20041512 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan_20050802 (2)

7
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
V
•

STONEBRIDGE STREAM MITIGATION PLAN
MOORE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
p4.151z
r® Submitted by
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
220 Chatham Business Drive
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
[phone]
AUi 2 - 2005
Prepared by
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
3101 John Humphries Wynd
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
[phone]
DENR - YJAI'r-k (a:ALI i Y
WETLANDS AND ST0pMW,1: ER BRANCH
June 24, 2005
05.01.200.3 10:28 FLT 919 933 6483 EASTER` CAROLINA ORGANIC C?OOi
WNI
Wetland and Natural Resource {
Consultants, Inc,
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Attn: Ken Jolly, Chief Regulatory Division
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina, 28402-1890
-and-
NC Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Unit
Attn: Cyndi Karoly
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604-2260
1, the current landowner of the property identified below, hereby authorize Wetland and Natural
Resource Consultants. Inc. to act on my behalf as my agent during the determination of regulated limits
of waters and wetlands and processing of perrhits to impact Wetlands and Waters of the US that are
regulated by the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act
Federal and State agents are authorized to be on said property when accompanied by Wetland and
Natural Resource Consultants, Inc, staff.
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants. Inc. is authorized to provide suppiemental information
needed for permit processing at the request of the Corps or DWQ.
Property Owner / Applicant::
Street Address / PO Boot
City, State, Zip Code:
Phone / Fax Number:
Project Name_
Property Street Address:
F 8X: Attn: Tara Allden
220 Chatham Business Drive
R 5aso North Carolina 27312
919-545-29 one
nebrid e S Miti g n c-
(street address, city, State, zip)
Owners ! Applicant Signature: r- e! --La- A R-
Date: f I L2G?
Newton Office cWe Office
PO Box 224 wnrinteom RO BOX 882
Newton, NC 28658 Canton, NC 28716
828-465-3035 828-64$8801
828-465-3050 Pax ? 82$-6484802 Fax
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
10 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1-1
Project Description .............................................................................................................. 1-1
Project Site .......................................................................................................................... 1-1
SECTION II: STUDY AREA ................................................................................................... 11-1
Physiography, Topography and Drainage and Landuse ....................................................... II-1
Soils .................................................................................................................................. 11-2
Vegetation .........................................................................................................................11-3
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
1
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 I-1
Stonebridge Stream. Mitigation Plan
SECTION
INTRODUCTION

0 1 Miles
Figure 1. Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Site Location
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
1-2
SECTION II
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'.
1b
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
experiencing very limited development growth a large increase in development is not anticipated.
• Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC II-1
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
.r:•`i^.'77 ?J" f rV\ % 17%7 -.rp.'BAV_.;7s:i6T3" t.,- 9M1..: j"`.-iii i/?fRSLTIA+1tR9?s.L1+u.:.P+AtIYSr".wud-.
Figure 2. Drainage Features and Sub-watersheds at the Stonebridge Site (DA = drainage
area in acres)
SECTION II
EXISTING CONDITIONS
0

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.
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).
SECTION II
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
SECTION 11
EXISTING CONDITIONS
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
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 II4
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
SECTION II
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
SECTION 1 1
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.
10
' Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC II-6
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
SECTION I I I
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- Summary of Hydrologic Evaluation
Stonebridge Site Reach
Methodology UT1-A UT1-13 UT1-C UT-2 UT-3
Drainage Area (miz) 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 Location
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 (miz) 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 Mannin 's equation
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC III-1
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
Section IV
Restoration Plan
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
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.
Forested riparian buffers shall be established to have widths of at least fifty feet on both sides of all
restored streams. After channel construction, riparian buffers shall be ripped to a depth of at least
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
bedforms will remain stable. Finally, the reductions in nitrogen, biological oxygen demand and
other pollutant loadings that will be achieved with the Stonebridge restoration work are substantial
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.
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
project, and similar hydro-geomorphic setting. The Brady Road reference stream exhibits the
following characteristics:
? A geomorphically active floodplain that is hydrologically connected to the stream
? Pronounced riffles, pools, runs and glides
? Sinuosity ranging from 1.45 to 1.67
? 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 - Summary of Morphometric Design Parameters
Reference Reach Design Reach
Reach Name: U/S Brady DIS Brady UT 1 - A UT I -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
Beltwidth (ft): 26.6 33.9 58 46 29
Width (ft): 8.1 6.4 12.8 11.6 6.2
Cross Sectional Area (sgft): 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/ft): 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 (mm): 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
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
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 rurra
River. Birch Betula nigra Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Red Maple Acer rubrum Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis White Oak Q. alba
Blue Beach Carpinus caroliniana Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia
Water Oak Quercus nigra 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
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 87-4096 (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 ?V-S
Stonebridge Stream Mitigation Plan
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 WHO Shear Stress
(lb/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 -- Comparison of Proposed and Allowable Velocities
h Design *Allowable Velocity (f s)
Reac Velocity (ft/s) fine sand coarse sand fine gravel
UT-1 (D/S of UT-2) 3.6 2.0 4.0 6.0
UT-1 (U/S 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:
T = yRS
i = shear stress (lb/ft2)
y = specific gravity of water (62.4 IWO
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
S = average channel slope (ft/ft)
Table 7 - Comparison of Proposed and Allowable Shear Stresses
(V-1)
Proposed Shear Stress *Sand/Silt/Clay **Vegetation
Reach at Bankfull Stage z
(Ib/ft) 2
(Ib/ft )
(lb/ft2)
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
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.
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 V1
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.
RPforpnrp CItP
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
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
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 Anal
The project stream reach is composed of bedforms in the sand size sediment fraction. Since the
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
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.
Reference photos will be taken once a year. After construction has taken place, reference stations
will be marked with wooden stakes.
Lateral reference photos. Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross section.
Photographs will be taken of both banks at each cross section. The survey tape will be centered in
the photographs of the bank. The water line will be located in the lower edge of the frame and as
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 SamDlin
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-4
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 VI11
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
ii

APPENDICES

a

I

Ij
I-
II
II
?I
11J
:.AP,PENID.I?X A

I?
I

r'
c
r r
r
}
f

r
r
r
r
Q
U
Q
W
H
Q
W
O
i
r

_ cn
U ? m

(11) u01}ena13
m
O
H
0
N
0
LO
I
0
r
0
m
O

a?
c?
cm
O
W
U
cn
0
LL w co
_ cn O
U m I-

?WN
co
z
U
Q
W
I. LI
I
0
r
i
-
O
LO
N
0
N
LO
T
O
0
O

+-+
0)
0
U
(C5
U)

(11) uoiJena13
0

w
J
U.
0
U
Z
U
Q
W
0?
06
CY)

W 00
_ U) Y U) O IL d-
U m 3: i- LL a.

0

0

O

N
(11) uoiJena13
O
O
N
O
00
O -+?
N ?
O
rn U
o ?
o
0
O
M
O
U.
0
Q
W
(n
n- M
I--
W D
J
L.L
0
r
1
r
w
_ U U) O i
L
U m I- ..

(}1) uoiJena13
0
N

O
Irl-

0

4-+
O
U
(Tj
cl
W
U) U) 0 LL
U m : I-- LL
+
W
J
0
N
0
LO
V-
00
T-
0
LO
0

N
CC5
O
c?
U
(Cf

(11) uoilenaI:q
o rn m m m M
M
M
N
a) II
U

CO 5:4
N ?
4- C
%U O

II
4-1

( i
V `?
Y U L
_
m

•
O

0 4-a

0
V
(1
T- r
0
M
LO
N
O
N
LO
T
O
T-
LO
C)
oo "
U
O
N_
L-
0

(}1) uoilenaI-q

cD
z
O
J
Q
N
U
N
U II
`t 4-I
x
=3 O
?- N
N
II
4-1
C Q
U
C
N
C
co
61
it
p 4-I
O
V
V-
C)
M
LO
N
O
N
LO
T-
O
r
LO
O

U
m
4-j
O
N_
L
O

(1}) u01lena13
m
U
cu
r to
? L (n
% O
Z
O
J
Q
M
U
CO
I I
4-I
N
I I
r r
4-a
L Q
4?-- CU
Y U
C?
m_
? N
CD II
O 4-I
f2 -k4
C
1
O
L
/-
V
(D
(1j) uoilenaI-q
0
"It
O
co
O
N
O
O

U
ca
4-+
0
0
N_
I-
0

r?
Z
O
J
Q
CO
U

U it
`cu 4-?
L (n
4-5
O
0-
11
4-I
N x
L
Q
-Y U
Co
C
m ao
Ln
r-i
U)
C II
O 4-I
n x
O
L-
0
0
It
0
M
0
N
O
T-
C)
el?
Ctf
U
CCS
cn

N_
L
(11) u01jena13
C) C) m m
r r
C)
M
r?
Z
O
Q
LO
r-I
r-i
N II
U
`cc 4-a
rO^ ?
Vl
N U
+r C
(II O
4-A
L
4- C Q
-se
MM
W
00
Ch
O
U
\ O
C)
O

T-
LO
N
O 4?--
N
U
t6
-?--?
LO
r cn
V
0
N
L
O
Z
O
(11) uoiJen91=1

Z
O
Q
v
U
OD
0
N II
U
cu LH
VJ '?^ x
FC?
L (n
+-• _C
O
00
u
44
Cl)
L
-Y U
C
(U C
m ?
N
r-i
C II
O 4-a
S4
C
O
L
-
LO
N
O
N
LO
C)
T
LO
0

U
CQ
cn
0
cu
N_
L
O
-17
(1j) u01jenal3

N
U
(a it

4-I
M n
Cl)

n II
Z
? 4H
x
0
J e
C
Q cu
m ?
N
CY)
II
U)
\ O
Q
U

O
L

co
c0
N
O
6

U
m
N_
L
Z
(}}) u01jenal3
Sri ? ti cyi o
0 o rn rn rn
Ir- T-
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:
--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
---------------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--
0.94 sq mi
0.0044 ft/ft
65.6 cfs
16 sgft
0.2 ft
1
1.4 mm
0.21 mm
5 mm
1.5 mm
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
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
0.59
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 Material ID:
Riffle Bed Material D84:
Riffle Bed Material D50:
Bar sample ID:
Bar sample Dmax:
Bar sample D50:
--Entrainment options--
Shields Entrainment Function
0.284 sq mi
0.008 ft/ft
57.07 cfs
7.9 sq ft
0.2 ft
ST1 ri ffl e
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 Material ID:
Riffle Bed Material D84:
Riffle Bed Material D50:
Bar sample ID:
Bar sample Dmax:
Bar sample D50:
--Entrainment Options—
shields Entrainment Function
0.295 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
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:
04" 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 8/1
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.
Encountered refusal due to sandstone bedrock or stones at each attempt within 6" of the surface.
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 Tributarv # 2 (UT-2) Borinas 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.

+III
i
-l
-tl
Ii
i7
I I I??II
_. IJ
fill I
III I?I?
I l?l?
DEC-01-03 16:10 FROM:PERRY OFFICE ID:252523eO56 PAGE 2/3
NCDENR
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: Moore County Stream Restoration Sites; PuMmn quadrangle, Moore County
Dear Mr.1;IuyW=.-
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural eomm=ities, 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 bas not been surveyed. The use of Natural
Heritage Program data should not bo substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if the
project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural eom=niities, or priority
natural areas.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage program database website at
<VnWMc0arits,ngj!nhpsearch?tml> for a listing of rare plants and animals and significant
natural communities in the eounty and on the topograpbne quad map. Please do not hrsitate to
contact me at 919-715-8697 if you havo questions or sheen further information.
Sincerely,
Harry P. LeG=d, Yr., Zoolo&
Natural Heritage Program
HEL/hel
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone]H \ Fax: [phone] \ Intcmet: www.enr.state.nc.us
A- r .-..^i k Afr-flva Acrim EmnicyveT- 50". P-mve1ed% i4°/a Pose Consumer Pap"
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORiVI
Cape Fear River Basin Stream Mitigation
Stone Bridge Site
Moore County, North Carolina
Prepared for the North Carolina Department of Transportation
by EBX-Neese I, LLC
1
1
1
1
1
r
r
r
r
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 404/401 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 are 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. Constricting 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 bridge widening (less than one through lane)
r Categorical Exclusion - Cape Fear Rimer Basin Stream ,tlitrgatron
Stone Bridge Site
r Prepared by EBX-Meuse I, LLC
Page 1 of 6
i. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the installation
of ramp metering control devices and lig11ting.
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 realignment
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
1
1
r
r
r
r
r
r
Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the constriction 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 (structure 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 construction of mitigation sites.
9. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is not
inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a street with adequate
capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.
Categorical Exclusion - Cape Fear River Basin Stream Miligalion
Slone Bridge Site
Prepared big EBX-Nease I, LL C
b Page 2 of 6
10. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buddmgs and ancillarv
facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required and there is not a
substantial increase in the number- of users.
11. 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 UMT Act. Hardship and protective buying will be
permitted 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 Construction $ N/A
Right of Way S N/A
Total $ 1,248,000
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II actions
Acquisition & Construction of Mitigation Sites YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or
important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
Y,
Categorical Exclusion - Cape Fear River Basin Stream Alitigation
Stone Bridge Site
Prepared by EBX-Neese 1, LL_C
Pa U, e 3 of 6

N
1
r
1
(4) if the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent andior temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (I/ 10) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been
evaluated'?
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(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 envirorunental 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
Categorical Exclusion - Cape Fear River Basin Stream Mitigation
Stone Bridge Site
Prepared by EBY-Meuse 1, L L C
Pa;e4of 6
X
YES NO
X
x
X
x
X
YES NO
X
X
X
X
X
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness?
(22) Is the project included m in approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)1
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes?
(24) Will traffic be maintained during constriction using existing
roads, staged constriction, 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 construction 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?
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws
relating to the environmental aspects of the project?
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places?
(29) . Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which are
important to history or pre-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)?
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation
Act of 1965, as amended?
(32) Will the project involve constriction 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
?

' Categorical Exclusion - Cape Fear River Basin Stream ;Mitigation
Stone Bride Site
' Prepared by EBX-Meuse /, LLC
' Page 5 of 6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Y
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided below.
Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
1
r
1
I
r
r
r
r
r
1
supporting favorable responses, including an environmental screening report,
correspondence from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, and the State
Historic Preservation Office.
Project has no unfavorable responses in Part E. Please see attached information
G. CE Approval
Project Description: Compensatory § 404/401 Mitigation
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification
TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
Date /Contract Representative, NC DOT
ZI
Date

Date
?A-4\4A
Cate,orical Exclusion - Cape Fear River Basin Stream Mitigation
Stone Bridge Site
Prepared by EBX-Neese 1, LLC
Page 6 of 6
Wetland and Natural Resource*{'
Consultants, Inc. •+'..r
c over , 2003
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 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.
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.
1 Newton Office
PO Box 224
Newton, NC 28658
828,465"3035
828465 " 3050 Fax
wwwmnrinc.corn
Clyde Office
217 Paragon Parkway, # 142
Clyde, NC, 28721
828627 0051
828,,627-L 0052 Fax
www.wnrinc.com
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
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.
Sc rely,
ris uysman

m _
w -

p
,

try •

y;
-
w ?

V1 '
- -
CD -

,

oa

1
1
,S,r-x,Tlk
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
October 21, 2003)
Mr. Chris Huysman
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc.
P.O. Box 224
Newton, NC 28658
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
Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if the
project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or priority
natural areas.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at
<www.ncsparks.net/nhp/search.htrnl> 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
EEL/hel
1601 % ail Service Center. Ralelgli. North Carolina 2?699-1601
Phone: [phone] `, Fax: 919--l ;-3060 Internet: vvwv\c.enrstate.tic .us
An acuon
it .4.
Wetland and Natural Resource
Consultants, Inc. 3:«:•.
173735er , 200-3
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
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
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
Ne,Mon, NC 28658
828j-465 -3035
828465-3050 Fax
mm.wnrinc,com
Clyde office
217 Paragon Parkway, # 142
Clyde, NC, 28721
828627 0051
828-X627-L 0052 Fax
ww v.wnrnc.com
will maintain the state of 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,
r
Chris Huysm n

„
ono
!r. J
O,? CC OI Ittl.?? ?
?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Historical Resources
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
November 24, 2003
Chris 'Huysman
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
Mitigation and Stream Restoration Sites, Multi-County, ER03-3022 through
ER03-3026
Dear Mr. Huysman:
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 comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
?I
;'_ avid Brook U
ivww.hpo.dcnstate.nc.us
Location Mailing Address Te lephone/Fax
\D?IINISTR:?"PION 507 N. 131ount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (91 9) 733-4763 • 733-8613
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St , Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Ccnter, Raleigh NC 2 7699-46 1 7 (91 9) 733-6547 • 715-1801
St'RVEI" , PLANNING 515 N. Blount St , Raleigh NC -9617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC'-7699-1617 [phone] • 715-3801

Transaction Screen Assessment
Stonebridge Project Area
Moore County, North Carolina
15 December 2003
Prepared for:
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
10055 Red Run Boulevard, Suite 130
Owings Mills, Maryland 21117-48600
Prepared by:
Environmental Resources Management, Inc.
200 Harry S'Truman Parkwav, Suite 400
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
and
Environmental Resources Management-Southeast, Inc.
7 300 Carmel Executive Park, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28226
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 2
3.0 CONCLUSION
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A COMPLETED TRANSACTION SCREEN QUESTIONNAIRE
STONEBRIDGE PROJECT
1.0 INTROIRICTION
On 28 October 2003, Environmental Resources Management (ERM)
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 ASTM E 1528-00, and the scope of work outlined in
ERIVI'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 an 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 any 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 cluring 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.
Hi:'`1 t FG\ i:.t11-0 12J75,'2(il
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.
• ERM 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 were observed at the site. Mr. Rudolph is not
aware of any underground storage tanks located on the subject
property.
• ERM 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 ERM'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 ASTM E
1528-00, were identified at the subject property.
n< .i
FBS u( 'l l2 'If i- 12; 1=,;20C)3
Transaction Screen Assessment
Facility Name: S- ; /irl`dge , /?OOY? ,?{ t Date of Site Visit: /0/ax/,9 3
Location: l1'1oorP ?o?rr{?, ?VG Il/or-f?-, o? ?rfhat.e On (?/P?,?loh r?i' i?,?rrc rQ{/.
Interviewiee Name/Title: AJ1A How Long? Al
Time at this location: 0,4 Previous Locations? IVIA
Facility Operations: W'LIC?Wgy Pq Se/nC?n ?` C/gri?y ? r? u1't°_
Number of Employees: ?6dAl Shifts: WA
Building Specifications: ?M -no f?ywam,,,-_r Lot Size: ap aereS
Water Service: /tJ/A _ Sewer: ,V/A
Electric: A)Ifi _ Nat. Gas: NI,4
Permits: NIA
Site History: Pi?,P i7ev, )A I-i"
Adjacent Properties: lGh` G1)/
Were any of the following observed? Provide comments as necessary.
Hazardous Chemicals/Petroleum: /Vb
Waste Oil:
Pesticides: ?oSsib/y, q?Ha- -ru/744--x! kJc.-
Drums/Bulk Storage Containers: A/o
Aboveground Storage Tanks: _
Underground Storage Tanks: _
Solid Waste: _
Hazardous Waste:
Parts Washing Stations.
Vehicle Maintenance: _
Oil-filled Equipment/PCBs: _
Sources of Air Emissions: _
Coating/Painting Operations:
Boilers:
Asbestos:
CFCs:
Wastewater:
Floor Drains:
Stormwater:
Ponds or Lagoons:
Wetlands:
Water/Monitoring Wells:
Septic Systems:
Spills/Leaks:
Stressed Vegetation:
Notice of Violations:
Previous Environmental Reports:
Soil/Groundwater Contamination:
Burned or Buried Debris:
Fill Material:
0
a
n
0
i
e c-? ???per'?"

0
a
VIII
-II
I I?
u?i
APPENDIX D
�� � - �; �. r t, �

DAM SAFETY INSPECTION REPORT
NAME COUNTY NO. INSPECTED BY DATE
Strader Farm Pond#1 Moore #1 DJK
OWNER ADDRESS
PHONE
TYPE DAM Concrete Gravity Concrete Arch other
Dmb
k
t El TYPE INSPECTION Periodic SITE CONDITIONS wet
an
men
Concrete Buttress Stone Masonry 11 0 Initial 1:1 Follow-up Q Otter [0 Dry E]Snow Cover E10ther
HAZARD DESCRIPTION
Medium HAZARD CLASS Intermediate (B)
Fit - (A) High (C)
REMARKS ACTION RECOMMENDATIONS
None 0 Inspection letter E] Inspection by DCE
Maintenance 0 Deficiency letter 1:1 Dam safety order
El Monitoring 0 REnotice Enforcement
Mina repair 0 Engineering Study Periodic reinspection
J E]Engineering o Inspection by RE Otter reinspection
AREA PROBLEMS COMMENTS
1. None 11. Displaced rip rap COVER: Vegeation Rip rap Concrete Asphalt Otter
2. Trees 1:1 12. Cracks Dirt with no ve
etative cov
r
w
a E ] 3. High bushes 13. Undermining g
e
O
-1
4. Burrows 14. Holes
V)
5. Wave erosion F115. Spalfing
W 6. Livestock damage 16. Displaced joints
N F ] 7. Slides 17. Deterioaled joints
d 0 8. Depressions 18. Exposed reinforcement
E ] 9. Bulges 19. Other
10. Sparce rip rap -
1. None 11. Cracks COVER; Vegetation Gravel Concrete Asphalt OMer
2. Trees El 12. Spalfng Dirt with no ve
cover
r
t d
h
l
g.
;
u
amage w
ere
ocal drainage has collected
3. High bushes F] 13. Deteriorated joints
Q n 4. Burrows F] 14. Displaced joints
LL 5. Ruts 15. Exposed reinforcement
O
0 6. Uvestock damage 16. Other
-
0
7. Depressions
F 8. Unlevel
FI 9. Misargnmenl
n 10. Has overtopped
1. None 11. Seepage COVER: Vegetation Rip rap Concrete Otter
W
a E] 2. Trees 12. Bolts Dirt with no ve
etative co

.
O
J

3. High bushes 13. Cracks g
ver
4. Burrows 14. Holes
Q 5. Erosion 15. Spalfng
I 6. Uvestok damage 16. Displacedjoints
N
Z
7. Slides 17. Deterioated joints
O [J 8. Depressions 18. Exposed reinforcement
9. Bulges FVJ 19. Otter
10. Wetness
1. None 11. Seepage COVER: Vegetation Rip rap Concrete Otter
? 2. Trees ? 12. Boils Dirt with no v
t
ti

3. High bushes F]
13. Cracks ege
a
ve cover
U
Q
F]
4. Burrows ?
14. Holes
1--
Z [
J
S. Erosion F]
15. Spalfng
00 R] 6. Uvestok damage ? 16. Displacedjoinls
Ow n 7. Slides F] 17. Deterioated joints
~ 8. Depressions 0 18. Exposed reinforcement
9. Bulges F] 19. Undermining
10. Wetness 20. Otter
NAME COUNTY NO. INSPECTED BY DATE
Strader Farm Pond#1 Moore J
#1 DJK 1/13/2004
AREA PROBLEMS COMMENTS
1. None 11. Seepage COVER: vegetation Rip rap Concrete Asphalt Other
? 2. Trees ? 12. Boils NA
1-
U
a
?
3. High bushes ? 13. Cracks
/--
Z
? 4. Burrows ? 14. Holes
O
O
? 5. Erosion ? 15. Spalling
Z ? 6. Livestock damage ? 16. Oiwacedjoinls
W
? 7. Slides ? 17. Deterioated joints
F-
? 8. Depressions ? 18. Exposed reinforcement
m
Q
? 9
Bul
es ? 19
Und
i
i
.
g
.
erm
n
ng
10. Wetness 20. Other
1. None 11. Joint Displacement SIZE / TYPE:
a ? 2. No trash guard ? 12. Undermining There is no true principal spillway; baseflow goes thru 6" diameter PVC
?j ? 3. Obstructed ? 13. Voids
J
J
? 4. Plugged ? 14. Erosion
Q.
to
? 5. Rusted ? 15. Holes
J
a
? 6. Damaged ? 16. Conduit collapsed
(„) ? 7. Gates leaking ? 17. Spalling
Z
? 8. Joints leaking ? 18. Outlet undercutting
a
? 9. Cracks ? 19. Misalignment
10. Joint deterioration 20. Other
1. None 11. Joint Displacement S IZE / TYPE:
} ? 2. No ES ? 12. Undermining Emergency spillway is a 16 feet wide dirt "low" area over the dam that will
J ? 3. Same as PS ? 13. Voids act as an emergency spillway.
J
d
4. Obstructed ? 14. Holes
N
} ? 5. Erosion ? 15. Exposed reinforcement
U
Z ?
6. Displaced rip rap ? 16. Spalling
W
(?
? 7. Sparce rip rap ? 17. Outlet erosion
W ? 8. Joints leaking ? 18. Misalignment
W ? 9. Cracks ? 19. Inadequate
10. Joint deterioration 20. Other
TYPE:
LU
W
J
F] 1. None
? 2. No bottom drain
Cf ? 3. Bottom drain imoperable
W
W ? 4. Subsurface drain dry
1- ? 5. Subsurface drain muddy flow
N ? 6. Subsurface drain obstructed
? 7. No animal guard
? S. Other
SKETCHES/COMMENTS:
EMBANKMENT DAM SKETCHES AND MEASUREMENTS
NAPaE COUNTY NO. INSPECTED 6Y DATE
Strader Farm Pond#1 Moore #1 DJK 1!1312004
ERGENCYSP
To or ?W?k
-r,,? of Anl
&WP cl t?(LLW V

cF5 (rye,
Tc a SVk
j6,

- `-.___?

a?

?,

- III
?I

_? I1
i
-
I
II
I

.--- --
- - - ?.__ ?i?'

- - . `?

,:

?
.? i
..
?X
`r..
2 {?
j': .

1
1
1
1
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
a
O
W
V
O
O
L
2
H--
Q
L
E
cn
O

.Q
O
CO Q
m > O
W ? N
O
U ? .
O Q N
4.. 0- Q
M
1 Ln
0 co
CO M r
N M'. m M LO M U-) 'q-
CD CO
N 'IT CO CO

f N co
M LO CO
M i?
M ti
Lo N
M (f)
;'
O M
U
L

(B
U

N

o

d

O
a) LO
L. M
Lo N
co co
l!•) ti
0) 0)
co N
rn
0 o M CO

0
J m
L
U
(
9
N
V G

N
M
A
?
>
pj
M
N N
N
N
LO
?

1

Q
L
U
O (n
- O
0c)
Lo
O _
N
a co V• r N r r

FL

M

p N
LL
O N
O
U
Z)
N
O a w 1
O 0 0 c c
O
O
Y (6

O (0

N O O +
Z)

T
1 fn
" 7
W
m r- N C) W
N(o •a
O

i> U 2 2 (1) ?
W W W Fu
o U U U
-
0- D D :D O?

!n
CT U (n
C (n
C (n
C (n
C (n
C (n
C
O. 0 0 0 0 0
(6 -O "a -O 'a "D •D
? U U U U U U

m 0) u 0) CD () 0)
C C
(n
(n
(n -
Ln -
fn -
(n
_
Q Q X
W X
W X
W X
W X
W X
W
..Q
C
O
(0 <D N CO
CJ
Q o Y
O
V
J E
O nJ 6)
00
c o
(-D
O
O
W
O
M
U
p "6
o -
O
L r-
N C
ca
OD
a)
O
U)
D
I F:
(n
C?
CT (5 Y
G Q)
N
U)
Q
O
(B (U
Q Q o
m ?
C6 (II ?
C C .-
N
X
Q Q W
V
cv
d
V
L
L2
NNd
I.1.
??0/
'a
m
a
C
Q
N
N
O
a
c
!Z
m
O
E O
O ?p
C =
O
N
? N
C O)
3 c
O c
L O
In m
in L
U
m to
o
N C
c c
m m
w ?
a?
N ?
rn m
m
Q c
D E
N2
t
U U
m
N O n
0 m
0 3
U N
? N O
° Q a
m c
Z N U
U_ U
Q Q N
U 0
C ?
O d
C O
0 m O
o c
0 >
E rn c
,n Co
c 3 co
0 o p
Y
? Q
6
0
Z
a
W
v
O
O
L
2
O
i
cC
E
E
cn
a>
O
m
N
o
U
m >, o
W 7
a?
U
d ? D
CO O - O M
co co
r 1l-
N 0)
.--
O O O O
N .- 00 -Y' CO

1- O
N CO
- O
N 0)
r-
O O O O
L
V
?
d U
?
M
0)
-T
LO
v a) r- 00 I- (O

0 0 0 0 0

m

N ? Z N 04
N
0
O
r- o O o
?+ H

C
O
U Q

(D U
0 N W T CM M LO rM
Q f' O 7 N `- N 7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a`

O
LL
i
V ?
L ? "U

a ' cn a m
m cn a)
o
a) 0 m
RS T -O O
E
V
N 2
O N N ca y
_
'0 c
O O
(n a)
3
(n tq Q O
N p
0
0
CY
cn

D

U
?
C L
(p O
(B
f6
o U >,
U 70

O i O
< 0 W O N N
W a- 2 or- W W
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

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
Interval
Recurrence
(Years) USGS Q
(cfs) HEC-1 Q
(cfs) Rational Q
(cfs)
1 NA 51 NA
2 57 89 = 1
(%)
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:
Drainage Area =
Drainage Area =
Impervious Area (%) = UT-2 (at Mouth)
81.1
0.13
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)^0.662 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. 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-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)^0.662 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 Intensity
(in/hr) Discharge
(cfs)
2 0.13 2.00 179
5 0.13 2.90 259
10 0.13 3.30 295

(
at
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\30246.00. 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-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-calculations\excel\flow-comparison.xls
APPENDIX F

I it
i irt1i1

LI
?I

Ilf 11
lla_
I
ll
lil
l
i

T'I
II
Ali

41

LL W co
U) U) L
U m LL.

LL1
LL
0
D'
J
Z
V
Z
O
1
W
VJ
Q
ry
ry
W
0
.n
:V
0
0
N
O
LO
r
0
O
0
LO
0

(6
C
O
([f
N
U
C
(0
N
0
(4) uoilenal-:--l
LO
0 o rn m

W N

U I?
L •?
N VJ
r L

L
X to Q
W c ?
ry
?
W

U) OD
4-
c
ii

o .?
x

N
ry 0

W
C)
r-
(13
-f--j
U)
0
V
4-a
O
N
L-
O
(11) uoiJenaJ--?
,n
(Y')

?--? U II
0 -
L w
0
n L U)
O
? °
N N

r II
/
U ) 4-4

X L Q
Y U
W
RT

4-1 ?
co
-

II
0 4-A

7
0
O
W L
(D
O
d-
O
co
O
N
O
r
O

U
c?
cn
0
N_
L
(11) uoiJenal--?
I r- r- Ir- r r-- r
I
41
III I
'I
rt
III III
LEI
dl

n ifs 111 ,J
PROJECT MANAGER
ME DRAWING SCALE
W IS EEC
ENVIRONMENTAL B A N C EXCHANGE NC CS z 6ND
3101 JOH HUM RALEIGH

DRAWN BY
R
PROJECT DATE
04/04 ,

STONEBR DGE STEAM MITIGATION PROJECT .
,

[phone]
WK
ICKSON
D
APPROVED BY
S PROJECT CT NUMBER
SHEET IND
X _ Office LOCOli0n5;
D
com.Flunity infrastructure consultants North Carolina Georgia
NA
FILE NAME
desgn layout.d.g T DATE
PLOT DAtE
06/23/05 E South Carolina Florida

t

•
t
t
t

t

t
II
?IIPP
?i III
CHANNEL PLUG
PLAN VIEW
OLD CHANNEL TO BE DIVERTED
FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE
SHALL BE PLACED BY OVERLAPPING
WITH THE FLOW OF WATER
NEW CHANNEL TO BE CONSTRUCT CHANNEL BLOCK
ED
CHANNEL PLUG
PROFILE VIEW
COMPACTED BACKFILL SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE
(MIN 1.0' THICK)
CHANNEL PLUG- DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
PaaecT MANAGER
ME oaAwNC SCALE
N 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
RALEIGH
NC 27612
DRAWN BY PROJECT DATE ,
[phone]
JL 4/loos ;
APPROVED BY PROJECT NUMBER
Office Locutions:
DICKSON
sHw .w24eooRA li
N
th C
i
G
it
i
f
t
PILE NAME PLOT DATE ' or
oro
no
eorg
o
commun
y
n
ras
ructure consultants
South Corolino Florido
DETAILS 4/2004

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.
INGS BUNDLE
C. SPACING
CUTTINGS BUNDLE TYPICAL SECTION
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT MANAGER
ME DRAwiNG SCALE
NTS 3101 JOHN HUM PHRIES WYND
RALEIGH
NC 27612
DRAWN BY

JL PROJECT DATE

4/200 ,
[phone]
vw
APPROVED BY

SHW PROJECT NUMBER

3024600RA

`
Office Locations:
DICKSON
rth C
r
lin
N
i
G
I
f
it
t
t
lt
t
FILE NAME

DETAILS PLOT GATE

4/200 - o
a
o
a
eorg
a
commun
n
ras
y
ruc
ure consu
an
s
South Carolina Florida

W W W
FLOW
MINIMUM DIAMETER 12"
A-
4'
LOGS
REBAR
A'
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
PROJECT MANAGER
ME DRAWING SCALE
NTS ,
i 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
RALEIGH
27612
DRAWN BY

JL PROJECT DATE

4/2004 ,
[phone]
APPROVED BY

SHW
- PROJECT NUMBER

3024600RA

'
Office Locotions:
DICKSON
N
th C
li
G
i
i
FILE NAME
OETalS PLOT DATE
4/2004 - or
OrO
nO
eorg
o
commun
ty inkostructurs consultonts
South Corolino Florido
TURAL STONE CLASS A
FILTER FABRIC FOR NAGS
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
T MANAGER
PRO DRAW
SCALE 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
MS 5 RALEIGH
27612

BY
PROJECT DATE ,
(919) 78 82-0495
J` 4/200
APPROVED BY PROJECT NUMBER
Office Locations:
DICKSON
SHW 3024600RA
nsultants North Carolina Georgia
comm
it
I
f
t
t
PILE NAA1E PLOT DATE un
y
n
ras
ruc
ure co
South Carolina Florida
DETAILS +/200+
NOT TO SCALE
+rr 0.2" MAX
PROPOSED STREAM BED FLOW 1
ELEVATION
----------------
REPLACED CHANNEL BED??:"?
MATERIAL
`LTER Ft.BR!CJ
GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
SECTION A-A
NOT TO SCALE EXISTING STREAM BANK
6" MIN.
-_PROPOSED STREAM BED
LOG 70E ELEVATION
REBAR: 5/8" MIN. DIAMETER
4' MIN. LENGTH OR
DUCKBILL ANCHORS
INSTALLED PER
MANUFACTURERS
INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)
NOTE: LOGS TO
FROM PROJECT A
SPECIES MAY VAF

30' TO 45'-
FROM HORIZONTAL
BE SALVAGED FILTER FABRIC
tEA. SIZE AND
Y
GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
SECTION B-B
NOT TO SCALE
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD, AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. NAIL FILTER FABRIC USING 3" IOD GALVANIZED COMMON NAIL EVERY 2' ALONG THE LOG
PROJECT MANAGER
ME DRAWING SCALE
NTS
¦F 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
RALEIGH
NC 27612
DRAWN BY PROJECT DATE ,
[phone]
JL 4/2004 1
APPROVED BY PROJECT NUMBER
Office Locations:
DICKSON
SHW 3024600RA
N
th C
li
G
i
i
it
f
t
t
PILE NAME PLOT DATE _ or
aro
na
eorg
a
commun
y
n
ros
ructurs conaulton
s
South Carolina Florida
DETAILS 4/2004
LOG TOE PROTECTION
10" MINIMUM LOG
DIAMETER (TYP.)
NOTCH LOGS TO FIT
GRADE CONTROL LOGS
GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
in N N O O
} a
n O o o
3 N 1 °' w
N U
W_ Z OJ
a = rn
?wrn
= J v
Q C
Z c .c
= O O O
O
00 `O o
_ U U
O y L =
O O
O z v)
Z?
05
O
H
Q
0
O
U)
J
J
LL
Y
Z
Q
m
?J O z
F-
(Y
• ?O

Of O
. LLJ Of

w
j w
12
C 7 w
O w
Z ..
[ :: Q L-
,. 0 CY
-1
L, W
w W
O
Z

O O
\ X 1A,
0 L+-
J W
O m Z
O Q < N Q
O
\
w
p
w =
O U
\ ? Z C)
2 m w
t -

Z C' ^
O O d
C) v
O?L
LJ
O= Q
(f) o
U
O
J
Z r?
L 0
Z F-
W
00 J
ur Z
Q
co
W
W
Q
O
w
J
? Q
F-- L ii ? U
U
N
Z ?
O ~
U
- C
C
E

a
vJi o 8 i °oo pp
z N V\ V Q O
o a a a
W
u
m
u W m ? a
a
? 3 -Ji s ? o
n o °a G
SHAVE LOG FLAT TO
ACCEPT BRACE POST
BRACE POST o I lq_ LOGS SHOULD BE 4
BURIED IN BANK z 4
AT LEAST 6 FEET. < a, L` #4 REBAR; 1/2" DIAMETER
\ a
a
RA CE POST
~ H
FILTER FABRIC FOR VANE ARM\FOOTER LOG
DRAINAGE 20-30 BRACE POST (MINIMUM DIAMETER = 12")
(SEE SPECS)
L-
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 1/2 DIAMETER OF LOGS.
7. USE FILTER FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE AND COIR 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
STREAI
1' BELOW MAX
POOL DEPTH T
\-FOOTER LOG
SCOUR POOL
RACE POST
BRACE POST
PROFILE VIEW
LOG VANE - DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT MANAGER
ME DRAWING SCALE
NIS 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
RALEIGH
27612
DRAWN BY PROJECT DATE ,
[phone]
WK
JL 4/200.
D
APPROVED BY
SHW PROTECT NUMBER
3024600RA T DICKSON Office Locations:

lin
r
N
th C
r
G
i
it
i
t
t
t
f
FILE NAME

DETAILS PLOT GATE

+/2004 g
or
o
a
eo
a
a
commun
y
n
ras
ructure consul
an
s
South Carolina Florida
PROPOSED GROUND
BANKFULL
ELEVATION
ROOT WAD
VERT ELEVATION
2
FILL
FROM BANKFULL ELEVATION
\\ SLOPE EXISTING GROUND AS INDICATED
BY PROPOSED CONTOURS ON THE
PLANS.
\\ MAXIMUM 2:1 (50%) SLOPE
,j BOULDER
(AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER)
,-14' MIN. BOLE LENGTH
TOP OF FOOTER LOG
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 i.m.. 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYNO
ME NTS
RALEIGH, NC 27612
DRAWN Br PROJECT DATE - [phone]
JL +/AOO?

APPROVED BY
PROJECT NUMBER

Office Locations:
DICKSON
SRw 3024600RA _
infrastructure COn9tiltonte North Carolina Georgia
commun)t
FILE NAME
NAM PLOT OATS i.
?? y
South Carolina Florida
I
ES
D
\. DATE
1 4 1
IF ROOT WAD DOES NOT COVER
ENTIRE BANK & CONSTRUCTION
IS BETWEEN MID OCTOBER TO'
MID MARCH, PROTECT BANK
COIR FIBER WITH BRUSH LAYER. (SEE DETAIL)
MATTING
FLOOD PLAIN TOP OF BANK -,
BANKFULL STAGE
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.
x
?O
ROOT WAD
1-FOOTER LOG
ROOT WADS - PLAN VIEW - TRENCHING METHOD
ROOT WADS - DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
F,
PROJECT MANAGER

SCALE
DRAWING

- -IN

3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
LAE NTS ' RALEIGH, NC 27612
DRAWN BY PROJECT DATE [phone]
WK
JL 4/2004
D
APPROVED BY PROJECT NUMBER N Office Locations:
DICKSON
sr+w ao24eooRA ` ~- structure consultants North Carolina Georgia
communit
Inf
FILE NAME PLOT GATE y
ra
South Carolina Florida
DETAILS 4/2004

?o
INTAKE HOSE
PUMP
WORK AREA INSTREAM
CHECK DAM
DISCHARGE HOSE
NOTE: HOSE SHOULD BE KEPT
OUTSIDE OF L.O.C.
INSTREAM SEDIMENT TRAP
_ STABIUZED OUTFALL WITH
VELOCITY DISSIPATORS
PUMP AROUND DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT MANAGER DRAWING SCALE 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
ME NTS ' RALEIGH, NC 27612
DRAWN BY PROJECT DATE WK [phone]
J` 4/2004

APPROVED BY
PROJECT JECT NUMBER DI

Office Locations:
CKSON
sr+w 3o24eooRA communit
i
f consultants North Carolina Georgia
t
ct
FILE NAME PLOT DATE - y
n
ras
ru
ure
South Carolina Florida
DETAILS 42004
0
t
0
SOD MAT SHALL BE PLACED
WITH TRACK HOE OR LOADER
` BANKFULL ELEVATION
1= I w III -
=III , III=
=I
PLACED SOD LOW FLOW W.S. _1111
COMPACT WITH BOTTOM II=1 _=IIIIi
OF EXCAVATOR BUCKET -
I=_- ?rrrrr-rrmr= Tyr mr _ 1=_I i I I L
11111=11111_11111=11111_11111=11111=1III I- =11111=
- I I-d i t 1-11111=11111=I I I I I-I I I I I-I I - I I-
STREAM BED
SOD MATS: HARVESTED ON-SITE
0.75' MINIMUM THICKNESS
SOD MAT - TYPICAL DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT MANAGER DRAWING SCALE
3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND
ME NTS RALEIGH, NC 27612
DRAWN BY PROJECT GATE [phone]
JL 4/2004
APPROVED BY PROJECT NUMBER
Office a
s:
DICKSON
sNw oRA ina
North Carolina Geor
ia
lt
t
I
i
'
t
'
t
it
FILE NAME
DETAILS PLOT T DATE DATE
4/2004 g
UfE consu
an
s
fl
l
O8
!
UC
commun
y
South Carolina Florida
N_ J ~YZ ~ ' Y
pia Wo
~oz z~a ~1 LEGEND
~w~
o"~ _ EXISTING
~W~ WOODS LINE
w~r nI ~ Q FENCE LINE X X
;~W (7~q)~ gyp] .i. _ ~ MAJOR CONTOUR
MINOR CONTOUR -
Zia 26 .N 2s7-_ > ~ REMOVE EXISTING
oar ~ ~ 7 a / 2s5_ FENCE WITHIN LCE ~ WETLANDS
~=o 14 ~ ' a-~ ~ ~
ttpaW f z a k50 ~0 10 _ f PROPOSED
d~~o . A ~~W] pow ~ CENTER OF CHANNEL - -
w rc ~ ~ Wz~ Y` ~~1 TOP OF BANK
s~~o
~Z~a / ~ LIMITS DF CONSERVATION ~ 'PROPOS`tD LCE EASMENT (TO BE FENCED)
KUWm ~J \ / ~oao ~ PLANTING GATE ~ PLANTING ZONE BOUNDARY - - - - -
a o r tl Ox N ~JW ,S ZONE 1
U ~ ~ 2 ZppW Q 6 \ FENCE X X
oNOZ ~ UOWU ~ PROPOSED CONTOUR
~ \ ~J=m r: i PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
_ _ fn OttJ ~ ~.1 ~ ROOTWAD
oo~N ~ 7! aa~ LOG VANE }
m o \ xZUa i0 ~ CUTTINGS BUNDLE
p \ ^1 3 F ? N ~ ~ f
A~ / f CHANNEL PLUG L
Z F a~i W ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ LOG GRADE CONTROL CC3O
a ~ - - 00~~ x-26 -a_~' LOG TOE PROTECTION
r- ~ OQ n. 3+5Q C25 ~ FORD CROSSING
c2 ~~x >>,c0 30 N1URE CULVERT CROSSING
n' ` ~r~ 0 ~ FLOODPLAIN SILL
j,.., 1" tP ~ N~ r .a 7 ° ~ G O Gry O
~ 66..._ TEMPORARY CROSSING ~ 2
Q ~ ti:: cia ~3 NOTE: SOD MATS TO BE PLACED ON ALL
4 NEW CHANNEL BANKS
0 h + ~ ~ f 7- ~ ~--26
~ ~ 1,
. +b~ / ca r' 1 ~ ~ ~ 30 0 15 30 60
1 o° f CyG ti C~ <
~ _ 2 hx 's ~ti' 6 ks F~
~ G'`~ k~ PROPOSED ° ~ ~ ~R C22 ~bX o~~ ~ ~ G > .y 1 inch = 30ft.
STOCKPILE \ xs ~ AREA ~ ~ ` f

~CF
LCE ~ E wt
~F\ ~ ~ ~ CURVE TABLE
\ U`~OPfISED ~ \ / STOCKPILE oPtisEO ~ ROPOSED i CURVE RADIUS ARC LENGTH STOCKPILE GATE
AREA AREA AGE ~ C13 29.70 78.93
\ / C14 25.56 33.58
~ GE F r ~ ~ C15 28.14 46.86 i ~~~~,y` ~ C16 27.76 53.31
C17 46.43 31.17
LCE LCE LCE LCE C18 28.63 53.50
-f- C19 29.46 75.38
PLANTING C20 26.75 67.53 ~ C21 22.76 23.52
ZONE 2 C22 29.49 28.71
C23 39.50 35.99
C24 34.67 26.44
C25 30.76 24.62
C26 33.15 12.45 C27 27.14 11.86
12.s' 12.s'- 12.8 C28 24.73 36.41
BANKFULL ELEVATION BANKFULI ELEVATI WKFULL ELEVATION
12.8'
0.9 BANKFULL ELEVATION 0.9 2.8 2.8 1'
1 0.8' ~ 1 .8'
2.1' 0.2'
5.5' 0.5' 0.5'
0.3' 15.15' 5.15' -I
11.0' 1.8' 10.3' 0.7' 0.7' 10.3' -10.3' 1.8'
TYPICAL RIFFLE DESIGN CROSS-SECTION - UT-1 TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER POOL SECTION UT-1 - D,fS LIMIT TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER POOL SECTI ER POOL SECTION UT-1 - D/S LIMIT
- - _ - 7o s~a~~ ,r 7o s~~a~~
. . . . . . . .
= ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MM =GRADE CONTROLS UCTURE . l~J .
. . . . . . . ,
=FORD CROSSING:
. . . . . .
7 0 - . 270

. .
o -
o
. ROPOSED STREAM' .B .
ao 65 265 _ w
- : Y ADIENT AT Bi1NK . _ . ~ _ - = - - -
ENERG Z : - J

U -n ~ F- ~n
Q rn~ ~ : ~ ref Or Nr f'~: ~t0: + +~~10~G1.F~ cMp Nh~~ mN N ~N ~ ~N+1p
rp ~ ..r .N iA (V ' :N M: ...OD O ~ + M N . N ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ O N ~ ~ N ,c 0 ~ N... N..}. N.+ N ~ N.. , Q Q >W ~ N. . ~ Mm Mm ~D QJ ~N r.lal ~ rN j 'F~ J~N~N ~ ~ ~N~N aW: W ~ " H HJ
N tD . O~ : M ~ fV f~l n. : r N O N M 60 : ~ . N: Os ~ +N } r +t0 :nom: f'h ~N N . N~ . ~ . ~N ~ ~N ~N +N +N j N +m Q iAN ON-Q aW~ QW W ~ FJJ J ~ ~ UfWQ 260 t0 !p ~ f0 ~ ~ r H H. T/1 W W Q a
N r : + ~ t ~ ~ ~ N p}j N: ~ : ~ Q ~ . ~ D r ~ • ~ Q ± fQ ± Tp *1 W i t~aj N: ~ N ~ W N N N H ~ : ~p~ : W ~ ~ F-J : ~ : : : ~ ~ Q~ N H_I f~W W ~ W~.J : :U) W IOW : : : : ~ 1-:J Q~ VI W NW ~ ~ W HJ HJ ~ In 41 fA WV1W : : :
p ' N Q r N N f~~ V)W +tb._. > 0...:.....r,~.:.......... ) qW. ~ ~H HJ NW ~N ~N - NW.N Q aW ~~~W W VlW (!1W Q ~J V!W VlW . H.~. W
~N. q qW tD ~ F J. NW qW qW .F-J. F.J F.J J . .
~ !!1W N ~N W In W. q qW q-> qW V11J17 fnW :VI W: InW ~W W ....f.. ~ .F.:~~....y. J..:.... q ..N .~...:.....Q W - N 4[ ~ N L1 l0 W H J: : J ~ J :
. . . .
. . . .
255
55
8+ 0 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00 10+50 11 +00 11 +50 12+00 12+50 13+00 0 ~0 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+00 15+50 16+00 16+50 17+00 17+50
PROJECT MANAGER DRAWING SCALE 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND RELEASED FOR DATE
ME 1" = 30' RALEIGH, NC 27612 ENVIRONMENTAL BANC & EXCHANGE, LLC STONEBRIDGE DESIGN PLANS 2
DRAWN BY PROJECT DATE APPROVALS [phone] RHN 03/30/2004 BIDDING
APPROVED BY PROJECT NUMBER STC STONEBRIDGE STREAM MITIGATION PROJEC
ME 3024600RA DICKSON Office Locations:
FNE NAME PLOT DATE community infrastructure consultants North Carolina Georgia CONSTRUCTION REV. N0. DESCRIPTION DATE desi la t.dw 06/23/2005 South Carolina Florida CARTHAGE, NORTH CAROLINA UT-1 STA. 8+00 TO 17+50 8
REVISIONS 9"- RECORD DWG.

~ J Q
~YC) ~3~ 0 0
~°z z~a LEGEND
zuWi~ ~j
pZ~ PLANTING > ~~1 EXISTING
WOW ~O ~ Y ~ ZONE 1 WOODS LINE
~~a ok~ ~G 0 ~ ~ FENCE LINE
N~~ P _ _ . ~0 _ _ ~ ~ W 1PCSED MAJOR CONTOUR
~oU t~p~T~ °~0 1 TF 30l ~A,~ 3C1
o~° ~0
~ _ _ _ - WETLANDS
_ 3 ,
~ a- / ~ v °Z ,a. 7~ ~ C~ f ~ n G f v n f PROPOSED
pJ~V ~ooW ~1- • C~ ~ nG C~ CENTER OF CHANNEL - -
w~Wp 9 ~ ~ ~G TOP OF BANK
WZ~~ / ~ ~ ~ G ~ ~
~W°> ~ f ~ ~ LIMITS OF CONSERVATION EASMENT (TO BE FENCED) LCE
KUwm -+oao - C48 PLANTING ZONE BOUNDARY - -
a,~ o o x`01 ~ 6 ~ 2g q ~ - . ` +50
+ 6 ~,v, r~'~ ~f 25 FENCE X X n,,,h..'~y,,~,n
~ ~ 35 h o v, d Z ~O1 / C o ~ Ck ~sg 26 PROPOSED CONTOUR +
PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
2 m N 68 ~ 000 / N C4 m -f; ' ~ 4 C4 ROOTWAD
ai ~ LOG VANE
n YZ~a X .p / ~ k
F z N ~ C ? 2?x C36 CUTTINGS BUNDLE x
OOOZ ~ SQ QQ OQ ~ [ CHANNEL PLUG
x ~ .yR LOG GRADE CONTROL
OWO~ ~ V a o Y _ ,k +5~. C~ 'f LOG TOE PROTECTION
00~?~ ooov, 6~ / PROPOS ~ ED X FORD CROSSING
~ STOCKPIL FUTURE CULVERT CROSSING
i E 9x~ i ~ AREA
\ / ~ FLOODPLAIN SILL
~ ~ ~ ~C TEMPORARY CROSSING '/".r E
6 ~ , t,CE 2 ~ / / ~ x ~ ~ > _
~ ~o _ ~ 2~0 PROPOSED ~ LGE o 19 STOCKPILE / LCE LCE ~2~ ~J` _ PROPOSED NOTE: SOD MATS TO BE PLACED ON ALL 0 NEW CHANNEL BANKS
LCE GATE
AREA / E ~C ~ /
N E
JO 0 15 30 60
-rr
X , 18+00 ,
X26 1 inch = 30ft.

PLANTING x ~
ZONE 2
1
CE CURVE TABLE
L LCE
I CURVE RADIUS ARC LENGTH C29 23.22 33.45
C30 26.41 31.64
C31 25.33 50.56
C32 25.11 55.78
C33 23.82 51.72 C34 25.14 49.10
C35 15.00 27.17
C36 23.23 39.73
C37 48.36 29.97
C38 41.66 30.48
12s' 12s' C39 8.64 11.06 C40 37,34 28,08
- - - - - - BANKFULL ELEVATION- - - - - - - BANKFULL ELEVATION 1TION- _ _ - - - - C41 26.84 30.08
C42 20.64 15.05
12.8' C43 45.93 19.77
0.9 BANKFULL ELEVATION 0.9 C44 31.22 31.66
2.8 2.8 1 I 1 ~ C45 26, 09 12.00
o.e' 1'L .8' C46 21.37 19.12 C47 30.83 16.47
2.r 0.2' C48 26,49 46.04
0.5' C49 29.60 42,00
5.5' 0.5' 0.3' I~ 5.15' 5.15'
11.0' 1,8' 10.3' 0.7' 0.7' 10,3' 1.8'
TYPICAL RIFFLE DESIGN CROSS-SECTION - UT-1 TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER POOL SECTION UT-1 - D/S LIMIT TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER POOL SECTION UT-1 - NnT ro ~c~_- rior To sca~E Nor To scH~E ;TION UT-1 - D,~S LIMIT
. . . . . . .
=GRADE :CON OL: STRUCTURE
. . .
=FORD CROS ING
70 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
. . . . . .
r PROP SED:STREAM BED : _ . _ . - - - -
W ~ ~ T ~T GRADIE A B U S E D 2.
~ EIVERG : ` ~V ' r : ANKF LL . TAG ,00 . . . . .
J - ~ ~ W . . T ~ ~ . . ~ . .
2 D
~ = ~ X265 00
~ mom=
. . ' ~ pi M'f - - N~ - - - r- - N N~ r0 N cV~ OfpO ID~4 Il)O ~ v~r N - - - 'FN { a0 UO ~t0. ~lD 00 ~Op Nt0 a NN NN
: : +tp : m : T Grp Ym ~ t0~ N~ NN NN N(y -
tD I~ N OOP O~. ~ N NN Q W Q~ N NN a W Q W HJ hJ OOO NCO : NN N> +'tt ~ _ +d } dw N FJ F-J h > V1W NW m
r~' ~ a~ :+a~ : ~ : rn~ O~ MN W» O(0 ON a0~ 0r NN NN. ,0., :N N: N O.. N~ MJ._ . MS........... ~ M ~ ~ tp . ~D ~D N N N N M M + M + + 0..... m..... N......._~p ..01.....0! _1` ~ ....._....N r~ N .....~M ~~..Q~..... + W.:.. gyp... O TO: rtD N NM ODN N ~ Ol ~ ~ M... ' +M._...+~... ~ ~ OO...} ~ ~ -W W' m'~~....d Q NN N' +M...'}M.:.. ....dL1._.....:.N~....~~_....:..~J...:... J--.....:..(`lN...:.N.......~J._...V~iJ..4>. ~WW..:~.._..~W.... >..~.W..:...~w...N... Fa'~ N~ V~ 4W F N~ Nom. Vl W hW }W 7•-J F J J ~ iA
rrj N . N ~ N O ~ ~ + M + • 1. • ~ N ~ N. Q W Q O O O N Q W ~ W N N vN t-' J ~ J . NN . J. ~ l~rJ N N tV > ln~. .CO :Q Q FJ F'~ NN N F--J F-J (nW Tn W: W. ~ ~ ~ . NN NN ~J fnW ~ fAW NW W tFIW N
..N..Q.w.:.Q. W.....:.... ~D.. ....Otp......Q1il....~ r ........:.r. .....:.I-.~.....~ ~'.....(~.W. .N f~ W _ Vl W . J. HJ N '-N F'J ~ W .a W. : ?C W Q~ ...F~..F _ 4J,tFQ. W. ..FWJ....k„4JU.:. dw..Q ~-~....~J. .......v~w...:.v1....... VI W dl W : +
(A W~ U1W ~ : ) ~W ~ Q Q J J. k-J HJ NW N : WV1W : VIW dl W 26 0 W . ~ ~ : ~ W . :V1 W. to W Ul W W 4 W 0260 . . . . . . . .
W ~ W . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
255 255
17+50 18+00 18+50 19+00 19+50 20+00 20+50 21+00 21+50 22+00 00 22+50 23+00 23+50 24+00 24+50 25+00 25+50 26+00
PROJECT MANAGER DRAWNG SCALE 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND RELEASED FOR DATE
RA 1" 30 RALEIGH, NC 27612
APPROVALS E DRAWN BY PROJECT DATE [phone] ~ ENVIRONMENTAL BANC & EXCHANGE, LLC STONEBRIDGE DESIGN PLANS 3
RHN 03/30/2004 APPROVED BY PROJECT NUMBER BIDDING STOr STONEBRIDGE STREAM MITIGATION PROJEC
ME 3024600RA D I C K'S 0 N Office Locations:
FILE NAME PLOT DATE community infrastructure consultants North Carolina Georgia CONSTRUCTION REV. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE design_layout.dw 06/23/2005 South Carolina Florida CARTHAGE, NORTH CAROLINA UT-1 STA. '17+50 +'17+50 TO 26+00 8
REVISIONS RECORD DWG.

rg Q
~YC9
O;~ ~O
Z~a _ _ LEGEND
H z z _ z vwi ~ _ . ooh - _
_ , _ . _ _ _ r EXISTING
i a ~ ¢ r _ 1~ - _ o-~ PLAN IN - ~ _ r WOODS LINE
z ~ ~ 0 r~ ; FENCE LINE X X
w Z N E 1 ~ f7 . 0 _ . f7 r ~ ' MAJOR CONTOUR
_ . _ ~ fr j / ~ b "t^ I
i Fpm ~ i ..w..._..__._. i _ ~ ; Q a ~ ~ _ ,fu j ~ , MINOR CONTOUR i Fr 1 4``` ~c/ 4 fif'kd ~~x
4 a - _ r__ J 1 wEnANDS
- N ~ . ~ , • oZ~ ~ -..w ~ ~ 'M, o ~
l ~1 l 't4, "Ali ! PROPOSED tier, i
by . _ ~$ow ~ r ~ r~ ~ ~ +6 ~ CENTER OF CHANNEL
w ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ , J t ~ f \ w?~ ~1'~i f r'j ~ TOP OF BANK
~,.~,r0. ~
LL > ~ ~ w , . _ ~ ~ ~ V ' ' ~ "1 ; LIMITS OF CONSERVATION ' ' EASMENT (TO BE FENCED} / > i tl
, ~ ~Oa ~ 1 ~ ~ ` ~ ~'I ~ i ~Tl ~ f ! ? ~ ~ J PLANTING ZONE BOUNDARY- - - - -
A f i J W \ r^"}', ~ l ,J . , 4 . , t r r
~ au r ~l ~y , . 1! ~ I FENCE ~ ~ X X h° fl X / r
o~~ C C5 PROPOSED CONTOUR / ~ f
i f ~ ii U S ,kGf rfr'` t, PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
ZWo ti~ f +6~ 00 r G7C' ~ ~ ~aai ~ ~ PROPOSED ~'I f ~ / ROOTWAD
~ t aO~y ~ ~ / _ ~ r t` STOCKPILE ~ '`i+ t - f LOG VANE
Z r - ti Y o Z W r'` _ ti .,AREA F-rA
'O o o ~,ri cs i c t~~ 1 "QO< , ,~'`.~'"""1 PROPOSED J~J ~ s~ -f - 6 ~ ' CUTTINGS BUNDLE
~ z ~ ~ 1 STOCKPILE r'~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I' ~ CHANNEL PLUG ~ I
W z .~3' / ~ 3o+ a ~ ~ ~ ° < AREA Sg ~x t~') ~ zl , ~ ~a` ` Loc GRADE coNTRa
~ ~ ~ i 2 , 0 uoo~ ~ ` i 1 r ,Qi ~ ~ ~ , LOG TOE PROTECTION
r^ ` 4,, ~ .tl` ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ '~~r ~ F ~ ~ f FORD CROSSING
~ 1 ~ , I ;r , i i's',~ I f ,~'fr ; j i i r' ~ FUTURE CULVERT CROSSING °'1°
i,~r, ~ ~ r ~ F c, r ~i r r ~
/ LCE ~ i;. / 1 I i ~ i FLOODPLAIN SILL I t I ~ 0
SCE -4- 69~ ~..~-6~ ~ J I TEMPORARY CROSSING j r~ J
~ ~ f 6~ ~r 1 ' I ~ ~ f
~ i ~ ~C F E r ~ cez ; ~ NOTE: SOD MATS TO BE PLACED ON ALL 1 vi ~ ~ l Mfr i ~ NEW CHANNEL BANKS C62 ~t r;,,'!,'
~ cs ~ j. 1
SCE ~,i t ~ G c ~ i
~~CE p n j~A i ~ ~ i 30 0 15 30 60
~'F f, _ Q- C9 ~ ~ ~ -:r r-r :F „r, i f 1 1
_ r 0 . SEO r- ~ Q;,. ~ s ~ i
OP a G ~ ~'r i 1 inch = 30ft.
Q , R P G rf I
x0 s ; ~ i` 0~ PLANTING . 1~ i
?ONE 2 k f ~ a x ~ O>
~ ~ s oa+~ v ~ , x~ O~jdQ
dp p aY
y5, ~3=,~ w w a
~ til#5 ~'R 1~ r
CURVE TABLE
CURVE RADIUS ARC LENGTH C50 24.91 47.15
C51 21.47 46.45
C52 28.07 43.52
12.8' 12.8' - C53 24.09 21.30 12.8 C54 19, 32 10.68
- - - - - - BANKFULL ELEVATION- - - - - - - BANKFULL ELEVA IANKFULL ELEVATION- _ _ _ _ _ _ C55 22.60 36.87
C56 21.98 63.11
12.8' C57 22.91 50.36
0.9 BANKFUIL ELEVATION 0.9 2.8 2.8 C58 23.34 42.26
1 1' C59 25.83 16.53
0.8' 1 .8' C60 26.71 27.14 C61 20.67 33.72
2.1' 0.2' C62 24.13 38.98
5.5' 0.5' 0.5' C63 26.77 34.16
0.3' 5,t 5' 5.15' I C64 27.30 45.92
11.0' 1.8' 10.3' 0.7' 0.7' 10.3' ~'1 C65 23.20 52.05
-10.3' 1.8'
TYPICAL RIFFLE DESIGN CROSS-SECTION - UT-1 TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER POOL SECTION UT-1 - DDS LIMIT TIPICAL LEFT MEANDER POOL SEC• - Nnr Tc~ scA~E r~o- ro )E~_ ~ECT10N UT-1 - D/S LIMIT
. . . .
. . ...,..D. . ~ ~ GRA E CONtT'ROL STRUCTURE . , ,
275 . . 7 2 5
~ CIiL T CROSSfNG - - - -
. . .
. .
o.....: _ _ . o
• . . . . ~ • • . . , • . O
270 ~ ROPOSED STREAM: BED
0 270
w Ln
_z _ ENERGY` GR~A ~ A~ ANK . . .
~ _ ~ ~ w
: ~ ~ z
r 1 r........... ...v .........s .~~r~..:. . J
o ~ M r ~ ~ ~ ap : ~ M ~ t0 N W a. Oi ~ O M ~ N t0 ~
Q ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . cj .
265 ^N m. ~?m ~r N~ r~ : +r. .+r. ~ irym- N~ N _ MN .0... nN ~ ~~.~Q ~ 19N~ (l N C~ pp v V .fly +n ~ ~ Nom: :N~: COm MN: M. Oi N~ > O ~ d F- b1 rf0 ~f0 r N MN. MN. In ~me}. a Q +0 ~ ~ +n < 265_ w r
~,m ~ a, + .n oa. oa .dom. N t0 ~ ap tG : } tC ~ + m + ~ ~ + ~o+ a ~ n tD tD ~ W tC. O . N : M N : ~ LO Of ~ ~ ~ t0 N ~ M N M d NJ + iIU m iIp c0: ~ ~ :N N~ W: H tp W Nw ~ K1N ~N NW Vf W e~ + + ~ > > +`~o f~ Qw Q N rw J ~~p
N r~ :d m d 1D tp W .pp t0 t0~ f0n ~n M ~ +O. +1A +N p~, ~ QiMO1M m' A d N NN ~ QO NN N t O ~0....~ p. . 1+1 SV...... 10. + ' IQ • > c0 ' M1 N N ' .N N~~.,..~m..........~~D....h~y;n N N ..M).:... ...NNNI;V.. f!n N N•+~~h. ...Q>..Q>~.. w f ~N N~ QW Q W MN MN FJ~ i~AW~ :M M NW: U1W :MIS M1N ~ H J ......F' N.W... • > ~ Q W Q W Q W q W
O~~ NN NN N N ~ ~ ~ > +N U1 : ~ :aD~O. ..Oi ~ ~~...+A.m...:..... ...~~...~N:'~ 1-J ~H~.. }IA} + > Q N > j NN••> >NNNN d ~ .NN NN F~: FJ Q> ~ . j • > tD ~~qQpp ~ > r tp I~ m W ~ W P m tp d W H ~ Q WQ W Q W W ~ F UI W • fA W > . Vl W : (/1 W • W W Q7W W: Q Q f. !-_1 : :1a-1 HJ : : : VlW InW : fAW MW : ~ J J . ~J E' W : N UI ICJ . VI W fA W
Ip t0 tD.:.. Q Q~ l`N N Q N N N J. r ~ N N N~ F" J F' JF• J J J.> N N W Q H J J. • . 'NN~N r•J ..y, J ...N... W....N..~ ...~W..:.... .VI.W...:.~!?.I+f..Q ...yt W..:4 SAW W.QWQ ...4 ...t-1:.F :.V?.W... ..!+J:... ~?.W... W
> : ~w VfW N~ dW aW ~w 'w : : u~? :u~iw: u~iwu~i>v... ~ tnw: N Q W~ W F ~ FJ HJ HJ J : : t0 fA W UIW : : : : : HJHJ ;V>. W fAW(AW VIW w ~ . .
~tnWtnw.,.. . . ~ . ~ gym.
N N N
: J ~
260 W . ~ . . 260
26+00 26+50 27+00 27+50 28+00 28+50 29+00 + 29 50 30+00 30+50 31 +00 31 +00 31 +50 32+00 32+50 33+00 33+50 4+ 3 00 34+50 + 35 00
1" = 30' RALEIGH, NC 27612 1 Folk's NN BY PROJECT DATE APPROVALS ENVIRONMENTAL BANC & EXCHANGE, LLC STONEBRIDGE DESIGN PLANS q
[RHN CT MANAGER DRANNG SCALE 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND RELEASED FOR DATE [phone] 03/30/2004
ROVED BY PROJECT NUMBER BIDDING S I STONEBRIDGE STREAM MITIGATION PROJEC
3024600RA DICKSON Office Locations: REV. N0. DESCRIPTI0N DATE PLOT DATE community infrastructure consultants North Carolina Georgia CONS1RUCilON CARTHAGE, NORTH CAROLINA I L UT-1 STA. 26+00 TO 35+00 8
si nJa ut.dr 06/23/2005 South Carolina Florida REVISIONS a r~ RECORD DWG.

~ J
Q
Y C9 0;~ LEGEND
F~2 2F<
lil Z FZN~ XE ISTiNG
UO~ W°W WOODS LINE
W ~ .M , ~.,ti FENCE LINE X X
t . _ _ w r ~ w_°~...w U _ MAJOR CONTOUR
~ ~ ~I , _ _ , _ ~o; ~ r`"~J LCE ~ 1'CE~~+~LCE ~ r h._.,.. " ~ ~tr~lV~~'~~7.---..._ _ _ MINOR CONTOUR
°~o P.ROPQS~D _ , LCE ~~L~E ~.~..~.LCE ~~~LCE,~..~s.~r~l~ _~_°_.J.--- WETLANDS
ono _ NE ~ _ ~ .r , ~ ~ R~iE--_-----_-- _ by
<F C~fi , ~ , . M. _ oa ~C _ _
4., .-x._.__._._....._ _ d J „ ......_...__„__„_.„w. ~ ~ w~., - PROPOSED _._.m._~__ ~
oza ~ - _ - - CENTER OF CHANNEL - -
r l "r.~ ~ h . ..w., - ~ TOP OF BANK
3 - ~ T (p(~ , '~r _ l ~"'~LCE _ /
< v~ ~ 1A . " - . LIMITS OF CONSERVATION ~ EASMENT (TO BE FENCED} LCE
' ~ V]NW i ~ ~ _ _ ti, ~ ~ , .x , y - PLANTING ZONE BOUNDARY- - _ ------__._._-_._._._,L.
~ U W m '~T ~ O - - Q , . ,.w ~ J s a ~ 4
w _ _ _ ~ FENCE X X
s ? 0 0 0 271 _ ~ . DOa ' w___ ~ _ 0 o~ 'z ~ . ; _ PROPOSED CONTOUR , - ,
, Y' ~ o r` 1$ ~ z o r k , . - _ _w ~ ,r ~ PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
w i , ,~°m° ~ ~ ~ p C72 ~ ~ ~ r'4 272-" +7~ 2 ~ ~ 54 . 7~ ~ ,r w, ROOTWAD ~ Ct~ ..,,.4
m ~ ' ~ ~ ~r ' 3s+ r~' . _ - ~ x 0 o & ~ so ~s~ ~ 7 0 27 . tk ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ ` LOG VANE . l
J . Tsai - ~ ` g+Q ~ ~k t t r .
~ / curnNCS euNDLE ~.,,e-.-J l I k
~ 'o ,r ,l ' ~ ~ ~ 0~: ' ~~r-'-~ t' ~ ~ CHMMEL PUDG ---r'---- ~ C~3 i ~ ~ + , _
0 Q z , ~ ; ~~'Iw ~ ~ ' ~ ~ sfi `J v k5O '~I LOG GRADE CONTROL
iz ~ -y. 4 ~ ~ ~ _ _ w~ f ~ ~ ` ' ' - ~ LOG TOE PROTECTION ~ ~
< ~ _ PROPOSED ~ / ; - , oo~o ~ _.`C ~ ~ STOCKPILE 0 y FORD CROSSING 5 A `
, ~ ; , U00(!~ r! ~ -AREA ~ ~ ~ ;..x, t - -._.t .;E,o, t FUTURE CUL4fRT CROSSING
- ; , ~ - / ~1 ~ _ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~L, '
~a v _ _ i i \ µ i I f - _ 27 ~ FLOODPLAIN SILL . r_. ?
4 ? ~ r . + - ` r.. \ '^w a TEMPORARY CROSSING
. 3 - ~ _ ~ - ~ _ - aJ. . - ~ ~ ~ ~ , ti
~~3C1 r ~ . . . ~ , _ ~ - ~,,r ~l ~ ~ - ' : NOTE. SOD MATS TO BE PLACED ON ALL ~ NEW CHANNEL BANKS ~ I
w~ r 1 3J~ 1 4°='° i. - ~ _ ,~r
w~ ,w - r~RaPOSED ~v~ r , 271 . 276..... PROPOSED , , . ! ~ o is ~ so . )
4 ,r`~~ ~ x____~, GA:~E r _ _ 27 ` ~ STOCKPILE ~ _ - ~p[ A ,
r ~ r ,.f _ ' ~.x._xw._.,. .M , , . ~ " 1 inch = 30ft.
_ _ _ , . ~ Nq~ .u..M_. - , ~ : - _ CURVE TABLE
~ ~ F ~ 83 _ ~
. xx„_.._ ,f._ ~R~p _ I CURVE RADIUS ARC LENGTH
~ w \ J' ~ ~°z C66 23.20 38.54
• t _~~x 3~~ ~ ~ - ` ~ ~A`~I TI (~,G ~ cs7 27.4s 17.02 ' C68 23.77 15.75
~ . L V I e~` 1 '1 4 ~1 ~ ~ C69 23.84 43.54
w ~ ~ C70 27.20 35.45
~~k. ° , 't, ' C71 23.39 21.11 ~ o ~
S C72 25.11 39.83
~ ~ C73 23.94 15.44 C74 25.97 31.42
C75 26.35 50.60
C76 23.88 34.95
C77 26.46 45.31
C78 28.86 27.54
C79 18.70 27.21 C80 25.08 51.27
C81 23.15 54.22
C82 24.30 41.38
C83 26.19 26.86
C84 12.43 13.87
C85 24.33 29.66 C86 242.05 12.50
11.6' 11.6' -11.6' C87 23.10 6.38
11 6' _ _ _ _ BANKFULL ELEVATION- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ BANKFULL ELEVATION (FULL ELEVATION
10.0'
0.8' BANKFULL ELEVATION 0.8'
2.3' 1 J 2.3
1,8' 0.3~ 0.6' 0.6'
L J
0.4' 0.4' 0.3' 4.75' I~
f'~ 4.75'
0.7' 9.5' 1.4' 1.4' 9.5' - 9.5' 0.7'
Tll'ICAL RIFFLE DESIGN CROSS-SECTION - UT-1 - UJS OF UT-2 TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER POOL SECTION UT-1 - UPS OF UT-2 TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER POOL SECI - ~~or Ta scn~_F )ER POOL SECTION UT-1 - U/S OF UT-2 Nor Ta sca~_L
280 . . 280
~..~..~AO or~r~c~ sT~e~~E
. :
.
. . . .
275 :275 .
o: . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . "
~r.

: ~ ~ ~ : : `f GRADI T A7 BANKFULL STAG = 0.003 FT ; ENERG _ - -
270 0 .270 . .
- :d r U'
. . . .
~ r:N . O . _ _ _ _ _ _ !t...... ' .rn~: r~ oQ~ G~~ iAr. pi .}.pj N~ +A Nr r pMCS~+PM 01 W ~N Q' ..........N ..-.1~...... +Ci--'FW- ..-.:...-_...._..~,ID... .,FOI_....: ~.N~.. ~ N dN... N.._..r..~.N n
O Of~..~Cr mOn$ ~+0: Nr W ~ r N ~m ~ pr O~ N~ m ~ ~ ac A Os: Q O ~O pp 1p ~ 1p ~ ~C. N t(i N N f d r...N M p,~ D ~ Old .OtD- O~ dN ±FN 'N dN dN' N00 rag d Nm rA~ r~ > +A+a >
W ~ ~ ~ ~ m r } 0s } Oi : Ol . 0~ ~ O ~ O LV O N Of O r N- .N........r O. ..............Q~...+~...~...~. rt0"N ~ ..ap~p..~~p...tp~... ~y...MNy~N...+.,01_....~N.:..MN...d... ~ ~ } V Of O r . d N. d N t0 Nd ~ ' f` tD h~ c0 d N . j d ' M O M O ~ + 0? + ~ 4 O O: : > O~ N 07 W >d> QW +m FW ~ d};VdN<W~ MN~N VlW ' ~ ~ ~ J ..N !D N ~ r. W
~ O~. ~ .~.pp }OD t0Q N~ ~ pO P t N M f0 oD ~ ~ ~tp O (p ~ N N ~Or ~ rn hN Mj01 it~ N MN M~ 17N ~ W~ ~ QW QW M ~N 01 f0 t0 ~ ~ N U0. M N I~ M . M 4`1 MI I~ d S ~ > m m Q ~ NI') .Q W Q W N N ~ M ~N W O~DQ t0 t0 Grp FJ F dN ~ dN W(/1W J QW QW ~ ~ .f..~: HJ d~N: (nW V1W ~N .~N tAW t/!W: j (AW '7 : ~JHJ F ~ W
N1+l.NQ..MN. N.:......M~ M.....cD~...:,>....+ttQ~. ..}m...'..~ ...,>....'>.Kr.(~ '>'...4W.. N..h.n. W.. ~fV.... N H,}H~ ~_l~ h-~.I IAW (AW > MN ~<11 M MN N Q ~ ~ F J ~ F•.J F:~ I I~ . Q W ~ WW M N ~ Q W M ~ N W N W ~ > : N 4i 'W W....~ w., • Vl lif ~ . , > . . . F J ~ ~...:N W:. N.~.... - ~ Q Q W N W N W J H I- J Q ~}~Q W. WW (0 IA W !A W
tp if1O ~t W W ~ ~ F-.J ~ W W U1W NW NW W Q W W i W F-Jr W Vl V1W 265 ~ dW ~NMN J J VIW aW aW ~ ~ ~ Q QW aW ~ f-J F-J :F-~ J . VfWV1 fAW . Vl VlW HJrJ. HJ N.J VJW lnW O N~ WU1 W ' (n W Vl W ~ ~ ~ ~ - 2 6~5
QW dW : NW l11W : UlW : Uf !A dfW : : : : : : : : d d. . . . . . . .
Q N JFJ a0 M~ : O~ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : (/1 W UI W 0~ ~ M Of . :dw d~ .tnW V1W
M MN MN
.....:..........:.....:..Q. ....Q>.....Q>.. .
N H ~ : H N N W ~ N W . . . . . . . .
35+00 35+50 36+00 36+50 37+00 37+50 38+00 38+50 39+00 39+50 40+00 40+00 40+50 41 +00 41 +50 42+00 42+50 43+00 43+50 44+00
PROJECT MANAGER DRAWING SCALE 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND RELEASED FOR DATE
ME 1" = 30' RALEIGH, NC 27612 E ENVIRONMENTAL BANG & EXCHANGE, LLC STONEBRIDGE DESIGN PLANS 5
DRAWN BY PROJECT DATE APPROVALS [phone] RHN 03/30/2004
BIDDING STO~ APPROVED BY PROJECT NUMBER STONEBRIDGE STREAM MITIGATION PROJEC
3024600RA DICKSON Office Locations: CARTHAGE, NORTH CAROLINA UT-1 STA. 35+00 TO 44+00 8
RIPT1ON DATE FILE NAME PLOT DATE community infrastructure consultants North Carolina Georgia CONSTRUCTION REV. NO. DESC design-layout.dw 06/23/2005 South Carolina Florida RECORD DWG.
REVISIONS

Vj J
Q FYZ-U'
03~ w0
Foz z~< ~z LEGEND
w~ oo§
wUW EXISTING
~W~ Q WOODS LINE
O-~ FENCE LINE X
N~~ ~]W oo~ 1CE ~••~..r..LCE ~~LCE MAJOR CONTOUR
~o Zoo _ MINOR CONTOUR
L vim= WETLANDS ~r
oa~ ~C oaw F
szo _
aoza C PROPOSED
o`~~~ _ _ ~=ow ~ 3 ] !C CENTER OF CHANNEL - -
WZ~~ . TOP OF BANK
~~oo ~c _ _ LIMITS OF CONSERVATION
- _ - EASMENT (TO BE FENCED) LCE r
~'Wm _ _ _ a _ PLANTING ZONE BOUNDARY- -
aN~ PROPOSED ~ cF .=>w 9 ~ . . ~ PROPOSED lCE _ _ . _ FENCE X X
GATE - Z~ZW _ oo , _ c~oi48~0p ~ F,;'--tf GATE .
o r.~ 'CE ~ ~ PROPOSED CONTOUR ~-l , '~E ~ _ +
~ ~ m w / ~ ~ ' - _ 274 ~ ~ '^v~ _`1%~ `1~N ( ' _ , i E PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
Z W = m C _ Xy0 c99 100 C' ~ o a ~ ~ ~ ~ N% SCE f 1 : ROOTWAD
v a i 1 / ~ r~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ ) r In ~ mss ~ ~ _ _ LOG VANE i'i ~ ~ . . -
.1 J y O~ V Q r ti',° . ~ ` - yt _ _ _ cuTnNGS euNDLE ~'~282 ~
-s : ~ o° ~ y v, ~ ~ o z ~ cog x ~ Q, "U ~ - , , , CNANNEL PLUG ~
0°~Q J ~ rti ~ - ~ ~ ~~v\~ fir.
u w z ~ W g1 - - \\i Gj •~1,~s tom,, -~o~ J ~ J ; / ~ _ _ LOG GRADE CONTROL
oc~ ~ ,x f PROPOSED ~ I ~ LOG TOE PROTECTION . r
ooo~ ~ ] STOCKPILE o Q' / AREA - r-- , ,a ~xq•. ~ 21 r_~,I, _ FORD CROSSING _ _ ZONE 1 v ~ ~ 8
- ~ ~'d% _w , ~ ~ _ _ . _ ~ ~ FUIURE CUL4ERT CROSSING
. ~ ~ 3 ~ , FLOODPLAIN SILL t - - T
. ~ ~ - ' 30l , . ~ A ti s r., ~ ~ C: TEMPORARY CROSSING
5 5 , . _ f~ ~ .
• r• f ~ +00 ~ 3k0 "~k-~ NOTE: SOD MATS TO BE PLACED ON ALL
~ e n ~ ~i ` - cis ~5, NEW CHANNEL BANKS
~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ .-r \ ? ct» 6 r;
~ , + A c ~Q. _ a9 ~ + 52+50 w~ ~1~:M:~~.. : ~o o is ~a so / Z _ ~ _
~ . ~
r
k ~ - ~ - 1 inch = 30ft. PROPOSED CURVE TABLE
. - + k _ ~A STOCKPILE
A PROPOSED AREA CURVE RADIUS ARC LENGTH C88 191.74 29.43
_ GATE ~
k J 3~ C89 40.06 31.68 3Cl ~ C90 33.03 27.89
k 10 GR C91 37.33 16.55
g~ 3 3C1 C92 29.58 44.86 ~0)
O1 NPR _ _ _ C93 17.47 20.94
3~1 3~1 30 30~ l PLANTING c94 20.21 18.37 ~ aD C95 25.58 26.90
_ . ~ 301 , O ~ ' ZONE 2 N C96 29.93 12.86
PROPOSED' C97 29.93 23.63
GATE C98 35.74 20.27 _
C99 19.79 20.13 ~ C100 29.44 22.76
h~ fnr, v. C101 22.57 28.29
C102 30.76 14.57
C103 21.79 30.48
C104 38.19 26.93 C105 1113.75 34.96
C106 100.75 9.01
C107 16.63 16.02
11.s' C108 392.70 13.72
BANKFULL ELEVATION 11.6' - - - - - - - - - - - - - C109 52.54 12.18 11.6'
11 6' - - - - BANKFULL ELEVATION - - - - - - - - Bi BANKFULL ELEVATION C110 49.16 23.88 - - - - - - - - - - - - C111 33.02 21.00
C112 66.05 10.78
0.8' BANKFULL ELEVATION 0.8 L 2.3' C113 40.67 39.63
- 2.3' ' _ - J 2.3 C114 45.32 31.74 0.3' C115 31.59 21.42
1.8' - - 1 I
0.4 ~ J I C116 35.80 16.41 1 4, C117 18,06 17.35
4 9. 0.4' 0.4' 0.3' C118 15,88 10.76
4.75' 0.9' 9.8' 0.9' 0.7' 9.5' 1.4' 1.4' ~--4.75' C119 22.40 31.07
9.5' 0.7~ C120 29.76 36.88
TYPICAL RIFFLE DESIGN CROSS-SECTION - UT-1 - U/S OF UT-2 TYPICAL STRAIGHT REACH POOL SECTION UT-1 - U/S OF UT-2 TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER POOL SECTION UT-1 - U/S OF UT-2 TYPICAL RIGHT ME? "AL RIGHT MEANDER POOL SECTION UT-1 - UfS OF UT-2
. .
. . . . . .
=GRADE =GRADE CON OL:STRUCTUE?E ~ : : : : : : : : :
. .
=FORD 280 = FORD CROS NG 280
. :'.,s = CULVERT C SSING - - - -
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
275 PROPOSED STREAM ED 2 7 5 . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - -
. E - JL1: S1'AGE~:=0:00 'FTjFT..:........._ - .
. RGY GRADIEC~tT A : A ~ .PROPOSED TRE,4M BED - - - - - - - - - - - - r ~ .
O -.~.--..r -
. . . . . . . . . . - - ~J~? M J . ro ~
. . . . . . . ' ~ c...... h ~ r` ~ ~ ~ N .dl .rah o. o ^o....r~. .N. +N fH. nirQ
W : 270 ~ p~ : N~ .r ao.. ~ rn ao r Nr ~M Nr NI` ip n r~jrrl _ :t0~ '-F N• +N d IA ~ r. N iA~ NP ~r qN hN W. h :~N hN Cr 2/ 0
. ,,.,x •x as Sao _ ~ -I ~ O u~~:(p°D rN rN mr m . r.. : : NO d0 ~ r00~ Ol O~OON Olr .moo ~ r :o r: or o, om n . +r U ~ r t~ r ~ ~ : ~ h ~ ~ ~ Ol ~ : IfI N rn N + r ~ WW a 41 N N N N a W WW N h : a 4[ a til - - -
O00 00h .r~.ap~ ~`{~KT°p0!(0 +,r }r '~t~ ~r +t O NdN I'~ N N d~ d O N }0~.. O O {.O }OM !R (p~'` cpi` Od r rh :dam ,~vT r~ P~ '~u~~'0vl Of .O •.d d O {.p................: n. ~,.A ...app... ~.~r. O. .d~µ.~N...;.. N.:.dc,}...d.N..,. dN.d.. U1...~t0. .+0..>;.... > Ir N ~N c~}N t0 1~ +r N ~T rr: J F J IA. 1(j F-J HJ ~N N .FJ H'J j . ~ ..a r ~ Oi . > ~ ~J N yI N . I,I to w W (A W (n W to W a a Q ~ >n a:W aW .or or :a W. aW :0..>......> .d N. > > r a0~. k-. ..1 F...J. '~N. ~N. .:F-J.. ~ J d a
O +0... ry N... N... O:• O~-~'Q Q ~ 01 Q Q W Z a iA a 4f O N N+ r aD r O } r. + W dr O dN dN ~ :dN:dN +O d' d' j .J }O O .r r~`' Q cp r. F.JH~d d~~ HJ 1 a aW W +~.*0..... UlW V!W ~Vltil NN 1fIN~ > J f~ 1~ N W N W a a W . F- J I-. ~ F ~ J liJ ~
U d N r d: ~ O ~ <D + ~ ~ N Q W Q W ~ ~p I~ h~ Q W Q~ WW d N d H Q W Q } } O > d N. N N WfA 41 ~V1 4l Vl W N .N ~ D d !0 O fCn ~ HJ N H'J F-J HJ 1- <!iJ 4 ~ ......................>..............~~_....ct......dW.......Q.w...._..} ...}~,.....ayJ _a w.# .#lV...¢LJ.QW..a... dN.... >..d,>_.~gyj.y r ..~.N.._.F- ...H.~.......:..,.'....._.......+i .j N~ f~/1W ~W l31 ~N d'V : :a> a~ H~ f-J' (!IW (/?W f~kl W i> I'J .F~ HJ a.W •a W. (1)W :UfW:
aw rn co FJ•~J HJHJaW NW tnw....... yam.. W..:aw 4l ~ fAiv Ulw > F F. > } Of ~ } F- J H J IfI If( . > VS W Ul WH J ~ ~ ~ > • > F F J . d a W Q Q ~"J W 'd t0: O V1LiJ VIW d d.N 'N W:V1W Q Q QW W > F-J:F- Vl UIW ~ MN. ~W ~W
W J: d N. ~ N ~ H~ N F- ,..I J In W N W: Q 4 W (n W. V1 M .41..~.....:.. ~ N ..V1 41... . W. .(A . a N.
: : : : • I- J ~ f~ W : : Vl VI W ~ } : : : : : : : : . d NW: . .
: : : : : : : : : ~ : : : : : : : : : :V1I : : :VI W: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
265 ~ Q 265
44+00 44+50 45+00 45+50 46+00 46+50 47+00 47+50 48+00 48+50 49+00 )0 49+50 50+00 50+50 51+00 51+50 52+00 52+50 53+00 53+50
PROJECT MANAGER DRAWING SCALE 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND RELEASED FOR DATE
ME 1" = 30' RALEIGH, NC 27612 ENVIRONMENTAL BANC & EXCHANGE, LLC STONEBRIDGE DESIGN PLANS 6
DRAWN BY PROJECT DATE APPROVALS [phone] a Vin. CADD 03/30/2004
APPROVED BY PROJECT NUMBER BIDDING STO STONEBRIDGE STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT
3024600RA DICKSON Office Locations: FILE NAME PLOT DATE community infrastructure consultants North Carolina CARTHAGE, NORTH CAROLINA UT-1 STA. 44+00 TO 53-+-50 8
REV. NO. Georgia CONSTRUCTION DESCRIPTION DATE 06/23/2005 South Carolina Florida RECORD DWG. REVISIONS

(A J ? Q
FYI 03~
W° h°Z
z~a ~W~ 1
oo§ _ LEGEND
WUW 1 ~LCE ~Wir
WI-~ ~0 ° ~ . ~c G~ EXISTING
N ~ _ ~ `~\VG 4,~ ~ ~ W O ` WOODS LINE
~o~ ~P x O~U FENCE LINE X X
Z$i0 MAJOR CONTOUR
HHN URI _ WL oar MINOR CONTOUR - _
c O W F aZ°
JN ~ ~~aW l Zo ~ , WETLANDS
CE 0 28 L { ~iOOw Q ~ i
W~W~ ~~e ~ t E PROPOSED
~z~ ~ ~ CF LC ICE W- cr...:. ~ , ; ~F~o ~ 12 _ CENTER OF CHANNEL - -
OJ FWtt) 1 ~~W ti . REMOVE EXISTING TOP OF BANK
a~Wm k~o _ LIMITS OF CONSERVATION LCE
Jooo ~ ~k FENCE WITHIN LC Q U °+7 O ~ o ~ ~ EASMENT (TO BE FENCED)
•FJW PLANTING ZONE BOUNDARY - - -
i~ : FENCE X

w_ JJ PROPOSED CONTOUR
N~~J I ~ 276........, : ~ - PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATI + ON
ROOTWAD
,DU ^ I 3FZ~ ~~t py _ .p l LOG VANE ~
° ~ ~ cuTnNGS BUNDLE
FF~W ~ Fr' ~ ` h e h
-~o ~ ~ Q s CHANNEL PLUG
PLANTING " i UO~(/1 \ LOG GRADE CONTROL
ZONE 2 ~ ~ LOG TOE PROTECTION
/ _ ~ ~ FORD CROSSING
\ ~ h° ' ti k . ,r x n~ FUTURE CULVERT CROSSING
. , . i l k 1~~~ FLOODPLAIN SILL
~ ~ , _ _ ~ ~
. . ~ f'i A ~ -'fr TEMPORARY CROSSING
NOTE: SOD MATS TO BE PLACED ON ALL
~ ~ _ v~ ? cisa NEW CHANNEL BANKS
s ~ S8 I a - s
~ o Is ~o so
~ ~ /
~ 2?~ _ _ ~ CURVE TABLE 1 inch = 30ft.
CURVE RADIUS ARC LENGTH
C121 29.20 9.40
C122 17.16 22.73
~ PLANTING C123 31.19 8.67 C124 45.95 28.26
3C ~ 7.ONE 1 ~F C125 72.81 13.83
3~~ C126 24.17 40.71
CONSTRUCTION C127 278,78 18.67
ACCESS C128 164.45 19.58
C129 27.fi0 35.17 C130 57.49 22.27
C131 21.23 11.16
C132 27.69 23.54
- r__
11.s' - - - -BANKFULL ELEVATION - - - - 11 6' 11 6'
- - - - - 11.6' - - - - BANKFULL ELEVATION - - - - - - - - gANK~LL ELEVATION - _
0.8' BANKFULL ELEVATION LEVATION
0.8'
L 2,3' 2.3' , _ 1' 1'
,.8' - ~ " 2.3
1 _ D.4 L 1
0.3' ~ 4.9' 0.4' 0.4'
0.9' 4.75' ---I _ 9 8 0.9' ~---4.75 0.7' 9.5' 1.4' 1.4' 9.5' ~---4.75' 5' 0.7'
TYPICAL RIFFLE DESIGN CROSS-SECTION - UT-1 - U S Of UT-2 TYPICAL STRAIGHT REACH POOL SECTION UT-1 - U f OF UT-2 TYPI A FT MEAND R PO CTION UT-1 - OF UT- _ TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER POOL SECTION UT ~L SECTION UT-1 - U/S OF UT-2
' Nor ro sc;,~~ sc;,~~
: : =GRAD COIVTRCiL S D CONTRC!L STRUC~l1RE
: ~ ~ : =FORD CROSSING CROSSING

O
280 + ~ ~ _ .
280
W . .
z

IN

Q : 275 .
25
-
- ~ ~ . r~ rn ter: r rn'n ~ : .:..M..
-+N+cu... at r.....,~r.:..m~ .r +N +N Nr n W ~,q . ~ro a Ni . . I~ map ~00~~ t0 IA n! ~O t0r rn~ ~O NO ~ r r~ r N +N +N NN IA ~.N }Mj IAN IAN +M ~ NN Nn
~N~P7 r01 pp 0f j +N cV ~ hro hN - ~ h~ : : Nn Q>...... W..~N._.nl W •t'N n~H H IAN F ~ IAtV..~.N..._.~ J..._>
270 r ~ - ' ~ Qw . d 7 dW Q ~N N : d 11 r F-'J NN ~N J > ' lrJ W W ~ fn to ~j <W VIW NW: QW Q~ N UlW H J 270
NJI-J NN ~N ~W ?n W: .j > - fA W V1W : Q d W . WUIW QW dW FJ J Q Q> H.W.! FJ d1W V!I dlW ~ V!W VlW VlW
- V1W (~W :EXISTING . . . CFfANNEL.. .
BEp
53+5 0 54+00 5
4+50 55+00 55+50 56+ 00 X00 56+50 57+00 57 +50
~ ~(1C~ DCI/IC1~! n nl~ ~nnnnlnl n Tinr,
v \L- viL-vv m ivU l,UVCCUINH IIUIV
PROJECT DRAWING ME MANAGER 1' SCALE 30' . 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND RELEASED FOR DATE ME
DRAWN BY PROJECT DATE DWK RALEIGH, NC 27612 APPROVALS. r E N
RHN 03/30/2004 [phone] ENVIRONMENTAL BANC & EXCHANGE, LLC STONEBRIDGE DESIGN PLANS ~
APPROVED BY PROJECT NUMBER BIDDING 3024600RA DICKSON Office Locations: STONE STONEBRIDGE STREAM MITIGATION PROJEC
rREV.NO.j DESCRIPTION DATE FILE NAME PLOT DATE community infrastructure consultants North Carolina Georgia CONSTRUCTION
REVISIONS designJayout.dw 06/23/2005 South Carolina Florida RECORD DWG. CARTHAGE, NORTH CAROLINA UT-1 STA. ~J3~-J0 TO 57+71 8

N J Q
~YC! ~3~ WO
FOZ ZHQ LEGEND
~W ~E
o z ~ ~ ~G~ p ~c Wow X T1N
~~f ~W~ WOODS UNE
Wks E O ~C lCt; ~~E N~F Y ~ FENCE LINE X X
J ~ W V ~ i~l MAJOR CONTOUR
n~ MINOR CONTOUR
Zoo 6 ~0 ~~E p ~ E
PLANT?NG o a ~ GE, lCE WETLANDS ~r
~ZO N a_ Z O E 2 W~JW
~pza .wup PROPOSED
~-~-U G ~OOw ~ i I ~ CENTER OF CHANNEL - -
W WK W?~~ ( 6 n R 33 ~ TOP OF BANK
~ F ~ o ~G ~ ~V~1 /1~~ k LIMITS OF CONSERVATION
~z&a r ` =SW> EASMENT TO BE FENCED LCE ~ ~ ~ )
a~Wm o- / 1 / n1 V O PLANTING ZONE BOUNDARY- - - -
10 ~ ~ ~
/ ~ ~ `L Z w ~ ~ 1 -i v p FENCE X X O
N ~ ~ oZWO ~ ~ ~ 0~ ~ PROPOSEO CONTOUR +
OFU ~WmW N _ _ ? / ' ~ PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
ooom Xh ~ ~ 4 O O fi~ ROOTWAD O k ~
Y~aa ~ N ~ ~ ~ O LOG VANE
YOUW ~ V O 6 CUTTINGS BUNDLE
-o
aZ ~ Q~ U Q k ~ Lt~L 71 CHANNEL PLUG
~~~W . _y _ 1~ ~ Loc GRADE coNTRa
- oouu k LOG TOE PROTECTION . ,
oooy ~ ~ Cl - to ~ O _ ,f FORD CROSSING
1 J FUTURE CULVERT CROSSING
O r c~0 _ 50 r FLOODPLAIN S0.L
5k 2 - ~ 1 k ?T
'`so ~ 4 (y ~ TEMPORARY CROSSING X~
O NOTE: SOD MATS TO BE PLACED ON ALL
d p ~ 2j o 2 ~ i ~ ~ NEW CHANNEL BANKS
~ i ~
i ~ - 20 p 10 20 40
i ~ . PLAN G
ZONE 1 7(p-~ -I- CARVE TABLE
R NTH 1 inch = 20ft. ti CURVE RADIUS A C LE G
C133 23.22 19.18
C134 13.79 26.74
PROPOSED ~ O C135 13.06 29.18 O C136 9.09 17.51
STOCKPILE C137 18.90 13.20
> ~ AREA C138 13.34 31.34
C139 14.24 26.20
C140 13.32 32.73
~ - C141 13.56 32.25 C142 11.63 13.21
~ ~ C143 12,67 7.85
>
3~-F5~ C144 15.63 31.19 C145 15.33 29.75
3~l ~ rim` C146 17.93 18.06
3~l . 3~~ ~ ~ C147 13.03 23.61 C148 18.09 18.50
C149 14.97 21.34
1 1~ C150 14.01 35.83
C151 15.26 15.83
C152 10,65 11,30
0.4' s.o' o.e' C153 14.87 14.24 ,4'
6.2' BANKFULL ELEVATION 0.8' S.0' 0.4' 0.6' 5.0' 0.6' - - - - - - - - ~ANKESiLLELE~An4L -
BANKFULL ELEVATION - - ~

1.3' 1.5'
0.3' 0.2' 0.3' L, 3
2.5' 2.5' 2.5'-~~ 2.5' I
TYPICAL RIFFLE DESIGN CROSS-SECTION - UT-2 TYPICAL LEFT MEANDER POOL SECTION UT-2 TYPICAL RIGHT MEANDER POOL SECTION UT-2
-,r To scai_F Not Ta scn~E vcr ~c sca~~E
=GRADE CONTROL STRUCTI~RE
~ _ ~ ..E . NER _ • GY ~
~A . T .B N~CF . ULL s:T. FUG _
270 : . ~ sT AG _ : 0. 270 007 F: T
265 ~ ~ ~ : o: ~ ~ r` : ~ : N ~ : o ~ N = ~ ~ N 00~ N O o - 265 to N ~h
I~ t0
t~ ~ r` n ~ r r: cfl c0 : O : co c0 : cD - c0 c0 : c0 ~ co : c0 c0
N N N N..... N......... N........ N~........ N N:.... N N N : N ~ N N : N N. N...........N..........~. N......... Sal . N .
> > > > > > > > ~ j > : > ~ > > > : > ~ > W W ~~JJ W W W: W W W: W W W~ W ~ W ~ W W~ ~ W ? ~ ~ ~ ~ :W J JJ: J :J J J:W W
J J J J J J J• J ~ -1. ~ J J J J J: J :J J J: J J ..W W.. W..... W.... W ..~}........W..................:... W;........:.. ~ W...... W...........W.... W....:....W.....W..... W....:..... ....W. - ~ ~ J ~ J J J J J J W........... W W ~ . W..............
O O O O O: O O O: O O Q O O ~O ~ O O ~ O O O O O O. O O O O O O O ~O ~ O O~ ~ O ~ O . O O O. O O O O O O O O 00 O O -O O 00 O O O O O . - O O O O :O :O O • .
. . O .O 00 O • . N...... ~ ~ ~ ~ 00....:..... O . .
m ~ 00 I~ (0 ~ N ~ N ~ O : 00 : c~ to ~ : N ~ f~ I~ L~ P7 ~ c~ cfl. d' r~ : ~ ~ :
-F + + + ~ In ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ O O O: O O O O
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q; Q Q Q: Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q: Q Q Q ~ Q Q Q -Q Q Q QQ Q Q Q Q Q ,
260 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v~ ~ - ~ ~ v~ ~ cn cn cn cn cn ~n cn~ cn cn cn ~ _ _ _ _
6+00 5+50 5+00 4+50 4+00 3+50 3+00 2+50 2+00 1 +50 1 +00 0+50 0+00
PROJECT MANAGER DRAWING SCALE 3101 JOHN HUMPHRIES WYND RELEASED FOR DATE
ME 1 = 20 RALEIGH, NC 27612 APPROVA S E
CADD DRAWN BY 03PROJEC /30T/ DATE 2004 WK [phone] L ENVIRONMENTAL BANC & EXCHANGE, LLC STONEBRIDGE DESIGN PLANS g
APPRDVED BY PROJECT NUMBER BIDDING STON STONEBRIDGE STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT
3024600RA D I C Kr S N Office Locations:
community infrastructure consultants North Carolina Georgia CONSTRUCTION REV. N0. DESCRIPTION DATE FILE NAME PLOT DATE i a South Carolina Florida CARTHAGE, NORTH CAROLINA UT-2 STA. O+OO TO 5+96 8
REVISIONS design_layout.dw 06/23/2005 RECORD DWG.