wastewater: /yo
Floor Drains: /?f o
Stormwater: Yo
Ponds or Lagoons: O
Wetlands:
Water/Monitoring Wells: AL -
Septic Systems: A12
Spills/Leaks: /Vo
Stressed Vegetation: /yo
Notice of Violations:
Previous Environmental Reports:
Soil/Groundwater Contamination: f 10
Burned or Buried Debris: Nt?
Fill MateriaL• ?tf„
'' `?.' ?°
?_? ?
•
DAM SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT
NAME COUNTY NO. J INSPECTEDBY DATE
Strader Farm PondiFl Moore #1 DJK
OWNER ADDRESS PHONE
TYPE DAM Concrete Gra•vty Comet. And Other TYPE INSPECTION Periodic SITE CONDITIONS Wet
?lmbankment ? Concrete Buttress ? Slone Masonry ? Initial ? Foacw-up 121 Other 9 Dry ? Snow Cover ? Other
HAZARD DESCRIPTION HAZARD CLASS mlemediale(e>
Me dium f../] Low (A) Hiph (C)
REMARKS ACTION RECOMMENDATIONS
? None ? Insp-bon letter ? Inspection by DCE
? tAaintenanc e ? Deficiency letter ? Dam safety.der
? Ltonilom9 ? RE nonce ? Enforcement
? btnorrepar ? Engineering Study ? Periodic renspecfion
? Engineering ? Inspection by RE ? Olherrdnspeob-
AREA PROBLEMS COMMENTS
1. Nona 11. Displaced rip rap COVER: vrgelabm Rip ra p Concrete Asphalt Ohes
? 2. Trees ? ,z crack . Dirt with no vegetative cover
n. ? 3. Hgh bushes ? 13. UMenniring
OJ ? 4. 6-1 ? 11. Holes
r
?
5. Wave erosbn
? 15. Sealing
O 6. Liveslodn damage ? 16. Displaced joints
F ? 7. Glides ? 17. Deterioated jonts
N
(L
7
?
H. Depressions
? 18. Exposed reinforcement
? 9. Bilges 19. Other
? 10. Sparc. np rap
1. None 11. Cracks COVER: Vegelabon Gravd Concrete Asphalt Other
? 2. Trees ? 1z LpaAng Dirt with no veg. cover; rut damage where local drainage has collected
? 3. Hph Gushes ? 13. Detenoraled joints
Q ? 4. 13-1 ? 14. Displaced junk
O
U. ?
5. Ruts
? 15. E.posedreinforcemmt
O O Livestock damage
6 a 16
C"
a
o
? .
7. Depressions .
? 8. Urievel
? 9. "-ignmenl
? 10. Has overlct ped
1. None 11. Seepage COVER: vegetabon Rip rap Concrrte Other
W F]
2. Trees
E] 12. Boas
Dirt with no vegetative cover
a
0
1:1
3. High bushes

13. Cradu
1
1
N ? 4. Burrows -
? 14. Holes
L
Q
?
5. Eroson
? 15. Spallinp
F 6. Livestodk damage ? 16. Displaced joints
? 7. Sides ? 17. Delenoated joints
z
O ? 6. Depressions ? 18. Exposed renforcernent
? 9. Bulges 19. Olney
10. Vlebxss
1. None 11. Seepage COVER: wgetab- Rlprap Concrete Other
? 2. Trees ? 12. Bas Dirt with no vegetative cover
t- ? 3. High bashes ? u. Crags
U ? 4. Burrows ? 14. Holes
H
?
S. Erosion
?
15. Spalpng
O
U
6. tiveslodr damage
?
16. Dispdacedjdnls
W
O ? 7. Liles ? 17. Delmoatrd joints
? B. Depressions ? 18. Exposed renlucement
? 9. Bulges ? 19. Und-'anj
? 1 0. We Ness 20. 01.er
•
•
•
•
•
•
NAME COUNTY NO. INSPECTEDBY DATE
Strader Farm Pond11 Moore J
#1 DJK 1/13/2004
AREA PROBLEMS
- COMMENTS
- 11 £ecp age
TT- COVER: vegetation RI
pray Concrete P•;hall CMsr
? 2 trees ? 12. Bogs NA
I-
Q
? 3 High bushes ? 11 Cracks
~
Z ? 4. Brurows ? 14. Holes
(, ? 5. Frown ? 15. Sp all,ng
z ? 6. li,est.ck damage ? 16. D,;placedjants
W
? Z EMdes ? 17. Deterioated jcinls
F
? B. Deyre -s ? 18. E.'-d-fercemenl
C3
Q Bld
Und
i
i
s ? 19
? 9
ge
.
.
erm
n
ng
10. Wetness 20. OUxr
? 1. None 11. Jam Displacement SIZE /TYPE:
} ? 2. Notra h guard ? 12. Undermwng There is no true principal spillway; baseflow goes thru 6" diameter PVC
a
?
? 3. Obstructed ? 13. Voids
J
J
? 4. Plugged ? 14 Erosion
a
N
? 5. Rusted ? 15. H.1-
Q 6
? . Damaged ? 16. Conduit collapsed
?
U ? 7. Gates leaking ? 17. !:p aabng
? 8. Jcmts leaking ? 1 B. OuUel undercumng
a
? 9. Cracks ? 19. M,sal,gran er,l
10. Joint dete-rabon 20. Other
,. None 11. Jant Displacement SIZE / TYPE:
} ? 2. N. Es E] 12. Undermining Emergency spillway is a 16 feet wide dirt "low" area over the dam that will
J ? 3. Sameaz PS ? 11 v.iJ: act as an emergency spillway.
=,
a ? 4. Obstructed ? 14. Holes
N ? 5. Erosion ? 15. Espcsed renforcement
}
U
? 6. Displaced rip rap ? 16. Spatting
W
(? 7 Eparce np rap 17
Outlet erosion
? ?
W .
? 8. Jonts teal,,,, ? 18. rh-fignment
W ? 9 Cracks ? 19. Inadequate
10. J-tdOerwrabon 20. CU-
In TYPE:
~
w
J ? ,
N".
D E] 2. No bottom drain
O ? 3 Bottom drain imcp-tile
W
W ? 4. Subsurface dram dry
2
? 5. Subsurface drain muddy now
O ? 6. Sub ,,,dace drain obstructed
7. No animal guard
? B
Over
.
SKETCHES / COMMENTS:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
EMBANKMENT DAM SKETCHES AND MEASUREMENTS
fAMAE cOUr11Y r:O. itJ,;FLCILDbY DAIE
Strader Farm Pori (VIi Moore I1 l
DJK 1113 00004
El.lbArJKI.IL-rJ F CROSS-SEC 11011
"ICY GY ur?l1?

Et,IERGENCY SPILLWAY CROSSSEC11ON

->c1 cY r
e7?tu^I,?1e? 5?cu.wA?l

PLAN VIEW OF DAN AND SPILLWAYS

?' ? i ? ? ?J ? ? i
( ? _a
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Project: EBX Stonebridge Site
Prepared by: DJK Summary of Hydrologic Evaluation
Date: 1/12/04
Stonebridge Site
Location
Methodology UT-1 Reach A UT-1 Reach B UT-1 Reach C UT-2 UT-3
Drainage Area (Sq. Miles) 1.075 0.941 0.552 0.284 0.295
Drainage Area (Acres) 688.0 602.0 353.0 181.8 188.8
Existing Conditions WKD Surveyed Bankfull Indicator Flow 44.51 139.81 63.24 36.58 33.96
Existing Conditions Regional Curves 94 73 58 36 37
Existin Conditions USACE HEC-1 - 1-year Q 160 134 97 37 51
Existing Conditions USACE HEC-1 - 2-year Q 271 225 168 57 89
Existing Conditions USACE Reg. Regression Equation- 2-year Q 142 129 89 32 57
Existing Conditions Rational Method Equation - 2-year Q 179 157 92 45 49
Brady Road Reference Reach
Loca tion
Methodology Downstream Upstream
Drainage Area (S q. Miles) 0.478 0.766
Drainage Area (Acres) 305.9 490.2
Existing Conditions WKD Surveyed Bankfull Indicator Flow 78.4 65.6
Stonebridge Site
Location
Methodology UT-1 Reach A UT-1 Reach B UT-1 Reach C UT-2 UT-3
Drainage Area (Sq. Miles) 1.075 0.941 0.552 0.284 0.295
Drainage Area (Acres) 688.0 602.0 353.0 181.8 188.8
Proposed Conditions WKD Surveyed Bankfull Indicator Flow 78.8 NA 64.8 30.6 30.3
Note: WKD Bankfull flow was determined using survey bankfull indicators
Rational method not applicable for UT-1 reaches (DA larger than 200 acres) - shown for informational purposes only
All flows given are in cubic feet per second (cfs)
WKD Bankfull for proposed conditions was determined at design riffles with Manning's equation
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Project: EBX Stonebridge Site
Prepared by: DJK
Date: 1/12/04 Summary of Hydrologic Evaluation
Discharge Per Acre For Proposed Conditions and Reference Reach
Methodology UT-1 Reach A UT-1 Reach B UT-1 Reach C UT-2 UT-3
Existing Conditions Stonebrid e Site 0.065 0.232 0.179 0.201 0.180
Proposed Conditions Stonebrid e Site 0.115 NA 0.184 0.168 0.161
HEC-1 - 1 year Q 0.233 0.223 0.275 0.204 0.270
Regional Curves 0.136 0.122 0.164 0.198 0.196
Reference Reach Upstream of Brady Rd 0.256
Reference Reach Downstream of Brady Rd 0.134
Summary of Hydrologic Evaluation
Project: EBX Stonebridge Site
Conditions: Existing
Prepared by: DJK
Date: 1/05/04
Location: At Mouth of UT-1 (Crawley Creek)
Drainage Area = 688 Acres
Drainage Area = 1.08 Sq. Miles
Impervious Area (%) = 1

Drainage at mouth adjusted to account for existing dam that has 1 cfs leaving in a bankfull event
Drainage area (unadjusted at mouth of UT-1 is 688 acres)
Bankfull flow determined using the November 2003 NC Piedmont-Rural Regional Curve = 94 cfs
Rational equation not applicable for 588 acres watershed
Location: At Mouth of UT-2
Drainage Area = 81.1 Acres
Drainage Area = 0.13 Sq. Miles
Impervious Area (%) = 1

Bankfull flow determined using the November 2003 NC Piedmont-Rural Regional Curve = 36 cfs
Location: At Mouth of UT-3
Drainage Area = 189 Acres
Drainage Area = 0.30 Sq. Miles
Impervious Area (%) = 1

Bankfull flow determined using the November 2003 NC Piedmont-Rural Regional Curve = 37 cfs
Recurrence Interval
(Years) USGS Q
(cfs) HEC-1 Q
cfs Rational Q
(cfs)
1 NA 160 NA
2 142 271 179
Recurrence Interval
(Years) USGS Q
(cfs) HEC-1 Q
(cfs) Rational Q
(cfs)
1 NA 37 NA
2 32 57 45
Recurrence Interval
(Years) USGS Q
(cfs) HEC-1 Q
(cfs) Rational Q
(cfs)
1 NA 51 NA
2 57 89 49
o:`,projects\ebx\30246.00. RA\g_design-calculations\excel\flow-comparison.xls
Regional USGS Regression Equation for NC
Project: EBX Stonebridge Site
Conditions: Existing
Prepared by: DJK
Date: 1/05/04
Location: At Mouth of UT-1 (Crawley Creek)
Drainage Area = 688 Acres
Drainage Area = 1.08 Sq. Miles
Impervious Area (%) = 1

Location: UT-2 (at Mouth)
Drainage Area = 81.1
Drainage Area = 0.13
Impervious Area (%) = 1.0
Acres
Sq. Miles

100- 745(DA)^0.625 0.13 205

Recurrence Interval
(Years) Blue Ridge-Piedmont
Equation (rural) Drainage Area
(in square miles) Rural Discharge
(cfs)
2 135(DA)^0.702 1.08 142
5 242(DA)^0.677 1.08 254
10 334(DA)A0.662 1.08 350
25 476(DA)^0.645 1.08 499
50 602(DA)^0.635 1.08 630
100 745(DA)^0.625 1.08 779
Recurrence Interval
(Years) Blue Ridge-Piedmont
Equation (rural) Drainage Area
(in square miles) Rural Discharge
(cfs)
2 135(DA)^0.702 0.13 32
5 242(DA)^0.677 0.13 60
10 334(DA)^0.662 0.13 85
25 476(DA ^0.645 0.13 126
50 602(DA)^0.635 0.13 162

o:\projects\ebx\30246.00. F2A\g_design-calculations\excel\flow-comparison. xls
Regional USGS Regression Equation for NC
Project: EBX Stonebridge Site
Conditions: Existing
Prepared by: DJK
Date: 1/05/04
Location: At Mouth of UT-3
Drainage Area = 189 Acres
Drainage Area = 0.30 Sq. Miles
Impervious Area (%) = 1

Recurrence Interval
(Years) Blue Ridge-Piedmont
Equation (rural) Drainage Area
(in square miles) Rural Discharge
(cfs)
2 135(DA ^0.702 0.30 57
5 242 DA)^0.677 0.30 106
10 334(DA)110.662 0.30 149
25 476(DA)^0.645 0.30 217
50 602(DA)^0.635 0.30 277
100 745(DA)^0.625 0.30 348
o:\projects\ebx\30246.00. RA\g_design-calculations\excel\flow-comparison.xls
Rational Method for Raleigh, NC
Project: EBX Stonebridge Site
Conditions: Existing
Prepared by: DJK
Date: 1/05/04
Location: At Mouth of UT-1 - Reach A (Crawley Creek)
Drainage Area = 688 Acres
Drainage Area = 1.08 Sq. Miles
Impervious Area (%) = 1

Location:
Drainage Area =
Drainage Area =
Impervious Area (%) = UT-2 (at Mouth)
182
0.28
1.0
Acres
Sq. Miles

Recurrence Interval
(Years) C-Factor Intensity
(in/hr) Discharge
(cfs)
2 0.13 2.00 179
5 0.13 2.90 259
10 0.13 3.30 295

Recurrence Interval
(Years) C-Factor Intensity
(in/hr) Discharge
(cfs)
2 0.13 1.90 45
5 0.13 2.80 66
10 0.13 3.20 76

o:\projects\ebx\30246.OO.RA\g_design-calculations\excel\flow-comparison.x Is
Rational Method for Raleigh, NC
Project: EBX Stonebridge Site
Conditions: Existing
Prepared by: DJK
Date: 1/05/04
Location: At Mouth of UT-3
Drainage Area = 189 Acres
Drainage Area = 0.30 Sq. Miles
Impervious Area (%) = 1

Recurrence Interval
(Years) C-Factor Intensity
(in/hr) Discharge
(cfs)
2 0.13 2.00 49
5 0.13 2.90 71
10 0.13 3.30 81

o:\projects\ebx\30246.00. RA\g_design-ca lculations\excellflow-comparison.xls
? ? ? ??
a ki

BRADY SITE LONGITUDINAL PROFILE
105
10
C
0
Cu
a)
w
9
9
• CH
WS
BKF
• WSE
TOB
+ FF
Distance along thalweg (ft)
0 50 100 150 200 250
••••••••••••••••••••••••
T
O
W
W
BRADY SITE XS 1-1 (RIFFLE)
Ground Points Bankfull Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 8.1 Dbkf = 1.5 Abkf = 12.2
105.
104.
104.
103.
103.
102.
102.
101.
101.
100.
100.
99.
99.
98.
98.
97.
97.
96.
96.
95.
95.
94.
94.
93.
93.
92.
92.
91.
91,
90.
90

-- -- --

Y
----
- -

1 7 1 C

I I
--

i

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Brady Site XS 1-2 (Pool)
Ground Points Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 6.7 Dbkf = 2 Abkf = 13.5
11
10
10
10
10
10
9
O 9
> 9
M 9.
W
9
8
8
8
8
8
Horizontal Distance (ft)
0 10 20 30 40
?,
.?
., '...
?? ?-? ? `.
•
•
•
PROPOSED FARM
CROSSING
PROPOSED FARM
CROSSING

PROJECT MANACER
WE ORAWINC RASE
NTS

ENVIRONMENTAL BANC & EXCHANGE LLC

•

3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
GRAwN BY
RHN PROJECT DATE
04/04 )
STONEBRIDGE STEAM MITIGATION PROJECT , A !K RALEIGH, NC '82X7612
Vy - 049 5
avPR0YC0 Br PROJECT NUULER
Offi
ti
L
DICKSON
;Rw 30246 00 RA =x ons:
ce
oca
FILE NaE PLOT CITE ATE SHEET INDEX - COmmunilY infrastructure COnSUIfOnlS North Carolina Go
acs?q?Jayoul d• 0E/13/05 South Carolina FlondOrido
CHANNEL PLUG
PLAN VIEW
FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE OLD CHANNEL TO BE DIVERTED--\,:p
SHALL BE PLACED BY OVERLAPPING
WITH THE FLOW OF WATER
O? - I
NEW CHANNEL TO BE CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL BLOCK
CHANNEL PLUG
PROFILE VIEW
UNCOMPACTED BACKFILL
1.5' MINIMUM COMPACTED BACKFILL
FINISH GRADE ROOT WAD
NEW STREAMBANK SHALL
BE TREATED AS SPECIFIED
IN PLANS
• FLOW ? ?'? .
`?? ?_ CHANNEL INVERT
COMPACTED BACKFILL `SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE
(MIN 1.0' THICK)
40
40
40
•
•
•
•
CHANNEL PLUG- DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT MMIACER
ME DRAWING SCALE
NTS 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
\ /?/ RALEIGH
NC 27612
DRAWN BY
J` PROJECT 4 CATE
''2°°' ,
W (919) 782-049$

nPPROVEO BY
SNw
PROJECT NOMDER
.502460oRA DICKSON Office Locations:
FIFE NAME
DETAILS PLOT DAT
4/2004 E community infrastructure consultants North Carolina Georgia
South Carolina Florida

CUTTINGS BUNDLE
-5' O.C. ALONG OUTSIDE
OF MEANDER BEND
BANKFULL _
ELEVATION
STREAM BANK
CUTTINGS BUNDLE TYPICAL PROFILE
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE: ACCEPTABLE SPECIES INCLUDE
BLACK WILLOW (SALIX NIGRA) AND SILKY
DOGWOOD (CORNUS AMMOMUM). 4" TO
6" DIAMETER BUNDLES OF LIVE STEMS TO
BE INSTALLED AFTER SOD MATS.
E
E
INGS BUNDLE
.C. SPACING
CUTTINGS BUNDLE TYPICAL SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT MANACER

ME DRAWING SCALE
NTS
3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
7612
RALEIGH
27692
DRAWN BY
JL PROJECT DATE
4/200 - ,
(919) 782- 0495
APPROVED BY
SNM PROJECT NUMBER
3024600RA L
y DICKS0N Office Locations:

TALE NAME
DETAILS
PLOT DATE
4/200 community Infrastructure consultants North Carolina Georgia
South Carolina Florida

W W 0
FLOW
\ \
MINIMUM DIAMETER 12"
A \\
4' LOGS
REBAR
A'-
III LENGTH VARIES /
BANKFULL LIMITS OF
PROPOSED CHANNEL
FLOODPLAIN SILL - PLAN VIEW
PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN SURFACE
DOWN VALLEY
?- 4.0' -??
5/8" REBAR
FLOODPLAIN SILL - SECTIONAL VIEW A - A'
FLOODPLAIN SILL
NOT TO SCALE
PR0.IECT MANAGER
ME
ME DRAWNC SCALE
INTS 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
RALEIGH
NC 27612
ORA
BY
JL PROJECT DATE

4/2004 ,
W
[phone]
APPROVED BY

SHW PROJECT NUMBER

5024600RA
Office Locations:
DICKSON
i
C
it
I
FILE NAME
DETAILS PLOT DATE
4/2004 arol
na Georgia
commun
y
nfrastructure consultants North
South Carolina Florida

NATURAL STONE CLASS A
FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE
UNDER NATURAL STONE
(SEE SPECS)
NOTES:
1. CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW.
2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT
ON-SITE BEFORE WORK BEGINS.
3. MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS.
DO NOT EXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM. COMPLETE ONE
SIDE BEFORE STARTING ON THE OTHER SIDE.
4. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING AT RIGHT ANGLE TO THE FLOW.
5. GRADE SLOPES TO A 2:1 SLOPE. TRANSPLANT SOD
FROM ORIGINAL STREAMBANK ONTO SIDE SLOPES.
6. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE
CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOES NOT ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL.
7. A STABILIZED PAD OF NATURAL STONE CLASS A, 6 INCHES
THICK, LINED WITH FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE
SHALL BE USED OVER THE BERM AND ACCESS SLOPES.
8. WIDTH OF THE CROSSING SHALL BE SUFFICIENT TO
ACCOMMODATE THE LARGEST VEHICLE CROSSING THE CHANNEL.
9. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE
RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING TO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED.
FORD STREAM CROSSING - DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE

PROJECT MVUCER
r'
WE
DRAwiNC SCALE
Nis -14

HRIES 7612
3101 JOHN LHUMP EIGH
RALEIGH
NC 27612
DRAWN BY
x PROJECT DATE
4/2004
1 - I I ,
.
[phone]
D
APPROVEO BY
SHW PROJECT NUUBER
3024600RA DICKSON Office Locotions:

i
FILE NAME
DETAILS PLOT DATE
4/2004 no Georgio
community Infrostructure consultonts North Corol
South Corolino Florido
PROPOSED STREAM BANK
I I B I I

REBAR

A

-

- LOG
FLOV
LOC-\
A

REBAR)
GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
6' MIN.

` .
LOG TOE PROPOSED STREAM BED
ELEVATION
? LOG TOE PROTECTION
MINIMUM LOG
_?!> .-
DIA
DIAMETER (TYP.)
NOTCH LOGS TO FIT
TR
R
E
O
REBAR: 5/8" MIN. DIAMETER
- AD
N
G
C
OL LOGS
4' MIN. LENGTH OR
DUCKBILL ANCHORS
INSTA
ED PER
LL
MANUFACTURERS
INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.) 30' TO 45'

NOTE: LOGS TO BE SALVAGED
FILTER FABRIC FROM HORIZONTAL
FROM PROJECT AREA. SIZE AND
SPECIES MAY VARY.
GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
SECTION B-B
NOT TO SCALE
t. LOGS SHO9AD BE AT LEAST 10 INCHES IN DIAMETER. RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD. AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2 NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3' 100 GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 2' ALONG THE LOG
P,
PROJECT wANACER
ME
DRAwING SCALE
NTS -N
3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
RALEIGH
NC 27612
DRAWN BY
JL PROJECT CAIE
4/2DO4 -
1. ,
[phone]
APPROVED BY

SHw PROJECT 0NUMBER
DRA
A L
DICKSON Office Locations:
AME
FILE N
DETAILS PLOT T DATE

4/2004
` communltY Infrostmcture consultants North Carolina Georgia

South Carolina Flori
da

a N O O Lr) } Gal rn 12
0 6 0
3 N V W
VI N
W Z
D n
a = rn
? U
?wo+
Q C O O
Z C_ C
= O p O
O
J U u
O v t t
M_ U ]
O O
O Z to
O
Z?
08
O
7
a
0
O
N
T
F-
0
J
J
w
Y
Z
Q
Q']
0
O ?
J
w w Of
W
CD LLJ
OO:f Z Q ~
w n C7
w0m ! O?Z
O G
C14 to
L, -J Lj
o O w Z
Ld C,
.. \o=
F-j
tZ C, ^
W O
ZL'iX
:E mw
O O d
U v
L,J
O _? w
Z w
w Q
0-
0
O
J
F-
cl:
Z F-
00 J
\
Z
a
m
W
[if cy-
W
F-
Q
? W
} J
F-
U
i N
Z O
O F-
F- F-
u OZ
Cl
FE
u

a
m
o g z? i g
z ?n u u o
0 o v a
m
] N
O `
U v 2 ? 0 I 2
O4 0KO < ?.
SHAVE LOG FLAT TO
?ACCEPT BRACE POST
BRACE POST--, LOGS SHOULD BE 114
BURIED IN BANK / Y z 4
AT LEAST 6 FEET. ?#4 REBAR; 1/2" DIAMETER
a
BRACE POST
FILTER FABRIC FOR '? \? N _?_VANE ARM\FOOTER LOG
DRAINAGE o-lo BRACE POST (MINIMUM DIAMETER = 12")
(SEE SPECS)
1-
1/2 BANKFULL WIDTH CLOSE-UP OF BRACE POST
PLAN VIEW
NOTES FOR ALL LOG VANE STRUCTURES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, AND HARDWOOD.
2. CROSS LOGS SHOULD BE BURIED AT A MINIMUM OF 5 FEET INTO BANK.
3. VANE LOG ARMS SHOULD BE BURIED INTO THE BANK A MINIMUM OF 6 FEET.
4. SET ELEVATION OF TOP OF LOG CROSS PIECES TO DESIRED ELEVATION OF STREAMBED.
5. DEPTH OF FOOTER LOG SHOULD EQUAL 1.5 x MAX SCOUR DEPTH.
6. DIAMETER OF COIR LOGS SHOULD EQUAL 112 DIAMETER OF LOGS.
7. USE FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE AND COOIR LOG TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.
8. NAIL FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE TO TOP OF COIR LOGS USING 3" 10d GALVANIZED
COMMON NAILS WITHIN A 2' SPACING ALONG LOG.
9. NAIL COIR LOG TO VANE LOG AS SHOWN USING 8" GALVANIZED
SMOOTHSPIKES ON 3' SPACING.
10. NOTCH IS FORMED BY MAKING CUTS WITH A CHAINSAW 1-2" APART
AND THEN KNOCKING OUT SECTIONS WITH A CHISEL AND HAMMER.
11. ANGLE OF NOTCH SHOULD MATCH ANGLE BETWEEN LOG ARMS OF
CROSS VANE AND THE STREAMBANK.
NOTES:
1. PRE-DRILL HOLES FOR REBAR WITH 5 8" DRILL BIT.
2. AFTER PLACING POSTS DRIVE REBAR THROUGH POST
AND LOG AND BEND ENDS AS SHOWN.
3. REBAR MAY BE REPLACED BY LAG BOLT OR LAG SCREW
WITH APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER.
TOP OF BANK
FLOW
ST7A MBED BRACE POST
1' BELOW MAXI FOOTER LOG
POOL DEPTH SCOUR POOL
BRACE POST-/" PROFILE VIEW
LOG VANE - DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT MANACER
WE DRAwiNG SCALE
NES
NTS 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYNO

RALEIGH
NC 27612
DRAWN BY
x Pa
DATE
4/2004 .
[phone]
MPRDVED BY
sNw PROWECT
NUMBER
30246 o0RA oRA
Office Locations:
D'C IYON
li
N
i
C
G

FILE NAME
DErMLS
PLOT DATE
4/200 orth
aro
na
eorg
a
community Infrastructure consultants
Y
South Carolina Florida
PROPOSED GROUND
BANKFULL
ELEVATION
ROOT WAD
1i2 FROM BANKFULL ELEVATION
SLOPE EXISTING GROUND AS INDICATED
BY PROPOSED CONTOURS ON THE
\/?y PLANS.
FILL
MAXIMUM 2:1 (507.) SLOPE
V \(/??\ BOULDER
- INVERT ELEVATION (AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER)
\ 14' MIN. BOLE LENGTH
TOP OF FOOTER LOG 1\??
IS AT INVERT
SUBGRADE?
BOULDER
FOOTER LOG 28" MIN. DIAMETER SHARPEN END OF BOLE AS NEEDED
TO DRIVE ROOTWAD INTO BANK
ROOT WAD REVETMENT - TYPICAL SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT MANAGER DRAWING SCALE
?
3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
ME r.TS
RALEIGH
27612
DRAWN BY PROJECT DATE 9) , 78 82- 0495
WK (9 1
JE 4/200a
APPROVED BY PROJECT HUMBER DICKS0N Office Locations:
sNw 600"A
}0 North Carolina Geor
ia
c
it
I
t
f
t
lt
t
FILE RAME DA
PLOT DATE g
ommun
y
n
ras
ruc
ure consu
an
s
South Carolina Florida
DETAILS 4/2004
IF ROOT WAD DOES NOT COVER
ENTIRE BANK & CONSTRUCTION
IS BETWEEN MID OCTOBER TO
MID MARCH, PROTECT BANK
MOIR IFI ER WITH BRUSH LAYER. (SEE DETAIL)
FLOOD PLAIN I I TOP OF BANK
1 BANKFULL STAGE
?1? ;.mss
10-15 FEET LONG) ? FOOTER LOG > 12" DIAMETER
>10" DIAMETER INSTALLED BELOW STREAM BED
ROOT WADS - CROSS SECTION VIEW
DRIVE POINT METHOD:
?O\
ROOT WAD
BOULDER
ROOT WADS - PLAN VIEW
DRIVE POINT METHOD
SHARPEN THE END OF THE LOG WITH A CHAINSAW BEFORE "DRIVING"
IT INTO THE BANK. ORIENT ROOT WADS UPSTREAM SO THAT THE
STREAM FLOW MEETS THE ROOT WAD AT A 90-DEGREE ANGLE, DEFLECTING
THE WATER AWAY FROM THE BANK. A TRANSPLANT OR BOULDER SHOULD
BE PLACED ON THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF THE ROOT WAD IF A BACK EDDY
IS FORMED BY THE ROOT WAD. THE BOULDER SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY
4' X 3' X 2'.
TRENCHING METHOD
IF THE ROOT WAD CANNOT BE DRIVEN INTO THE BANK OR THE BANK NEEDS
TO BE RECONSTRUCTED, THE TRENCHING METHOD SHOULD BE USED. THIS
METHOD REQUIRES THAT A TRENCH BE EXCAVATED FOR THE LOG
PORTION OF THE ROOT WAD. IN THIS CASE, A FOOTER LOG SHOULD BE
INSTALLED UNDERNEATH THE ROOT WAD IN A TRENCH EXCAVATED PARALLEL
TO THE BANK AND WELL BELOW THE STREAMBED. ONE-THIRD OF THE
ROOT WAD SHOULD REMAIN BELOW NORMAL BASE FLOW CONDITIONS.
l
a
ROOT WAD
\_FOOTER LOG
ROOT WADS - PLAN VIEW - TRENCHING METHOD
ROOT WADS - DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
P,
PROJECT uuUCER
ME
DRAWING SCALE
N -14
3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
? ?
RALEIGH
NC 27612
DRAWN BY

,K PROJECT DATE

4/100 K
,
W
[phone]
WPROVED BY
SHw
S PROJECT NUMBER

wl?cOORA oRA
D IC KSON Office t.ocotion S:
N
li
i
th C
G
it
I
f
t
t

FILE NAME
DETAILS
PLOT DATE
4/2004 or
oro
no
eorg
a
commun
n
ras
ruc
ure consultants
y
South Corolino Florida
?o
INTAKE HOSE
PUMP
WORK AREA INSTREAM
CHECK DAM
DISCHARGE HOSE
NOTE: HOSE SHOULD BE KEPT
OUTSIDE OF L.O.C.
INSTREAM SEDIMENT TRAP
_ STABILIZED OUTFALL WITH
VELOCITY DISSIPATORS
PUMP AROUND DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
r'
uE PROJECT MANACER
ORANMG SCREE
= -IN
3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYNO
RALEIGH
NC 27612
ER *N By
.a PROJECT DATE
4/700 ,

[phone]
WK
D
TPPROVEO BY PROJECT NUMBER ? Office Locutions:
DICKSON
sNw .TO7.eaR? or
N
rth Corollno O
io
it
i
t
f
t
lt
t
70.E NICE
oETUES PEON DATE
4/700 g
o
e
commun
y
n
ras
ruc
ure consu
on
s
South Corollno Florida
SOD MAT SHALL BE PLACED
WITH TRACK HOE OR LOADER
BANKFULL ELEVATION
I=1111 IIII1 J IIII=1 II
III=
I I=' ? .r' 111=
IIII-II?Ii=.1. s'-II'
PLACED SOD -dill-ll _ LOW FLOW W.S. =I?1
OF EXCAVATOR BUCKET -?? -IIII
I -_
LU
=_11111=IIII!=11111=11111=_11111=11111=11111= =11111=
11=11111-11111=11111-11111=11111-11 = I I
STREAM BED
SOD MATS: HARVESTED ON-SITE
0.75 MINIMUM THICKNESS
SOD MAT - TYPICAL DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT MANAGER
ME DRAWING SCALE
NTS 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
RALEIGH
NC 27612
DRAWN BY
JL PROJECT PATE
4/2004 ,
[phone]
ADPRDVED BY
sNw PROJECT NUMBER
30246ooRA
? DIC KS0?
Office Locations:
FILE NAME
DETALS PERT DATE
4/2004 communlty Infrastructure consultants North Carolina Georgia
South Carolina Florida