20100010 Ver 1_Final Report_20091119

_'i5 „tc}�G.'"w f,: -r. .s• -:ts• —: x.•- ,c,.,X,: -.K l:t.;l:t "t�+?�;.;4aL•:- :� .i+-`Oi=
l"~:..v 4�: s.:.:, �• �, S• '•.."'``•. ?i:r•$�'':i == f;''.;: +:,�;:f�' ..i:4:;._ti•'!4:i�a;,.:., k•7�]:t'',.y >i, - :.r".. •r ,r. „,,e'. t " },.,, :P:J''�:.
i\•s1 .,1 _nl:l:. fry:- -'#^ -' ;'�!: "�,.:.'�'; y-.. �;l� y� :C+,x.�L�,�- _•�'a�i. _'ss "� -. °I ?.:z.,.e.::: ; -;:.
�� .;%!:-.:,i ,' >,�: /.,.'-:!�';:: - '\ :.4.. ,.,5t j' •.+:;`•, ',C.<'- :ii- '•,- ..:a�:"�'::�•'�. _<. .:15_ 'mil'.: �`tl:•::�.;; ' {'�'r' ..- t'_ -.., -. _ _
Ts`�s • : i..e :', X• 4:; �. .�,_ a: • t.b:' °y — ..5 _(y i::.` :: +'; .+�.. ",x 3 «� c:g
1;.•' - .f.•�!':+ :t -' rv1:se':;l ;`. '$: .0 _ziz x;_. ;p.;...
!•'g 1 .• .T ft. _ - 4' { .. 'r .ti; 'L t , i'. r. :al :
:: -1•ti; •� . s... tiy+< •,:�:'•�i::::�,•wSr,:6- '`....>.
A <, .,>i� < <i:._,y`'• •.Ir••::r..; :S•.,: 1, L.,;:•.: .:•'1" > , .ie•4.i`l "':1:.
Uy. 14S.• ..i.�- :.i.- j: ;.i '✓: .• ;il ��,��• •.•?1.' �.L?SM1y...,: fix':,`,' -`;+'
Qa
Monsoon
min m
.Y f : \" _jU.:+iF' ✓•+~: / .'K:. .ra11'r yi.��T `.. ..5...:..
3. i1
w,)
I
R'
_ 4f
4
a:J:• ':c"'. 'Yip•' •. "'ti'_
•Y.-
f'
:
• .v
'r
. .•.e "-r- w- ..':X:.: -•:. :' .:: i:4�.�" •, `.Il,�:• �i.�3:.b r..1V 4! ^�
7i
:• '.'
...
:..'.
j7 7
t.
,w
r
r+ _
•. 3' .• .:.. .,y ..� ...�,� <.. ::_ �.. .... ..�- .�. 'y:1{51: `:�r...�'<;
_ �:;:.'. y,.
fll r.
.rii.., ,ik J •., .:.. ,..r, / r� .... .....:.. ....�
v. ^a
a .. ... ,. .:. ., : ,a ♦r :C.t Y . i - "?I� _. �:�'.: ✓:: _'::; :;!..:����'. ���
_'i5 „tc}�G.'"w f,: -r. .s• -:ts• —: x.•- ,c,.,X,: -.K l:t.;l:t "t�+?�;.;4aL•:- :� .i+-`Oi=
l"~:..v 4�: s.:.:, �• �, S• '•.."'``•. ?i:r•$�'':i == f;''.;: +:,�;:f�' ..i:4:;._ti•'!4:i�a;,.:., k•7�]:t'',.y >i, - :.r".. •r ,r. „,,e'. t " },.,, :P:J''�:.
i\•s1 .,1 _nl:l:. fry:- -'#^ -' ;'�!: "�,.:.'�'; y-.. �;l� y� :C+,x.�L�,�- _•�'a�i. _'ss "� -. °I ?.:z.,.e.::: ; -;:.
�� .;%!:-.:,i ,' >,�: /.,.'-:!�';:: - '\ :.4.. ,.,5t j' •.+:;`•, ',C.<'- :ii- '•,- ..:a�:"�'::�•'�. _<. .:15_ 'mil'.: �`tl:•::�.;; ' {'�'r' ..- t'_ -.., -. _ _
Ts`�s • : i..e :', X• 4:; �. .�,_ a: • t.b:' °y — ..5 _(y i::.` :: +'; .+�.. ",x 3 «� c:g
1;.•' - .f.•�!':+ :t -' rv1:se':;l ;`. '$: .0 _ziz x;_. ;p.;...
!•'g 1 .• .T ft. _ - 4' { .. 'r .ti; 'L t , i'. r. :al :
:: -1•ti; •� . s... tiy+< •,:�:'•�i::::�,•wSr,:6- '`....>.
A <, .,>i� < <i:._,y`'• •.Ir••::r..; :S•.,: 1, L.,;:•.: .:•'1" > , .ie•4.i`l "':1:.
Uy. 14S.• ..i.�- :.i.- j: ;.i '✓: .• ;il ��,��• •.•?1.' �.L?SM1y...,: fix':,`,' -`;+'
Qa
Monsoon
min m
.Y f : \" _jU.:+iF' ✓•+~: / .'K:. .ra11'r yi.��T `.. ..5...:..
3. i1
w,)
I
R'
_ 4f
4
a:J:• ':c"'. 'Yip•' •. "'ti'_
•Y.-
f'
:
• .v
'r
. .•.e "-r- w- ..':X:.: -•:. :' .:: i:4�.�" •, `.Il,�:• �i.�3:.b r..1V 4! ^�
7i

L�
I
I�
E�
r
r)
L�
E l
e
F1
L! i I
i,
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Restoration Plan (Draft)
Graham County, North Carolina
Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering Inc
Lkwnr4t,14AN& W,(WTW
Jake McLean, PE
Project Manager
Michael Baker Engineering Inc
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville North Carolina 28806
Phor►e 828 350 1408
Fax [phone]
J
Micky Clem onS
Office Principal

l�
Lf
I,,,
0
Ci
IJ
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc (Baker) proposes to restore enhance and preserve nearly 8,134 linear feet
(LF) of stream on three distinct unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Snowbird Creek The project site is located in
Graham County approximately one and a half miles southwest of Robbinsville Members of the Gnffin
family currently occupy the site and have held ownership of the property for many years With the exception
of the restoration reach on UT3 the project area is overwhelmingly forested Two reaches have been
identified for restoration and enhancement however, the majority of the acquired easement will be conserved
to preserve the near - complete natural recovery of the systems from prior logging impacts These valleys are
narrow and steep any development will have to occur high in these watersheds and the terrain will be a
limiting factor for feasible density
The three unnamed tributaries that comprise the project area are first and second order high gradient, colluvial
systems with occasional bedrock outcroppings The tributaries lie in Type II valleys and do not converge
within the easement boundaries These tributaries are headwater systems located within the larger Little
Tennessee River Basin within North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub basin 04 04 04 and
USGS hydrologic unit 06010204020010 In stream habitat is primarily composed of woody debris and a
gravel/cobble substrate
Debris from prior logging in portions of Reach 2 of UT2 has created minor instability issues, logging is also
responsible for the invasive species present On Reach 2 of UT3 channelization and vegetation removal have
had noticeable impacts UT3 has been moved from the low part of the valley to its present location, where it
is perched against the valley wall The narrowing of the channel by construction of a berm to constrain it
against the valley wall has had a destabilizing effect The physical symptoms of instability are incision,
eroding banks widened and degraded channel segments, and a fining of the stream substrate These physical
impacts are affecting stream habitat and stream functions Also of concern is the presence of invasive species
in these reaches and habitat impacts include loss of stream shading
These reaches will be treated with the appropriate level of site work to restore functions that have been
compromised In UT2, this will consist of hand work with chainsaws and other hand tools to remove debris
from the channel Some planting and invasive species treatment will be coupled with this effort on a total
length of 171 LF of UT 2 UT3 will undergo channel restoration on the 466 -foot long Reach 2 This reach of
UT3 will also be planted with native riparian species within the entire conservation easement
The remaining reaches will all be preserved (7,497 LF) Despite prior impacts these areas have largely
recovered The remaining evidence of local instability is not of system -wide concern and mostly reflects local
perturbations that are consistent with natural impacts found in reference streams Any minor improvements
that could be made would not be justified given the level of disturbance that would be created to access these
steep and densely wooded areas
The goals (italicized) and means for accomplishing the same for this restoration project are as follows
Promote and recreate geomorphically stable conditions Restoration and enhancement activities on UT3
(Reach 2) and UT2 (Reach 2) respectively, will restore a stable dimension pattern and profile to these
reaches The primary physical modifications are restoring a step pool morphology to UT3 while
relocating it to the low point in the valley and removal of logging debris from UT2 The vegetation
enhancement activities will complement these efforts to restore physical stability Preserved reaches are
near full recovery from prior logging impacts - the designation of a permanent buffer on these reaches
will prevent future disturbance and allow for a permanent natural stream corridor with all of the benefits
that a buffer provides
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE i NOVEMBER 13 2009

a
• Reduce sediment and nutrient inputs decrease fine sediment loading Establish and preserve native
stream bank and floodplain vegetation to increase storm water runoff filtering capacity improve bank
stability by creating appropriate dimensions to halt bank erosion and promote natural transport processes
and through planting of the banks with woody vegetation
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat Existing high quality coldwater habitat will be protected and
degraded habitat will be improved with physical restoration or enhancement, water temperature dissolved
oxygen, and physical habitat will be positively impacted by improving streamside vegetative cover, and
wildlife habitat will be protected through the development of conservation easements and enhanced
through the removal of mvasrve species and planting of natives
Table ES 1 Snowbird Creek Tributaries Project Overview
Snowbird Creek Tributaries
Restoration Plan Project #000613
ea
mea
UT1
3 213 LF
3 213 LF
Preservation
UT2 Reach 1
1 033 LF
1 033 LF
Preservation
UT2 Reach 2
171 LF
171 LF
Enhancement
UT2 Reach 3
675 LF
675 LF
Preservation
UT3 Reach 1
2 576 LF
2 576 LF
Preservation
UT3 Reach 2
543 LF
466 LF
Restoration
The work will include 7 497 LF of stream preservation, 171 LF of stream enhancement level II and 466 LF
of stream restoration This approach should yield 2 033 stream mitigation units (SMUs) which is greater
than the proposed amount (1,938 SMU) for contract under this proposal The additional credits developed
from the site will be available to the NCEEP as part of the proposed project The proposed total for stream
mitigation is presented in Table 1 1 and the components are mapped in Figure ES 1
L
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE a NOVEMBER 13 2009
1
0
1
i
1
1
i
it
Ell
1
1
[l
J
0

c
LEGEND:
Proposed Project Components
rd Preservation
Enhancement II
�F�cosstem Restoration riori 1
i 1 lil iilCllf il' tY )
Proposed Easement Boundary
— Streams
Figure ES.1 Project Components
and Structure Map
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Project
Graham County, NC
\ l
\ V
M4 I
yl,,I
\
"Al
v \A v
p
�.h N
♦
c
LEGEND:
Proposed Project Components
rd Preservation
Enhancement II
�F�cosstem Restoration riori 1
i 1 lil iilCllf il' tY )
Proposed Easement Boundary
— Streams
Figure ES.1 Project Components
and Structure Map
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Project
Graham County, NC
\ l
\ V
\
c
LEGEND:
Proposed Project Components
rd Preservation
Enhancement II
�F�cosstem Restoration riori 1
i 1 lil iilCllf il' tY )
Proposed Easement Boundary
— Streams
Figure ES.1 Project Components
and Structure Map
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Project
Graham County, NC

ri"
I'
r
t�
�J
r�
I�
_J
II
L�
r;
1
J
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
10 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
1 1
1 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DIRECTIONS TO PROJECT SITE
1 1
12
USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE AND NCDWQ RIVER BASIN DESIGNATIONS
1 1
13
PROJECT COMPONENTS AND STRUCTURE
1 3
20 WATERSHED
CHARACTERIZATION
2 1
21
WATERSHED DELINEATION AND PROJECT AREA MEASUREMENT
2 1
22
SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATION/ WATER QUALITY
2 1
23
PHYSIOGRAPHY GEOLOGY AND SOILS
2 1
24
HISTORICAL LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
2 5
241
Watershed Trajectory and Stream Design
25
25
WATERSHED PLANNING
26
26
ENDANGERED/THREATENED SPECIES
26
261
Federally Protected Vertebrates
2 7
262
Federally Protected Invertebrates
29
263
Federally Protected Plants
2 10
264
Federally Protected Lichen
211
27
CULTURAL RESOURCES
2 11
28
POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS
2 12
2 8 1
Property Ownership and Boundary
2 -12
282
Site Access
2 12
283
Utilities
2 12
284
Hydrologic Trespass and Floodplain Characterization
2 12
29
POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTAL SITES
2 14
30 PROJECT SITE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
31
3 1
EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY
3 1
32
CHANNEL GEOMORPHIC CHARACTERIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION
3 1
33
VALLEY CLASSIFICATION
3 3
34
PROJECT REACH CHARACTERIZATION
3 3
3 4 1
Unnamed Tributary (UT) 1 (Preservation)
33
342
Unnamed Tributary (UT) 2
33
343
Unnamed Tributary (UT) 3
34
3 5
CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY EVOLUTION AND STABILITY ASSESSMENT
3 6
36
DISCHARGE/BANKFULL VERIFICATION
3 9
361
Physical Field Measurement
39
3 6 2
Regional Curve Equations
39
363
USGS Regression Equations
3 10
364
Manning s Equation
3 11
37
CONCLUSIONS FOR CHANNEL FORMING DISCHARGE
3 11
38
VEGETATION AND HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS AND DISTURBANCE HISTORY
3 12
3 81
Dry Mesic Oak ( Hickory) Forest
3 13
3 8 2
Dry Mesic Mixed Forest
3 13
383
Agricultural /Hay /Pasture Land
3 13
384
Appalachian Cove Forest (Typic Montane)
3 13
40 REFERENCE STREAMS
4-1
50 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
5 1
5 1
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
5 1
52
REFERENCE WETLANDS
5 1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE iv NOVEMBER 13 2009

60 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN
61 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
62 DESIGN CRITERIA SELECTION FOR STREAM RESTORATION
63 STREAM PROJECT DESIGN & JUSTIFICATION
631 UT2 Reach 2 Target Buffer Communities
6 3 2 Sediment Transport Methodology
633 Preliminary Modeling and Hydrologic Trespass
64 SITE CONSTRUCTION
641 Site Grading Structure Installation and Other Project Related Construction
642 Natural Plant Community Restoration
70 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
7 1 STREAM MONITORING
711 Bankfull Events
712 Cross Sections
713 Longitudinal Profile
714 Bed Material Analyses
715 Photo Reference Sites
72 VEGETATION MONITORING
73 SCHEDULE/REPORTING
80 PRELIMINARY MONITORING
90 SITE PROTECTION AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
100 REFERENCES
61
62
62
63
65
66
67
68
68
610
71
71
71
71
71
72
72
72
73
81
91
101
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE v NOVEMBER 13 2009

L I
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES 1 Snowbird Creek Tributaries Project Overview
_
Table
10
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Project Components
Table
1 1
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Project Attributes Table
F
Table
21
Project Sod Types and Descriptions
Table
22
Project Sod Type Characteristics
Table
23
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Land Use/ Land Cover
Table
24
Species Under Federal Protection in Graham County
Table
31
Representative Geomorphic Data for Snowbird Creek Tributaries
JI
Table
32
Particle Size Distribution from Bed Sediment Sample of UT2 & UT3 Reach 2
�I
Table
33
Snowbird Creek UT3 Reach 2 Description
Table
34
Stability Indicators — Snowbird Creek Tributaries
Table
35
Summary of Design Discharge for UT3 Reach 2
Table
41
Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
-
Table
61
Project Design Stream Types and Rationale
I -
Table
62
Design Parameters
II
�w
Table
63
Proposed In stream Structure Types
Table
64
Proposed Bare Root and Live Stake Species
Table
65
Proposed Seed Mixture Species
I
�J
h
L
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE vi NOVEMBER 13 2009

List of Figures
A
NCDWQ Project Site Stream Identification Forms
Figure
ES 1
Project Components and Structure Map
Figure
1 1
Project Location Map
Figure
21
Project Watersheds Map (Robbmsvdle USGS Quad)
Figure
22
Project Soil Types
Figure
23
FEMA Floodplam Map
Figure
31
Project Reaches and Surveyed Cross section Locations
Figure
32
NC Mountain Regional Curve for Discharge
Figure
33
USGS Regional Regression Equation Flood Events
Figure
34
Supplemented Project Curve for Bankfull Discharge
Figure
41
NC Mountain Regional Curve for Bankfull Cross sectional Area
List of Appendices
Appendix
A
NCDWQ Project Site Stream Identification Forms
Appendix
B
Regulatory Agency Correspondence
Appendix
C
EDR Transaction Screen Map Report
Appendix
D
Existing Conditions Geomorphic Data
Appendix
E
Existing Conditions Photo Log
Appendix
F
Existing Conditions Sediment Sampling Analyses
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE vii NOVEMBER 13 2009

0
U
�I
r
D
0
r
U
10 PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
1 1 Protect Description and Directions to Project Site
Baker proposes to restore, enhance, and preserve a combined total of 8 134 linear feet (LF) of stream on
three unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Snowbird Creek in Graham County, North Carolina The area to be
preserved within the conservation easement totals 13 1 acres The project component attributes are
summarized in Table 1 1 Project reach UT flows northwest from its source to approximately 3,213 LF
downstream dust above the Griffin residence on Snowbird Road UT2 also flows northwest from its source
and continues downstream approximately 1 879 LF to the Griffin residence Downstream of the project
site both UT and UT2 cross under NC Highway 143 and converge before entering Snowbird Creek The
project reach on UT3 begins approximately 3 300 LF upstream of its confluence with Hooper Branch and
ends about 200 LF short of this confluence The excluded 200 LF reach flows through a residential yard
Hooper Branch then empties into Snowbird Creek less than a half mile below the project reach Each site is
accessible from private driveways off of Highway 143 (Snowbird Road) and IU Gap Road south of
Robbmsville
With the exception of short reaches on UT2 and UT3 land cover on the Griffin property is overwhelmingly
forested UT2 has been impacted by prior logging and UT3 has been channelized and moved out of the low
iJ point of the valley for a short reach it is presently situated adjacent to a small mowed field The riparian
buffers in the vicinity of the mowed and logged reaches are impaired and invasive plant species are present
n The most recent timber harvesting has occurred within the last 15 years Much of the property shows
evidence of selective harvesting activities within the last 50 years but land cover on most reaches has
returned to a natural state
II
U
ii
I'
�J
The Snowbird Creek Tributaries enhancement site is located approximately one and a half miles southwest
of Robbinsville in Graham County North Carolina, as shown on the Project Location Map (Figure 1 1)
To reach the project site from the intersection of NC Highways 143 and 129 turn south onto N C Highway
129 At the first stop light past the Microtel, turn right onto East Main Street continue for approximately
0 3 miles, and turn left onto Atoah Street Atoah Street becomes Snowbird Road (both are NC Highway
143) Snowbird Road (NC 143) will come to parallel Santeetlah Reservoir (an inundated portion of
Snowbird Creek) At the intersection of IU Gap Road and Snowbird Road the property will be situated to
the east The last house on the left before you get to this intersection is the property owner and dust before
you get to this house there is a dirt road that leads to UT1 and UT2 To get to UT3 turn left on IU Gap Rd,
as the road bends to the right, the UT3 property is on the left and the access drive is on the left dust past a
small rented farm house
12 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations
The Snowbird Creek watershed lies in the Little Tennessee River Basin within North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub basm 04 -04 04 and USGS local watershed unit 06010204020010
The three unnamed tributaries to Snowbird Creek in this project area are identified as "blue -line streams,
on the USGS topographic quadrangle (Robbinsville) for the site After referencing USGS topographic
quadrangle map to determine stream order, a field evaluation using the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) stream assessment protocol was conducted Field observations noted on the NCDWQ
Stream Identification Forms confirm that each of the project tributaries is perennial within the project area
NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms for the project area are provided in Appendix A The total current
length of stream within the project is 8,211 LF
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC
PAGE 1 1
NOVEMBER 13 2009

-TN -
r "`
i
Pl tr i
HI EE
HU 06010204020010
1
S
,J Project Site
-r-�
1 CLAY CO.
I
Nantahaia Lake
i
t 1
i
i
LITTLEJENNESSEE
04--84-03
Map Inset LEGEND:
NCDWQ Sub -basin Figure 1.1 Project Location Map
�
[� Counties Snowbird Creek Tributaries Project
Graham County, NC
L EJ USGS Hydrologic Unit
Ecosystem s Project Hydrologic Unit
M 0 Graham County - -
0 1 2 4 •
c�nam C ... ry, NC Miles

13 Project Components and Structure
Distinct project reaches are summarized in Table 10 below and are depicted in the Project Components
figure in the Executive Summary (ES 1) A table (1 1 ) summarizing project component attributes is also
provided
Table 1 0 Snowbird Creek Tributaries Project Components
Snowbird Creek Tnbutanes Restoration Plan Project #000613
Project
;
Comment
Component or
4.
c
s
D U
`v
Reach ID
UT1
3 213
P
3 213
0 +00 to 32 +13
443
643 SMU for Preservation
UT2 Reach 1
1 033
P
1 033
0 +00 to 10+33
142
229 SMU for Preservation
UT2 Reach 2
171
II
E
171
0+00 to 1 +71
023
68 SMU for Enhancement
UT2 Reach 3
675
P
675
0+00 to 6 +75
093
112 SMU for Preservation
UT3Reach 1
2 576
P
2 576
0 +00 to 25 +76
3 55
515 SMU for Preservation
UT3 Reach 2
543
R
466
0 +00 to 5 +31
064
466 SMU for Restoration
Component Summations
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
Buffer (Ac)
SMU
Ratios
Restoration
466
64
466
11
Enhancement 1
0
0
0
1 1 5
Enhancement II
171
23
68
1 2 5
Preservation
7 497
1033
1 499
1 5
Totals
8,134
112
2033
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 1 3 NOVEMBER 13 2009

Table 1 1 Project Attribute Table
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Restoration Plan Project #000613
Project County
Graham
Physiographic Region
Blue Ridge
Ecore ion
Blue Ridge Mountains
Metasedimentary Mountains
Project River Basin
Little Tennessee River
USGS HUC for Project
06010204020010
NCDWQ Sub basin for Project
04 04 04
Planning Area
No targeted or local watershed plans currently available
WRC Class
Cold
_ % of Project Easement Fenced or
Demarcated
0%
Beaver Activity Observed Dunng
Design Phase
I No
Restoration, Enhancement and Preservation Component Attribute Table continued
UT 1
UT2
UT3
Reach 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 1
Reach 2
Drainage Area
13
05
06
08
15
18
Stream Order
1 n
1st
1 St
1 St
1 St
1 S`
Restored Length feet
3 213
1 033
171
675
2 576
466
Perennial or Intermittent
P
P
P
P
P
P
Watershed Type
Rural
Watershed LULC Distribution*
Cumulative acreage)
Developed Open Space
< I %
Deciduous Forest
80 15%
Evergreen Forest
868%
Mixed Forest
11 16%
Watershed Impervious Cover %
<25%
NCDW AU/Index Number
2 190 9 15 5
NCDWQ Classification
C Tr
C Tr
303d Listed
No
No
No
No
No
No
Upstream of 303d Listed Segment
No
No
No
No
No
No
Reasons for 303d Listing or Stressor
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total Acreage of Easement
Cumulative
131
Total Vegetated Acreage Within the
Easement
M4 43
—142
—23
—093
—355
—064
Total Planted Acreage As Part of the
Restoration
86 Acres
Ros en Classification of Pre existing
B3
Rosgen Classification of As built
(Design)
B3
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 1 4 NOVEMBER 13 2009
r I
U
0
0
i
U
0
(1
1
0
1
i
it
1
1

Valley Type
II
II
11
II
II
II
Valley Sloe
094
Valley Side Slope Range
U
U
U
U
U
U
Valley Toe Slope Range
U
U
U
U
U
U
Cowardm Classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Trout Waters Designation
Snowbird Creek is classified as Trout Waters The tributaries within
the project area do not have a listed designation but are most likely
treated as Trout Waters
Species of Concern Endangered etc
No
No
No
No
No
No
Dominant Soil Series and Characteristics
Series
ScF/
SvD
ScF/
SbE
ScF
ScF/
SvD
SvD/
Svc
ThB
Depth inches
80
80/>60
80
80
80
>60
Cla %
5 24/
518
518
5 24/
524
5 25
K
10 17/
02 10
10 17/
10
10 17
10 17/
02 10
02 10/
03 10
17 24
T
2/3
5
5
5
5
5
Notes
USDA Soil Abbreviations are as follows SvC and SvD (Spivey Whiteoak Complex) ScF (Soco Stecoah
Complex) SbE Snowbird Loam and ThB Thurmont Dillard Complex)
0
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 1 5 NOVEMBER 13 2009

0
U
2 0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
21 Watershed Delineation and Project Area Measurement
The Snowbird Creek Tributaries project site is located in the Little Tennessee River Basin as illustrated in O
Figure 1 1 Watersheds for each of the three tributaries are delineated in Figure 2 1 The drainage areas for
each of the tributaries are as follows UT1- 83 2 acres (0 13 sq mi ), UT2 48 8 acres (0 076 sq mi ) and
UT3- 116 6 acres (0 18 sq mi ) The total proposed easement area is 13 07 acres 0
22 Surface Water Classification/ Water Quality
NCDWQ designates surface water classifications for water bodies such as streams, rivers and lakes
Classifications define the best uses for these waters (e g swimming, fishing, and drinking water supply)
O
These classifications are associated with a set of water quality standards to protect their uses All surface
waters in North Carolina must at least meet the standards for Class C (fishable /swimmable) waters Other
primary classifications provide additional levels of protection for primary water contact recreation (Class B)
O
and drinking water supplies (WS) In addition to these primary classifications, supplemental classifications
are sometimes assigned to water bodies to protect special uses or values The project area encompasses
three headwater tributaries to Snowbird Creek a Class C water with a supplemental `Tr" classification
0
The "Tr or Trout Waters" supplemental classification is intended to protect freshwaters for natural trout
propagation and survival of stocked trout Restoring enhancing and preserving streams with this high
quality designation will provide improved habitat including better passage for aquatic life as well as
r }
unproved water quality of these important ecosystems, which supports the existing management
L�
designation
23 Physiography, Geology and Sods
The project site lies within the Blue Ridge physiographic province of western North Carolina According to
the 1985 North Carolina Geological Survey Map and a I' x 2° geologic map of the Knoxville Quadrangle
prepared by the USGS (Hadley and Nelson 1971 Map 1 -654), the project site is underlain by an
undivided, medium to thick bedded, largely feldspathic metasandstone with interbeds of quartz -mica schist
or gray phyllite common to the Great Smoky Group of the Ocoee Supergroup The origin of the Ocoee
Supergroup is placed in the Late Proterozoic during continental rifting episodes (USGS Bulletin 1979) The
+�
metasedunentary rocks of the Great Smoky Group also include local beds of quartz - feldspar pebble
conglomerate, graphitic and sulfidic mica schist, kyamte or sillimamte bearing garnet mica schist, and rare
thin mterbeds of garnet - hornblende -quartz feldspar granofels
O
This rock unit along with other rock types of the geographic area weather to form both fine and coarse
grained loams within the Hapludults and Dystrudepts Great Groups Soils described as the Soco Stecoah
complex are weathered from coarse grained metasandstone slate and phyllite Some soils within the
(�
Spivey Whrteoak complex are formed from the weathering of slate siltstone and phyllite Additional soil
U
characteristics of the site were determined using the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Soil
Survey data for Graham County, and site evaluation for hydric soils A map depicting the boundaries of
each soil type is presented in Figure 2 2 There are four general soil types found within the project
a
boundaries A discussion of each soil type and its locations given by the NRCS is presented in Table 2 1
Table 2 2 identifies characteristics of each soil series located on the project site and will be referenced in
conjunction with the soils descriptions to select appropriate seeding mixes and other vegetative cover
Soils found within the site are primanly mapped as the Spivey- Whiteoak complex, Soco Stecoah Complex
and the Thurmont- Dillard Complex according to the NRCS Soil Survey for Graham County The Spivey
Whrteoak complex is found in drainageways and on benches and toe slopes in the lower valley of the
n
I
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 2 1 NOVEMBER 13 2009 O

„}<< �' - _ f:.'.!' �f ffJfl I. 1• r.� r -�~~' IA; /...� rf:'- ..!'.� t.V�`•.
r ,� '� '� ^` � ( _ \.� C 1 J r• i/ ff' / r r � 1 � • t 1 rr r' !
•I •` r � - _ l � .�.- i , -\,, t` \�'\ il', \�`., � ., -_'} , ;l l r � (�� l ,/ � � i �
- -___ 1 � t. `fib i' f-� :r � �'+.• , .? _ )?' j; ,r '! /1 f) ti r="r l'!�
- - ,'`` / .t•� '., i ) � � "> �i~„t - _\� It. � � ir.J t E \'� LI� �' I ! f� Il f'; Cr
• r' �' � :;�•y.' i< \\ , -': ; e r �' `� t` ,/' "l - -- ` ' tt 1 t �. - � -. \� � rl (t+ tt• t IJr �1r ' � ��i � � �)
i! r' i.” ...` 11f1�+T��- 1 I .,. t ` ; '` i �� i\ r �, 1 �`... `. L•i"� r I 'I f // f ) i 1, �_.
�# ",y 'i t r •``S.t� \ �,* , ,y `, ` .,,` � � l j _ � \' \ i �i � l � 'l t�j �I { � � �� 1 't S'
-f •�.` � ,�� +., _- . \4 `,�, � ( I __- -`.� F �L t, �� � j / 'I 1 � � � �1 :'I 5 t t .t � y
f ' .. `` 'Ct•'!,t f, - •tea t .1 i
1 y
-`� ,: t •ti -.\ ' i'� ..- .'_�� -•ti. i' �A• 1 1 �t ti i rr .l 1t 1 1 �'`'. f r
is `J ` �' °� ,, `, r,'3 � .�.\ i ��; t ti y - �'.��, r' � 1 ~��<\ �• j l ,t� � � / i'f ` Jt � J tl S '''
•'\^ I 1 � t � ,;\ � ' \` \,` l .. � ' 4 � t may` `�'� 1 � ' (..7 jJ,l ,�',! �~ `./ � �I 5 ,
i •�'� � � r1 ` � ,`� '1 , 1St `. t �. t 1 1 : l f";! !
{
1. r _ J`_` \ r ' t `•, �� 71 ,+, /f l l'(t. i �;
' ` `\f�j �` f �''\ � Jr r \
�- - -• ✓rj ; �t 1 y ''r 3 r� S i ._.:�� y _ _ ; i ��`.,,. = `l'rr i` I �r-�'r 1�+� r�..�.ri` jf • � \ti Cr `i �.,, f -
1 - i ` i - ,.►. 'L z i} (I l 4 Ir� r . j 'y j '� ` `�_
•_�= _•�� % /y �. r`t �^' •�'`. `�k L. -1
J/ � J 'r/ � 41 Jr' +� .t }. _ �• _' I'^ f' r ��, t � 1 � y i I � �'f.l,(t _- ter• 1 t.
v 1 ii' \�\,, 5,{ i.SJSJ) lt��- - -- .I 1 ;1�. t1 �`t�'..` \_L `• I r �'
:.+C•f `t ,� i I : /I t �- t•i 4 1 i`!. ✓; -, '' �� t rijr,r'- -'`- --t y�` ``e - -1 ` "i.1�'."' � f!"��R C/
r '- J- 'i 4•t f i .L 'C � � it, " i 1 % 'tv -,1 -'` , `'•. 1 tj ' 1 ! `^^' -' ��� - --`
y•I t- - ti �~,` i � � *�l l _1,1F•t .l ,1 {�``� \.tl i J "�' -'f r'\ /` �`•�) �y ' `.,"`. `..,\__�ilti ~.�1.�..
:i��,i.'�. x`3.11 1 �_ 1���r�` ���' ''`i tt L.,` '•'. �,r 4� I ;./.��`JIl —i` I`1`,
_!•. , f t t 1 l tl 1�� l _ � i �, Jtl r I •,� - ..- •r'� —_-.. ti_- '.f� -"_
-- i r + r ! t `•mot i '�C � � r � � 1 l � � �- .,�.�.- `+._ -.1- r'`_`• -•-`� ._ �• jI.
LEGEND: Figure 2.1 USGS Topographic Map
Project Reach Q Watershed Boundary (Robbinsville Quadrangle)
J Proposed Easement Boundary Snowbird Creek Tributaries Project
Graham County, NC
Streams
j,FI�SYSiCle
1�ll l�lI i�U' ..'''Il1Cl1t
a
0 200 400 800
Feet

Soil Rey
Map Symbol, Unit Name
i
JbD, Junaluska- Brasstown complex
JbE, Junaluska- Brasstown complex
! I
SbE, Snowbird loam
1 i
SbF, Snowbird loam
r'
i
e _ % - ScF, Soco-Stecoah complex
- SdE, Soco-Stecoah complex
- SvQ Spivey -White.ak complex
Sd E SD, Spivey- Whiteoak complex
- ThB, Thurmont- Dillard complex
ISvD
r�
i,
SbEi
i
` JbE ;
\ -_\
,,,SbE
3
`\.
\ ScF \ .�
JbE
>l r
♦`iyD '.
ScF
i
SbF
\ j
\
Y
i
LEGEND:
— Project Reach
—J Proposed Easement Boundary
$ !� Streams
Steni
Q Watershed Boundary
0 200 400 800
Feet
Figure 2.2 Project Soil Types
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Project
Graham County, NC

L
n
L
i
F1
t�
IF
r
1.
1
Snowbird Creek project site The Soco - Stecoah complex extends from ndgelines and side slopes to toe
slopes of the project area and is especially dominant within the upper reaches of the project
Thurmont Dillard soils are located in the lower reach of UT3 and are generally moderately to well drained
However this soil complex is known to have hydric inclusions of Hemphill soils in a small (5 %) percentage
of land coverage Bedrock was observed in a few isolated locations of the unnamed tributaries In areas
where shallow bedrock is encountered the restoration plan will incorporate this bedrock as in situ grade
control
ITable 2 1 Project Sod Types and Descriptions
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Restoration Plan Project #000613
Spivey
Loamy skeletal
Dramageways
The Spivey Whiteoak complex consists of well
Whiteoak
isotic mesic Humic
benches fans
drained moderately rapid permeable soils on fans
Complex
Dystrudepts / Fine
and coves /toe
coves and drainageways of mountain slopes in the
(SVC and SvD)
loamy isotic mesic
slopes
Great Smoky Mountains These soils formed in stony
Typic Dystrudepts
benches fans
colluvium made up of phyllite slate metasandstone
and/or other metasedimentary rock Located on
slopes ranging from 8 15% in project area The
Spivey Whiteoak complex also extends to slopes on
site that range from 15 30% These areas are labeled
SvD on county soil resource maps
Soco Stecoah
Coarse loamy mixed
Ridges side
The Soco Stecoah complex consists of well drained
Complex
active mesic Typic
slopes
soils and occurs on steep mountain slopes ranging
(SvF)
Dystrudepts
from 50 95% This soil type was formed in
residuum and is affected by soil creep in the upper
solum Parent rock includes weathered
metasandstone and thinly bedded phyllite
Thurmont
Fine loamy mixed
Footslopes
Thurmont soils formed from alluvium and/or
Dillard
semi active mesic
colluvial fans
colluvium on footslopes colluvial fans benches and
Complex
Aquic Hapludults /
benches and
stream terraces are well drained and have a
(ThB)
Fine loamy mixed
stream
moderate permeability Dillard soils formed from
active mesic
terraces/
alluvium on stream terraces are well drained and
Oxyaquic Hapludults
toeslopes
have a moderately slow permeability This complex
stream terraces
is located in the project area on slopes ranging from
2 8%
Snowbird Fine
Fine loamy mixed
Cool north/
The Snowbird soil series consists of well drained
Sandy Loam
active mesic Humic
east facing
moderately permeable soils Like the Soco Stecoah
(SbE)
Hapludults
mountain
complex this soil was formed in residuum from
slopes
metasedimentary rocks and is affected by soil creep
in the upper solum
Note USDA NRCS Official Soil Series Descriptions (http //ortho ftw nres usda gov /cgi bin/osd/osdname cgi)
USDA, NRCS Soil Data Mart database (http / /soildatamart nres usda goN )
I� MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC
L
PAGE 2 4
NOVEMBER 13 2009

protected but only on federal lands Section 7 of this act requires federal agencies to ensure that actions
they fund or authorize do not jeopardize any federally listed species
Organisms that are listed as Endangered (E) Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the NHP list of
Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and
the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979
Species lists that the USFWS and NHP prepared for Graham County were last updated January 31 2008
and January 9, 2009, respectively A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of the
species under federal protection follows in Table 2 4 along with a conclusion regarding potential project
impact Information on candidate species or species under federal protection through other legislation that
occur in Graham County is also provided ,
The U S Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) was most recently contacted March 13 2008 regarding
protected species on the project site To date, no response has been received from the USFWS regarding
potential project impacts to federally listed species located in Graham County As a precautionary measure,
Baker will consider the effects of construction activities on species listed in Table 2 4 and take reasonable
measures to avoid direct and indirect impacts during the project Correspondence submitted to the USFWS 1s
included in Appendix B
2 6 1 Federally Protected Vertebrates
2 6 1 1 Hahaeetus leucocephalus (Bald Eagle)
Bald eagles are large raptors, 32 to 43 inches long with a white head, white tail, yellow bill,
yellow eyes, and yellow feet The lower section of the leg has no feathers Wingspread is about
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC
PAGE 2 7
�1
1
LJ
it
Ll
1l
NOVEMBER 13 2009 11
I

I�
seven feet The characteristic plumage of adults is white and dark brown to black with young
birds being completely dark brown Juveniles have a dark bill pale markings on the belly tail
and under the wings and do not develop the white head and tail until five to six years old
According to the NHP species account, bald eagles in the Southeast frequently build their nests in
i the transition zone between forest and marsh or open water Nests are cone shaped six to eight
i
feet from top to bottom and six feet or more in diameter They are typically constructed of sticks
lined with a combination of leaves, grasses and Spanish moss Nests are built in dominant live
pines or cypress trees that provide a good view and clear flight path, usually less than 0 5 miles
from open water Winter roosts are usually in dominant trees, similar to nesting trees, but may be
—1 somewhat farther from water In North Carolina, nest building takes place in December and
January with egg laying (clutch of one to three eggs) in February and hatching in March Bald
eagles are opportunistic feeders consuming a variety of living prey and carrion Up to 80 percent
of their diet is fish which is self caught scavenged or robbed from ospreys They may also take
various small mammals and birds especially those weakened by mjury or disease
(Henson 1990 Potter et al 1980, USFWS 1992a)
Biological Conclusion No Effect
Bald eagles have been sighted in Graham County, which is not unusual given the large open
F waters of Santeetlah and Fontana Reservoirs According to information posted on the NC
Natural Heritage Program website (http //149 168 1 196 /nhp/) an occurrence of the bald eagle
has been recorded within 2 miles of the project area, probably over the reservoir However the
project area consists of headwater streams with small drainage areas and for the most part forest
_ cover that does not allow predation by large birds of prey These streams do not hold prey -sized
fish that could support a bald eagle
I �
L
�i
J
This project involves riparian enhancement and channel restoration that impacts a very small
percentage of the total protect stream length Improvements made through this project will not
adversely impact any bald eagle populations or habitat Canopy improvements made to the
riparian zone within the project area could actually support bald eagles in the long term should
any of the planted trees become dominant canopy trees Stream enhancement activities will result
in channel stability and improved water quality through a reduction in sediment loading and
colder water by the addition of shading vegetation These activities are likely to benefit fish
populations, which could in turn benefit predators such as eagles rather than adversely impact
them
2 6 12 Clemmys muhlenbergri (Bog Turtle)
The bog turtle is among the smallest turtles of North America at only 3 -4 5 inches in length with
an average weight of 4 ounces Its shell is light brown to ebony in color and it has a notable
bright orange yellow or red blotch on each side of its head The bog turtle s preferred habitat in
the southern Appalachians includes sphagnum bogs drained swamps, and mucky slow moving
spring -fed streams in meadows and pastures that are typically less than 4 acres in size ( USFWS
1997a)
Biological Conclusion No Effect
The Snowbird Tributaries Site is heavily forested and does not have shallow spring -fed fens
sphagnaceous bogs or marshy meadows and pasture Non - forested areas within the project
reaches also do not feature habitat favored by bog turtles Streams on -site are fairly fast
flowing steep, and have a bed of sand, gravel and cobble without areas of mud or silt There
should be no effects from construction of this project because the project will have no direct
impacts to a population or to habitat for this species
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC
PAGE 2 8
NOVEMBER 13 2009

2 6 13 Myotts sodahs (Indiana Myotis)
The Indiana bat is 3 5 inches long with mouse like ears, plain nose dull, grayish fur on the back,
and lighter cinnamon brown fur on the belly Its `wingspread' ranges from 9 5 to 10 5 inches
From early October until late March and April Indiana bats hibernate in large clusters of
hundreds or even thousands in limestone caves and abandoned mines usually near water During
summer females establish maternity colonies of two dozen to several hundred under the loose
bark of dead and dying trees or shaggy - barked live trees such as the shagbark hickory Hollows
in live or dead trees are also used Most roost trees are usually exposed to the sun and are near
water Males and non - reproductive females typically roost singly or in small groups Roost trees
can be found within riparian areas bottomland hardwoods and upland hardwoods (Adams 1987
USFWS 1992a)
Biological Conclusion No Effect
No foraging or nesting habitat was found for the Indiana bat in the lower project reaches due to
the level of disturbance to the riparian area Riparian areas in the headwaters of the project area
will not be disturbed Any potential habitat that may exist in the upper reaches will be left in its
current condition Because no potential habitat will be impacted by this project `no effect'
determination was made
2 6 14 Glaucomys sabrcnus coloratus (Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel)
The Carolina northern flying squirrel is a small nocturnal gliding mammal some 260 to 305
millimeters (10 to 12 inches) in total length and 95 140 grams (3 5 ounces) in weight It
possesses a long broad flattened tail (80 percent of head and body length) prominent eyes and
dense silky fur The broad tail and folds of skin between the wrist and ankle form the
aerodynamic surface used for gliding Adults are gray with a brownish tan or reddish wash on
the back, and grayish white or buffy white ventrally Juveniles have uniform dark slate gray
backs, and off white undersides The northern flying squirrel can be distinguished from the
southern flying squirrel by its larger size, the gray base of its ventral haws as opposed to a white
base in the southern species the relatively longer upper tooth row, and the short stout baculum
(gems bone) of the males
t
(Cooper et al 1977 Murdock pers comm, Terwilliger et al 1995 USFWS 1992a Weigl 1987)
Biological Conclusion No effect
The Carolina northern flying squirrel prefers the ecotone between coniferous and mature northern
hardwood forests usually above 4,500 feet or narrow, north -facing valleys above 4 000 feet
There is no habitat of this kind at the project site The land disturbing activities will take place on
a floodplain and a timber clearing with maximum elevations below 2 200' ASL well below what
would be expected for this animal There should be no effect on this species or its habitat
2 6 2 Federally Protected Invertebrates
2 6 2 1 Alasmidonta raveneltana (Appalachian Elktoe)
The Appalachian elktoe has a thin but not fragile, kidney- shaped shell, reaching up to about 3 2
inches in length 14 inches in height, and one inch in width (Clarke 198 1) Like other freshwater
mussels, the Appalachian elktoe feeds by filtering food particles from the water column The
specific food habits of the species are unknown, but other freshwater mussels have been
documented to feed on detritus, diatoms, phytoplankton, and zooplankton (Churchill and Lewis
1924) The species has been found in relatively shallow medium -sized creeks and rivers with
cool clean well oxygenated moderate- to fast - flowing water The species is most often found in
riffles runs and shallow flowing pools with stable relatively silt -free coarse sand and gravel
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 2 9
11
L
1
J
a
1
I
1
i
FU
1
0
NOVEMBER 13 2009
�J

C�
F
substrate associated with cobble boulders and/or bedrock Stability of the substrate appears to
n be critical to the Appalachian elktoe and the species is seldom found in stream reaches with
L� accumulations of silt or shifting sand gravel or cobble Individuals that have been encountered in
these areas are believed to have been scoured out of upstream areas during periods of heavy rain,
and have not been found on subsequent surveys (USFWS Webpage, C McGrath pers comm
1996, J A Fndell pers observation 1995, 1996 1999)
Preferred habitat of the Virginia spiraea ranges from flood - scoured, high gradient rocky
riverbanks gorges and canyons to braided areas of stream reaches Virginia spiraea have also
been observed in disturbed rights -of way Virginia spiraea prefer sunlight and moist acidic soils
r (primarily sandstones) This plant grows in thickets and is commonly associated with a variety
+ of grape species (Vitas spp ) and royal fern (Osmunda regales) though it may still be located in
thickets where these other plants are not present Habitat conditions for the Virginia spiraea
must be present in some combination in order for the spiraea to flourish Due to the specificity of
site conditions needed the Virginia spiraea is limited to a specific ecological niche (Radford et al
1964 USFWS 1992a)
Biological Conclusion
The project streams are very small with bankfull widths of 10 to 15 feet, and are located on
moderate to steep gradients Some habitat features favored by the Virginia spiraea do exist
_ within the project limits for Virginia spiraea Favorable habitat features consisted of sections
+ of braided channel, previously disturbed banks and access routes that are highly exposed to
L sunlight, and minor scour associated with prior channelization of the stream
Subsequent field surveys have been conducted and potential habitat features were found to be
LJ less significant due to a lack of overall habitat suitability Sections of braided channel were
located in moderate to steep relief Dominant vegetation on steeper slopes consisted of dense
rhododendron and doghobble, hemlock poplar and maple Braided channel features on
C j more moderate slopes consisted of multiflora rose, Chinese privet poplar, dogwood and a
J variety of ferns and mosses The enhancement reach on UT 3 is located on a moderate slope
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC
PAGE 2 10
NOVEMBER 13 2009
Biological Conclusion No Effect
r
The USFWS has designated a portion of the Cheoah River system within Graham County as
E
critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe According to the September 27 2002 Federal
L-1
Register, 67 61016 61040 critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe exists in the Cheoah
River below the Santeetlah Dam to its confluence with the Little Tennessee River However
the project site is not located in the critical habitat area for the Appalachian elktoe The
described habitat does not exist within the project reach and no individual animals were
observed Unnamed Tributaries 1 and 2 converge before entering Snowbird Creek within the
�l
normally impounded area of Santeelah Reservoir Unnamed Tributary 3 flows into Hooper
Branch which then meets Snowbird Creek also within the impoundment Snowbird Creek is a
tributary to the Santeetlah Reservoir which was created when the Cheoah River was dammed
According to state natural heritage element occurrence data for 2007, the closest recorded
occurrence of Appalachian elktoe to the project area is approximately 10 miles away below
the Dam Therefore any potential temporary increases in stream turbidity levels caused by
enhancement or restoration activities or other unforeseeable impacts will not affect
Appalachian elktoe mussel populations downstream of the dam Project erosion control
measures will further ensure that impacts to any potential habitat downstream of the project
area are minimized or avoided
263 Federally Protected Plants
2 6 3 1 Speraea virgincana (Virginia Spiraea)
Preferred habitat of the Virginia spiraea ranges from flood - scoured, high gradient rocky
riverbanks gorges and canyons to braided areas of stream reaches Virginia spiraea have also
been observed in disturbed rights -of way Virginia spiraea prefer sunlight and moist acidic soils
r (primarily sandstones) This plant grows in thickets and is commonly associated with a variety
+ of grape species (Vitas spp ) and royal fern (Osmunda regales) though it may still be located in
thickets where these other plants are not present Habitat conditions for the Virginia spiraea
must be present in some combination in order for the spiraea to flourish Due to the specificity of
site conditions needed the Virginia spiraea is limited to a specific ecological niche (Radford et al
1964 USFWS 1992a)
Biological Conclusion
The project streams are very small with bankfull widths of 10 to 15 feet, and are located on
moderate to steep gradients Some habitat features favored by the Virginia spiraea do exist
_ within the project limits for Virginia spiraea Favorable habitat features consisted of sections
+ of braided channel, previously disturbed banks and access routes that are highly exposed to
L sunlight, and minor scour associated with prior channelization of the stream
Subsequent field surveys have been conducted and potential habitat features were found to be
LJ less significant due to a lack of overall habitat suitability Sections of braided channel were
located in moderate to steep relief Dominant vegetation on steeper slopes consisted of dense
rhododendron and doghobble, hemlock poplar and maple Braided channel features on
C j more moderate slopes consisted of multiflora rose, Chinese privet poplar, dogwood and a
J variety of ferns and mosses The enhancement reach on UT 3 is located on a moderate slope
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC
PAGE 2 10
NOVEMBER 13 2009

1
2 6 4 1 Gymnoderma kneare (Rock Gnome Lichen)
0
and is adjacent to a residence One bank is bordered by a forested slope the opposite bank is
bordered by a field that is mowed to the top of bank of the stream Braiding and minor scour
was observed along sections of the proposed enhancement reach on UT3 where the
previously channelized tributary is attempting to move back toward the center of the valley
Vegetation present is as described above for braided channels on moderate slopes Site
conditions at the enhancement reach on UT 2 consist of an area previously opened by timber
(�
harvesting conducted within the last 10 years Logging debris has been left within the
U
enhancement reach on UT 2 Although the enhancement reach on UT 2 currently receives
ample sunlight, other habitat features required including scoured rocky streambanks are not
present and the area has been overtaken by multiflora rose Recent on site observations made
O
May 8, 2008 confirm that Virginia spiraea is not present in portions of the project site where
land disturbing activity will occur (including staging areas and access routes) Therefore, no
impacts to the species from this project are anticipated
O
2 6 4 Federally Protected Lichen
2 6 4 1 Gymnoderma kneare (Rock Gnome Lichen)
a
Rock Gnome Lichen grows in dense colonies of narrow straps (squamules) that appear a bluish -
grey on the surface and a shiny white on the lower surface The squamules are about 1 millimeter
across near the tip tapering to the blackened base sparingly and subdichotomously branched and
generally about 1 to 2 centimeters ( 39 to 79 inches) long, although they can vary somewhat in
length, depending upon environmental factors Flowering occurs between July to September,
fruiting bodies are located at the tips of the squamules and are also black The squamules are
nearly parallel to the rock surface, with the tips curling away from the rock in a near
perpendicular orientation to the rock surface
The rock gnome lichen is endemic to the southern Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina and
Tennessee where it is limited to 32 populations Only seven of the remaining 32 populations
D
cover an area larger than 2 square meters (2 4 square yards) Most populations are 1 meter (3 3
feet) or less in size (USFWS 1997b)
Rock gnome lichen habitat is located around humid, high elevation rock outcrops or vertical cliff
O
faces or in rock outcrops in humid gorges at lower elevations Most populations occur above an
elevation of (5,000 feet) (USFWS 1997b)
0
Biological Conclusion
The project area lacks habitat characteristics favored by the rock gnome lichen Enhancement
activities which are located at elevations less than 2 800 feet and in less steep portions of the 0
project area make it unlikely that any habitat exists for the rock gnome lichen There are no deep
river gorges or high elevation rock outcrops or cliffs within the enhancement reach of this project
This project will have no direct impacts to a population or its habitat O
27 Cultural Resources
A letter was sent to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Eastern Band of 0
Cherokee Indians' Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), January 25, 2008, requesting a review and
comment for the potential of cultural resources in the vicinity of the Snowbird Tributaries restoration site
A response was received on March 13, 2008 from the SHPO stating they were unaware of any historic
resources which would be affected by the project Consequently, a Phase I Archaeological Survey was not
requested by the SHPO The THPO has not submitted comments on this project to date A copy of the
SHPO and THPO correspondence is included in Appendix B
a
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 2 11 NOVEMBER 13 2009 a

�I
F
LJ
U
0
01
0
U
Fi,i
�r l
C'
28 Potential Constraints
Baker assessed the Snowbird Creek tributaries project site in regards to potential site constraints No fatal
flaws have been identified during development of the project design
2 8 1 Property Ownership and Boundary
Baker has obtained a conservation easement from Mary Griffin, property owner for the Snowbird
Creek tributaries project area The easement has been approved by the N C State Property Office
(SPO) and recorded at the Graham County Courthouse Final copies of the easement and plat have
been provided to SPO and to EEP The easement will allow Baker to proceed with the project and
restricts the land use in perpetuity Breaks in the conservation easement have been recorded on the plat
and these areas will be used for stream crossings these areas are removed from the stream length used
to calculate mitigation credits
2 8 2 Site Access
The site can be accessed for construction and post restoration monitoring Construction access and
staging areas have been identified and are shown on the attached project plan sheets
2 8 3 Utilities
No utility easements are present within the conservation easement An existing waterline from a spring
house upstream of the restoration reach to residences downstream of the project will run beside the
easement and cross the channel at the stream crossing
2 8 4 Hydrologic Trespass and Floodplam Characterization
The Effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Graham County, NC, (Map Number
3700565000J) indicates that the project is located within an unregulated unshaded Zone X (Figure 2 3
(NCFMP, 2009) There is no local floodplam authority for Graham County therefore Baker will
submit the Floodplam Requirements Checklist to the state as required by the EEP No further study is
expected to be required as part of this project
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC
PAGE 2 12
NOVEMBER 13 2009

Figure 2.3 FEMA Floodplain Map from FIRM 3700565000J, Effective Date 2/18/09
Q,> t �
- -133 GWM
200
7ysr
UT3 to Snowbird Creek
=: restoration reach
SNOWBIRD CREEK
U
Q
e-
r
G
2
Gf
Q / N
t � F
ti
II
1+
ZONE AE
Hoopff Ceeek
Approximate Scale: 1 ":500'
(http: / /www.ncfloodmaps.com/)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -13 OCTOBER 22, 2009

0
I
11
Li
U
I'
U
P11
u
ri
P
U
i�
I '
L
29 Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites
An EDR Transaction Screen Map Report that identifies and maps real or potential hazardous environmental
sites within the distance required by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Transaction
Screening Process (E 1528) was prepared for the site January 3, 2008 A copy of the report with an
overview map is included in Appendix C The overall environmental risk for the Snowbird Tributaries
project site was determined to be low Environmental sites including Superfund (National Priorities List
NPL) hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities the Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation, and Liability Act Information System (CERCLIS) suspect state hazardous waste
solid waste or landfill facilities, or leaking underground storage tanks were not identified by the report to
me in the proposed project area During field data collection, there was no evidence that these types of sites
may be in the proposed project vicinity and conversations with the landowner did not reveal any further
knowledge of hazardous environmental sites or conditions in the area
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC
PAGE 2 14
NOVEMBER 13 2009

3 0 PROJECT SITE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
31 Existing Conditions Survey
For each tributary in the project area, Baker collected representative cross - section and profile survey data of
the existing streams to assess the current condition and overall stability of the channel Figure 3 1 illustrates
the locations of cross - section surveys on the project reaches The survey included four cross sections on
UT3, two cross - sections on UT2 and one cross - section on UT1 Baker also collected substrate samples to
characterize stream sediments The following sections of this report summarize the survey results for the
restoration reach No other detailed discussion of the preservation reaches has been included, however, all
of the surveyed cross sections and profiles are provided in Appendix D A photo log that depicts the
existing conditions at the Snowbird Tributaries project site is provided in Appendix E Results of sediment
sampling and analyses are included in Appendix F
The existing conditions of designated project reaches are described below with Table 3 1 summarizing the
representative geomorphic conditions currently present at the Snowbird Creek Tributaries project site The
table also provides regional curve data for comparison based on the drainage area of each reach This data
has limited applicability given the small sizes and steep slopes present within the project A more detailed
discussion of the assessment conducted to determine channel stability and channel forming discharge for
project streams is included in Sections 3 5 through 3 7
32 Channel Geomorphic Characterization and Classification
The plan for the Snowbird Tributaries Project involves the preservation of 7 497 LF of stream channel, the
enhancement of approximately 171 LF of stream channel and the restoration of 466 LF of stream channel
The preservation streams have been logged within the last 50 years but are now returning to a more natural
state The stream reaches on which enhancement and restoration are proposed have been impacted by
logging, clearing, invasive species and other land disturbing activities Based on the current conditions, the
stream stability and buffer quality will take a long time to naturally restore without intervention Baker
assessed the stream and valley types present and considered their evolutionary stage and likely endpoint in
order to develop a basis for the proposed restoration plan The project is dominated by narrow colluvial
valleys that contain a moderate range of slopes Stream types located within the project consist of B4a and
A4a +- type channels All streams within the project reach have been altered to some degree by timber
harvesting activities or relocation due to land use practices
Preservation is proposed on 7,497 LF of stream on this site (UT1 UT2 Reaches 1 and 3 and UT3 Reach 1)
Preserving riparian buffers around all of these streams will protect the habitat and hydrology by protecting
bank stability, filtering runoff, maintaining aquatic and terrestrial habitat, and providing shade
The enhancement reach (UT 2
logging activities has been left
present in the riparian buffer
performed
1
i
Ell
1
1
0
III
1
0
i
U
1
Reach 2) is where a logging road approaches the stream and debris from a
in the stream The banks have degraded and invasive plant species are
Along with debris and invasive plant removal, buffer planting will be
The restoration reach (UT 3 — Reach 2) is at the downstream end of UT3 There is a limited riparian buffer
along this reach with invasive plant species present in the existing corridor and in the proposed relocation
corridor In addition to an off line channel restoration along the historical channel path invasive plant
removal and buffer planting will be performed
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 3 1
0
1
a
NOVEMBER 13 2009 U
�J

ILI
X7
aWr
� 4
A'-4
Y CCI 4
♦m �\
x>>
xz v
of �/ —•\ V \
X4
\
V,
\"A \ \
\ r
\x \
LEGEND: Figure 3.1 Project Reaches and
Project Reaches — UT2, Reach 3 Cross- sections Surveyed Cross- Section Locations
r~
o UT1, Reach 1 — UT3, Reach 1 Proposed Easement Boundary Snowbird Creek Tributaries Project
UT2, Reach 1 — UT3, Reach 2 Streams Graham County, NC
ItlW. mlt UT2, Reach 2
0 200 400 800 n
Feet /I,F,

L1
0
33 Valley Classification
All of the tributary valleys are Type II moderately steep colluvial valleys with gentle sloping side slopes
They are fed at the top and along their sides by steep V- shaped ephemeral stream valleys (Type I) This is
typical and characteristic of headwaters in the mountain region In the same way, B type streams are
characteristic of these same colluvial valleys with some A type steams where the stream is able to incise B
streams tend to be stable in Type II valleys and contribute only small quantities of sediment during runoff
events The slope of the valley through the restoration reach is 0 094 ft/ft
34 Protect Reach Characterization
Members of the Griffin family have held ownership of the property for many years The lands along the
0 streams and in the surrounding area are overwhelmingly forested The majority of the streams and
accompanying acquired easements will be simply conserved to allow for the continued natural recovery of
the systems, which is already well underway Some stream reaches have been altered or impacted by prior
O activities and are slated for enhancement or restoration A description of each stream within the project
area is provided below
U
11
0
I
(I
II
�J
r-
I
3 4 1 Unnamed Tributary (UT) I (Preservation)
Unnamed Tributary 1 drains approximately 83 2 acres at the downstream property boundary is in good
condition and will be preserved as is under the project conservation easement This particular stream
flows 3 213 LF through deciduous riparian forest The reach has stable banks and a bankfull channel that
allows floodplain access at bankfull flows
Unnamed Tributary 1 is a 1" order headwater A4a+ type stream in a steep (V or Bowl- shaped) valley
Despite prior impacts, this stream has largely recovered The remaining evidence of local instability is
not of system -wide concern and mostly reflects local perturbations that are consistent with natural impacts
found in reference streams Any minor unprovements that could be made would not be justified given
the level of disturbance that would be required to access these steep and densely wooded areas
3 4 2 Unnamed Tributary (UT) 2
3 4 2 1 UT2 Reach 1 (Preservation)
Reach 1 of UT2 drains approximately 34 7 acres at its downstream junction with Reach 2, is in
good condition and will be preserved under the project conservation easement Reach 1 of UT2
flows 1,146 LF through a deciduous riparian forest The reach has stable banks and a bankfull
channel that allows floodplain access at bankfull flows Unnamed tributary 2 is a 1" order, 134a
type stream It is also located in a steep valley much like other tributaries in the greater Snowbird
Creek drainage The typical stream type in the reach is B As is the case with the preservation
reaches on UT 1 and UT3, UT2 extubrts localized sections of channel instability that are causing
neither aggradation nor degradation on a scale large enough to disrupt the stream on a system
wide scale As noted earlier, any minor improvements that could be made would not be justified
given the level of disturbance that would be required to access these steep and densely wooded
areas
3 4 2 2 UT2 Reach 2 (Enhancement)
The enhancement reach (UT2 - Reach 2) is where a logging road approaches the stream and
debris from logging activities has been left in the stream The banks have degraded and invasive
plant species are present in the riparian buffer Along with logging debris and invasive plant
removal, buffer planting will be performed
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC
PAGE 3 3
NOVEMBER 13 2009

Geomorphic survey information from the reach has been provided in Table 3 1 with substrate
data provided in Table 3 2 This short 171 foot reach reflects a profile of debris dams over
widening and aggradation punctuated by short, steep drops at the downstream ends of the debris
dams The banks are eroding due to this unstable pattern
The enhancement section is either in a stage of channel degradation or in an early stage of
recovery There is local instability and bank erosion due to the extensive debris jams from the
earlier logging The channel will continue to headcut below the debris jams and locally evolve
toward a "G' stream without enhancement Debris removal should return it to the path of a
recovering B4a type stream
3 4 2 3 UT2 Reach 3 (Preservation)
The downstream reach of UT2, Reach 3, drains approximately 48 8 acres at the downstream
property boundary is in good condition and will be preserved under the project conservation
easement Reach 3 of UT2 flows 562 LF through deciduous riparian forest The reach has stable
banks and a bankfull channel that allows floodplam access at bankfull flows The reach is a Is'
order headwater stream in a steep (V or Bowl- shaped) valley The typical stream type in the
reach is A4a+ Despite prior impacts these areas have largely recovered The remaining
evidence of local instability is not a system wide concern and mostly reflects local perturbations
that are consistent with natural impacts found in reference streams Any minor improvements
that could be made would not be justified given the level of disturbance that would be required to
access these steep and densely wooded areas
3 4 3 Unnamed Tributary (UT) 3
UT3 is a first order high gradient, colluvial system with occasional bedrock outcroppings Table 3 1
summarizes the geomorphic parameters of UT3 In general the bedform diversity of UT3 is fair with
some step pool habitat in existing cascades and around woody debris Most pools are scour features
associated with woody debris laying over or in the channel and debris buried in the substrate Most of
the stream bed is shallow and is best described as a steep nffle with a few runs Low velocity areas of
the channel are primarily composed of large sand particles and small gravel Higher velocity pools and
runs have small cobble and gravel The project reach can be described as a cobble bed stream based on
stream bed sampling of UT 3 Table 3 2 lists substrate data
3 4 3 1 UT3 Reach 1 (Preservation)
The upstream reach of UT3 Reachl, drains approximately 97 5 acres at its unction with Reach
2 is in good condition and will be preserved as is under the project conservation easement
Reach I of UT3 flows 2 576 LF through deciduous riparian forest The reach has stable banks
and a bankfull channel that allows frequent floodplam access during bankfull flows The reach is
a I" order headwater stream in a steep (V or Bowl shaped) valley The typical stream type in the
reach is B4a Despite prior impacts this reach of UT3 is relatively stable Any isolated
improvements that could be made would not be justified given the level of disturbance that would
be created to access these steep and densely wooded areas
3 4 3 2 UT3 Reach 2 (Restoration)
Reach 2 of UT3 drains 116 6 acres before entering Hooper Branch downstream of the project
area The restoration reach of UT3 presently flows for 543 LF perched up against the valley wall
A grassy field separates the stream from the low point in the valley Below the restoration reach,
it passes a residence and flows under IU Gap Road A B3a type stream in this reach UT3
continues to be a I" order headwater stream As Reach 2 of UT3 nears Hooper Branch, its valley
transitions to a less confined bowl - shaped type valley
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC
PAGE 3 4
NOVEMBER 13 2009
I
C
r
C

PJ
f
�_I
II
I,—
u
P,
L
0
0
I
C�
i1
J
L
In talking with the landowner it was discovered that this reach of UT3 was previously on the
opposite side of the valley near a gravel road leading to a large shed on -site Relocation and
channelization of the channel has resulted in bank erosion that has been compounded by a lack of
riparian vegetation
By constructing a channel with floodplam access at bankfull, a channel with lower shear stress
can be created that will allow for equilibrium with the in situ colluvium This new B type stream
in the steep Type 11 valley (9 4 %) will have a bankfull depth of 0 9 feet to limit the maximum
shear stress and thereby reduce particle mobility of the coarsest fraction of the bed
The design will incorporate on -site boulders and potentially bedrock (if present during
construction) as grade control features These will be used in construction and will assist in
armoring and maintaining the new stream bed Some of the on -site boulders appear to be a
product of the original stream processes before the channel was relocated
The restored channel will also use vegetation as a critical component of stream stability The
existing left stream bank is void of vegetation through much of the reach Native vegetation will
be planted in the form of live stakes cuttings, and bare root trees in order to help stabilize the
banks with live rootmass
Table 3 1 Representative Geomorphic Data for Snowbird Creek Tributaries
Snowbird Creek
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Restoration Plan Project #000613
Feature Type
Riffle
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Bankf ill Width Wbkf
823
521
652
678
Feet
Bankfull Mean Depth dbkf
054
055
065
063
Feet
Cross Sectional Area Ake
442
288
42
43
Sq ft
Width/Depth Ratio (W/D ratio
153
95
101
107
Bankfull Max Depth dmbkf
087
068
1 13
106
Feet
Flood prone Area Width W a
>15
73
116
156
Feet
Entrenchment Ratio ER
>1 8
14
18
24
Bank Height Ratio (BHR)
15
23
20
23
Water Surface Slope S
0 166
0 087
NA
0 087
Feet/foot
Channel Sinuosity K
<1 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
Ros en Stream Type
B4a
B4a
NA
134a
Table 3 2 Particle Size Distribution from Bed Sediment Sample of UT2 & UT 3 Reach 2
Snowbird Creek
Tributaries Restoration Plan Project #000613
D16=
OSmm
48mm
7 6m
D35 =
4 0 mm
45 mm
22 6mm
D50 =
16 mm
58 mm
90mm
D84 =
180 mm
100 mm
90mm
D95 =
256 mm
160 mm
128mm
D100 =
362 mm
256 mm
128mm
lMICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 3 5 NOVEMBER 13 2009

1 35 Channel Morphology, Evolution and Stability Assessment
A common sequence of physical adjustments has been observed in many streams following disturbance
This adjustment process is often referred to as channel evolution Disturbance can result from
channelization increase in runoff due to build -out in the watershed, removal of streamside vegetation and
other changes that negatively affect stream stability All of these disturbances occur in both urban and rural
environments Several models have been used to describe this process of physical adjustment for a stream
The Simon (1989) Channel Evolution Model characterizes evolution in six steps including
1
Sinuous pre - modified
2
Channelized
3
Degradation
4
Degradation and widening
5
Aggradation and widening
6
Quasi - equilibrium
The channel evolution process is initiated once a stable, well- vegetated stream that interacts frequently with
its floodplam is disturbed Disturbance commonly results in an increase in stream power that causes
degradation often referred to as channel incision (Lane 1955) Incision eventually leads to over - steepening
of the banks and when critical bank heights are exceeded the banks begin to fail and mass wasting of soil
and rock leads to channel widening Incision and widening continue moving upstream in the form of a
head -cut Eventually the mass wasting slows, and the stream begins to aggrade A new low flow channel
begins to form in the sediment deposits By the end of the evolutionary process, a stable stream with
dimension pattern and profile similar to those of the earlier undisturbed channel forms in the deposited
alluvium The new channel is at a lower elevation than its original form, with a new floodplam constructed
of alluvial material (FISRWG 1998)
The tributaries within the project area are perennial streams with sections that appear to have been
channelized in the past Other sections of the stream flow through forest areas that were probably clear cut
in the past allowing thick stands of pioneering rhododendron to become established and to limit the density
of other woody species The total project has a number of reaches within the forested sections that are
impacted by debris jams that have caused erosion and channel over widening The straightened sections are
eroding banks in order to reestablish a stable pattern Some stable cross sections within the project reach
indicate that when deeply rooted vegetation is allowed to grow along the banks, the stream takes on
characteristics of a B channel
Streams within the project area are primarily controlled by bedrock or colluvial boulders and cobbles and
dissipate energy vertically rather than horizontally like an alluvial system Because of this they are
moderately entrenched and in some areas, moderately wide relative to their depths Their profiles are steep
to very steep, tending to erode during low return interval storm events resulting in local changes in bed
configuration but not in evolution to a new channel state The slope of the valley through the restoration
reach is 0 094 ft/ft The low sinuosity of the restoration conforms to the historical alignment and has a
width of 9 9 ft at a bankfull depth of 0 9 ft The width/depth ratio is approximately 15
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 3-6
1
u
1
0
l
i
i
0
1
1
1
L'
1
NOVEMBER 13 2009 O
/ O

FJ I
I�
I�
l_
F1
C�
C�
I I
i
UT3 Reach 2 is a second order high gradient colluvial system with occasional bedrock outcroppings It has
been moved from the low part of the valley to its present location against the valley wall A man made
berm was constructed to constram it to its relocated alignment but had the effect of narrowing the channel,
increasing the bank height ratio (BHR) and reducing the entrenchment ratio (ER) During some high runoff
events, it jumped the beam and formed its current straighter, steeper channel cutting off a portion of the
relocated channel
At its current narrowed and perched location, UT3 Reach 2 is incised as a result of manmade levy
installation The D50 in the current channel is a coarse gravel based on a bulk sample taken from the stream
bed The higher shear stress in the narrowed relocated channel was able to move that bed material and
begin to incise At the cross - sections that were surveyed, the BHR was 2 3 and the ER was as low as 14
Once incision begins to cut off the bankf ill (channel forming) flow from the adjacent floodplam,
degradation accelerates It will continue to degrade at its current incised location as long as it is
hydrologically cut off from a floodplain and erode until it reaches bedrock or boulder material At that
point it would seek to widen and restabilize itself
Within the project limits, UT3 -Reach 2 of Snowbird Creek is predominately classified as a Rosgen stream
type 134a which is moderately to highly entrenched and incised If it were to headcut and flatten its slope it
could evolve to an unstable "G' type stream The earlier moving and narrowing of the stream have caused a
shift away from a stable channel
Table 3 4 summarizes the geomorphic parameters related to channel stability
Table 3 4 Stability Indicators Snowbird Creek UT 3 — Reach 2
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Restoration Plan Project #000613
Stream Type
B
NA (Pool)
B
Riparian Vegetation
Wide buffer of mature
Wide buffer of mature
Wide buffer of mature
Vertical
rhododendron with some
rhododendron with some
rhododendron with some
20
mature trees scattered within
mature trees scattered within
mature trees scattered
1 8
the stand on the right bank
the stand on the right bank
within the stand on the
The left bank has fescue
The left bank has fescue grass
right bank The left bank
grass and this is mowed
and this is mowed There are a
has fescue grass and this
There are a few small
few small scattered trees on
is mowed There are a few
scattered trees on the left
the left bank
small scattered trees on
bank
the left bank
Channel Dimension
Bankfull Area SF 288 42 43
Width/Depth Ratio 95 101 107
Channel Pattern
Meander Width Ratio
NA
NA
NA
Sinuosity
1 1
1 1 1
1 1
Vertical
Stability
Bank Height Ratio (13HR)
23
20
23
Entrenchment Ratio ER
14
1 8
24
Evolution Scenario
Existing Evolution Stage'
Notes I NA Meander Width Ratio not measured due to channel
type 2 Simon Channel Evolution
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC
PAGE 3 7
NOVEMBER 13 2009

Table 3 4 (cont ) Stability Indicators Snowbird Creek — Enhancement and Preservation Reaches
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Restoration Plan Project #000613
Stream T e
A4a+
B4a B4a
A4a+
Ripanan
Banks vegetated with
Banks exhibit dense
Banks vegetated with
Banks vegetated with
Vegetation
rhododendron ferns
vegetative cover by
rhododendron ferns
rhododendron ferns
solomon s seal and
rhododendron The
solomon s seal and
solomon s seal and
other ground cover
forest floor is lined with
other ground cover
other ground cover
The forest canopy
ferns violets and forest
The forest canopy
The forest canopy
vanes somewhat by
litter The forest canopy
vanes somewhat by
vanes somewhat by
elevation but is
includes tulip poplar
elevation but is
elevation but is
generally dominated by
maples and a mix of
generally dominated by
generally dominated by
oaks and tulip poplar
other hardwoods
oaks and tulip poplar
oaks and tulip poplar
Red maple and
Red maple and
Red maple and
sourwood are also
sourwood are also
sour-wood are also
abundant in areas
abundant in areas
abundant in areas
Channel Dimension
Bankfull
6
58
37
68
"Area SF
Width/Depth
1135
1146
1276
1066
Ratio
Channel Pattern
Meander
NA
NA
NA
NA
Width Ratio
Sinuosity
NA
NA
NA
NA
Vertical Stability
Bank Height
1 8
41
16
36
Ratio BHR
Entrenchment
1 5
1 3
21
27
Ratio ER
Evolution
AAA
B-->G-->Fb-->B
B- >G ->Fb-->B
AAA
Scenario
Existing
Evolution
I
I
I
1
Stage'
Notes 1 NA
Meander Width Ratio not measured due to channel type 2 Simon Channel Evolution
A naturally stable stream must be able to transport the sediment load supplied by its watershed while
maintaining dimension, pattern and profile over time so that it does not degrade or aggrade (Rosgen, 1994)
Stable streams migrate across alluvial landscapes slowly, over long periods of time while maintaining their
form and function Instability occurs when scouring causes the channel to incise (degrade) or excessive
deposition causes the channel bed to nse ( aggrade) A generalized relationship of stream stability was
proposed by Lane (1955) that states the product of sediment load and sediment size is proportional to the
product of stream slope and discharge or stream power A change in any one of these variables causes a
rapid physical adjustment in the stream channel
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 3-8 NOVEMBER 13 2009
C�
u
0
0
0
1
r
1
0
1
L'
i
L
1
1
0
0-

UT 3 reach 2 is either in a stage of channel degradation or in an early stage of recovery where the
opportunity exists to eliminate the undesirable impacts from natural channel evolution by repairing and
restoring it to a stable condition once again
At its current narrowed and perched location, UT3 -Reach 2 has become reasonably incised Once incision
' begins to cut off the bankfull (stream forming) flow from the adjacent floodplam degradation accelerates
It will continue to degrade at its current incised location as long as it 1s hydraulically cut off from a
floodplam A Priority 1 restoration approach which returns the stream to its original route as much as
possible is deemed the best outcome versus trying to stabilize it in place
l By hydraulically reconnecting Reach 2 of UT 3 with its floodplam at bankfull discharge, constructing in-
stream structures to provide grade control reducing shear stress by widening the channel section, restoring
the stream to the historical location and sinuosity at the lowest point in the valley and selecting a channel
lining which is appropriately stable the restoration reach should remain relatively stable over time The
restored channel should have stream power that is similar to that of the historical channel since the overall
r i slope is not changing and discharge is returning to historical levels as the watershed continues to recover
from the previous logging Since it is a colluvial system channel stability will be more dependent on the
l shear stress placed on the channel lining than the transport of a sediment load through the reach
36 DischargeBankfull Verification
Baker engaged physical, analytical, and empirical methods to verify the bankfull stage and discharge of the
project restoration reach (Reach 2) on UT3 These methods were each given weight with physical field
measurements having a slightly higher weight due to their site - specific nature Subsequent methods were
used to interpret and sometimes adjust field observations
The bankfull stage for Reach 2 of UT3 was determined using standard methods available for this
determination There is no gage data available for the site therefore methods used to verify bankfull stage
included a regional curve assessment USGS regression equations and Manning s equation
In stable systems, the "bankfull" or main channel top -of bank discharge represents the channel - forming
discharge It is widely accepted that the bankfull discharge has a recurrence interval in the range of 1 to 2
years (1 5 years is a commonly used average) The end result of the methods employed is a best estimate of
the channel forming discharge given the unavailability of gauge data
r In summary, the following steps were taken
1 Identified and surveyed representative cross sections with physical bankfull indicators
2 Compared the surveyed cross - sections with each other to ensure consistency
3 Compared values to regional empirical data (regional curves)
4 Used Manning's equation to estimate design discharge through cross - sections
5 Finally, considered all results and determined dimensions and flow that corresponds to bankfull
3 6 1 Physical Field Measurement
Field- identified physical indicators were collected during the topographic survey Physical bankfull
indicators surveyed during the existing conditions analysis were typically depositional bars defined
s breaks in slope at a consistent elevation relative to the water surface or transitions in bank vegetation
' where vegetation exists These indicators were used in conjunction with hydraulic modeling and
discharge information from regional curve data and the USGS rural regression equations to evaluate
bankfull estimates for consistency and accuracy These verification methods are described below
3 6 2 Regional Curve Equations
Publicly available and in -house bankfull regional curves are available for a range of stream types and
' physiographic provinces The North Carolina Mountain Regional Curve (Harman et al , 2000) (Harman
I
rl
�� MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 3 9 NOVEMBER 13 2009

et al 1999) was used for comparison to other more site- specific means of estimating bankfull discharge
The Snowbird restoration site (UT3 Reach 2) is a headwater system with a drainage area of 0 18 square
miles drainage areas of this size are not adequately represented in the regional curve data Because they
are not well represented design information based primarily on the regional curve is likely to vary
significantly from the hydraulic regime of the site
Despite this short- coming, NC mountain data points with drainage areas less than 15 square miles were
used to develop a best fit power curve for bankfull flow This equation yielded a bankfull mean stage
estimate of 0 7 ft for the project site drainage area of 0 18 square miles
Bankfull indicators were identified in the field indicators include a break in slope an intermittent flat
depositional feature, and a consistent scour line Depth and area measurements of stable cross sections
with bankfull indicators were compared to regional curve data to verify the quality of the indicators
Surveyed cross sections with bankfull indicators were plotted on the regional curve UT3 data points
plotted near the North Carolina Mountain Regional Curve (Harman et al 2000), indicating that the
bankfull stage selected in the field was comparable with that of other Mountain streams of similar
drainage area The resulting extension and adjustment of the best fit line did not significantly alter the
results or the design mean bankfull stage of 0 66 ft
Figure 3 2 NC Mountain Regional Curve for Discharge (Q,UT3.= 55 cfs)
3 6 3 USGS Regression Equations
North Carolina USGS Regionalized (Region of Influence) Regression Equations (Pope et al 2001)
incorporate latitude longitude, and drainage area information when used to calculate flood estimates
based on data from USGS gauges These regression equations were used to calculate the estimates for the
2- 5 -, 10 , and 25 year floods The regression equation flows for the mountain and piedmont were
plotted for comparison
The data for UT-3-Reach 3 (drainage area = 0 18 square miles) is plotted in Figure 3 3 below with the
supplemented regional curve flow for this project at the far right (assumed return interval of 1 5 or 0 66
frequency for plotting purposes) These regression equation flows were used as comparative estimates of
different flow frequencies
The plot predicts a flow rate of approximately 41 cfs for the 1 5 -year return interval event
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 3 10
J
0
1
J
U
0
1
1
1
i
LI
0
11
1
0
NOVEMBER 13 2009 0
O

F,
ri
Figure 3 3 USGS Regional Regression Equation Flood Events
n
I� I
�I
USES North Carolina Region of Influence Regression Equation Flows for
Snowbird (0 2 sq Ini)
350 18 25 5 N 830 51 06 8 W
600
—f— Regression Flows 34 288x
500 = O 96
t Region of Influence
400 — Power (Regression Flows
300
0 200
IL 100
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
—� N W .p Cn m --4
Frequency =1 / Return Interval (yr-1)
3 6 4 Manning's Equation
The existing conditions cross sections were analyzed using Manning's Equation Once bankfull stage
was confidently estimated, channel parameter values Including bankfull area and hydraulic radius were
known and could be used with other channel parameter values Including stream slope and roughness The
selection of Manning's ` n" was difficult and Is very Influential In the results obtained
A Manning's roughness coefficient was selected based on the factors Including channel bed material and
the presence and type of vegetation In the channel and on the banks Calculated discharge was based on
average channel slope and bankfull channel parameters Including channel area and hydraulic radius
calculated from surveyed channel cross sections with Identified physical bankfull Indicators The
discharge calculated for the cross sections varied from 20 33 for a Manning s ` n' value of 0 04
37 Conclusions for Channel Forming Discharge
The design discharge was estimated using existing conditions, field Identified bankfull Indicators, and the
Manning's discharge estimation method However the estimates developed from published regional
methods (curves, USGS equations) were high in comparison with estimates developed with Manning s
equations for the existing channel — somewhat contrary to expectations for Incised channels The selection
of Manning's "n" Is difficult for steep channels with coarse bed material Ultimately design channel
dimensions were based off cross sectional geometry data from a variety of sources (existing conditions,
upstream and nearby references, regional curve and project supplemented curve shown below) The
supplemented curve Includes points from other local projects (discharges are also heavily dependent on
slope and Manning's n ") and other steep streams in the region This curve supports that the bankfull
discharge should be In the range of 25 -50 cfs
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC
PAGE 3 11
NOVEMBER 13 2009

i
Figure 3 4 Supplemented Protect Curve for Bankfull Discharge
All of the sources mentioned provided information for selecting the design discharge, as summarized in
Table 3 5 The design discharge was ultimately calculated based on the channel dimensions selected and a (�
Manning s "n estimate of 0 05 This served as a check of the compiled geometry data against reasonable !�
estimates of discharge prepared in the table below As mentioned earlier, reference reach geometries and
step -pool design guidance were given more weight for ultimate design decisions than was the selected 0
discharge The design discharge calculation supports the proposed channel geometry
Table 3 5 Summary of Design Discharge for UT3 Reach 2
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Restoration Plan Project #000613
UT3 1 2 1 0 18 1 45 1 41 1 20 33 1 43
* Design Q is based on Manning s Equation for the'design riffle cross section and an assumed n value of n =0 05
due to the increase in form and channel roughness expected as a result of the project
38 Vegetation and Habitat Descriptions and Disturbance History
1
i
1
1
The habitat within and adjacent to the proposed project area consists of Dry Mesic Oak (- Hickory) Forest, 0
Dry Mesic Mixed Forest, and Appalachian Cove Forest as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990)
below (http / /www discoverlifemamerica org/atbi/grsmnp_ habitats /forest/deciduous /CEGL007710 shtml)
The riparian areas ranged from relatively disturbed to very disturbed A general description of each 0
community follows
1 0
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 3 12 NOVEMBER 13 2009 0
0

C �
�I
3 8 1 Dry Mesic Oak (- Hickory) Forest
Similar to other plant communities present, the Appalachian Cove Forest (Typic Montane) is also a type
of deciduous forest It is located within the project area at the middle to lower elevations The
dominant canopy species present include a yellow buckeye (Aesculus flava), white ash (Fraxinus
americana), white basswood (Tilia americana var heterophylla), and the cucumbertree (Magnolia
acummata) Also present are tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulip fera), red maple (Acer rubrum), Eastern
hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), and sweet birch (Betula lenta) The shrub layer is generally sparse to
moderate and varies in composition from site to site depending on canopy cover Common species
located in the shrub stratum include sweetshrub (Calycanthus floridus) and rhododendron
(Rhododendron maximum) which dominates the preservation and enhancement reaches of the project
area Herbaceous cover was sparse to moderate depending on the level of previous disturbance and
density of the shrub layer Common species include a variety of sedges (Carex spp - Carex
austrocarokniana Carex pensylvanica Carex virescens), fragrant bedstraw (Galium triflorum), star
chickweed (Stellaria pubera) and violet (Viola spp -Viola rotund folia, Viola pubescens, Viola
canadensis, etc )
In
l
F
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 3 13 NOVEMBER 13 2009
This ecological community covers mid slopes and upland forest areas within the preservation reaches
L�
The dominant canopy species of the dry mesic oak forest area includes white oak (Quercus alba),
northern red oak (Quercus rubra), black oak (Quercus velutina), mockernut hickory (Carya alba
1
J
(tomentosa)) red hickory (Carya ovalis) and pignut hickory (Caryus glabra) Yellow poplar
(Liriodendron tulip fera) are also present on site Understory species in this forest community
typically include red maple (Acer rubrum), flowering dogwood (Corpus Florida) sourwood
(Oxydendrum arborem), and amencan holly (Ilex opaca) Shrubs include downy arrowwood
(Viburnum rafinesquianum) deerbeny (Vaccinium stamineum) Blue Ridge blueberry (Vaccimum
pallidum (vacillans)) and strawberry bush (Evonymus americana) Herbs are fairly sparse, with
Hexastylis spp downy rattlesnake plantain, striped prince's pine (Chimaphila maculata) nakedflower
I
�1
ticktrefoil (Desmodium nudiflorum), and rattlesnakeweed common
3 8 2 Dry Mesic Mixed Forest
J
This ecological community is located on low ridges upland flats and in transition zones with dry mesic
oak hickory forests within the project area This community type is similar to the Dry Mesic Oak -
Hickory Forest community type with one exception This forest type is dominated less by white oak
j
and more by northern red oak (Quercus rubra) tulip poplar (Liriodendron tukp fera), and American
U
Beech (Fagus grand folia)
3 8 3 Agricultural/Hay/Pasture Land
The bottom reach of UT3 is classified as agricultural area where the stream is bordered by an open
field The plant species in the adjacent field are composed primarily of mosses, grasses and other
groundcover that includes fescue (Fescue spp ) golden rod (Solidago spp ) jewelweed (Impatiens
capensis), poison ivy (Toxicodendron (Rhus) radicans), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides),
woodfern (Dryopteris spp ), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), and soft rush (Juncus effusus)
3 8 4 Appalachian Cove Forest (Typic Montane)
Similar to other plant communities present, the Appalachian Cove Forest (Typic Montane) is also a type
of deciduous forest It is located within the project area at the middle to lower elevations The
dominant canopy species present include a yellow buckeye (Aesculus flava), white ash (Fraxinus
americana), white basswood (Tilia americana var heterophylla), and the cucumbertree (Magnolia
acummata) Also present are tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulip fera), red maple (Acer rubrum), Eastern
hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), and sweet birch (Betula lenta) The shrub layer is generally sparse to
moderate and varies in composition from site to site depending on canopy cover Common species
located in the shrub stratum include sweetshrub (Calycanthus floridus) and rhododendron
(Rhododendron maximum) which dominates the preservation and enhancement reaches of the project
area Herbaceous cover was sparse to moderate depending on the level of previous disturbance and
density of the shrub layer Common species include a variety of sedges (Carex spp - Carex
austrocarokniana Carex pensylvanica Carex virescens), fragrant bedstraw (Galium triflorum), star
chickweed (Stellaria pubera) and violet (Viola spp -Viola rotund folia, Viola pubescens, Viola
canadensis, etc )
In
l
F
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 3 13 NOVEMBER 13 2009

4 0 REFERENCE STREAMS
In an effort to determine suitable reference reaches for the design we reviewed data from prior projects in the
mountains, internal and publicly available reference reach data, on -site data from upstream of the project
reach, and reference condition data at another Baker EEP project preservation site This data was reviewed
and through familiarity with the sources, the most comprehensive references have been provided in Table 4 1
of this report Design ratios for pattern and profile were based on evaluating dimensionless ratios from these
data sources Design ratios used by Baker that have been successful at many similar sites were also
referenced in the same table
In the process, applicable geomorphic data for watersheds of comparable drainage area to the project site and
located within the same or similar physiographic iegions were utilized to extend the NC Mountain Regional
Curve By acquiring data points on the low end of the curve, beyond the range of the published data, Baker
was able to develop modified regional curve power functions for use in the design decision making process
The regional curve results were used as part of the design decision making process Values derived fiom
these new power functions are summarized in Section 7 where design criteria are presented in numeric form
Figure 4 1 depicts the bankfull cross sectional area from the Regional Curve at 6 66 sq ft for a watershed of
0 18 square miles vs a design x- sectional area of 6 5 sq ft
Figure 4 1 NC Mountain Regional Curve for Bankfull X -Sec Area (AWT3= 6 66 sf)
oil
MWESES! M-9
■�:��.�: '-'�� ■ ■ ■ ■����� ■mss %�ii���
■■/Pi"901 ■0011
■■■■11111 ■■■ ■�IIII ■ ■ ■ ■�����
The primary reference reaches chosen for tabular site design based on reference reach ratios were Craig Creek
(Pisgah National Forest site evaluated by NC State) and a UT to East Buffalo Creek (UT6), another Baker
EEP full - delivery project presently underway within miles of the Snowbird Creek tributaries site The
specific design parameters ate described in detail in Section 7 On -site data, restoration project design data,
and reference reach data were used in this design and these data are described below and summarized in Table
4 1 Surveyed cross - sections and profile data from the Snowbird Creek tributaries project tributaries are
included in Appendix D
Craig Creek is located in the Pisgah National Forest and was evaluated by NC State University as part of a
thesis research project evaluating morphology relationships in reference streams The stream is an example of
a B4 stream type with a small drainage area, similar to the project reaches
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 4 1 NOVEMBER 13 2009
0
I
1
0
1
0
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
0

UT6 to East Buffalo Creek is a geomorphically stable reach on a nearby Baker EEP full - delivery project
site The stream is an example of an A3a+ stream type sharing a comparable drainage area dimension slope
and hydrologic character to the project reach
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 4 2 NOVEMBER 13 2009
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min I
Max
1
Stream Type
B
B3
A3a+
B4
2
Drainage Area — square miles
18
18
18
18
13
13
16
16
3
Bankfull Width w kf — feet
99
99
521
678
738
804
276
276
4
Bankfull Mean Depth dbk — feet
66
66
55
63
87
98
1
1 1
5
Width/Depth Ratio (w/d ratio
15 1
15 1
95
107
757
922
25
27
6
Cross sectional Area Abkf — SF
65
65
29
43
702
72
26
33
7
Bankfull Mean Velocity (vbkf) — fps
3 1
62
8
Bankfull Discharge bkf — cfS
20
40
9
Bankfull Max Depth dnbkf —feet
9
9
68
106
109
136
16
16
10
drnbkf / dbkf ratio
121
136
_11W
124
168
125
139
16
16
11
Low Bank Height to dn,bkf Ratio
121
136
MW
I
M1
12
Bank Height Ratio dlow /dmax
1
1
23
23
105
122
13
Flood prone Area Width wf — feet
20
50
73
156
12 15
1573
36
386
14
Entrenchment Ratio ER
2
5
14
24
1 165
196
13 1
14
15
Meander length — feet
mmr
16
Meander length to bankf ill width w kf
17
Radius of curvature R, — feet
18
Radius of curvature to bankfull width (R,/ wbkf
19
Belt width (Wb11) — feet
20
Meander Width Ratio Wblt/Wbkf
21
Sinuosity K Stream Length/ Valley Distance
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
108
108
1 1
1 1
22
Valley Slope — feet per foot
094
094
094
094
136
136
0364
0364
23
Channel Slope scbannel — feet per foot
089
089
087
087
1 121
121 1
0331
0331
24
Pool Sloe l — feet per foot
Now
0
0
25
Pool Slope to Average Slope l / Schannel
imm amiffilm
mom
0
0
26
Maximum Pool Depth l — feet
21
21
27
Pool Depth to Average Bankfull Depth /d k
21
28
Pool Width (w l — feet
26
26
29
Pool Width to Bankfull Width (W ,,,l / W kf
gyp°
Sam
9
9
30
Pool Area (A,,,,) — square feet
37 1
37 1
31
Pool Area to Bankfull Area l/A k
1 1
14
32
Pool to Pool Spacing — feet
5
48
42
1565
33
Pool to Pool Spacing to Bankfull Width /Wbkf
5
E-48
15
67
34
Riffle Sloe s fe — feet per foot
048
153
19
76
35
Riffle Slope to Average Sloe SnmN s k
54
1 72
19
76
36
Pool Length L
37
Pool Length Ratio L /wbkf
W_1MWWV=1@1�
i
om
38
Particle Size Distribution of Riffle Material
Material (d50)
Small Cobble
Medium
Gravel
Very Coarse
Sand
dl6 —Min
76
56
5
56
d —mm
226
95
143
d — mm
90
11 1
308
d84 — mm
90
100
884
d95 — mm
128
200
110
data not available
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 4 2 NOVEMBER 13 2009

5 0 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
51 Jurisdictional Wetlands
The proposed project area was reviewed for the presence of wetlands and waters of the United States in
accordance with the provisions on Executive Order 11990 the Clean Water Act and subsequent federal
regulations Wetlands have been identified by the USACE as "those areas that are inundated or saturated
by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal
circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions
Wetlands generally include swamps marshes bogs and similar areas" (33 CFR 328 3(b) and 40 CFR 230 3
(t))
Following an in office review of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map NRCS soil survey and USGS
quadrangle map a field survey of the project area was conducted to delineate wetlands and waters of the U
S The project area was examined utilizing the jurisdictional definition detailed in the Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) Supplementary information to further
support wetland determinations was found in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands
Southeast (Region 2) (Reed, 1988)
There are no areas located within the project boundary that display true wetland characteristics Therefore
no wetland restoration or enhancement activities are proposed under the Snowbird Creek Tributaries
restoration project
52 Reference Wetlands
No wetland restoration or enhancement activities are proposed under the Snowbird Creek tributaries
restoration project Therefore no reference wetland data is required
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC
PAGE 5 1
NOVEMBER 13 2009
IJ
0
0
1
0
`i
u
0
0
0
0
1
i
i
1
1
0

�I
6 0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN
This section discusses the design objectives selected for the stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation
of three unnamed tributaries to Snowbird Creek that are encompassed within the project area Preservation is
proposed on UT I, UT2 Reaches 1 and 3, and UT3 Reach 1 The costs and risk benefits were weighed
I qualitatively in determining which reaches to preserve and which to enhance or restore Despite prior impacts
�) the preservation areas have largely recovered The remaining evidence for local instability is not of system-
wide concern and mostly reflects local perturbations that are consistent with natural impacts found in
n reference streams Any minor improvements that could be made to them would not be justified given the
f level of disturbance that would be required to access these steep and densely wooded areas
The other reaches will be treated with the appropriate level of site work to generate a sustainable functional
lift for the functions that have been compromised UT 3 - Reach 2 will be restored The proposed stream
restoration design will consist of a Rosgen Priority Level 1 approach The Priority Level 1 approach involves
the reconstruction of a channel along the location of the previously abandoned historical stream channel
Priority Level 1 restoration efforts on Reach 2 of UT3 are justifiable for the following reasons
I
J 1 Albeit on a small scale due to the size of the stream there is evidence of incision and bank erosion
due to past straightening activities and buffer impacts
2 The stream would benefit significantly by being returnedto its original location and pattern, and
creating better riffle and step /pool sequences,
3 Moving the stream away from the valley wall will reduce erosion improve floodplam connectivity
and improve floodplam hydrology,
4 The recommended Priority 1 restoration efforts are likely to raise the water table in the valley and
result in unproved hydrology,
Li Enhancement Level II measures are proposed for UT 2 — Reach 2 The design will focus on removing debris
and invasive species and establishing native riparian buffers This stream is currently close to the low point
of the valley pattern adjustment would be inappropriate for the valley type The restored and enhanced
L streams will be Rosgen B type streams with design dimensions based on reference reaches sediment transport
modeling and successful application in past projects Where abandoned the old stream channel will be
backfilled using fill material generated by the grading of the new channel Any excess fill material that is
generated during construction will be disposed of on -site in designated disposal areas
The restoration design and enhancement improvements will allow stream flows larger than bankfull flows to
spread onto the floodplam, dissipating flow energies and reducing the stress on streambanks In stream
structures will be used to control streambed grade reduce stresses on streambanks and promote bedform
sequences and habitat diversity for Reach 2 of UT 3 In- stream structures may consist of root wads
constructed nffle /cascades rock/log vanes, and boulder steps Reach wide grade control will be provided by
the aforementioned in stream structures Where possible, both wood and rock will be incorporated into the
structures to promote a diversity of habitat features Streambanks will be stabilized with a combination of
bioengineering measures erosion control matting bare -root plantings and live staking
I This section discusses the design criteria selected for stream restoration on Reach 2 of UT 3 to Hooper
Branch
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 6 1 NOVEMBER 13 2009

U
UT3 to Hooper Branch (Reach 2) O
Priority I restoration of Reach 2 of UT3 will address prior manipulation and relocation of the reach by
recreating a channel with step -pool morphology in the low part of the valley The reconstruction of the
stream will facilitate the elimination of existing problems which include bank erosion, aggradation of fines,
and lack of riparian vegetation and rootmass The new channel will be connected to floodplam in the
appropriate hydrologic location in the valley Vertical and lateral stability will be achieved with riffle -pool
sequences achieved with a series of small grade drops Grade control structures will aid in dissipating
streamflow energy decrease pool -to pool spacing and improve the quality of pool habitat present A
vegetated riparian buffer will also be restored These efforts will restore grade control, lateral stability, and
habitat features to the reach improving both its health and function as well as that of receiving waters
62 Design Criteria Selection for Stream Restoration ,
O
A number of analyses and data were incorporated in the development of the site - specific natural channel
design approach for restoration efforts on Reach 2 of UT3 Among these are hydraulic and sediment O
analyses existing site conditions data collection incorporation of reference reach databases, regime
equations and evaluation of results from past projects
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC
PAGE 6 2
NOVEMBER 13 2009
1
0
1
U
61 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
The goals (italicized) and means for accomplishing the same for this restoration project are as follows
O
Promote and recreate geomorphically stable conditions Restoration and enhancement activities on UT3
(Reach 2) and UT2 (Reach 2), respectively will restore a stable dimension pattern and profile to these
reaches The primary physical modifications are restoring step pool morphology to UT3-while relocating it
to the low point in the valley, and removal of logging debris from UT2 The vegetation enhancement
activities will complement these efforts to restore physical stability Preserved reaches are near full
recovery from prior logging impacts- the designation of a permanent buffer on these reaches will prevent
0
future disturbance and allow for a permanent natural stream corridor with all of the benefits that a buffer
provides
Reduce sediment and nutrients inputs decrease fine sediment loading Establish and preserve native stream
I
bank and floodplam vegetation to increase storm water runoff filtering capacity and improve bank stability
by creating appropriate dimensions to halt bank erosion and promote natural transport processes and to
increase bank stability with the rootmass of planted vegetation
Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat Existing coldwater habitat will be protected and degraded habitat
will be addressed with physical restoration or enhancement Water temperature, dissolved oxygen and
other habitat components will be positively impacted by improving streamside vegetation cover, and
wildlife habitat will be protected through the development of conservation easements and enhanced through
the removal of invasive plant species and the planting of native vegetation
This project reach is an appropriate candidate for restoration as the channel is perched on one side of the
valley and is locked in this location by manmade berms The stream has not been able to reach a stable
state and the hydrology of the valley will not be the same until the channel is returned to the low point in
the valley Bank erosion and a lack of riparian buffer are problematic Restoration and enhancement
0
measures will create a stable stream at the appropriate location in the valley and significantly diminish bank
erosion and improve habitat value
The accompanying plans depict the proposed restoration measures The application of these measures are
(�
I j
described below for the project restoration reach
U
UT3 to Hooper Branch (Reach 2) O
Priority I restoration of Reach 2 of UT3 will address prior manipulation and relocation of the reach by
recreating a channel with step -pool morphology in the low part of the valley The reconstruction of the
stream will facilitate the elimination of existing problems which include bank erosion, aggradation of fines,
and lack of riparian vegetation and rootmass The new channel will be connected to floodplam in the
appropriate hydrologic location in the valley Vertical and lateral stability will be achieved with riffle -pool
sequences achieved with a series of small grade drops Grade control structures will aid in dissipating
streamflow energy decrease pool -to pool spacing and improve the quality of pool habitat present A
vegetated riparian buffer will also be restored These efforts will restore grade control, lateral stability, and
habitat features to the reach improving both its health and function as well as that of receiving waters
62 Design Criteria Selection for Stream Restoration ,
O
A number of analyses and data were incorporated in the development of the site - specific natural channel
design approach for restoration efforts on Reach 2 of UT3 Among these are hydraulic and sediment O
analyses existing site conditions data collection incorporation of reference reach databases, regime
equations and evaluation of results from past projects
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC
PAGE 6 2
NOVEMBER 13 2009
1
0
1

i'
�f
r-�
i�
L�
I`
I_
I
r-
I,
Design criteria are dependent on the general restoration approach determined to be a best fit for the
Snowbird Creek tributaries restoration site (Table 6 1) The approach was based on the reach's potential
for restoration as determined during the site assessment After selection of the general restoration
approach specific design criteria were developed so that the plan view layout cross - section dimensions
and profile could be described for the purpose of developing construction documents The design
philosophy at the Snowbird Creek tributaries site is to use average values for the selected stream type when
designing dimension and profile and to work within the ranges expected for the selected stream type with
regards to pattern and in- stream structures used This approach should allow for maximum diversity of
pattern and habitat while maintaining stable pools and riffles Variation in form will develop over long
periods of tune under the processes of flooding re- colonization of vegetation, and geologic influences
After exammmg the existing conditions recognizing the potential for restoration and reviewing reference
reach data, design criteria were developed Assigning an appropriate stream type for the corresponding
valley that will accommodate the existing and future hydrologic and sediment contributions was considered
conceptually prior to selecting reference reach streams Design criteria for the proposed stream were
selected based on the range of the reference data and the desired performance of the proposed channel
Following initial application of the design criteria detail refinements were made to accommodate the
existing valley morphology to avoid encroachment into the access road embankment, to minimize
unnecessary disturbance and to promote natural channel adjustment following construction The
construction documents have been tailored to produce a cost and resource efficient design that is
constructible using a level of detail that corresponds to the tools of construction The design also reflects a
philosophy that the stream will adapt to the inherent uniformity of the restoration project and be allowed to
adjust over long periods of time under the processes of flooding re- colonization of vegetation, and local
topographic influences
Table 6 1 Project Design Stream Types and Rationale
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Restoration Plan Protect #000613
An Enhancement II approach will be used to remove woody debris leftover from
UT 2 NA logging from the channel and to stabilize the channel and banks through the reach
Reach 2 Vegetation will be planted to provide bank stabilization shading and vegetative
diversity
A Restoration approach will be used to establish a stable step /pool channel with
UT 3 greater pool habitat at the historical stream location at the lowest point in the valley
Reach 2 B The constructed channel will provide connectivity to floodplain Bank stability
will be improved by elimmating nonnative vegetation and planting diverse tree
shrub and herbaceous species
63 Stream Project Design & Justification
The primary objective of the restoration design is to construct a stream with a stable dimension pattern and
f profile that has access to its floodplain at bankfull flows while enhancing riparian and aquatic habitat The
philosophy applied by Baker through the restoration reach on UT3 consisted of creating a high width -depth
ratio B type channel with the expectation that it may naturally narrow over time as the riparian buffers
t become more established
Data for design guidance was developed using a survey of the existing conditions both upstream and within
the design reach, selecting applicable reference reach data to survey and use in the development of
dimensionless geomorphic design ratios, selecting data to enhance and extend the data range of published
regional curves, and based on a consideration of constructabtlity and equipment limitations Lines of
i
� MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 6 3 � NOVEMBER 13 2009

converging evidence provided confidence in the approach and design targets
parameters for the Snowbird Creek tributaries project are detailed in Table 6 2
design parameters are presented below
Dimension
0
0
The proposed design
The design rationale and O
Through the proposed design the cross section dimensions were adjusted to reduce velocities and
near -bank shear stress during storm flows Channel width was designed to maintain velocities that
could move small grain particles through the reach and avoid aggradation A low bank height ratio
(BHR) of 10 was designed so the channel has access to the floodplain during events having flows O
in excess of bankfull Typical cross sections are shown on the attached plan sheets
Pattern
The proposed channel alignment on Reach 2 will decrease the stream length by 12 LF and thus
sinuosity slightly This reduction in stream length represents a return of the channel to the original
location at the lowest point of the valley Plan views of the channel are shown on the attached plan
sheets
The pattern for the proposed step -pool channel is based on typical natural sinuosity for steep
headwater streams in natural settings A sinuosity of 1 1 12 is typical of these streams and is
appropriate for the new design channel These channels do not dissipate energy in meanders but
rather through vertical drops The pattern has been laid out so as not to create high shear stresses
with sharp bends that would be atypical to this type of stream system The overall length of
restored and enhanced channel will decrease slightly from 714 to 702 LF due to the lateral distance
that the channel was previously moved to put it against the valley wall Plan views of the main
O
channel are shown on the plan sheets
Profile/Bedform
Although moderately functional and somewhat stable the channel profile of the existing stream is
lackmg sufficient overall bedform diversity During construction of the proposed channel, cross
section dimensions will be achieved first, followed by structure placement and facet development to
mimic characteristics of the reference conditions The profile along the proposed restoration
channel alignment calls for alternating steps, pools and steep riffles (or cascades) This step -pool
morphology is typical of steep headwater mountain streams which are both hydraulically diverse
and stable With an overall valley slope of approximately 9 4% the steps, pools and cascades will
O
provide adequate energy dissipation and prohibit bed degradation and excessive matetial transport
Riffle slopes and the magnitude of drops are limited to sustainable values observed to be stable
from prior project experience The average channel slope for the total reach is 089 which is a
minor increase from the existing reach -wide slope of 087 Riffles or cascades throughout the
O
design reaches are between 5 and 2 0 tunes the average slope of the channel Structural
modifications to the existing profile will be done primarily with rock structures
A stable cross - section will be achieved by widening the channel and increasing the width/depth
0
ratio Stability will be enhanced by achieving a cross section with banks that are low sloping to
bankfull Grade control at the bed is a mayor concern at this site due to the steep slope of the valley
A variety of in stream structures will be used to enhance stability and improve habitat These
O
structures include boulder steps, log J -hook structures and embedded logs Bioengmeermg and in-
stream structures will be used (including root wads, vegetated geo lifts and log vanes) to promote
additional bank stability and improve habitat
o
H Reach 2 of UT 3, a 466 LF reach, is designed as a Rosgen B stream type, having a steep slope and
minimal meandering A variety of in stream structures will be installed in this reach that will serve
to provide grade control, center the thalweg, and improve habitat quality
O
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 6 4 NOVEMBER 13 2009 0
0

L�
r
I
Table 6 2 presents the proposed stream restoration design criteria applied through the project reach
Table 6 2 Design Parameters and Proposed Geomorphic Characteristics
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Restoration Plan Protect #000613
1
Stream Type
B
2
Drainage Area — square miles
0 2
3
Bankfull Width w k — feet
99
4
Bankfull Mean Depth dbkf — feet
066
5
Width/Depth Ratio (w/d ratio
15 1
6
Cross sectional Area Abkf — SF
65
7
Bankfull Mean VelOCI v kf — fps
43
8
Bankfull Discharge bkf — cfs
30
9
Bankfull Max Depth dmbkf — feet
09
10
dm kf/ d k ratio
137
11
Low Bank Height to dm kf Ratio
1
12
Flood prone Area Width W f a — feet
20+
13
Entrenchment Ratio ER
20+
14
Meander length Lm — feet
NA
NA
15
Meander length to bankf ill width w
NA
NA
16
Radius of curvature (RJ — feet
NA
NA
17
Radius of curvature to bankf ill width / W kf
NA
NA
18
Belt width (w ,,) — feet
NA
NA
19
Meander Width Ratio W , /Wbkf
NA
NA
20
Sinuosity K Stream Length/ Valle y Distance
1 1
21
Val I ey SIo e — feet per foot
0 094
22
Channel Slope s b .,I — feet per foot
0 089
23
Pool Sloe �, — feet per foot
0 000
24
Maximum Pool Depth , — feet
05
25
Pool Depth to Average Bankfull Depth /d
056
26
Pool Width w — feet
NA
27
Pool Width to Bankfull Width w , / w f
NA
28
Pool Area (A,,,,,,) — square feet
NA
29
Pool Area to Bankfull Area A , /Abkf
NA
30
Pool to Pool Spacing — feet
5
48
31
Pool to Pool S acing to Bankfull Width /w kf
05
5
32
Riffle Sloe s me —feet per foot
0 048
15
33
/
Riffle Slope to Average Slope s�}f,,✓ Sbkf
1 06
1 9
6 3 1 UT2 -Reach 2 Target Buffer Communities
UT 2 Reach 2 is an appropriate candidate for enhancement because significantly more erosion will occur
before the channel is able to achieve a stable, quasi - equilibrium state Most of the project enhancement
reach appears to have one of two problems over - widening from debris and aggradation or erosion and
channel braiding due to a lack of vegetation and prior logging These two instability problems are
contributing excessive sediment to the areas downstream of the project site Enhancement can help to
stabilize the channel, halt over widening, establish proper pattern and significantly dinumsh bank erosion
To restore functions that have been compromised, enhancement efforts will also include hand work with
chainsaws and other hand tools to remove debris and enhance the function of vegetation in maintaining
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC
PAGE 6 5
NOVEMBER 13 2009

stream stability In places rhododendron branches have fallen in or entire plants have been washed out of
the bank or the rhododendron plants are so thick that they have limited germination of tree species
Vegetation along all reaches will be modified to increase diversity by reducing the density of
rhododendron and planting a mix of species that root deeply and provide higher quality biomass to the
stream to support aquatic food chains Invasive vegetative species removal efforts and reforestation of the
riparian buffer with native species will complement the debris removal
6 3 2 Sediment Transport Methodology
The purpose of a sediment transport analysis is typically to ensure that the stream restoration design
creates a stable channel that does not aggrade or degrade over time Being naturally degradational steep
headwater streams should primarily be designed to have limited particle mobility
Sediment transport competency is a measure of force over an area (lbs /ft2) that refers to the stream's
ability to move a given particle size Quantitative assessments include shear stress, tractive force, and
critical dimensionless shear stress Since these assessments help determine a size class that is mobile
under certain flow conditions they are most important in gravel bed studies in which the bed material
ranges in size from sand to cobble (of which only a fraction are mobile during bankfull conditions)
Comparing the design shear stress values for a project reach to those for the existing conditions in a
system allows a quantitative determination of reduction of erosive forces
The primary consideration in terms of the design, aside from the channel geometry is the sizing of the
bed material such that it will be immobile during the channel formmg or bankfull flow To assist in
determining what bed material is needed a bulk sample was taken from the existing bed (pavement and
sub - pavement) of the stream reach to be restored The results are presented in Table 3 2 The bulk
sample reveals an existing stream bed lining dominated by small cobbles (over half the sample by dry
weight in fact) Fine sand silt and clay particles accounted for only 2% of the sample and may be
remnants from prior logging in the watershed
The design will incorporate boulders that exceed what the maximum shear stress can move with a factor
of safety Cascades and steep riffles will be constructed with a mix of the colluvium from the existing
channel and larger material brought on -site to create a coarse and mostly non mobile bed The coarsest
fractions of the sediment load may only move during the largest flood events
6 3 2 1 Sediment Transport Calculations and Discussion
Existing channel form and sediment composition data, design data hydraulic and sediment
transport models design spreadsheets and best judgment were used to perform sediment
transport analyses for Snowbird Creek For reasons mentioned, sediment competency was the
only type of analysis deemed appropriate for the valley and stream type
A bulk sample (taken with shovel) was used to determine the sediment distributions for sediment
transport (Table 3 2) Appendix F contains the raw data and cumulative frequency graphs for this
sample and the other pebble count samples considered as part of the sedmient transport analyses
The existing channel reach has a median particle size range of small cobbles Design sediment
sizes used in transport capacity analyses were D16= 7 6mm D50= 90mm and D84= 90mm
Critical shear stress calculations were performed based on the typical riffle and pool cross
sections The typical riffle and an energy grade line slope of 0 09 were used to estimate the
average channel shear stress to be approximately 3 5 lb /ft2 Based on this value, multiple
methods were used to assess the maximum competent particle Among the methods used were
Lane s diagram (1953) as described in Hydraulics of Sediment Transport (Graf, 1971), the
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC
u
PAGE 6 6
0
G
a
it
0
1
U
0
1
1
i!
0
1
NOVEMBER 13 2009 U
U

I
r.
I
method Shields Diagram for Direct Determination of Critical Shear as described in Open
Channel Hydraulics (Sturm 2001) a critical shear stress versus subpavement graph provided in
Rosgen s training documents, and Figure 10 3 from Raudkivi s (1967) Loose Boundary
Hydraulics In addition, the nprap sizing plots referencing the Isbesh curve were consulted The
results vaned within less than an order of magnitude, with good agreement between Lane
Shields and Raudkivi These methods yielded a maximum mobile particle size of 100 -220 mm
for bankfull flows in the typical riffle section The Isbesh curve suggested that a smaller particle
would be immobile and the Rosgen curve suggested that the mobile particle size would be larger
Based on the limitations of the methods it is sufficient for this analysis to assume that particles
below 100 nun have a much higher likelihood of movement under the right conditions at bankfull
flow and that particles up to 200 -500 mm may be mobile under extremely high flow conditions
The existing channel has a D50 of 90 mm this is also the size of the D84 particle size (based on
the shovel bulk sample) The assessment of the surface layer (pavement) conducted by
performing a 100 count pebble count analysis yielded a D50 of 58 mm and a D84 of 100 mm It
is reasonable to assume that the D84 particle size is mobile under high flow events and this
validates the critical particle size (competency) analysis method results Structures will be built
using boulders of a much larger particle size that are protected and interlocked with other
_ boulders, this will significantly reduce the risk of structure failure in the `step -pool' design
channel Riffle /cascade material brought onsite to introduce into the project will consist of
particles within the range of the existing channel with some particles in the high end of the 100
220 mm range in order to increase the vertical stability of riffles Riffles and cascades will be
constructed to have a moderate to high degree of interlocking (graded) particles in order to reduce
L sediment transport at lower flows
It is believed that in high gradient low order streams large events (on the order of 20 to 50 year
return intervals) define the overall character of the channel and the spacing of energy dissipating
{ I drops (Grant et al , 1990) At these locations, the largest particles create boulder and debris dams
that serve as grade control and create hydraulic diversity The stream channel design will build a
spacing based on reference data that will provide a comparable physical structure to a natural
stream reach in this setting with comparable (or slightly less mobile) stone sizes
633 Preliminary Modeling and Hydrologic Trespass
UT3 -Reach 2 is a low order tributary to Hooper Branch It is not necessary to conduct a flood study
based on the following information according to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for
Graham County, NC, (Map Number 3700565000J) the entire project area is in an unregulated area
mapped Zone X (Figure 2 3) Flood modeling is not required for non - regulatory floodplains
Furthermore, any change in the 100 year water surface is expected to be mmimal and to be contained
within the conservation easement
The County does not have a Local Floodplain Administrator so Baker will be consulting with the state to
ensure that there are no other requirements The FEMA floodplain checklist has been completed and is in
Appendix B
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 6 7 NOVEMBER 13 2009

I
1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 6 8 NOVEMBER 13 2009 0
�J
64 Site Construction
6 4 1 Site Grading, Structure Installation, and Other Project Related Construction
6 4 1 1 Narrative
I J
I J
A construction sequence is provided below and can be found within the accompanying restoration
rl
plan set for the Snowbird Creek tributaries project
U
1 Any utility locations shown on these plans are approximate The contractor shall have all
underground utilities within the project limits located and marked prior to beginning
+ �I
construction
`1
2 Access to the site shall be from the existing drive on IU Gap Road any impact to these roads
or associated erosion control practices shall be addressed immediately All damage or
impacts from use of existing access roads will be repaired immediately if it poses a risk to
water quality or prior to demobilization or at the request of the project engineer
3 The construction entrance shall be maintained to the specifications of the detail Excessively
I
muddy stone shall be replaced All public roads shall be kept free of mud and debris
Entrances shall be returned to their pre - existing condition prior to demobilization
4 First erosion and sediment control will be installed Staging areas will be established
Equipment and materials will be mobilized to these locations Boulders can be staged
adjacent to structure installation locations Boulders can be staged adjacent to structure
installation locations All ground disturbed from stone trucks shall be mulched at the end of
each day
5 Temporary soil stockpile & extra fill area are denoted on the plans and will be outfitted with
silt fence to protect adjacent areas from sediment runoff Silt fence shall remain in place until
temporary or permanent vegetation has been established The clearing and grubbing required
�l
within the grading ]units shall be performed so as to limit sediment migration off -site Logs
and root wads from trees larger than 10 inches in diameter shall be stockpiled for use as in-
stream structures Salvageable native vegetation (doghobble rhododendron yellowroot
fj
etc ), mats or individual plants will be harvested for transplanting These mats will be
Jli
excavated and moved to the banks of the new channel sections
6 Activities will involve both enhancement to the existing channel at the tie -in points and
O
creation of new Priority 1 offlme channel Earthwork shall be staged such that no more
channel will be disturbed than can be stabilized by the end of the work day or before flow is
diverted into the new channel segment Mulch will be applied to all disturbed areas and bare
O
soil at the end of each day
7 Dewatering of off -line channel sections is expected to be minor Any water pumped during
dewatering operations in the off line sections will be diverted through a sediment filter before
being discharged into the downstream reach The pumping detail outlines this procedure and
the use of temporary sand bag coffer dams in order to divert the flow with a pump and piping
8 All structures will be installed The new channel will be dug and stabilized with seed mulch
O
and matting During this process the cut material from the new channel will be
systematically moved to the stockpile or fill areas (and contained with silt fence) Any
sediment against silt fences will be removed when sediment has accumulated above one third
of the height of the silt barrier and/or it has failed This excess material will be hauled
outside the conservation easement or used to backfill abandoned channel before
demobilization
a
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 6 8 NOVEMBER 13 2009 0

r
1
9 A pump around will be set up for the existing channel see the pump around detail on sheet
13 for a more detailed explanation of flow diversion
10 Once the channel is dewatered the contractor will plug the lower end of the old channel and
move gravel and cobble bed material from the old channel into the new channel as specified
in the typical cross section Matting shall already be in place at this point so that the gravel
helps reinforce the toe of the matting
11 Any material needed to fill in the old channel will be borrowed from the stockpile area
Upon filling the old channel all bare areas shall be seeded and mulched The silt socks shall
be reused and rearranged with extra silt sock to protect the new channel where possible
12 Where the downstream tie in is located the root wad and single log vanes will be installed
Then, the upstream channel plug will be built from a non sandy material and the downstream
and upstream tie ins constructed in the dry Upon stabilization of the tie ins the pump around
will be removed and the water released into the new channel
13 During this process sediment from the stockpile (except channel gravel) will be moved to the
fill area to balance the site Any material in excess of the maximum fill area dimensions shall
be spread and subsequently covered with mulch Finish all fine grading, and finish seeding
and mulchmg all bare areas Staging areas will be seeded and mulched upon completion
I
* Bank and floodplam vegetation, including brush materials and live stakes, will be installed
during dormant season (November to April)
* Silt fences will be removed once planting is complete or once they are no longer needed
* Construction entrances and site access will be repaired to initial conditions prior to
demobilization
�I
6 4 12 In- stream Structures and Other Construction Elements
A variety of in stream structures are proposed for the Snowbird Creek site Structures such as
root wads boulder steps embedded logs and log vanes will be used to stabilize the newly
restored stream This project will primarily utilize those structures which provide grade control
and enhance pool habitat as `A" and `B' type streams make up the project site Wood structures
will be incorporated into the site because of the observed role of this material in the existing
+ system Table 6 3 summarizes the use of in stream structures at the site
1 i
Table 6 3 Proposed In Stream Structure Types and Locations
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Restoration Plan Project #000613
Root Wad Outside bank of bends for stability and habitat
Boulder Steps Straight sections to provide grade control center thalweg and improve habitat
Embedded Logs Primarily located in nffles to improve habitat diversity and below crossings to
provide grade control
Log Vane Riffles to turn water off of the stream bank and provide convergence for habitat
improvement
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 6 9 NOVEMBER 13 2009

Root Wad
Root wads are large in -tact root masses placed at the toe of the stream bank in high stress areas to
absorb energy increase flow roughness and provide a physical barrier to the erosion of vulnerable
stream banks In the process, they can help induce scour -pool formation and serve as habitat for
organisms favoring wood or cover In addition to stream bank protection they provide structural
support to the stream bank and habitat for fish and other aquatic animals They also increase
substrate surface area for aquatic insects and other benthic organisms Root wads include the root
mass or root ball of a tree plus a portion of the trunk which is driven or buried into the bank
Root wads will be used in the restoration reach
Boulder Step Structure
Boulder step structures consist of boulders placed in the channel in a U -shape constructed
similarly to a cross -vane These structures provide grade control in steep channels direct high
velocity flows to the center of the channel and promote diverse habitat through the creation of
plunge pools immediately downstream of the structure These projects will be used extensively
on the restoration reach
Embedded Logs
Embedded logs consist of a series of logs placed can be placed in a series of opposing angles and
slopes or in a perpendicular fashion to the channel banks These structures are used to create
micro -pool habitat that is common to mountain streams Embedded logs can also function as
grade control and are particularly useful below stream crossings
Rock or Log Vane
A rock or log vane is used to protect the stream bank The length of a single -vane structure can
span one -half to two- thirds the bankfull channel width Vanes in this project typically are
intended to function as flow directional devices reducing near bank shear stress and alignment
maintenance and secondarily as grade control features Logs and or boulders may be used to
construct vanes
Typically, cross vane applications in the project reach will be replaced with boulder steps due to
the low width of the proposed cross - section In either case, the purpose is to keep the thalweg in
the center of the channel promote channel narrowing and protect the stream bank Any cross
vanes built for this project will come to more of a point due to the requirement that the vane allow
for a triangular flow ramp on either margin of the channel
6 4 2 Natural Plant Community Restoration
Native riparian vegetation will be established in the restored stream buffer In the proposal it was stated
that tree and shrub species planted along the enhancement and restoration reaches would include a
mixture of no less than five of the following species hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) yellow buckeye
(Aesculus octandra), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), flame azalea (Rhododendron calendulaceum),
mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), and highland doghobble (Luecothoe fontanesiana) Hemlock has been
removed from consideration due to its susceptibility to mortality from wooly adelgid A number of other
species will be considered for planting as specified in Table 6 4 below Invasive species such as
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lomcerajaponica) will be removed so as
not to threaten the newly established native plants within the conservation easement Known invasive
species to be treated include multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japomca)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 6 10
C•
i
0
fl
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
i
1
1
O
NOVEMBER 13 2009 O

E
fi
�1
F
r
r
6 4 2 1 Soil Preparation and Amendments
To promote vegetation growth, organic soil amendments will be prepared according to the
nutrient requirements of the Snowbird tributaries Application of soil amendments will occur as
site stabilization measures are implemented and during installation of permanent vegetation
6 4 2 2 Stream Buffer Vegetation
Bare -root trees, live stakes and permanent seeding will be planted within designated areas of the
conservation easement A 30 -foot buffer measured from the top of banks will be established
along all jurisdictional stream reaches Bare root vegetation will be planted at a target density of
680 stems per acre The proposed species to be planted are listed in Table 6 4 Planting of bare -
root trees and live stakes will be conducted during the first dormant season following
construction If construction activities are completed in summer /fall of a given year, all
vegetation will be installed prior to the start of the growing season of the following calendar year
Species selection for re- vegetation of the site will generally follow those suggested by Schafale
and Weakley (1990) and tolerances cited in the USACE Wetland Research Program (WRP)
Technical Note VN -RS4 1 (1997) Tree species selected for stream restoration areas will
generally be weakly tolerant to tolerant of flooding Weakly tolerant species are able to survive
and grow in areas where the soil is saturated or flooded for relatively short periods of time
Moderately tolerant species are able to survive in soils that are saturated or flooded for several
months during the growing season Flood tolerant species are able to survive on sites in which
the soil is saturated or flooded for extended periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997)
Observations will be made during construction regarding the relative wetness of areas to be
planted Planting zones will be determined based on these observations, and planted species will
be matched according to their wetness tolerance and the anticipated wetness of the planting area
Live stakes will be installed two to three feet apart using triangular spacing or at a density of 160
to 360 stakes per 1,000 square feet along the stream banks dust above and dust below the bankf ill
elevation
Permanent seed mixtures of native species will be applied to all disturbed areas of the project site
Table 6 5 lists the species, mixtures and application rates that will be used A mixture is
provided for floodplam wetland and floodplam non wetland areas Mixtures will also include
temporary seeding (rye gram during cold season or browntop millet during warm season) The
permanent seed mixture specified for floodplam areas will be applied to all disturbed areas
outside the banks of the restored stream channel and is intended to provide rapid growth of
herbaceous ground cover and improvements to biological habitat value The species provided are
deep- rooted and have been shown to proliferate along restored stream channels providing long-
term stability
r Temporary seeding will be applied to all disturbed areas These areas include constructed stream
banks, access roads side slopes, and spoil piles If temporary seeding is applied from November
through April rye grain will be used and applied at a rate of 130 pounds per acre If applied from
May through October temporary seeding will consist of browntop millet applied at a rate of 45
pounds per acre
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 6 11 NOVEMBER 13 2009

Table 6 4 Proposed Bare Root and Live Stake Species (may also include seed or container species)
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Restoration Plan Project #000613
0
Riparian Buffer Plantings
1�Trees Overstory
Sycamore
Platanus occidentahs
g
FACW
River Birch
Betula nigra
7
FACW
White Oak
Quercus alba
5
FACU
Red Maple
Acer rubrum
5
FAC
Tulip Poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
5
FAC
Yellow Birch
Betula alleghamensis (lutea)
5
FACU+
Black (Sweet) Birch
Betula lenta
5
FACU
Northern Red Oak
Quercus rubra
5
FACU
Yellow Buckeye
Aesculus octandra
5
N/A
Mockernut Hickory
Carya alba (tomentosa)
3
N/A
Scarlet Oak
Quercus coccinea
2
N/A
a�TreesUnderstory��
a ,
Highland Doghobble
Leucothoe fontanesiana
axilams var editorum
5
N/A
Mountain Laurel
Kalmma latcfoha
5
FACU
Flame Azalea
Rhododendron calendulaceum
5
N/A
Black Willow
Salix mgra
2
OBL
Ironwood
Carpinus carohniana
3
FAC
Witch Hazel
Hamamelis virginiana
2
FACU
Sour-wood
Oxydendrum arboreum
5
FACU
Flowering Dogwood
CornusHonda
5
FACU
Rhododendron
Rhododendron maximum
3
FAC
Tag Alder
Alnus sernslata
5
FACW+ or OBL
Redbud
Cercis canadensis
5
FACU
'Shrubs ��" �� >,�y1-1�
Rivercane (giant cane)
Arundinaria gigantea
15
FACW
Spicebush
Lindera benzoin
15
FACW
Deerberry
Vaccinmm stamineum
15
FACU
Eastern Sweetshrub
Sweetshrub
Calycanthus flondus
Cal canthus spp
10
FACU
Sweetpepperbush
Clethra spp
15
N/A
Wmterberry
Ilex verticillata
10
FACW
Virginia Sweetspire
Itea virginica
15
FACW+
Chokeberry
Photima
5
N/A
Alternate Species Y
f
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 6 12 NOVEMBER 13 2009

Blight resistant
American Chestnut
Castanea dentata
N/A
N/A
American Hazelnut
Corylus amencana
N/A
FACU
Blue Ridge Blueberry
Vaccinium palhdum
N/A
N/A
Riparian Livestake Plantings
Nmebark
Physocarpus opul folius
15
FAC
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis
20
FACW
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentahs
15
OBL
Silky Willow
Sahx sericea
25
OBL
Silky Dogwood
Coryus amomum
25
FACW+
Note Species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting
Table 6 5 Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Restoration Plan Project #000613
Creeping Bentgrass
Agrostis stolomfera
10%
15
FACW
Big Bluestein
Andropogon gerardii
2%
03
N/A
Devil's Beggartick
Bidens frondosa (or
anstosa
3%
045
FACW
Northern Long Sedge
Carex folhculata
2%
03
N/A
Nodding Sedge
Carex gynandra
5%
075
N/A
Upright Sedge
Carex stncta
2%
03
OBL
Lance leaved Tick
Seed
Coreopsis lanceolata
3%
045
N/A
Virginia Wildrye
Elymus virgmicus
15%
225
FAC
Soft Rush
Juncus effusus
2%
03
FACW+
Tioga Deer Tongue
Pamcum clandestmum
10%
1 5
FACW
Switch Grass
Panicum virgatum
15%
225
FAC+
Pennsylvania
Smartweed
Polygonum pensylvamcum
5%
075
FACW
Broadleaf Arrowhead
Sagittana latfoha var
ubescens
1%
0 15
OBL
Little Bluestem
Schizachynum scopanum
5%
075
FACU
Roundleaf Goldenrod
Sohdago patula
3%
045
OBL
Indian Grass
Sorghastrum nutans
10%
1 5
FACU
Eastern Gamma Grass
Tnpsacum dactyloides
5%
075
FAC+
Joe Pye Weed
Eupatonum fistulosum
2%
0 3
N/A
Total
1 100
15
Note Species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 6 13 NOVEMBER 13 2009

6 4 2 1 On -site Invasive Species Management
The restoration and enhancement reaches of the site contain some infestation of multiflora rose
(Rosa multiflora) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lomcerajapomca) These areas will be treated and
monitored so that the mvasive species do not threaten the newly - planted riparian vegetation
The most appropriate means of treating invasive grasses growing in the creek and on the margins
of the channel will be assessed and implemented prior to vegetation removal The long -term
development of a forested creek will shade out fescue and other invasive grasses present These
areas will also be monitored so that the invasive species do not threaten the newly - planted
riparian vegetation
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC
PAGE 6 14
NOVEMBER 13 2009 0
1 I

PIt
I`
7 0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
r�
I
The Baker team has been involved in obtaining recent approvals from the regulatory agencies for a series of
mitigation and restoration plans for wetland and stream projects The stream restoration success criteria for
the protect site will follow accepted and approved success criteria presented in recent restoration and
mitigation plans developed for numerous NCEEP full delivery projects, as well as the Stream Mitigation
Guidelines issued in April 2003 Specific success criteria components are presented below
LI
L 71 Stream Monitoring
Channel stability and vegetation survival will be monitored on the project site Post - restoration monitoring
will be conducted for five years following the completion of construction to document project success
Monitored stream parameters include stream dimension (cross sections) pattern (longitudinal survey)
profile (profile survey) and photographic documentation The methods used and any related success
criteria are described below for each parameter
I- 7 11 Bankfull Events
F
r
I
I
i�
I�
For the Snowbird Creek tributaries project, four cross - sections will be installed for the restoration reach
on UT3 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
There should be little change in reference cross sections If changes do take place they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e g down - cutting
or erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e g , settling, vegetative changes, deposition along
the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio) Cross sections will be classified using the Rosgen Stream
Classification System, and all monitored cross sections should fall within the quantitative parameters
defined for channels of the design stream type
7 13 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile will be surveyed immediately after construction and once every year thereafter for
the duration of the five -year monitoring period The as built survey will be used as the baseline for the
Year One Monitoring Report Per the monitoring report guidelines, the longitudinal profile will extend
the entire length of restoration and enhancement reaches on UT2 and UT3 Measurements will include
thalweg water surface, bankfull and top of low bank Each of these measurements will be taken at the
head of each feature (e g, riffle, pool) and at the maximum pool depth The survey will be tied to a
permanent benchmark
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC
PAGE 7 1
NOVEMBER 13 2009
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of a crest
gauge and photographs The crest gauge will be installed on the floodplain within 10 feet of the restored
channel The crest gauge will record the highest watermark between site visits and the gauge will be
checked each tune 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
Two bankfull flow events in separate years must be documented within the 5 -year monitoring period
Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until two bankfull events have been documented in
separate years
7 12 Cross Sections
F
r
I
I
i�
I�
For the Snowbird Creek tributaries project, four cross - sections will be installed for the restoration reach
on UT3 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
There should be little change in reference cross sections If changes do take place they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e g down - cutting
or erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e g , settling, vegetative changes, deposition along
the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio) Cross sections will be classified using the Rosgen Stream
Classification System, and all monitored cross sections should fall within the quantitative parameters
defined for channels of the design stream type
7 13 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile will be surveyed immediately after construction and once every year thereafter for
the duration of the five -year monitoring period The as built survey will be used as the baseline for the
Year One Monitoring Report Per the monitoring report guidelines, the longitudinal profile will extend
the entire length of restoration and enhancement reaches on UT2 and UT3 Measurements will include
thalweg water surface, bankfull and top of low bank Each of these measurements will be taken at the
head of each feature (e g, riffle, pool) and at the maximum pool depth The survey will be tied to a
permanent benchmark
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC
PAGE 7 1
NOVEMBER 13 2009

The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are remaining stable, i e , they are not
aggrading or degrading The pools should remain deep with flat water surface slopes, and the riffles
should remain steeper and shallower than the pools Bedforms observed should be consistent with those
observed for channels of the design stream type
7 14 Bed Material Analyses
Pebble counts will be conducted to help monitor changes in the particle transport competencies for the
stream reaches within the project area Two 100 - pebble count samples will be collected at two cross
section sites immediately after construction and every year thereafter at the time the longitudinal surveys
are performed for the five year monitoring period These samples will reveal any changes in sediment
gradation that occur over time as the stream adjusts to upstream sediment loads Significant changes in
sediment gradation will be evaluated with respect to stream stability and watershed changes
7 15 Photo Reference Sites
Photographs will be used to visually document restoration success Photographic reference stations will
be established on restoration enhancement and preservation reaches Reference stations will be
photographed before construction and continued annually for at least five years following construction
Photographs will be taken 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
Lateral reference photos Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross section
Photographs will be taken of both banks at each cross section The survey tape will be centered in the
photographs of the bank The water line will be located in the lower edge of the frame and as much of
the bank as possible will be included in each photo Photographers should make an effort to consistently
maintain the same area in each photo over time
Structure photos Photographs will be taken at grade control structures along the restored stream and
should be limited to cross -vems and weir structures Photographers should make every effort to
consistently maintain the same area in each photo over tune
Photographs will be used to evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion success of
riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures subjectively Lateral photos should not
indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks A series of photos over time should
indicate successive maturation of riparian vegetation
72 Vegetation Monitoring
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration, active planting
of preferred canopy species and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community In order to
determine if the criteria are achieved vegetation monitoring quadrants will be installed across the
restoration site The number of quadrants required will be based on the species /area curve method with a
minimum of three quadrants The size of individual quadrants will vary from 100 square meters for tree
species to 1 square meter for herbaceous vegetation Vegetation monitoring will occur in spring, after leaf
out has occurred Individual quadrant data will be provided and will include diameter height density and
coverage quantities Relative values will be calculated, and importance values will be determined
Individual seedlings will be marked to ensure that they can be found in succeeding monitoring years
Mortality will be determined from the difference between the previous year's living planted seedlings and
the current year's living planted seedlings
At the end of the first growing season, species composition, density, and survival will be evaluated For
each subsequent year, until the final success criteria are achieved, the restored site will be evaluated
between July and November
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 7 2
1,
I
1
11 J
0
0
1
i
1
r
0
1
1
1
NOVEMBER 13 2009 0

II
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density on the project site will be based on the
F recommendations found in the WRP Technical Note and past project experience
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 3 -year old, planted
trees per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period The final vegetative success criteria will be
the survival of 260 5 year old, planted trees per acre at the end of year five of the monitoring period
While measuring species density is the current accepted methodology for evaluating vegetation success on
restoration projects species density alone may be inadequate for assessing plant community health For this
reason, the vegetation monitoring plan will incorporate the evaluation of additional plant community
indices to assess overall vegetative success
I
73 Schedule/Reporting
Annual monitoring reports containing the information defined herein will be submitted to NCEEP by
December 31 of the year during which the monitoring was conducted Project success criteria must be met
by the fifth monitoring year or monitoring will continue until all success criteria are met
1
Li
,
,J
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 7 3 NOVEMBER 13 2009
I
,
i

8 0 PRELIMINARY MONITORING
Once construction is complete geomorphic data collected during the design phase will be compared to post
construction survey data to evaluate the success of restoration measures implemented Post construction data
will be summarized in a mitigation plan which will also include Baker's monitoring approach for evaluating
the success of the Snowbird Creek tributaries site for five years following the collection of As built data
Preliminary monitoring of the site included the collection of longitudinal profile data as well as cross
sectional data to assess existing channel dimension and hydraulic function Other data collected during the
preliminary monitoring phase included sediment transport data and vegetative data including an evaluation of
invasive vegetation present
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC
PAGE 8 1
NOVEMBER 13 2009
J

If
9 0 SITE PROTECTION AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
The Snowbird Creek tributaries project area will be protected by a permanent conservation easement that will
be held by the state Baker will monitor the project site for a minimum of five years following construction
Post - construction monitoring activities will be conducted to evaluate site performance, to identify
maintenance and/or repair concerns and to maintain the integrity of the project boundaries If during the
post construction monitoring period it is determined project compliance is jeopardized, Baker shall take the
FI l necessary action to resolve the project concerns and bring the project back into compliance If maintenance
�j or site repairs become necessary, Baker will evaluate the level of response required secure a contractor to
make the repairs and monitor the work performed by the construction contractor
Maintenance requirements vary from site to site and are generally driven by the following conditions
—' ✓ Projects without established, woody floodplam vegetation are more susceptible to erosion from floods
than those with a mature hardwood forest
✓ Projects with sandy, non - cohesive soils are more prone to short term bank erosion than cohesive soils
or soils with high gravel and cobble content
✓ Alluvial valley channels with wide floodplams are less vulnerable than confined channels
r ✓ Wet weather during construction can make accurate channel and floodplam excavations difficult
✓ Extreme and/or frequent flooding can cause floodplam and channel erosion
✓ Extreme hot, cold wet or dry weather during and after construction can limit vegetation growth
particularly temporary and permanent seed
I.
✓ The presence and aggressiveness of invasive species can affect the extent to which a native buffer can
be established
Maintenance issues and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and documented in the as -built
and monitoring reports The conditions listed above and any other factors that may have necessitated
maintenance will be discussed If more substantial repair work is required Baker will coordinate with the
NCEEP and regulatory agencies to determine whether work performed merits an extended monitoring period
At the conclusion of the post - construction monitoring period the project shall be transferred to the NCDENR
L Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation Stewardship Program for long term management
and stewardship
I F1
�I
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 9 1 NOVEMBER 13 2009

�I
J
100 REFERENCES
Adams W F 1987 Indiana bat In Clark M K ) Endangered ered Threatened and Rare Fauna of North
g
Carolina, Part I A Re- evaluation of the Mammals Occasional Papers of the North Carolina
Biological Survey North Carolina State Museum of Natural Science Raleigh O
Churchill, E P , Jr, and S I Lewis 1924 Food and feeding in freshwater mussels Bulletin of the Bureau
of Fisheries 39 439 471
Clarke A H 1981 The Tribe Alasmidontim (Unlomdae Anodontmae) Part 1 Pegias Alasnudonta, and
Arcidens Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 326 1 101
Cooper J E , S S Robinson and J B Funderburg (eds ) 1977 Endangered and Threatened Plants and
Animals of North Carolina North Carolina State Museum of Natural History Raleigh U
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG) 1998 Stream corridor restoration
Principles, processes and practices National Technical Information Service Springfield, VA O
Graf, W H 1971 Hydraulics of Sediment Transport New York McGraw Hill 513pp
Grant, G E , Swanson F J and Wohnan, M G , 1990 Pattern and origin of stepped bed morphology in high Ll gradient streams Western Cascades, Oregon Geological Society of America Bulletin v 102 p 340
352
Hadley, J B and Nelson, A E 1971 Geologic map of the Knoxville quadrangle, North Carolina, Tennessee, n
and South Carolina U S Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map I -654, scale U
1 250000 http / /ngmdb usgs gov /Prodesc /proddesc 9432 htm
Harman W A D E Wise M A Walker, R Moms M A Cantrell M Clemmons G D Jennings D
Clinton and J Patterson 2000 Bankfull regional curves for North Carolina mountain streams In J
Proc AWRA Conf Water Resources in Extreme Environments, Anchorage, Alaska, ed E L Kane,
pp 185 190 Middleburg VA American Water Resources Association
Henson, T H 1990 Bald eagle In Lee D S and J F Parnell (eds ) Endangered, Threatened and Rare
Fauna of North Carolina Part III A Re evaluation of the Birds Occasional Papers of the North
Carolina Biological Survey North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences Raleigh L�
Lane E W 1955 Design of stable channels Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers Ij
Paper No 2776 1234 -1279
McGrath, C Personal Communication 1996
Murdock, N U S Fish and Wildlife Service Ashville Field Office Personal communication U
North Carolina Floodplam Mapping Program (NCFMP) FIRM Map Number 3700565000J (Preliminary)
2007 [Online WWW] Available URL http //wAw nLfloodmaps com/default swf W
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Element Occurrence Database (Listing of State and
Federally Endangered and Threatened Species of North Carolina) North Carolina Department of a
Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh North Carolina, USA 2008 [Online WWW]
Available URL http //149 168 1 196 /nhp/
Potter E F , J F Parnell and R T Teulmgs 1980 Birds of the Carolinas University of North Carolina 0
Press, Chapel Hill, NC
Radford A E H E Ahles and C R Bell 1964 Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas University D
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 10 1 NOVEMBER 13 2009 0

l`
i
I
1�
U
�r
II
J
I �I
L 1
1
Raudkivi, A J 1967 Loose Boundary Hydraulics Oxford, England Pergramon Press 331pp
Rosgen D L 1994 A classification of natural rivers Catena 22 169 199
1996 Applied River Morphology Pagosa Springs CO Wildland Hydrology Books
1997 A geomorphological approach to restoration of incised rivers Proceedings of the Conference on
Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision Wang, S S Y E J Langendoen and F D
Shields Jr eds 12 22
1998 The reference reach - A blueprint for natural channel design (draft) ASCE Conference on River
Restoration Denver CO March 1998 ASCE Reston VA
2001 a A stream channel stability assessment methodology Proceedings of the Federal Interagency
Sediment Conference Reno, NV March, 2001
2001b The cross -vane w -weir ands -hook vane structures their description, design and application
for stream stabilization and river restoration ASCE conference Reno, NV August, 2001
Schafale M P , and A S Weakley 1990 Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third
approximation North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDEHNR Raleigh NC
Simon A 1989 A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(1) 11 -26
Sturm, Teny 2001 Open Channel Hydraulics New York McGraw Hill Sclence/Engineenng /Math
512pp
Terwilliger, K J R Tate and S L Woodward (eds) 1995 A Guide to Endangered and Threatened Species
m Virginia The McDonald & Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg Va
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 1996 Field
Indicators of Hydnc Soils in the United States G W Hurt Whited P M , and Pnngle R F , eds
Fort Worth, TX
1997 Part 650, Chapter 19 of the NRCS Engineering Field Handbook Hydrology Tools for Wetland
Determination
1996 Field Indicators of Hydnc Soils in the United States G W Hurt, Whited P M , and Pringle
R F eds Fort Worth TX
Web Soil Survey of Graham County, North Carolina http / /websoilsurvey nres usda gov /app/
WebSoilSurvey aspx
Offical Soil Series Descriptions [Online WWW] Available URL (http //ortho ftw nres usda gov/cgt
bin/osd /osdname cgi)
2005 HEC RAS Hydraulic Reference Manual Version 3 1 0 Davis, CA U S Army Corps of
Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center
1997 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program Technical Note VN rs -4 1 Environmental
Laboratory US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Vicksburg MS
United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Threatened and Endangered
Species in North Carolina, Graham County 2008 [Online WWW] Available URL
http / /www fws gov /nc -es /es /countyfr html
1992a Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red Book)
0
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 10 2 NOVEMBER 13 2009

4
Y
1997a Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants Bog Turtle determined to be a Threatened
Species Federal Register 62(213) 59605 -59623
1997b Recovery Plan for the Rock Gnome Lichen (Gymnoderma lzneare) (Evans) Yoshimura and
Sharp Atlanta, Ga 30pp
United States Department of the Interior U S Geological Survey (USGS) 2001 Land Cover Data [Online
WWW] Available URL http / /seamless usgs gov/
Weigl, P D 1987 Northern Flying Squirrel In Clark M K (ed ) Endangered Threatened and Rare Fauna
of North Carolina Part I A Re- evaluation of the Mammals Occasional Papers of the North Carolina
Biological Survey North Carolina State Museum of Natural Science, Raleigh
f
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC PAGE 10 3 NOVEMBER 13 2009

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
APPENDIX A. NCDWQ Stream Identification Forms
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
e
0

North Carolina Division of Water Quality — Stream Identification Form, Version 3 1
Date � fi s-ti9 -%
Evaluator /f,
Total Points
Stream is at least intermittent 142,
if? 19 or perennial if z 30
Project r1 *3 4 3., 4,
Site .mr,,. P AIA -4
County
Latitude yG 1(/
Longitude �? °Cjf i/2, W
Other / ////
e g Quad Name 044, e.S v fie►
A Geomorphology (Subtotal = Z9 } `
Absents s
Weak
Moderate,
Strong
18 Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
0
2 Sinuosity
0
1 2
3
3 In- channel structure riffle pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4 Sod texture or stream substrate sorting
0
1
0
3
5 Active /relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7 Braided channel
0
1
2
3
8 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
9 e Natural levees
0
1
2
3
10 Headcuts
0
1
3
11 Grade controls
0
05
1
1 5
12 Natural valley or drainageway
0
05
1
5
13 Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence
No = 0
Yes = 3
° Man made ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
R Hvrirnlnnv (Siihtntal - S 1
14 Groundwater flow /discharge
0
1
1
3
15 Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain or
Water in channel d or growing season
0
1
2
0
16 Leaflitter
1 5
0
05
0
17 Sediment on plants or debris
0
05
CD
1 5
18 Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
0
05
C.V
1 5
19 Hydric soils (redommorphic features ) present?
No = 0 _
Yes= 1 5
t^. Rinlnnv /Ri ihtntal -
20 Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
0
21 b Rooted plants in channel
2
1
0
22 Crayfish
0
05
1
15
23 Bivalves
0
1
2
3
24 Fish
0
05
1
1 5
25 Amphibians
0
05
1
15
26 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance )
0
05
1
15
27 Filamentous algae penphyton
0
1
2
3
28 Iron oxidizing bactena/fungus
0
05
1
1 5
29 Wetland plants in streambed
FAC = 0 5 FACW = 0 75 OBL = 1 5 SAV = 2 0 Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetiana piants
Sketch
Notes (use back side of this form for additional notes )
Na i
C'4"-4 /�

North Carolina Division of Water Quality — Stream Identification Form, Version 3 1
Date S 11-1-1 b1 Protect Tn& 4, o� Latitude 3S' I %Iz,-S ir Al
Evaluator Site UT 1 Longitude $ 7 ° ,io r,`5
N/
Total Points / Other n� /`�/
Stream is at least intermittent /' j County (a(r,�„ �."' e g Quad Name KA/A /if SV z�C
d z 19 or perennial if a 30
A Geomorphology (Subtotal =
Absent
Weak t A
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
3 _
2 Sinuosity
0
1
0 5
3
3 In- channel structure raffle pool sequence
0
1
2
15
4 Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
0
1
2
1 3
5 Active/relic floodplain
0
Yes= 1 5
1
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
05
1
3
7 Braided channel
0
tJ2
2
3
8 Recent alluvial deposits
0
05
1 1
3
9 a Natural levees
0
3
10 Headcuts
0
1
_ 3
11 Grade controls
0
05
1
1 5
12 Natural valley or drainageway
0
05
1
Q-5-)
13 Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence
No = 0
Yes = 3
Man made ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
R I-Ivrtrnlnnv tgiihtntal = 1 1
14 Groundwater flow /discharge
0
1
2
3
15 Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain or
Water in channel - dry or growing season
0
1
2
0
16 Leaflitter
1 5
1
0 5
0
17 Sediment on plants or debris
0
05
1
15
18 Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
0
CO -5D
1
1 15
19 Hydnc soils (redoximorphic features) present?
No = 0
Yes= 1 5
i
r Rinlnnv fCiihtntal = 4 1
20b Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
0
21 Rooted plants
3
C2D
1
0
22 Crayfish
0
05
1
1 5
23 Bivalves
0
1
2
3
24 Fish
0
05
1
1 5
25 Amphibians
0
05
1
15
26 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
05
1
1 5
27 Filamentous algae penphyton
0
1
2
3
28 Iron oxidizing bacteriaffungus
0
05
1 1
1 5
29 Wetland plants in streambed
FAC = 0 5 FACW = 0 75 OBL = 1 5 SAV = 2 0 Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upiand plants item [y toCUSes on me presence or aquatic or weaana plants
Sketch
Notes (use backside of this form for additional notes)
f
L
0
L
C
0

Ff
L
t)
I
I
h
Li
r
I
I�
CI
I
I
I
I j
I
I
i
i
�I
I �
r I
I
1
North Carolina Division of Water Quality — Stream Identification Form, Version 3 1
Date 3 j 2107 Project Tr., t;S �, ar v►� Latitude �,Cj ° / p t k A/
Evaluator � Site UT Z Longitude Q 7'1 j4 'G7�
Total Points Other
Stream is at least intermittent 32 Gj i County �j/ethn e g Quad Name' �� s V'
if z 19 or perennial if ?! 30
A Geomorphology Subtotal = Z5
Absent
t Weak
ModeratO
01 Strong
18 Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
1 5
2 Sinuosity
0
1
_
17 Sediment on plants or debris
3
3 In channel structure riffle pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4 Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
0
1
19 Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) presents
3
5 Active/relic floodplain
0
1
1
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
05
2
3
7 Braided channel
0
1
2
3
8 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
1
3
98 Natural levees
0
2
3
10 Headcuts
0
1
2
3
11 Grade controls
0
05
1
5
12 Natural valley or drainageway
0
05
1
5
13 Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence
No = 0
Yes = 3
" Man -made ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
R 1- 11wiminnv tCn C? = 6 7 1
14 Groundwater flow /discharge 0
1
2
3
15 Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain or 0
Water in channel — dry or gro\mng season
1
2
2
16 Leaflitter
1 5
1
CO-5
0
_
17 Sediment on plants or debris
0
0 5
1
1 5
18 Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
0
(ao
1
1 1 5
19 Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) presents
No = 0
Yes= 1 5
r` Rinlnnv fg11htnf0l = G F 1
20 Fibrous roots in channel
3
2 �>
1
0
21 Rooted plants in channel
3
2
1
0
22 Crayfish
0
05
1
15
23 Bivalves
0
1
2
3
24 Fish
0
05
1
15
25 Amphibians
0
05
1
1 5
26 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
05
1
15
27 Filamentous algae penphyton
0
1
2
3
28 Iron oxidizing bactena/fungus
0
05
1
1 5
29 Wetland plants in streambed
FAC = 0 5 FACW = 0 75 OBL = 1 5 SAV = 2 0 Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants nem 28 focuses on the presence or aquauc or weuana plants
Sketch
Notes (use back side of this form for additional notes)
�1S�W�i

North Carolina Division of Water Quality — Stream Identification Form, Version 3 1
Date Project Latitude 9 "Al
Evaluator ' Site VT- 3 Longitude X90 �G�o utv
Total Points Other
Stream is at least intermittent /7(� Cj f County G , (�,�{,�,� e g Quad Name P 444" ` lit`
if? 19 or perennial if z 30 % V
A Geomorphology Subtotal
°Absent }
6
Weak
. Moderate
Strong
1' Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity
0
1
0 5
3
3 In channel structure nffle pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4 Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
0
1
2
3
5 Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7 Braided channel
0
1
2
3
8 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
1
3
98 Natural levees
0
2
3
10 Headcuts
0
1
2
11 Grade controls
0
05
1
Natural valley or drainageway
0
05
1
1 5
_12
13 Second or greater order channel on existin
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence
No = 0
Yes = 3
" Man made ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
R I- Ivrlrnlnnv /Cuhtntnl = t I� I
14 Groundwater flow /discharge
0
1
CP
3
15 Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain or
Water in channel d or row in season
0
1
2
�L
16 Leaflitter
1 5
1
0 5
0
17 Sediment on plants or debris
0
05
1
15
18 Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
0
0 5
1
1 5
19 Hydnc soils (redoximorphic features) presents
I No = 0
Yes= 1 5
C Rinlnnv iSuhtntal = � 1
20° Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
0
21 Rooted plants in channel
3
2
1
0
22 Crayfish
0
05
1
15
23 Bivalves
0
1
2
3
24 Fish
0
05
1
15
25 Amphibians
0
05
1
1 5
26 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
05
1
1 5
27 Filamentous algae penphyton
0
1
2
3
28 Iron oxidizing bactena/fungus
0
05
1
1 5
29 Wetland plants in streambed
FAC = 0 5 FACW = 0 75 OBL = 1 5 SAV = 2 0 Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants item 29 tocuses on the presence or aquatic or weoana pianis
Sketch
Notes (use backside of this form for additional notes)
rl
r
U
it
0
0
i
`1

0
0
0
0
0
0
a
APPENDIX B. Regulatory Correspondence
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

G
L Aar'e'lneDt o em
t�
I 1
1
F1 EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplam
J Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects
The form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase
of the projects The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplam Administrator
(� with three copies submitted to NFIP (attn Edward Curtis), NC Floodplam Mapping Unit
(attn John Gerber) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
F!
U
L
II
1
P-
Rl
Project Location
Name of project
Snowbird Creek Tributaries
Name if stream or feature
UT3 to Snowbird Creek
County
Graham
Name of river basin
Little Tennessee
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality /county
Graham County
DFIRM panel number for
entire site
3700565000J
Consultant name
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc
Phone number
828 - 350 -1408 x2007
Address
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
FEMA_ Floodplam _Checklist_Snowbird_EEPproject Page 1 of 4

Design Information
Provide a general description of project (one paragraph) Include project limits on a
reference orthophotograph at a scale of 1" = 500"
UT1 and UT2 are conservation reaches A small portion of UT2 will involve
planting No development work, as defined by FEMA, will be performed on these
tributaries UT3 to Snowbird Creek will be moved from its perched location in the
valley into the valley low -point This work will involve a step -pool natural channel
des«n approach UT3 is a low order tributary to Snowbird Creek, it is in the Little
Tennessee Basin
Summarize stream reaches or wetland areas according to their restoration priority
Examnle
Reach =Length
Priority
UT3
1531
One Restoration
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)9
C Yes E No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined Not Applicable
r` Redelmeation
r' Detailed Study
i Limited Detail Study
i' Approximate Study
r" Don't know
List flood zone designation Zone X (Unmapped)
Check if applies
r' AE Zone
U Floodway
E Non - Encroachment
E None
F A Zone
E: Local Setbacks Required
C No Local Setbacks Required
FEMA_ Floodplam _Checklist_Snowbird_EEPproject Page 2 of 4
'J
l
Ij
IJ
J
iJ
J
i
1
1
1

If local setbacks are required, list how many feet Not applicable
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway /non-
encroachment/setbacks?
G Yes E No
Land Acquisition (Check)
r" State owned (fee smiple)
r Conservation easment (Design Bid Budd)
ry Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project)
Note if the project property is state - owned, then all requirements should be addressed to
the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (attn Herbert Nedy,
919 807 -4101
Is community /county participating in the NFIP program?
E Yes C No
Note if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP attn Edward Curtis, 919 715 -8000 x369
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator
Phone Number None 6)er conversation with county lannin department 5 -27 -2009
Floodplam Requirements
This section to be filled by designer /applicant following verification with the LFPA
r No Action
F No Rise
F Letter of Map Revision
l— Conditional Letter of Map Revision
r Other Requirements
List other requirements
Not Applicable
Comments
The stream is an unmapped Zone X It does not involve disturbance to more than 5
acres of land No FEMA requirements apply
Name Jake McLean
Signature
Title Professional Engineer, NC Date 5/27/2009
FEMA_ Floodplam _Checklist_Snowbird_EEPproject Page 3 of 4

ZONE X ,WOWBIRD CREEK
4 StwwbirdCt-eek ZON;�
h
tea ..
to
i` N
•- z
O
D CREEK , + U �
C
1951 TOR +' ZONE AE
133 GWM
z
ZONE X w
ti
4 , / L.
UT3 to Snowbird Creek
Graham County
restoration reach Unincorporated Areas
370105
Hooper Creek
1'':500' Orthophotographic Map of Approximate Project Development Limits (Scale is +/- 10 %)
from FIRM 3700565000J Effective 02/18/2009 (http: / /www.ncfloodmaps.com/)
FEMA_ Floodplain _Checklist_Snowbird_EEPproject Page 4 of

I
II
i
J
Ms Renee Gledhill - Earley
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -4617
Subject NC -EEP stream mitigation project in Graham County
Dear Ms Gledhill- Earley,
Baker Engineering NY, Inc
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville North Carolina 28806
828 350 1408
FAX [phone]
January 25, 2008
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requests review and comment on
any possible issues that might emerge with respect to archaeological or cultural resources
associated with a potential stream restoration project area identified on the maps attached (a
vicinity map, and USGS site map with areas of potential ground disturbance are enclosed)
The streams identified on the attached maps are tributaries to Snowbird Creek and have been
identified for the purpose of providing m -kmd mitigation for unavoidable stream channel
impacts The project will involve the enhancement and preservation of tributaries to Snowbird
Creek in the Little Tennessee River Basin Project goals include the enhancement of
approximately 810 linear feet and the preservation of an additional 8,070 linear feet of stream
No architectural structures or archaeological artifacts have been observed or noted during
preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes The project area consists of floodplain
and forested slopes with maximum elevations of approximately 2,680' ASL Approximately 80%
of the project area is in forested cover, while the remaining 20% is in residential use Headwaters
identified within the upper limits of the project area are in a heavily forested area that borders
U S Forest Service land Residential land use is located in the lower section of the project area
As the enclosed aerial photograph shows the majority of the area within the project limits of the
site consists of floodplain previously disturbed riparian area associated with residential
development, and a recently logged section of land adjacent to one of the tributaries
Minimal ground disturbing activities are proposed for enhancement reaches within the project
site Ground disturbing activities will consist of the planting of additional trees and other
vegetation and the removal of exotic, mvasive vegetative species The removal of logging debris
from Unnamed Tributary 2 (UT2) will also occur Access to enhancement reach sites will be
achieved by utilizing previously established access routes on -site The riparian corridor identified
for preservation purposes will not be disturbed

We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of
any historic properties or other objects of cultural significance Thank you in advance for your
timely response and cooperation Please feel free contact us with any questions that you may
have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project
Sincerely,
Carmen Home - McIntyre
Baker Engineering NY, Inc
797 Haywood Rd , Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Phone [phone] Email cmcintvre @mbakercory coin
Cc
Mr Guy Pace Mr Tyler Howe
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
1652 Mail Service Center Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Raleigh, NC 27699 P O Box 455
Cherokee NC, 28719
0
0

F-i I
1
I
Li
U
FI
L,
0
(1
rig l/ -��•";
411'r
North Carohna Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B Sandbeck Adrntrustrator
Michael C Easley Governor
Lisbeth C Evans Secretary
Jeffrey J Crow Deputy Secretary
March 13, 2008
Carmen Horne - McIntyre
Baker Engineering NY, Inc
797 Haywood Road Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Office of Archives and I hstory
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook Director
Re Tributaries to Snowbird Creek Stream Mitigation, Graham County, ER 08 -0450
Dear Ms Home - McIntyre
Thank you for your letter of January 25, 2008, concerning the above project
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project Therefore, we have no comment on the project 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 CPR
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- 807 -6579 In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above - referenced tracking number
Sincerely,
. . �Jj LA Y f
Peter Sandbeck
fl
cc Guy Pearce, NCEEP
Tyler Howe, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
II
Location 1o9 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address 4617 Mad Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 4617 Telephone /Pax [phone]/807 6599
(�I
U

Mr Tyler Howe
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
P O Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
Subject NC -EEP stream mitigation project in Graham County
Dear Mr Howe,
Baker Engineering NY Inc
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville North Carolina 28806
828 350 1408
FAX [phone]
January 25, 2008
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requests review and comment on
any possible issues that might emerge with respect to archaeological or cultural resources
associated with a potential stream restoration project area identified on the maps attached (a
vicinity map, and USGS site map with areas of potential ground disturbance are enclosed)
The streams identified on the attached maps are tributaries to Snowbird Creek and have been
identified for the purpose of providing in -kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel
impacts The project will involve the enhancement and preservation of tributaries to Snowbird
Creek in the Little Tennessee River Basin Project goals include the enhancement of
approximately 8101mear feet and the preservation of an additional 8,070 linear feet of stream
No architectural structures or archaeological artifacts have been observed or noted during
preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes The project area consists of floodplam and
forested slopes with maximum elevations of approximately 2,680' ASL Approximately 80% of the
project area is in forested cover while the remaining 20% is in residential use Headwaters identified
within the upper limits of the project area are in a heavily forested area that borders U S Forest
Service land Residential land use is located in the lower section of the project area. As the enclosed
aerial photograph shows, the majority of the area within the project limits of the site consists of
floodplam, previously disturbed riparian area associated with residential development, and a
recently logged section of land adjacent to one of the tributaries
Minimal ground disturbing activities are proposed for enhancement reaches within the project site
Ground disturbing activities will consist of the planting of additional trees and other vegetation, and
the removal of exotic, invasive vegetative species The removal of logging debris from Unnamed
Tributary 2 (UT2) will also occur Access to enhancement reach sites will be achieved by utilizing
previously established access routes on -site The riparian corridor identified for preservation purposes
will not be disturbed
IL
L
0
i
0
1
1
�l
I-1
0
r,
r
I

0
El
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of
r
any historic properties or other objects of cultural significance Thank you in advance for your
timely response and cooperation Please feel free contact us with any questions that you may
have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project
Sincerely,
chpwd {lo"g #cmire
Carmen Horne- McIntyre
Baker Engineering NY Inc
797 Haywood Rd, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Phone [phone], Email cmcintyre@mbakercorp com
Cc
F!
Mr Guy Pearce Ms Renee Gledhill Earley
Li
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) State Historic Preservation Office
1652 Mail Service Center 4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 Raleigh NC 27699 4617
F7
b

L
Baker Engineering NY, Inc
797 Haywood Road
U
Suite 201
Asheville North Carolina 28806
1
828 350 1408
O
FAX [phone]
Graham County, North Carolina
a
March 31, 2008
U
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI)
Mr Tyler Howe
O
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
PO Box 455
1
Cherokee, NC 28719
�
J
RE Phase I Archaeological Survey Report (ER 08 -0014) for stream restoration site on East Buffalo Creek in
Graham County, North Carolina
a
This letter and the enclosed report are provided to your office at the State Historic Preservation Office's
U
request that Baker Engineering NY, Inc conduct a comprehensive survey of areas to be impacted during a
\
stream restoration project on East Buffalo Creek
O
The enclosed report details the approach that Archaeological Consultants of the Carolmas Inc (ACC) used
for this survey, as well as research conducted and findings from their field survey A copy of this report is
O
also being submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office for their review as well
O
Based on our understanding of this report no significant archaeological remains were found within our
project area Two archaeological sites (31GH198 and 31GH199) have been previously identified witlun 16
O
km of the project area, however neither archaeological site will be impacted by the stream restoration work
proposed We are submitting this information for your review and comment as to the potential for
impacting cultural resources
L
Additionally, we have received comment back from the State Historic Preservation Office regarding
enhancement of tributaries to Snowbird Creek also located in Graham County NC The State Historic
j
Preservation Office has concluded that the project, as proposed, will not result in any potential historic
U
resources being affected I am enclosing a copy of the previous letter submitted to the THPO which
summarizes the extent of work being performed on the Snowbird tributaries within the proposed project
O
area
Please provide us your comments as soon as possible regarding the projects above so that we can either
address further needs or communicate a finding of no significant impact for these projects to the NC
O
Ecosystem Enhancement Program I can be reached via email at cmcmtyre@M1bakercorp com or by phone
(828 350 1408 x 2010) Thank -you for your assistance in this matter
Sincerely
�L
6-Agr i rC °aM� ��Irf'�Mk3
Carmen Horne - McIntyre
Environmental Scientist O
Enclosure Archaeological Survey Report for East Buffalo Creek, Snowbird Tnbutanes Project Letter
O
1
�L

�f U S Fish and Wildlife Service
Ms Marella Buncick
Asheville Field Office
160 Zilhcoa St
Asheville, NC 28801
Baker Engineering NY, Inc
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville North Carolina 28806
828 350 1408
FAX [phone]
Subject NC -EEP Snowbird Creek Tributaries Project in Graham County
January 15, 2008
Dear Ms Buncick,
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), requests review and comment on any possible
IJissues that might emerge with respect to endangered species as a stream enhancement project is
conducted A vicinity map and a topographic map showing the approximate areas of potential
F- ground disturbance by enhancement activities are enclosed
LThe Snowbird Creek Tributaries project site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-
kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel impacts in the Little Tennessee River Basin
Sections of channel in two tributaries to Snowbird Creek have been identified as significantly
Li degraded While the proposed project area is primarily in forested cover, there is a short reach on
each tributary that been impacted by logging or residential land use
J We have already obtained a current species list for Graham County from your website (http //nc-
es fws gov /es/countyfr html) The threatened or endangered species for this county as identified
on the website are the Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys sabrin s coloratus), Bog
I Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergu), Indiana Bat (Myons sodahs), Appalachian Elktoe (Alasmidonta
! ravenekana), Virginia Spiraea ( Spiraea virginiana), and the Rock Gnome Lichen (Gymnoderma
hneare)
r' With the exception of the Virginia spiraea, no suitable habitat was located within the limits of
disturbance for the property Potential habitat does exist within the project limits for Virgma
spiraea Its habitat is described as "flood- scoured, high - gradient rocky riverbanks, braided areas
r' of lower stream reaches, gorges, and canyons as well as disturbed rights -of -way " Limited debris
L I removal and buffer planting on the enhancement reaches where exotic, mvasive vegetation is
_ being removed is not expected to disturb potential habitat and may actually serve to increase
habitat The project in the upper reaches consists solely of preservation Therefore, no impacts to
the species are anticipated
F The Carolina northern flying squirrel prefers the ecotone between coniferous and mature northern
hardwoods usually above 4,500' above sea level (ASL) The project area consists of floodplam
with maximum elevations below 2,800' ASL Therefore, a "no effect" determination was made
for the Carolina northern flying squirrel due to lack of suitable habitat
`I
J No foraging or nesting habitat was found for the Indiana bat in the lower project reaches due to
the level of disturbance to the riparian area As stated earlier, riparian areas in the headwaters of
-} the project area will not be disturbed Any potential habitat that may exist in the upper reaches
i�

will be left in its current condition, therefore no adverse impacts to the Indiana bat are expected to
occur from this project
Based on the degraded conditions found within the proposed enhancement reaches, a "no effect,"
determination was made regarding the Appalachian elktoe The Appalachian elktoe prefers
morphologically stable stream segments in silt accumulation or heavily shifting substrate, which
does not currently exist on the site as the proposed project is to perform enhancement activities on
each tributary so that they become more morphologically stable Additionally, the protect is
located outside of the drainage area in Graham County designated as crnccal habitat
The project area lacks habitat characteristics favored by the rock gnome lichen which include
humid, high elevation rock outcrops, vertical cliff faces or in rock outcrops in humid gorges at
lower elevations Enhancement activities which are located in lower altitude and less steep
portions of the project area also make it unlikely that any habitat exists for the rock gnome lichen
as most populations occur above an elevation of (5,000 feet) Because this project involves
degraded streams and lacks other habitat criteria necessary, this project is not likely to affect the
rock gnome lichen
We are requesting that you please provide any known information for each species in the county
The USFWS will be contacted if suitable habitat for any listed skies may be encroached upon
or if we determine that the project may affect one or more federally listed species or designated
critical habitat area `
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered
species, migratory birds or other trust resources from the construction of a wetland and/or stream
restoration project on the subject property A vicinity map and a USGS map showing the
approximate areas of potential ground disturbance are enclosed
If we have not heard from you in 30 days we will assume that our species list is correct, that you
do not have any comments regarding associated laws, and that you do not have any information
relevant to this project at the current time
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation Please feel free to contact
me at cmcintyre@mbakercorp com or by phone at 828 350 1408 ext 2007 with any questions
you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project
Sincerely,
Carmen Horne - McIntyre
Environmental Scientist
Baker Engineering NY, Inc
797 Haywood Rd, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Cc
Mr Guy Pearce
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
ii
0
0
1
l
0
1
0
I
1
1
1
1

0
II
r�
LJ
�l
L�
0
U
�I
19
�f
East Buffalo Creek and Snowbird Tributaries Restoration Projects (NCEEP)
From Carmen McIntyre
To Marella_Buncick @fws gov
Date 3/13/2008 8 47 AM
subject East Buffalo Creek and Snowbird Tributaries Restoration Projects
(NCEEP)
Attachments East Buffalo pdf, USFwS Letter pdf figure_disturbance_limits pdf,
Location
Map pdf, Topo Map pdf snowbird Figures pdf
Hl MS Buncick,
our office is in the process of finalizing an environmental review for the two
projects listed above we plan to submit our findings to the NCDENR Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP) by April 4th Before we finalize the environmental
review document, I wanted ensure any concerns held by USFwS about the two projects
had been met If there are any concerns, please contact me at your earliest
convenience at 828 350 1408 x 2010 or Micky Clemmons at 828 350 1408 x 2002 If
we do not hear from yyou by March 31st, we will assume the uSFwS has no concerns
regarding federally listed species within the project area Please see the documents
attached which describe the scope of the projects as well as their locations
Thank -you for your assistance
Carmen Horne - McIntyre
Carmen Horne - McIntyre
Baker Engineering NY, Inc
797 Ha rood Rd , suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
P 828 350 1408 x 2010
F 828 350 1409
Page 1

Ms Shannon Deaton
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Baker Engineering NY, Inc
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville North Carolina 28806
828 350 1408
FAX [phone]
January 15, 2008
Subject NC- Ecosystem Enhancement Program Stream mitigation project in Graham County,
NC
Dear Ms Deaton,
The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that might
emerge with respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with a potential stream restoration
project area identified on the maps attached (vicinity map and USGS site map with approximate
areas of potential ground disturbance are enclosed)
The streams identified on the attached maps are tributaries to Snowbird Creek and have been
identified for the purpose of providing m -kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel impacts
within the Little Tennessee River Basin Project goals include the enhancement of approximately
810 linear feet of significantly degraded stream channel An additional 8,070 linear feet in the
headwaters of the tributaries will be preserved under this project
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
this project
Sincerely,
C *m?o wage -A1 14'full;
Carmen Home - McIntyre
Baker Engineering NY, Inc
797 Haywood Rd, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Phone [phone], Email cmcintyrq@mbakercorp corn
Cc
Mr Guy Pearce
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
i
1
i
r
0
i
0
f
1
C
1
1
1
a
0
0
0

r-
b
F"'
U
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
� r
January 29, 2008
i
l Carmen Horne- McIntyre
Baker Engmeenng NY, Inc
797 Haywood Rd, Suite 201
Asheville NC 28806
L SUBJECT EEP Stream Mitigation Project in Graham County, Snowbird Creek tnbutaries
Dear Ms Horne - McIntyre
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (Commission) received your letter
I(i dated January 15 2008 regarding the Ecosystem Enhancement Program project on tributaries to Snowbird
J Creek in Graham County Comments from the Commission are provided under provisions of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat 401, as amended, 16 U S C 661 et seq )
�I Graham County is a "trout county" per an agreement between the U S Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
J and the Commission As such, Commission biologists review all Nationwide Permit applications here
and make recommendations to minimize the adverse resource effects of some activities, Including
( restoration work Once a permit application is prepared for this project, a copy must be sent to me in
order to solicit Commission concurrence and recommendations for consideration by the ACOE Rainbow
trout have been found in Hooper Branch, which appears downstream of part of the project area
The Commission does not anticipate any major resource concerns with this project provided
sedimentation from construction is minimized Existing mature vegetation should be preserved as much
as possible because it promotes the stability of channel work and provides seed sources for natural
regeneration organic material to the streams, and riparian habitat complexity until planted vegetation
matures The use of balled or container grown trees is recommended in the outside of channel bends to
expedite long -teim bank stability Also, any stream channel modifications should create dimensions,
patterns, and profiles that mimic stable reference conditions Overly and unnaturally sinuous stream
channels should be avoided
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project If there are any questions regarding
these comments please contact me at (828) 452 -2546 ext 24
Sincerely,
r, G
4
Dave McHenry
Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Mailing Address Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Kaleign, NU Z inrY -i ILi
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone]

Mr Glenn Carson
USDA -NRCS District Conservationist
Graham County
P O Box 286
480 Village Shopping Center
Robbmsville, NC 28771
Baker Engineering NY Inc
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville North Carolina 28806
828 350 1408
FAX [phone]
February 8, 2008
Subject Prime and Important Farmland Soils RE NCEEP Full Delivery Project Snowbird
Tributaries Project Site, Graham County, NC
Dear Mr Carson,
The purpose of this letter is to request your assistance in completing a Farmland Conversion
Impact Rating form for the subject site Enclosed please find a copy of the form site and location
mapping for the Snowbird Tributaries project site Mapped soils within the project area include
the Spivey- Whiteoak complexes (8 to 15% and 15 to 30% slopes bouldery), the Soco Stecoah
complex (50 to 95% slopes), Snowbird fine sandy loam (30 to 50% slopes), and the Thurmont-
Dillard complex which occurs on 2 to 8% slopes The Spivey- Wluteoak and Soco Stecoah
complexes are the dominant soils complexes in areas adjacent to the streams These soils are
characterized as steep and well drained and lie above the seasonal high water table Soils data
presented in this letter were assembled from the initial dataset of soil mapping updates by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service in 2007 for Graham County and from the USDA -NRCS
Soil Data Mart websrte (http / /soildatamart nres usda gov/Default.aspx )
For this stream restoration and enhancement project, areas where ground disturbing activities are
expected to take place are noted on the restoration figure enclosed Approximately 80% of the
project area is in forested cover, while the remaining 20% is in residential use The majority of
the area within the project limits of the site consists of floodplain, previously disturbed riparian
area associated with residential development and a recently logged section of land adjacent to
one of the tributaries Minimal ground disturbing activities are proposed for enhancement
reaches within the project site Ground disturbing activities will consist of the planting of
additional trees and other vegetation and the removal of exotic invasive vegetative species
The total area of the project site consists of 13 75 acres The area of proposed ground disturbing
activities includes approximately 1 acre of the Thurmont Dillard soil complex Based on our
review, this soil is considered to be Prime Farmland A review of the soil types for the project
area indicate there are no soils within or adjacent to the project site that are associated with other
farmland of statewide importance
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine if you know of
any other existing resources that we need to know about We know that you have greater
familiarity with farmland issues in this area than we do and we will be happy to make any
changes to the form that you deem appropriate Please return the form to us with your
U
0
1
q
0
I
a
0
11
I
I--�
U
F]
U
0
0
U
1
0
0

r'.
IJ
determinations and we will fill out the rest of the form if needed In addition, please let us know
_l the level of involvement you may require (if needed) it is anticipated this project will be
( implemented in the fall of 2008 or spring of 2009 If we have not received a response from you
I_) within 30 days, we will assume that you have no comment regarding the project This letter is
intended to satisfy any requirements of the Farmland Protection Policy Act
Mr Guy Pearce
O NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699
F
L
0
I �
E
I` J
I
I
LJ
1 )
iJ
S
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at cmcmtyreAa mbakercorp com or by
phone at 828 350 1408 ext 2010 Our fax number is 828 350 1409
Thank -you for your assistance in this matter
Sincerely,
L fg0mi 4 o .Jl� YcArIft
j
Carmen Horne- McIntyre
Environmental Scientist
Baker Engineering NY, Inc
U
797 Haywood Rd, Suite 201
Asheville NC 28806
U
Cc
Mr Guy Pearce
O NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699
F
L
0
I �
E
I` J
I
I
LJ
1 )
iJ
S

U
United States Department of Agriculture
o MRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
589 Raccoon Road Suite 246
Waynesville NC 28786
Phone [phone] ext 5 FAX [phone]
March 27, 2008
Carmen Horne - McIntyre
Baker Engineering NY, Inc
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Re USDA Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (AD- 1006)
Snowbird Tributaries Enhancement Project— Graham County, NC
Ms Horne- McIntyre
Attached you will find two copies of the completed AD -1006 Based on the maps that you
provided, and on a soil survey map of the area, it appears that 10 acre of prime farmland will be
impacted by the proposed project
If I can be offfurther assistance, please feel free to contact me
tit_ [�' �& a�-
M Kent Clary
Area Resource Soil Scientist
USDA -NRCS
cc Glenn Carson, District Conservationist, USDA -NRCS, Murphy, NC
The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people
conserve maintain and improve our natural resources and environment
An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

L I
FL,
I�
P,
(I
J
U
l�
�aker
Mr Kent Clary
USDA -NRCS Area Resource Soil Scientist
589 Raccoon Road, Suite 246
Waynesville N( 28786
Baker Engineering NY, Inc
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville North Carolina 28806
828 350 1408
FAX [phone]
Apnlll 2008
Subject USDA Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (AD 1006) NCEEP Full Delivery
Project, Snowbird Tributaries, Graham County NC
Dear Mr Clary,
Thank you for your assistance in completing portions of the USDA Farmland Conversion Impact
Rating Form (AD -1006) for the project referenced above Please find enclosed a completed
version of the form Sections VI and VII were estimated in accordance with 7 CFR 658 5(b)
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the total points assigned to the farmland
assessed, please feel free to contact me at cmcintyre@mbakercorp coin or by phone at
828 350 1408 ext 2010
Best regards
Carmen Horne - McIntyre
Environmental Scientist
Baker Engineering NY Inc
797 Haywood Rd, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Cc
Mr Guy Pearce
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EhP)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699

US Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I /Tn hw rmmnleted by Federal Aoencv) I Date Of Land Evaluation Request 218108
Name Of Project Snowbird Tributaries Enhancement Project
Federal Agency Involved FHWA
Proposed Land Use Stream and Riparian Enhancement
County And State Graham NC
�',f''! , "— Date R ue try Awed B NRbS fit T
RT it ?To be completed bT -iRC5 g t �� y ���68
I) -iii a site contain rimd, un ue st to de Qf10 I im ortant farmland? �t to 1� 1No A es I��gated Average F "ann s ze-
p W �.,�1.� � p
cre I -
�(If no f1e�FPAdoes riot apply — o rlot> comp e e additional ibarts of thr§ fgtm) 67J a D, �, acres,
Ma)iu �rgp(s)' r ' ' - arena 'le"ILtand1 Covt'Auu dictan` � � � rA�m�oupt Of Farmland A5 �e Ined II��PPA �
" = - - rk Mtn .. � _ _ fires `18 a30`: �? - /s, �0 � + � s # 6 set °Ie 23 " t
Nai aOfLan �Evaluatxm System ��jsed m tlame'Of�jjlocal 51te7 s essYnenttSystem Date L d EvafuAt,on Retu"r�ned�B NROS
I bYa�5 .s yet k �1" j p { d '
Graham Cq)eAW 4 tL ' � g 3/27/08 ,
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative
Site
Srte A
Site B
Site C
Site
Site D
A Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
13 8
B Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C Total Acres In Site
13 8
00
00
00
PTJV' o be o�pleteriby FRCS) C Yahiafl$nnfom�t�o>
�A Total A R An tJ u Fa la
W cregFState de Artd pliri o nt Farrrtlan '
C 13et`deltt�ge Of armlandtln unit C�#r L,cat , rfATo Be Gonv rted `i
' µg
0 r1
P. eQta �f Farmldn tngGoyt Jt rirdict _ Jth Same Or HI hg R atne Vgfue
PART V tLo`be ca►npld by �1tF,Tv) �d Evaluatbn Cr'enon z
elat,v Value Of Fad' lantl !rAelColiver d Jocale oft0 100 PAln s
8
� r�
0
k
= f
0�
s
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658 5(b)
Mawmum
Points
1 Area In Nonurban Use
12
2 Perimeter In Nonurban Use
8
3 Percent Of Site Being Farmed
0
4 Protection Provided By State And Local Government
20
5 Distance From Urban Builtup Area
10
6 Distance To Urban Support Services
10
7 Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
10
8 Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
0
9 Availability Of Farm Support Services
3
10 On Farm Investments
5
11 Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
0
12 Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
78
0
0
0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
73
0
0
0
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessment)
160
78
0
0
0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 21,nes)
260
151
0
0
0
Site Selected A
Date Of Selection 4/8/08
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes © No
Reason For Selection Agreement with NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program to improve watershed health and obtain mitigation credits
within the Little Tennessee River Basin
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD 1006 (10-63)
Pus form was electrorucally produced by National Product on Services Staff
0

aker

1 ti
\ ,� Snowbird Creek ► I r�,
kk, _iV0 (I
t.w OFF l i f
UTI
lazd
S 1 � S1 '� '�•,�� mss' ,i {' �'- i.�i� rr t
l � /yt l t' i~ (' ' A.4.. I 1� 1 � J 1 �• � !• ! �5 /7 i !./ (! / 1 � •t s.
. '�.�•?'1 —.l i 1 , 1 ? t r • • /' _ _ st t - r 11 I I (, J , '
f
i i r _ ,,\ i{ . � ���'• i �'' � - I �• 't ` i L NN',
U Gap Road
r ` -} i.% J. ,` `` , ,,� ` •� 1 UT3
- - t t �.
Legend
Parcels
Preservation Reach
Enhancement Reach
,. i _3 •,1 t j Proposed Easment
Figure 2.
Watershed Map 0 200400 800 1,200 Feet
r ,
Tributaries to Snowbird Creek

Figure 3b.
Proposed Restoration Plan 0 250 500 750 Feet
Tributaries to Snowbird Creek

1
1
1
1
Fl
1
APPENDIX C. EDR Report

� � TApBLE�OF CONTENTS
r
SECTION I I PAGE
Executive Summary ----------------------------------------------- - - - - -- ES1
Overview Map---------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 2
DetailMap------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 3
Map Findings Summary -------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 4
MapFindings! --------------------------------------------------------- 6
Orphan Summary ------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 7
Government Records Searched /Data Currency Tracking- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GR 1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum----------------------------------- - - - - -- A -1 L�
k
Physical Setting Source Summary ------------------------------------ - - - - -- A 2
Physical Setting Source Map---------------------------------------- - - - - -- A 8
I
Physical Setting Source Map Findings--------------------------------- - - - - -- A 9
Physical Setting Source Records Searched----------------------------- - - - - -- A 16
Thank you for your business
Please contact EDR at 1 800 352 -0050
with any questions or comments
Disclaimer Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources Inc It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage Information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES INC SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES INC BE LIABLE TO ANYONE WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS NEGLIGENCE
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION SPECIAL INCIDENTAL
CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES INC IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT Purchaser accepts this Report AS IS Any analyses estimates ratings
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided In this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only and are not Intended to provide nor
should they be Interpreted as providing any facts regarding or prediction or forecast of any environmental risk for any property Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property Additionally the Information provided In this Report Is not to be construed as legal advice
Copyright 2008 by Environmental Data Resources Inc All rights reserved Reproduction In any media or format In whole
or In part of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources Inc or its affiliates Is prohibited without prior written permission
EDR and Its logos'(Includmg Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources Inc or its affiliates All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners
TC2112222 2s Pagel
I
J
1

EXECUTIVE SUx1111MARl(
Q S
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources Inc (EDR)
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA s Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312) the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527 05) or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of
environmental nsk associated with a parcel of real estate
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
SNOWBIRD RD (SR1127)/IU GAP RD (SR 1118)
ROBBINSVILLE NC 28771
Latitude (North)
35 310250 35 18 36 9
Longitude (West)
83 848080 83 50 53 1
Universal Tranverse Mercator Zone 17
UTM X (Meters)
241051 0
UTM Y (Meters)
39109728
Elevation
2069 ft above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map 35083 C7 ROBBINSVILLE NC
Most Recent Revision 2001
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
r No mapped sites were found in EDR s search of available ( reasonably ascertainable ) government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases
F
LFEDERAL RECORDS
NPL
_ Proposed NPL
I Delisted NPL
NPL LIENS
CERCLIS
CERC NFRAP
�- CORRACTS
ERNS
_ HMIRS
US ENG CONTROLS
r
ll
r-,
I
�J
I i
1 �
National Priority List
Proposed National Prionty List Sites
National Priority List Deletions
Federal Superfund Liens
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System
CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned
Corrective Action Report
Emergency Response Notification System
Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
Engineering Controls Sites List
TC2112222 2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

W EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
L�
1
US INST CONTROL
Sites with Institutional Controls
DOD
Department of Defense Sites
o
FUDS
Formerly Used Defense Sites
US BROWNFIELDS
A Listing of Brownfields Sites
CONSENT
Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
ROD
Records Of Decision
a
UMTRA_'
Uranium MITI Tailings Sites
ODI k
Open Dump Inventory
TRIS
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
TSCA_
Toxic Substances Control Act
0
FTTS
FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System FIFRA (Federal Insecticide Fungicide & Rodenticide
Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
SSTS
Section 7 Tracking Systems
n
LUCIS b
Land Use Control Information System
DOT OPS
Incident and Accident Data
I�
ICIS d
Integrated Compliance Information System
RCRA CESQG
RCRA Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
RCRA N613en
RCRA Non Generators
DEBRIS�REGION 9
Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
HIST FTTS
FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
US CDL_1
Clandestine Drug Labs
RADINFO
Radiation Information Database
LIENS 21
CERCLA Lien Information
RCRA TSDF
RCRA Transporters Storage and Disposal
�J
RCRA SQG
RCRA Small Quantity Generators
RCRA LQG
RCRA Large Quantity Generators
PADS
PCB Activity Database System
MILTS
Material Licensing Tracking System
MINES {
Mines Master Index File
FINDS
Facility Index System /Facility Registry System
RAATS
RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
SHWS
Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
j
NC HSDS
Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
L
IMD
Incident Management Database
SWF /LF
List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLI
Old Landfill Inventory
HIST LF
Solid Waste Facility Listing
LUST
Regional UST Database
,L
LUST TRUST
State Trust Fund Database
UST
Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
AST
AST Database
INST CONTROL_
No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
VCP
Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
DRYCLEANERS
Drycleaning Sites
BROWNFIELDS
Brownfields Projects Inventory
NPDES '
NPDES Facility Location Listing
J
TRIBAL RECORDS
INDIAN RESERV
Indian Reservations
i l
INDIAN LUST
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
U
INDIAN UST
Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
J
0
TC2112222 2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 0

� jj,_EEXECUT1VE'1SUMMARY,;;;:�k
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Manufactured Gas Plants EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
SURROUNDING SITES SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were not Identified
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered In the foregoing analysis
TC2112222 2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

R EXECUTIVE SUMMaky
Due to po{ or or Inadequate address Information the following sites were not mapped
Site Name
Database(s)
GRAHAM COUNTY LANDFILL
SWF /LF HIST LF
GRAHAM COUNTY TEMPORARY TRANSFER STATION
HIST LF
BURLINGTON FURNITURE
SHWS
GRAHAM COUNTY MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
SHWS
HACKNEY FOOD SHOP #3
LUST IMD
BEN CRISP CITGO
FINDS LUST
DOT FACILITY ROBBINSVILLE
LUST IMD
CROSSROADS OF TIME
LUST IMD
HACKNEY FOOD SHOP #3
LUST TRUST
TED NORCROSS RESIDENCE
LUST TRUST
KAY S FASION & CONVIENIENCE S
UST
ROBINSON S GROC
UST
ATOAH GROCERY
UST
JOHNNY S CARB & TUNE & AMOCO
UST
JOANNA S GROCERY
UST
EVERETT WILLIAMS GROCERY
UST
CHESTER CRISP
UST
WOLFECREEK GROCERY
UST
STECOAH SCHOOL
UST
BEN CRISP CITGO
UST IMD
STEWARTS GROC
UST
SANTEETLAH BOAT DOCK
UST
TALLAUFF SERVICE STATION
UST
CHEOAH DAM
UST
CHEOAH HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
UST
WOLF CREEK GROC
FINDS
BIG D #27 AST SPILL(RVIL BLK)
IMD
STANLEY FURNITURE DIESEL SPILL
IMD
TC2112222 2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

Database
FEDERAL RECORDS
NPL
Proposed NPL
Delisted NPL
NPL LIENS
CERCLIS
CERC NFRAP
CORRACTS
ERNS
HMIRS
US ENG CONTROLS
US INST CONTROL
DOD
FUDS
US BROWNFIELDS
CONSENT
ROD
UMTRA
ODI
TRIS
TSCA
FTTS
SSTS
LUCIS
DOT OPS
ICIS
RCRA CESQG
RCRA NonGen
DEBRIS REGION 9
HIST FTTS
CDL
RADINFO
LIENS 2
RCRA TSDF
RCRA SQG
RCRA LQG
PADS
MLTS
MINES
FINDS
RAATS
Search
Target Distance > Total
Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 1/4 1/4 1/2 1/2 1 > 1 Plotted
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
State Haz Waste
NC HSDS
IMD
State Landfill
OLI
1000
0
0
0
0
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
1,
0
f
ftl
NR 0
1000
010
0
0
Database
FEDERAL RECORDS
NPL
Proposed NPL
Delisted NPL
NPL LIENS
CERCLIS
CERC NFRAP
CORRACTS
ERNS
HMIRS
US ENG CONTROLS
US INST CONTROL
DOD
FUDS
US BROWNFIELDS
CONSENT
ROD
UMTRA
ODI
TRIS
TSCA
FTTS
SSTS
LUCIS
DOT OPS
ICIS
RCRA CESQG
RCRA NonGen
DEBRIS REGION 9
HIST FTTS
CDL
RADINFO
LIENS 2
RCRA TSDF
RCRA SQG
RCRA LQG
PADS
MLTS
MINES
FINDS
RAATS
Search
Target Distance > Total
Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 1/4 1/4 1/2 1/2 1 > 1 Plotted
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
State Haz Waste
NC HSDS
IMD
State Landfill
OLI
1000
0
0
0
0
NR 0
1000
0
0
0
0
NR 0
1000
0
0
0
0
NR 0
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
0 500
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0 500
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
1000
0
0
0
0
NR 0
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
0 500
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0 500
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
1000
0
0
0
0
NR 0
1000
0
0
0
0
NR 0
0 500
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
1000
0
0
0
0
NR 0
1000
0
0
0
0
NR 0
0 500
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0 500
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
0 500
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
0 250
0
0
NR
NR
NR 0
0 250
0
0
NR
NR
NR 0
0 500
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
0 500
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0 250
0
0
NR
NR
NR 0
0 250
0
0
NR
NR
NR 0
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
0 250
0
0
NR
NR
NR 0
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR 0
1000
0
0
0
0
NR 0
1000
0
0
0
0
NR 0
0 500
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0 500
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
0 500
0
0
0
NR
NR 0
TC2112222 2s Page 4

Database
MAP FINDINGSISUMMARY° a`R
U
U
Search 0
Target Distance Total
Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8 1/4 1/4 1/2 1/2 1 > 1 Plotted
HIST LF
0 500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
LUST
0 500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
LUST TRUST
0 500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
UST
0 250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
AST
0 250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
INST CONTROL
0 500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
U
VCP
0 500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
DRYCLEANERS
0 250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
BROWNFIELDS
0 500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
NPDES
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
TRIBAL RECORDS
INDIAN RESERV
1 000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
INDIAN LUST
0 500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
a
INDIAN UST
0 250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Manufactured Gas Plants
1 000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
NOTES
TP = Target Property
NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
C
i
I�
U
I
lJ
O
1
TC2112222 2s Page 5 n
t I

Map IDS MAP F NI DINGSs k
Direction
Distance
Distance (ft ) EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
NO SITES FOUND
�l
G
l�
n
fl
Li
E,
F1
TC2112222 2s Page 6

OVERVIEW MAP - 2112222.2s
* Target Property
A Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
• Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
A Manufactured Gas Plants
National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 114 V2 1 YNes
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
Oil & Gas pipelines Disposal Sites
National Wetland Inventory
❑ State Wetlands
SITE NAME: Snowbird Creek Tributaries Project CLIENT: Baker Engineering
ADDRESS: Snowbird Rd (SR1127)/IU Gap Rd (SR 1118) CONTACT: Carmen Horne - McIntyre
RobbinsAlle NC 28771 INQUIRY #: 2112222.2s
ILAT/LONG: 35.3103/83.8481 1 DATE: January 03, 2008 4:39 pm

DETAIL MAP - 2112222.2s
k
Target Property
a
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
•
Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
A
Manufactured Gas Plants
t
Sensitive Receptors
E]
National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 ills 1R 114 Nlka
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
Oil & Gas pipelines Disposal Sites
FI National Wetland Inventory
❑ State Wetlands
SITE NAME: Snowbird Creek Tributaries Project CLIENT: Baker Engineering
ADDRESS: Snowbird Rd (SR1127)/IU Gap Rd (SR 1118) CONTACT: Carmen Horne - McIntyre
Robbinsville NC 28771 INQUIRY #: 2112222.2s
LAT /LONG: 35.3103 / 83.8481 DATE: January 03, 2008 4:39 pm
Goovrlaht.d 2008 EDR. Inc. a 2007 Tale Atlas Rel. 0712008.

PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP - 2112222.2s
V County Boundary
N Major Roads
N Contour Lines
OO Earthquake epicenter, Richter 5 or greater
® Water Wells
© Public Water Supply Wells
i Cluster of Multiple Icons
SITE NAME: Snowbird Creek Tributaries Project CLIENT: Baker Engineering
ADDRESS: Snowbird Rd (SR1127) /IU Gap Rd (SR 1118) CONTACT: Carmen Horne - McIntyre
Robbinsville NC 28771 INQUIRY #: 2112222.2s
ILATILONG: 35.3103/83.8481 DATE: January 03, 2008 4:39 pm
C.unyrl9ht.�) 2008 FOR Inc. ,,, 2007 Tole Atlas Rol. 07/2006.
0 1/4 1/2
1 Y6.
Groundwater Flow Direction
Wildlife Areas
c I
Indeterminate Groundwater Flow at Location
Natural Areas
Gv
Groundwater Flow Varies at Location
o
Rare & Endangered Species
SITE NAME: Snowbird Creek Tributaries Project CLIENT: Baker Engineering
ADDRESS: Snowbird Rd (SR1127) /IU Gap Rd (SR 1118) CONTACT: Carmen Horne - McIntyre
Robbinsville NC 28771 INQUIRY #: 2112222.2s
ILATILONG: 35.3103/83.8481 DATE: January 03, 2008 4:39 pm
C.unyrl9ht.�) 2008 FOR Inc. ,,, 2007 Tole Atlas Rol. 07/2006.

�7
l7
U
C
�7
APPENDIX D. Existing Conditions Geomorphic Data
a
1
III
1
0
0
0
c

UT3 Existing Profile
70
65
c 60 +TWG
—11— RTO
LTO
w 55
50
45
90 140 190 240 290
Station

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH
Ratio
ER
BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev
Riffle
A4a+
6
8.28
0.73
1.14
11.35
1.8
1.5
1 95.34
96.23
UT1 Cross - section 7
99 -
98
0 97
-----------------------------------
--------- -
96
95
94
93
100 105 110 115 120 125
Station (ft) -' e ' Bankfull
- -� - Floodprone
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF
Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
WID
BH
Ratio
ER
BKF
Elev
TOB
Elev
Riffle
B4a
5.8
1 11.46
0.5
0.78
1 22.72
4.1
1 1.3
96.03
98.45
UT2 Cross - section 5
100
99
98
w97 -------------------------------------------------------
96 --------------------------------------------
95
100 105 110 115 120 125
Station (ft) --- Bankfull
-�- -- Floodprone

UT2 Cross - section 6
100
99
0 98
> 97
a� --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
w96 --------------------------------
95
94
100 102 104 106 108 110 112 114 116 118
Station (ft) '-" Bankfull
- -o -- Flood rove
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
W/D
ER
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio
Elev
Elev
Riffle
B4a
3.7
6.91
0.54
0.78
12.76
1 1.6
2.1
1 95.83
96.32
UT2 Cross - section 6
100
99
0 98
> 97
a� --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
w96 --------------------------------
95
94
100 102 104 106 108 110 112 114 116 118
Station (ft) '-" Bankfull
- -o -- Flood rove
UT3 Cross - section 1
2052
2051
2050
2049
0
m 2048
-----------------------
w 2047
2046
2045
100 105 110 115 120 125 130
Station (ft) -- o--- Bankfull
-- o -- Floodprone
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
W/D
ER
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
Ratio
Elev
Elev
Riffle
F
3.5
1 6.56
0.54
0.78
12.24
2
1.2
2046.7
2047.4
UT3 Cross - section 1
2052
2051
2050
2049
0
m 2048
-----------------------
w 2047
2046
2045
100 105 110 115 120 125 130
Station (ft) -- o--- Bankfull
-- o -- Floodprone

UT3 Cross-section 2
2052
2051
2050
2049
0
2048
2047 ---------------------------------------
w 2046 ----------------- --
2045
2044
100 105 110 115 120 125 130
Station (ft) (full
dprone
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
Ratio
ER
Elev
Elev
Pool
E
4.2
6.52
0.65
1.13
10.11
2.0
1.8
2045.75
2046.88
UT3 Cross-section 2
2052
2051
2050
2049
0
2048
2047 ---------------------------------------
w 2046 ----------------- --
2045
2044
100 105 110 115 120 125 130
Station (ft) (full
dprone
UT3 Cross-section 3
2046 ---- - -
2045
2044
2043
0 2042
2041
2040
Fu 2039
-------------------------------
2038
2037
2036
100 110 120 130 140 150
Station (ft) Bankfull
Flood prone
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
WAD
Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
Elev
Riffle
E
4.3
6.78
0.63
1.06
10.68
2.3
2.4
2037.6
2038.96
UT3 Cross-section 3
2046 ---- - -
2045
2044
2043
0 2042
2041
2040
Fu 2039
-------------------------------
2038
2037
2036
100 110 120 130 140 150
Station (ft) Bankfull
Flood prone

UT3 Cross - section 4
100 --
99
0 98
> 97 - ----------- - - - - -- - -----------------------------------
w96 ----------------------
95
94 --
100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140
Station (ft) °-9--- Bankfull
- --e- -- Floodprone
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
WAD
Ratio
ER
Elev
Elev
Riffle
A4a+
6.8
8.5
0.8
1.02
10.66
3.6
2.7
96
98.7
UT3 Cross - section 4
100 --
99
0 98
> 97 - ----------- - - - - -- - -----------------------------------
w96 ----------------------
95
94 --
100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140
Station (ft) °-9--- Bankfull
- --e- -- Floodprone

a
0
0
0
a
APPENDIX E. Existing Conditions Photo Log
0
a
a
0
0
0
0
0
n

C1
0
0
0
0
r�
0
0
c
0
r
r�
0
0
0
0
0
0

Unnamed Tributary 1: (Preservation)
UT1 against a valley wall.
Cross section location on UT1
As evidenced in previous photo and photo above,
UT1 is characterized by a semi - cascading profile
on moderate to steep slopes
Riffle -pool section of UT 1

Unnamed Tributary 2: Reaches 1 & 3 (Preservation)
Step -pool profile on UT2
Typical substrate in preservation reaches
Rhododendron prevalent along UT2; particularly
where there are breaks in the forest canopy
Step -pool features typical on UT2

Unnamed Tributary 2: Reach 2 (Enhancement)
Upper extent of UT2 enhancement area facing
downstream
Cross section location on UT2
Area where debris left discarded in UT2
UT2 channel widens in areas where bedrock is
exposed and where slope changes

Unnamed Tributary 3: Reach 1 (Preservation)
Typical dimension of UT3 on more moderate
to gentle slopes
UT3 also features step -pool features similar to
that of UT1 and UT2
Rhododendron lines much of the riparian zone
along UT3

Unnamed Tributary 3: Reach 2 (Restoration)
UT3 channel conditions near zone between
preservation and restoration reaches
Existing location of UT3 in valley
UT3 would be restored in the lowest part of the valley
located in the left portion of this photo.
UT3 adjacent to field clearing; previous grading
resulted in UT3 having less access to its
floodplain
New alignment of UT3 would begin in the
vicinity of location shown

0
0
0
u
a
APPENDIX F. Sediment Sampling Analyses
a
u
C
C�
u
C
C1
0
0

0
0
0
r�
0
r�
0
0
c
0

0
�f
L
P
L�
5
r�
L _I
In
f
L I
0
PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET RIFFLE 100 -COUNT
Largest particles 29000
(riffle)
I
�I
L \protects \113112 Snowbird Cr FD \Design \Empirical Data \PebbleCounts \UT1 SNOWBIRD Riffle Data 7/2/2009
F�
i
BAKER PROJECT NO 113112
SITE OR PROJECT
SNOWBIRD TRIBUTARIES
REACH /LOCATION
UT1 LOWER ROAD CROSSING `
DATE COLLECTED
5/29/2009
FIELD COLLECTION BY
SEG
DATA ENTRY BY
CDM
Largest particles 29000
(riffle)
I
�I
L \protects \113112 Snowbird Cr FD \Design \Empirical Data \PebbleCounts \UT1 SNOWBIRD Riffle Data 7/2/2009
F�
i
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class 091
% Cum
Silt / Clay
< 063
' 4 `
4%
4%
ii •ii :f
Very Fine
063 125
4%
Fine
125 25
a6wt
6%
10%
Medium
25 50
2%
12%
Coarse
50 1 0
L+ a 2� + ,�
2%
14%
Very Coarse
1 0 20
JW �,�'�,
14%
OVery
R
E
O
C
0��nn�
Fine
2 0 2 8
� A r��
14%
Very Fine
28 40
�at�wl r�2�P«
16%
Fine
40 56
> t 6
6%
22%
Fine
5 6 8 0
��� % 2 "o
2%
24%
Medium
80 110
12 -77 �A ��,
12%
36%
Medium
110 160
8%
44%
Coarse
160 226
"',6
6%
50%
Coarse
22 6 32
50 /
Very Coarse
32 45
, *8
8%
58%
Very Coarse
45 64
��6 �,
6%
64%
00 C
Small
64 90�
8� �, ��
8%
72%
Small
90 128
$ d
8%
80%
Large
128 180
1ex 14� r
14%
94%
Large
180 256
2
2%
96%
Small
256 362
a 4 X
4%
100%
Small
362 512
VT
100%
Medium
512 1024
100%
Large Very Large
1024 2048»�`�1
100%
ED CK
Bedrock
> 2048
' ' tk k,
A f
100%
Total
100
98%
Largest particles 29000
(riffle)
I
�I
L \protects \113112 Snowbird Cr FD \Design \Empirical Data \PebbleCounts \UT1 SNOWBIRD Riffle Data 7/2/2009
F�
i

100%
90% Riffle Data
80%
70%
60%
m
c
ILL
c 50%
m
m
IL 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
001
UT1 to Snowbird Creek
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
01 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
L \projects \113112 Snowbird Cr FD \Design \Empirical Data \PebbleCounts \UT1 SNOWBIRD Riffle Dist
1000
10000
7/2/2009

P,
i
I '
{
1 �
L
f`
PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET RIFFLE 100 -COUNT
Largest particles 28000
(riffle)
r-
�L-i L \protects \113112 Snowbird Cr FD\Deslgn \Empirical Data \PebbleCounts \UT2 SNOWBIRD Riffle Data
I'
�J
7/2/2009
BAKER PROJECT NO 113112
SITE OR PROJECT
SNOWBIRD TRIBUTARIES
REACH /LOCATION
UT2 REACH 1
DATE COLLECTED
5/29/2009
FIELD COLLECTION BY
SEG
DATA ENTRY BY
CDM
Largest particles 28000
(riffle)
r-
�L-i L \protects \113112 Snowbird Cr FD\Deslgn \Empirical Data \PebbleCounts \UT2 SNOWBIRD Riffle Data
I'
�J
7/2/2009
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
Silt / Clay
< 063
F�
8%
8%
i i i l I ,
. ,
Very Fine
063 125
$%
Fine
125 25
' 64
6%
14%
Medium
25 50
, 6
6%
20%
Coarse
50 10
�.� �7
6%
26%
Very Coarse
1 0 20
f '�
� � >d �� � ��
26%
002
00
�01�06
C�
R
A
V
E D
V
UO L
O
46,
�O��nn C
Very Fine
20 28
6� x '
6%
32%
Very Fine
28 40
0 "4044
32%
Fine
40 56
` s 4* �`� f ,
4%
36%
Fine
56 80
�lop_" w
10%
46%
Medium
80 110
' �2 ��
2%
48%
Medium
110 160
G 6 ,
6%
54%
Coarse
160 226
�2 'Y4"
2%
56%
Coarse
226 32
q �v �v �ti�y
56%
Very Coarse
32 45
r, y
56%
Very Coarse
45 64
ax6 +
6%
62%
0 <
0
Small
64 90
r r i E&
6%
68%
Small
90 128
m �iA'1u4a >a ,
14%
82%
Large
128 180
` 12' y k
12%
94%
Large
180 256
4 €�
4%
98%
Small
256 362
�'i'""
2%
100%
Small
362 512
� @
100%
Medium
512 1024
100%
Large Very Large
1024 2048
��v ����
100%
BED
Bedrock
> 2048yyp�
(F� � \ \3\K 1K �R \W
100%
Total
1 100
100%
Largest particles 28000
(riffle)
r-
�L-i L \protects \113112 Snowbird Cr FD\Deslgn \Empirical Data \PebbleCounts \UT2 SNOWBIRD Riffle Data
I'
�J
7/2/2009

100%
90% —+— Riffle Data
80%
70%
60%
m
c
ILL
c 50%
m
a�
a 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
001
UT2 to Snowbird Creek
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
01 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
L \projects \113112 Snowbird Cr FD\Design \Empirical Data \PebbleCounts \UT2 SNOWBIRD Riffle Dist
1000
10000
7/2/2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F_I

PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET RIFFLE 100 -COUNT
Largest particles 33000
(riffle)
I'
UII I
L \protects \113112 Snowbird Cr FD \Design \Empincal Data \PebbleCounts \UT3R1 SNOWBIRD Riffle Data 7/2/2009
I,
1
BAKER PROJECT NO 113112
SITE OR PROJECT
SNOWBIRD TRIBUTARIES
REACH /LOCATION
UT3 REACH 1
DATE COLLECTED
5/28/2009
FIELD COLLECTION BY
SEG
IDATA ENTRY BY
CDM
Largest particles 33000
(riffle)
I'
UII I
L \protects \113112 Snowbird Cr FD \Design \Empincal Data \PebbleCounts \UT3R1 SNOWBIRD Riffle Data 7/2/2009
I,
1
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class °/
% Cum
Silt / Clay
< 063
e� x d 2 "�
2%
2%
�i- - - - -t-
ti.
......
. i .
..
Very Fine
063 125
i `sk
2%
Fine
125 25
,� � ' ` �
2%
Medium
25 50
8%
10%
Coarse
50 1 0
A 10
10%
20%
Very Coarse
1 0 20
20%
<
00�
MC�
G
V
E nn
0 L O(
00� n Onn
n
Very Fine
20 28
20%
Very Fine
28 40
�� �°
20%
Fine
40 56
20%
Fine
56 80
s�A2v�
2%
22%
Medium
80 110
X42 �a ?�
2%
24%
Medium
110 160
3 8
8%
32%
Coarse
160 226
M 10
10%
42%
Coarse
226 32
�` �'0�2 Z `
2%
44%
Very Coarse
32 45
��2`,
2%
46%
Very Coarse
45 64
t-
, 8�
8%
54%
<
OLarge
Small
64 90
�� , Aiw� 22 , E
22%
76%
Small
90 128
X12 ;�
12%
88%
Large
128 180
$�
8%
96%
180 256
�,'N % '2 �� �"
2%
98%
Small
256 362�'�
' 2+`' pft
2%
100%
Small
362 512
100%
Medium
512 1024
���,� � r ��
100%
�—
Large Very Large
1024 2048
s rr
100%
0
Bedrock
> 2048
�� °
100%
Total
100
100%
Largest particles 33000
(riffle)
I'
UII I
L \protects \113112 Snowbird Cr FD \Design \Empincal Data \PebbleCounts \UT3R1 SNOWBIRD Riffle Data 7/2/2009
I,
1

100%
90%
80%
70%
L 60%
d
C
LL
c 50%
m
a�
a 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
001
UT3 to Snowbird Creek
Reach 1
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
—* Riffle Data
01 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
1000 10000
L \projects \113112 Snowbird Cr FD \Design \Empirical Data \PebbleCounts \UT3R1 SNOWBIRD Riffle Dist 7/2/2009

0
�I
�I
L
0
-i
L�
1
r
PEBBLE COUNT DATA SHEET RIFFLE 100 -COUNT
Largest particles 19000
(riffle)
L \projects \113112 Snowbird Cr FD \Design \Empirical Data \PebbleCounts \UT3R2 SNOWBIRD Riffle Data
1
7/2/2009
BAKER PROJECT NO 113112
SITE OR PROJECT
SNOWBIRD TRIBUTARIES
REACH /LOCATION
UT3 REACH 2
DATE COLLECTED
5/29/2009
FIELD COLLECTION BY l
SEG
IDATA ENTRY BY
CDM
Largest particles 19000
(riffle)
L \projects \113112 Snowbird Cr FD \Design \Empirical Data \PebbleCounts \UT3R2 SNOWBIRD Riffle Data
1
7/2/2009
PARTICLE CLASS COUNT
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Riffle
Class %
% Cum
Silt / Clay
< 063
w� s 4 T
4%
4%
- ti- - - -ii-
Lsi� �tiiit
:i is 4
ti .11:
Very Fine
063 125���
„ +,�
4%
Fine
125 25
.�V` ���
4%
Medium
25 50
6
6%
10%
Coarse
50 10
� � � � "1
10%
Very Coarse
-10 2 0 l
zo, 7
10%
O
O"
C
R
VMedium
E
OO L ��
O O
C
ODO��nnCt
Very Fine
20 28
as ♦1 4 "I4 r
4%
14%
Very Fine
28 40
14%
Fine
40 56
2%
16%
Fine
56 80
���
16%
80 110
` F r
16%
Medium
110 160
�aR$ 'VA
8%
24%
Coarse
160 226
a
` 2i
2%
26%
Coarse
226 32
p4 4 w-V ,.,
4%
30%
Very Coarse
32 45
E ,4*
4%
34%
Very Coarse
45 64
24%
58%
O <
C.
0
Small
64 90
14A#jjj��
24%
82%
Small
90 128
10
10%
92%
Large
128 180
'as'U? b Nr .qe^d t
6
6%
98%
Large
180 256
' t "2 - �
2%
100%
Small
256 362�.��
�
100%
Small
362 512,
100%
Medium
512 1024
f : a
100%
Large Very Large
1024 2048
100%
B D
Bedrock
> 2048
t �� a ��
100%
Total
100
100%
Largest particles 19000
(riffle)
L \projects \113112 Snowbird Cr FD \Design \Empirical Data \PebbleCounts \UT3R2 SNOWBIRD Riffle Data
1
7/2/2009

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
m
c
ILL
c 50%
m
v
m
d 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
UT3 to Snowbird Creek
Reach 2
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
—* Riffle Data
001 01 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
1000 10000
J
L \projects \113112 Snowbird Cr FD \Design \Empincal Data \PebbleCounts \UT3R2 SNOWBIRD Riffle Dist 7/2/2009

PAVEMENT / SUBPAVEMENT ANALYSIS
LARGEST PARTICLE 90 128 mm
BAKER PROJECT NO 113112
SITE OR PROJECT
Snowbird
REACHILOCATION
UT 3 Reach 2 (Shovel Sample Includes both surface (pavement) and subsurface particles (subpavement))
DATE COLLECTED
4/30/2009
FIELD COLLECTION BY
MC /SG
LAB ANALYSIS BY
DH
LARGEST PARTICLE 90 128 mm
I Total I I I 80393
L \pro)ects \113112 Snowbird Cr FD\Design\Empirical Data\PebbleCounts\Bulk Sediment Sample_Apr09 Data 7/2/2009
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Summary
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
RAW
TARE
NET
Class /
/ Cum
Silt / Clay
< 062
139
139
0%
0%
hM
A
L't D
ti a
tiL
♦
Very Fine
062 125
274
a
274
0%
1 %
Fine
125 25
836
4H
836
1%
2%
Medium
25 50
F 162 2
1622
2%
4%
Coarse
50 10
1904
r
1904
2%
6%
Very Coarse
1 0 20
275 2
275 2
3%
9%
o
G
AFine
EMedium
L
o
Very Fine
20 400
265 1
s
ro 2651
3%
13%
Medium
400 125
628 0
b
6280
8%
20%
Coarse
125 226
341 8 8
-3418
4%
25%
Coarse
226 45
TT' 1087 0
��
10870
14%
38%
Very Coarse
45 64
' -191 0,
°�°
a '191 0
2%
41%
Small
64 90
t 3932 7 }
39327 $
49%
90%
Small
90 128
4184-10 {
R A
8410
10%
100%
Large
128 180�w�
Large
180 256
Small
256 362
Small
362 512
BOULDER
Medium
512 1024
NBP�
Large Very Large
1024 2048
gooBedrock
>2048
h �p�.$_ 6
��� ''y�.r
j
I Total I I I 80393
L \pro)ects \113112 Snowbird Cr FD\Design\Empirical Data\PebbleCounts\Bulk Sediment Sample_Apr09 Data 7/2/2009

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
m
c
LL
c 50%
m
v
m
d 40%
30%
20%
10%
001
01 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
1000
L \projects \113112 Snowbird Cr FD \Design \Empirical Data \PebbleCounts \Bulk Sediment Sample_Apr09 Distribution Graph
i
10000
7/2/2009 @ 11 02 AM

E
C
d
C,
O
C
V
C,
US HWY 129
TOWN OF
NC HWY 143 ROBBINSVILLE
® PROJECT
LOCATION
lU GAP RD
L- VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Project
Preservation, Enhancement, & Restoration
Graham County, North Carolina
r
INDEX OF SHEETS
1
Cover Sheet
2
legend and Notes
3
Overall Plan
45
Plan and Profile
67
Planting Plans
8
Typical Section
9
Erosion Control
1013
Detail Sheets
C
0*
9l.
`1`!�
1� J
Datum Description
Horizontal Datum is based on NCGS NAD 83
Temporary control points are present on site &
will be used to establish grade & position by a
Baker representative during construction
Vertical Datum is arbitrary
— O
r- m
N
d C
C O o
w o U �) UEl
`O-
m 0 Z N Lo N
d TSo mcowa
m =N > CmCDO E
� �(nQdLL
i
i
i
)
3
1 11 // %
r
/ a.J� � i � /t way war u�inn r,aoon
SITE PLAN
1 = 600
$ do
6Zit
¢ LL
w
P )W NO
113112
Dr
9/25/09
COVERdwg
DESIGNED aw
DRAWN BLtl
APPROVED Ma
De YNO
1 of 13
H
V
LLI
ISO
¢
W
1:-:)
O
=
/
/ SNP
F-
Y
?
W
�% i
FLOIL 1 MMY GPoFFN
Pt s ma m 9m
w
�'
�'
Z
J
/
M MPG—
r -
FlOYD D ! MARY G MIFFIN /
/
, �J
m
O
Pneamoo- : w
2.
i
i
i
)
3
1 11 // %
r
/ a.J� � i � /t way war u�inn r,aoon
SITE PLAN
1 = 600
$ do
6Zit
¢ LL
w
P )W NO
113112
Dr
9/25/09
COVERdwg
DESIGNED aw
DRAWN BLtl
APPROVED Ma
De YNO
1 of 13

E
n
M
M
rn
0
0
M
O)
v
3
v
4I
0
0
M
J
5
U
O
L�
U
3
C
C
N
N
M
v
L
a_
C
C
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
SNOWBIRD CREEK UT3 REACH 2
CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING SEQUENCE
I ANY UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THESE PI ANS ARE APPROXIMAI E THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES Wl THIN THE
PROJECT LIMITS LOCATED AND MARKED PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION
2 ACCESS TO THE SITE SHALL BE FROM THE EXISTING DRIVE ON IU GAP ROAD ANY IMPACT TO THESE ROADS OR ASSOCIATED EROSION CONTROL
PRACTICES SHALL BE ADDRESSED IMMEDIATELY ALL DAMAGE OR IMPACTS FROM USE OF EXISTING ACCESS ROADS WILL BE RFPAIRED
IMMFDIATELY IF IT POSES A RISK TO WATER QUALITY OR PRIOR TO DEMOBILIZATION OR AT THE REQUEST OF THE PROJECT ENGINFFR
3 CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE DETAIL EXCESSIVELY MUDDY STONE SHALL BF REPLACED
ALL PUBLIC ROADS SHALL BE KEPT FREE OF MUD AND DEBRIS FNTRANCES SHALL BE RETURED TO THEIR PREEXISTING CONDITION PRIOR TO
DEMOBII 17ATION
4 FIRST EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL WILL BE INSTALLED STAGING AREAS WILL BE ESTABLISHED EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS WILL BF_
MOBILIZED TO THESE LOCATIONS BOULDERS CAN BE STAGED ADJACENT TO STRUCTURE INSTALLATION LOCATIONS ALL GROUND DISTURBED
FROM STONE TRUCKS SHALL BE MULCHED AT THE END OF EACH DAY
5 TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILE & EXTRA FILL AREA ARE DENOTED ON THE PLANS AND WILL BE OUTFITTED WITH SILT FENCETO PROTECT ADJACENT
AREAS FROM SEDIMENT RUNOFF SILT FFNCE SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL TFMPORARY OR PERMANENT VEGETATION HAS BEEN
ESTABLISHED THE CLEARING AND GRUBBING REQUIRED WITHIN THE GRADING LIMITS SHALL BE 1 E,RFORMED SO AS TO LIMIT SEDIMENT
MIGRATION OFF SITE LOGS AND ROOT WADS FROM TREES LARGER THAN 10 INCHES IN DIAMETER SHALL BE STOCKPILED FOR USE AS IN STREAM
STRUCTURES SAI VAGEABLE NATIVE VEGETATION (DOGHOBBLE RHODODENDRON YELI OWROOT ETC) MATS OR INDIVIDUAL PLANTS WILL BE
HARVESTED FOR TRANSPLANTING THESL MATS WILL BE EXCAVATED AND MOVED TO THE BANKS OF THE NEW CHANNEL SECTIONS
6 ACTIVITIES WILL INVOI VF BOTII ENHANCEMENT TO THE EXISTING CHANNEL AT THE TIE IN POINTS AND CREATION OF NEW PRIORITY I OFFLM
CHANNEL EARTHWORK SHAT L BE STAGED SUCH I HAT NO MORE CHANNEL WILL BE DISTURBED THAN CAN BE STABILIZED BY THE END OF THE
WORKDAY OR BEFORE FLOW IS DIVERTED INTO THE NEW CHANNEL SEGMENT MULCH WILL BE APPLIED TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS AND BARE SOIL
AT 1 HE END OF EACH DAY
7 DEWATERING OF OFF LINE CHANNFI SECTIONS IS EXPECTED TO BE MINIMAL ANY WATER PUMPED DURING DFWATERING OPERATIONS IN THE
OFF LINE SECTIONS WILL BE DIVERTED THROUGH A SEDIMENT FILL ER BEFORE BEING DISCHARGED INTO THE DOWNSTREAM REACH THE, PUMPING
DETAIL OUTLINES THIS PROCEDURE AND THE USE OF TEMPORARY SAND BAG COFFER DAMS IN ORDER TO DIVERT THE FI OW WITH A PUMP AND
PIPING
8 ALL STRUCTURES WILL BE INSTALLED THE NEW CHANNFL WILL BE DUG AND STABILIZED WITH SEED MULCH AND MATTING DURING THIS
PROCESS THE CUT MATERIAI FROM THE NEW CHANNEL WII 1 BE SYSTEMATICALLY MOVED TO THE STOCKPILE OR FILL AREAS (AND CONTAINED
WITH SII T FENCE) ANY SEDIMENT AGAINST SILT FENCES WILL BF REMOVED WHEN SEDIMENT HAS ACCUMULATED ABOVE ONE THIRD OF THE
HEIGHT OF THE SILT BARRIER AND /OR IT HAS FAILED THIS EXCESS MATERIAL WILL BE HAULED OUTSIDE THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT OR USED
TO BACKFILL ABANDONED CHANNEL BEFORE DEMOBILIZATION
9 A PUMP AROUND WILL BESET UP FOR THE EXISTING CHANNEL SEETHE PUMP AROUND DETAIL ON SHEET 12 FOR AMORE DETAILED EXPLANATION
OF FLOW DIVERSION
10 ONCE THE CHANNEL IS DEWATERED THE CONTRACTOR WILL PLUG THE LOWER FND OF THE OLD CHANNEL AND MOVE GRAVEL AND COBBLE BED
MATERIAL FROM THE OLD CHANNEL INTO THE NEW CHANNEL AS SPECIFIED IN THE TYPICAL CROSS SECTION MATTING SHALL ALREADY BE IN
PLACE AT THIS POINT SO THAT I HE GRAVEL HELPS REINFORCE THE TOE OF THE MATTING
I I ANY MATERIAL NFEDED TO FILL IN I HE OLD CHANNEL WILL BE BORROWED FROM THE STOCKPILE AREA UPON FILLING THE OLD CHANNEL ALL
BARE AREAS SHALL BF SEEDED AND MULCHED THE SILT SOCKS SHALL BE REUSED AND REARRANGED WITH EXTRA SILT SOCK TO PROTECT THE
NEW CHANNEL WHERE POSSIBLE
12 WHERE THE DOWNSTREAM TIE IN IS LOCATED IHE ROOT WAD AND SINGLE LOG VANES WILL BE INSTALLED THEN THE UPSTREAM CHANNEL PLUG
WILL BE BUILT FROM ANON SANDY MATERIAL AND IHE DOWNSTREAM AND UPSTREAM TIE INS CONSTRUCTED IN TIIE DRY UPON STABILIZATION
OF THE TIE INS THE PUMP AROUND WII L BE REMOVED ANll I HE WATER RELEASED INTO THE NEW CHANNEL
13 DURING THIS PROCESS SEDIMENT FROM THE STOCKPILE (EXCEPT CHANNEL GRAVEL) WILL BE MOVED TO THE FILL ARFA TO BALANCE THE SITE
ANY MATERIAL IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM FII L AREA DIMENSIONS SHALL BE SPREAD AND SUBSEQUENTLY COVERED WITH MULCH FINISH ALL
FINF GRADING AND FINISH SEEDING AND MULCHING ALL BARE AREAS STAGING AREAS WILL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED UPON COMPLETION
*BANK AND FLOODPLAIN VEGETATION INCLUDING BRUSH MATFRIALS AND LIVE S TAKES WILL BE INSTALLED DURING DORMANT SEASON NOVEMBER
TO APRIL
*SILT FENCES WILL BE REMOVED ONCE PLANTING IS COMPLETE OR ONCE THEY ARE NO LONGER NEEDED
'CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AND SITE ACCESS WILL BE REPAIRED TO INITIAL CONDITIONS PRIOR TO DEMOBILIZATION
NC ONE CALL
Phone 811 for Buried
Utility Locating Service
u ROOTWAD
EXISTING TREE
LEGEND OF SYMBOLS
—CE CE—
SF - SF
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
- -- - tm - - EXISTING CONTOUR - INDEX
EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED - - — — -- - EXISTING CONTOUR - INTERMEDIATE
PROPOSED TREE
V° BCP # BAKER CONTROL POINT
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
�
BOULDER STEP
EXISTING ROAD
SOIL STOCKPILE AREA
SUMMARY OF QUANTITIES
0
T
} T + T + T + T + +
ITEN
u
c �
m �
C N
m N
C_
QUANTITY
UNIT
m
O p E
MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION
W Is"
PROPOSED THALWEG / CONTROL LINE
m r c)
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
Y on CD m
PROPOSED TOP OF BANK
m� m " m
CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY
m 0N= n E
r = m a'� C eD
un =OOj�
I- U) Q. LL
SILT FENCE
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
- -- - tm - - EXISTING CONTOUR - INDEX
EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED - - — — -- - EXISTING CONTOUR - INTERMEDIATE
PROPOSED TREE
V° BCP # BAKER CONTROL POINT
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
�
BOULDER STEP
EXISTING ROAD
SOIL STOCKPILE AREA
SUMMARY OF QUANTITIES
0
T
} T + T + T + T + +
ITEN
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNIT
A
MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION
B
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
C
INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL
D
SAFETY FENCE
E
SILT FENCE
F
COIR MATTING
- CUT
GRADING - FI LL
BOULDERS
r
CLASS A STONE
CLASS B STONE
CLASS 1 STONE
MGRADING
FILTER FABRIC
N
ROOT WADS
0
LIVE STAKES
P
WOODY VEGETATION
q
PERMANENT SEEDING
R
TEMPORARY SEEDING
S
MULCH
T
U
C--�
PROPOSED GRADING LIMIT
PROPOSED STAGING AREA
CHECK DAM
UPLAND PLANTING ZONE
EXISTING POWER POLE
EXOTIC INVASIVE REMOVAL
EXISTING FENCE
PROPOSED FENCE
PROPOSED LAG DROP
411 C AROIij'',
�F�Slpy y9,'�
QfAL ii IS
W
O
Cn
W
w Q w
Z
� J
O (n
DD
U C]
W Z
W 0 fwfn
U Z V
w
J
m
O
Z
U)
D n
tL
113112
Date
9/25/09
F le Na"
COVER dwg
DESIGNED Dw
DRAWN J1111
APPROVED m.Q
Draw g No
2 of 13

E
s
00
N
rn
0
0-,
N
U1
3
0
a
O
01
O
M
J
0
L
U
3
0
U)
N
2
U
v
O
CL
/
J
"IF IKNOWLES FAMILY TRUST
0- I
PM 393G0T 33.69
00 136, PC 161 I
I
KEVIN k K/150t61RA 1iR00K5
Pvt 36373. p O I m
0
61 177, Pt0
.�
N� UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE
M / UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE / \ ssle
UT 1, UT 2 — REACH 1 & 3, `"�"`M mo eF 3632 63"
Pscamao -a ms
AND UT 3 — REACH 1
TOTAL LENGTH 7497 LF
PRESERVATION '
/ 01'�
3./i
�( E1.OISE k ANKINS HALL
PN 3 P 37
DEB u Po 3
� e 9-6-9 ,>s
N/F
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE / /
PM 5052 O00 630 / . FLOYD 6 MARY GRIFFIN OD-00 `
/ PIN sssa 00- 31-9029 1
D8 186 PG 793
FLOYD 0 do MARY C GRIFFIN
PIN 5650 0 u
OB 171 PO 206 / J
/dt /
�0111, PR r� / J�50
UT 2 — REACH 2 —�
LENGTH 171 LF
ENHANCEMENT II
INCLUDING DEBRIS
& INVASIVE SPECIES
REMOVAL AND
BUFFER PLANTING
sop
� N
\ � �� 6NQ i ttD019
NPM�� �p�` J/� '40 /\ VEAI]i FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
lIB 1O PC >d
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE
P pct No
113112
P01 363200 -66 00
I
\ eq%
(s Gw
GRAPHIC SCALE
500 600 1000
1 =500
UT3 —REACH 2
LENGTH 543 LF
PRIORITY ONE
RESTORATION
SEE SHEETS
2 &4 -13
r CD
G N
C
G/ C
o ao E
wB Li:°Q8
`� rijO�3
Y
Z oMp m
m N M Y
mj 0)00 cD -a
r = —D E
cs I- o
F- 0)
U
W
0
� z
d
ui Q
W
aZ�
mQ�
� U J
H
Y �
W
W o
C) W
U
LK O
ED
0
z
U)
19
T CD
� N
A
�Ea-�o�
di
�m
�a
,�IIII111111,
C AROIi''�.,
P pct No
113112
FESSr04,y9 i:
Date
l
9/25/09
L
FtoN me
overallplan dwg
DESIGNED Dw
FNG1 ':R- CV,,��,
�100 G
DAPPROVED MG
,O
��j.h
Drew g No
P r 1I�
3 of 13

E
CL
N
0
0
N
rn
a
3
w
J
0
Of
CL
z
a
J
d
M
J
5
U
/
0
C)
3
c
c
VI
N
M
v
U
a_
c
L
c
HOUSE
SNOWBIRD UT 3 - REACH 2
STREAM RESTORATION (PRIORITY 1)_
PLUG
EXISTING
CHANNEL
(SEE DETAI
SMALL Boor
SHED
BACKFILL-
EXISTING
STREAM
CHANNEL
\p�
1 � �
EMBEDDED
LOG FOR
GRADE
CONTROL'
® FORD
PROTECT
EXISTING OD _
SHED
HARVEST BACKFILL SOD LO
'BED EXISTING
MATERIAL STREAM `
FROM EXIST CHANNEL `
CHANNEL & (APPROX
MOVE TO LOCATION) U
/
RESTORATION
REACH o
(DON
TOCKPILE) �
�p
S / Q
oDNS-rttucTED
cASCADE`(M)
0
n � O
0 d
l
l
O�
° p0
r �
GRAVEL DRIVEWAY TO
BACK OF FIELD FROM
IU GAP ROAD WIDTH
VARIES 12 -16 TO BE
USED AS ACCESS
ROAD
1 INSTALL 1 25" PVC /SCH40
3 OUTSIDE CONSERVATION
i EASEMENT & RECONNECT
TO EXISTING WATERLINES
NEAR EAST CORNER OF
LARGE SHED
�— REMOVE EXISTING PIPE
AND CONSTRUCT
GRASS SWALE TO
s)
0
r, Go
C N
DRY DITCH TO
in W
d C
E o ao E
rn o
U�p
CONSTRUCT 10 —FOOT
NEW CHANNEL
WIDE VEHICLE ACCESS
gj0 Lp�
t T ECS;i U
FORD ACROSS NEW
C�
PROTECT EXISTING
W 0 Z 00 U)
m
O N E
PLUG
EXISTING
SPRING HOUSE AND
VINYL WATER LINES
M
r i) m i° M E
in = L L io
CHANNEL
nv>�aw
(SEE DETAIL)
EXTRA FILL
EXISTING
lv
` AREA FOR
STREAM
BALANCING
SITE
INSTALL 1 25" PVC /SCH
OD
FROM SPRINGHOUSE
AROUND CONSERVATION
�X
c, ,
EASEMENT TO REPLACE
,
A c,
VINYL UN
` WITHIN EASEMENTER
1 INSTALL 1 25" PVC /SCH40
3 OUTSIDE CONSERVATION
i EASEMENT & RECONNECT
TO EXISTING WATERLINES
NEAR EAST CORNER OF
LARGE SHED
PLAN
1 " = 50'
ur►►►►O
ARO" /y,�.
islo 9'G�
9l
.AL
U
W
0
a
U)
w < z z
Q
J
m_ 0
� U
I- = ui
w t-
Z
U
m
0
z
U)
T m
IF
Z
61p
Projw No
113112
Dc
9/25/09
Flo Name
PLANPROFILE dwg
DESIGNED Qw
DRAWN ow
APPROVED I&
Draw ng No
4 of 13
�— REMOVE EXISTING PIPE
AND CONSTRUCT
GRASS SWALE TO
s)
DIVERT FLOW FROM
DRY DITCH TO
BOULDER STEP IN
CONSTRUCT 10 —FOOT
NEW CHANNEL
WIDE VEHICLE ACCESS
FORD ACROSS NEW
CHANNEL W/ 10%
APPROACH GRADES
AND COBBLE BOTTOM
PLAN
1 " = 50'
ur►►►►O
ARO" /y,�.
islo 9'G�
9l
.AL
U
W
0
a
U)
w < z z
Q
J
m_ 0
� U
I- = ui
w t-
Z
U
m
0
z
U)
T m
IF
Z
61p
Projw No
113112
Dc
9/25/09
Flo Name
PLANPROFILE dwg
DESIGNED Qw
DRAWN ow
APPROVED I&
Draw ng No
4 of 13

L \projects \113112 Snowbird Cr FD \CIAL3D \PLANPR0FILE dwg 9/25/09 ® 2 58pm
N �
O
u� n F
(A-Im
00
O
O
O
N
O
O
U
C
C
C
U
4
C
C
L
4
?� 0
CA
Cn
0-)
�!
CO
(0
O
-�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
I I I I I I i
I
I 1 ,
1
I 1
1 ' V
T
�TD i
1 i _{ i {0.62 DROP, O S�EP 1y/POCjL DID -926 -
1 I 0!51 DPW a BOl LDIER 3 STEP W /POOL M -92 _ 121
i
I 1
' I 1 b5 DROP O BOULDER STEP W/POOL INV -BOUT I 46
0.B DROP O BOULDER STEP W/POOL WV -8919 96
I
Q)
0 66 D** O BOULDER STEP w/POCL kV -87 6
.,
I
A i
ar A -t 9 I
1 � �� o s DROP o LiOULDEl1 STEP w/POCI LNV-115 s _ �
0
V) - >4
DASEDOED LOO FOR GRADE CONTROL O FORD'
10 DROP 0 BOULDER STEP W/POOL W-44 4 LLff
10 DR7 O BOULDER STEP W/POOL INV -8&4 -
} i = i
1 085 DROP O BOULDER STEP W/PCOL Sri -SZ9 >n
10 DROp a BOULDEPI _STEP W/POOL MV-01 7 20 � q
10 DROP a BOULDER STEP W/pOOL NV -80 4 26
p�
0
I ' I 0 (A
I _
1 L 10 DROP O BOULDER STEP W�INV -787
_ f
t 4 1 1 Z ZI
I ' I I I
10 DROP a BOULDER STEP W/POOL NV -7547 2t P � .off
I I �7
D 45 OROO o BOULDER VV AVPOO. NV-74 9 ► -
NNN
I
' I
T
0.95 DROP O BOULDER STEP W/POOL NV-71 4 02
I I I
p�{{n� _ I
48 DROP O BOULDER STEP W/POO� INV -88.4 63 1
' I I I IT + + +
1 L4' T 1
rn
I
72 1
10 oRaP o BOULDER STEP M/PODL D+v -6= I ,
'
10 DRop I BOULDER STEP W /POOL u+V -64.21
! + 1 t + 21 t
0 1
I 94
1 995 DROP-0 BOULDER STEP W/POOL, DLV -60.1 . 56
T ti~
b I I I I
1 41
I I I I
' o.96 oROPIe BOULDF] w
t STEP W/POOL IN5&0 r
I _
,
I � L
10 JDROP O BOULDER SIV W/POCL INV6525 T - 02
10 DROP O BOULDER STEP w/PpOL INV -$1 5
- 02
t0 I
I f t
T
l SINGLE ARM LOG VANE Lys' I I
I I I
I I I I 1 I
I I I 1 1
I I
I �
T ` 0 0
0 0 o O O O 10
$ m a Prepared for SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES PROJECT
Ln m A Ecoeyetern Enhancement Program
0 0 o N j 2728 Capitol Blvd slate 1H 103 NORTH CAROLINA
F: Raleigh, NC 27604
°m N Phone [phone]
W nE I Fax 919- 715 --229 PROFILE
TV
N
OT
V
O
V
M
O
'n
r
m
TO
N
C
W
1
M
D
C�
N
O
Michael Baker Engineering Inc
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville North Carolina 28806
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
www mbakercorp corn

a
0
0
rn
0
N
m
Q
3
z
Q
J
O_
0
z
F
z
a
J
IL
0
J
5
U
/
0
3
0
C
V)
N
M
N
U
a
C
O1 ao
C N
C
d a)
al C
C O m E
w B U�o
o� &
IYO O Z m i°r] O
O Y
PROTECT EXISTING m �' CD 00 a
d M N E
SPRING HOUSE AND s 2:2 ; c00
NOTE SEE SHEET 7 FOR \ VINYL WATER LINES ° � = NrL
" a a "
PLANTING SCHEDULES ESTABLISHED � `�
UPLAND BUFFER
�o
EXTRA FILL
EXISTING + +� AREA FOR
STREAM + + BALANCING
f
ZONE 2 FLOOD + y SITE
�+
PLAIN PLANTING + ++
+ I�
PROTECT + >
EXISTING
SHED Loo � 0
oo
L LO �� °
^
LLJ
o
z
U Q z
ZONE 3 TRANSITION/
UPLAND PLANTING
UJI
O Z
/ C z
+ + �r ZONE 1 STREAM o J
/ * ++ + BANK & CHANNEL
+ + PLANTING o
SMALL
SHED
HOUSE
ZONE 1 STREAM-
BANK & CHANNEL
PLANTING
Q
J
r �
^
(P
ZONE 3 TRANSITION/
UPLAND PLANTING
GRAVEL DRIVEWAY TO
BACK OF FIELD FROM
IU GAP ROAD WIDTH
VARIES 12 -16 TO BE
USED AS ACCESS
ROAD
PLAN
1 " = 50'
ZONE 1 STREAM BANK & CHANNEL PLANTING (3,000 SF)
ZONE 2 FLOOD PLAIN PLANTING (21,600 SF)
ZONE 3 TRANSITION / UPLAND PLANTING (3,200 SF)
OTHER DISTURBED AREAS MULCH & SEED
O,y
le
FNGINE��.
�g
Prq d N
113112
Data
9/25/09
Flb Name
PLANTING PLAN dwG
DESIGNED ri1H
DRAWN liui
APPROVED EGG.
D—ng No
6 of 13

E
0
0
In
0)
O
O
N
O
O
Ot
3
v
n
0
Z
Z
a
J
/
Ih
J
5
U
D
ll
U
v
3
3
0
V)
N
M
U
O
L
C,
PLANT LIST
Woody e e a Ion
Common Nome
ONE 2
Scientific Name
Percent
(�)
Plant
Motenol
size
Quantity
Lhd— e-Fgy
to
B Rod
TBD
P Nmmo
7
Ban R of
TBD
SOW &"-d
C— nA+nlarr
20
Ba R d
TBD
0
20
Lrn t b
TBD
�°
IS
D Tong
P_ Cb1*�N
MbN
1,,,n,/noa imro .ane
S
Bo R t
TSD
Redb d
Coda covoaMrAb
e
B R l
TEO
Fbv b rtb
6Yfrh
7
B II ti Bftp
T13D
Dex
/bcr4aw. damaetax
Ba Root
iB0
T r
/i bohnotm
13
B R t
TBD
0 mh
fYmr+
12
k R t
T80
w mk
100
12
B n Root
TBD
B1
,$.kvb-
13
B
Sxmn dt R t oak
Gmcav /KCMa+'
13
P nimm
�w -01; a
13
Plot ry aee o-Mf
12
Sw-tp pp bush
Cbft-
1
TBD—To BE DETERLrNM
PLANTING TYPICAL
z
LL
M
LL
LL
LL
2
C
'D
v_
C
V
L
C
C
ee 1Xes
Common Name
Scientific Nome
Percent
Appllcatlo
Rate
(Ib /oc)
Permanent M x
t t
Rwh
Redt p
.Llooato amo
1s
F 9
0
'S "t R h'�
�°
S
D Tong
P_ Cb1*�N
10
S. ft ad
n0 R—
5
ry*
liana f..Ad a
5
L Lnof d con P I
ci—p* ".ab(
P rt fd0 P.
C— &— hN
tm
Tem o S ee d
Ry Orai ( 1 1 G
.SYMY cwud
100
1JS
P P f4 mm
9x/RFab ivnaao
100
40
ZONE 2 FLOODPLAIN
TO BE PLANTED
ZONE 1 TO BE PLANTED
STREAMBANKS
TO BE PLANTED
NOTES
1 ZONE WIDTHS SHOULD BE
APPROXIMATED BY SCALING
OFF OF THE PLANTING PLAN VIEWS
ZONE 3
TRANSITION /UPLAND
TO BE PLANTED
(CORRESPOND WITH
CHANGE IN SLOPE)
oa
U
00
w Z
oM
W w
Sl
' M42-1
11 111111 �
u
c to
O1 Co
C Co
c a� E
CD
w $ x'08
tov
Q 11 -t ;!
fYa g Z w v°i m
m N M M
m 05 Co .0
m mc°v > 0
x
E
Q)
I- Co o N L 07
r2 hQdlL
0 J
w Q
w
a U
to ^
w In
Q z
� J
� O
m_ LY
� U
V
`1 = Z
w
w � —
o
U Z
0 Z
Q
Z CL
C0
Eg
L
iH2 �
t -E 3'
w
�E
N
P olect No
113112
D to
9/25/09
F I N me --
PLANTING Sh 7 dwg
DESIGN- ED M
DRAWN B1t1
APPROVED MS
D ewtng N
7 of 13

SEED MULCH &
MAT CASCADE
SIDE SLOPES
AND BESIDE
BOTTOM LINING
BANKFULL CHANNEL
9 9 WIDE
CF 700 45
6 TRENCH EROSION
3 - CONTROL
1 STAKE MATTING (SEE
(NP) DETAIL ON
SHEET 10)
3
1
� p
09
SLOPE SO AS TO 1 MIN OF BED MATERIAL CASCADE
TIE IN TO EXISTING TRANSPLANTED FROM 0000 0 0
GROUND AT VALLEY OLD CHANNEL MIXED
GRADING LIMITS W/CLASS 1 RIPRAP
SHAPE BED AS
DEPICTED TO KEEP
THALWEG IN CENTER
NOTE ENTIRE LENGTH OF TYPICAL CASCADE SECTION
CHANNEL TO BE ROCK —LINED UNNAMED TRIBUTARY 3 - REACH 2
AS SHOWN EXCEPT POOLS NOT TO SCALE
BANKFULL CHANNEL
9 9 WIDE
PROPOSED
ELEVATION
ON PROFILE
SLOPE SO AS TO
TIE IN TO
EXISTING GROUND
AT VALLEY
GRADING LIMITS
u
c c8
m �
C N
C
m la
d C
O
28.8
W `� U –
f?
m o z"�
m ° N��
mao0oa
ca O N> m W E
2
0 ti tv3 O X
U
w
a
O
U
w CU
aZ
powr^
(n U vJ
~ J
LU
w
w °U
cr_z
U ^^
00
O t—
z
U
Drw ing No
8 of 13
NOTE SCOUR POOLS TO BE EXCAVATED (SEE
PROFILE) WITHIN THE SAME TYPICAL SECTION
" Q
CHANNEL TOP WIDTH WILL REMAIN THE SAME
BUT
to
CHANNEL SIDE SLOPES WILL STEEPEN TO A
MAXIMUM OF 1 5 1 TO ACCOMMODATE THE
ADDITIONAL DEPTH BELOW STRUCTURES
id g N
dD
p
\
/
I
SEE PROFILE°
\ EXCAVATE SCOUR POOLS
FOR SCOUR
�
\ BELOW STRUCTURES /
15 1 MAX
POOL
G$
w
SEED MULCH &
\ /
SIDE SLOPES
IN RTS
MAT POOL SIDE
\ \ / /
POOLSCOUR
CARO��•,�
SLOPES
—
,���•��N�
�� 5104, y1 ��i�
Pr jodN
113112
wroTH 2cou�
�.��
oFES
9l
L
�� 9/25/09
TYPICAL SCOUR POOL SECTION
=
� �
Fla Noma
X SECTIONS dwg
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY 3 - REACH
2
F*GINE�� �,.�`�
DESIGNED QLti
NOT TO SCALE
'p?9�� I -
APPROVED
Drw ing No
8 of 13

E
co
0
M
m
0
L
LO
N
rn
3
J
0
o!
z
0
U
z
0
In
0
D_
0
M
J
5
a
U
a
0
c
_M
U
O
o.
J
PROPOSED
STREAM
CENTERLINE
(SEE TYP
SECTION)
BACKFILL
EXISTING
STREAM
CHANNEL
PLUG
EXISTING SILT FENCE
CHANNEL
(SEE DETAIL)--1 �,��
END OF
RESTORATION REACH
(END OF PROJECT)
SMALL ROOTWAD R
SHED v(iw) ��
TEMPORARY
CHECK DAM
® END OF
PROPOSED r f
CHANNEL
TO BE
HOUSE REMOVED a,�
BEFORE
WATER IS
DIVERTED
SILT FENCE
START
RESTORATION
PLUG REACH
EXISTING
CHANNEL
(SEE DETAIL)
PROPOSED
STREAM
STAGING CENTERLINE
AREA (SEE TYP
#' SECTION)
PROTECT
SILT FENCE EXISTING LOD
SHED
HARVEST BACKFILL LOD LO
BED EXISTING
MATERIAL STREAM
FROM EXIST CHANNEL `
CHANNEL & (APPROX CTAGING\
\I
MOVE TO LOCATION) AREA
RESTORATION
REAC(
I\
n 1
(DON T �O
STOCKPILE Q `
%+ TEMPORARY J
A STOCKPILE
O AREA
/mss
.�/ CASCADE TYP)
'Sx
s )
O
a cil /' ✓ ALL CHANNEL
/i BANKS TO BE
/ SEEDED &
MATTED PER
TYPICAL
SECTIONS
\\ GRAVEL DRIVEWAY TO
BACK OF FIELD FROM
IU GAP ROAD WIDTH
VARIES 12 -16 TO BE
USED AS ACCESS
ROAD
- TEMPORARY MUDMAT PLAN
CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE 1 " = 50'
EXISTING
STREAM-
PROTECT EXISTING
AROp
Pt„ND SPRING HOUSE AND
tN� VINYL WATER LINES
D� OX \�
0 /
.c.
DRY
DITCH
EXTRA FILL
AREA FOR
BALANCING
,rSITE
� Oa
LIMITS OF
DISTURBANCE
Note See Sheets 6 & 7 for
Planting Plan & Details
- o
r
z
m
m
r oco E
0
U 3;!s
8
f 0.::! p
O
Y U
a
CO
g zWAY
co 00 m
z N0 l9
w mN >wc"E
x
2 )L o x
U Q
O J
EL
U)
LLJ z �
O
U
Y
W
Z Z
o O
U)
O
o or_
°' LL]
0
gill,
nrry,
AROZ'fl P o�n No
$I N '9
D to
AL � 9/25/09
DESIGNED jiLH
DRAWN ➢lli
APPROVED W.
]rawing No
9 of 13

u
c � —
0
m �
CAR0',O aCi m
s 'g -SS14 •y E -0 `m v 8
AL _ $ - o
♦� N Z00 uy
°•goy FNGINE` ��.�• mo a� o GGo a
T —POSTS SHALL BE 1 33 y.q�„ y , `_�� r = m iu is
LB /LF STEEL WITH A lJ� ;((/ /per(` �U-, r
U)
MINIMUM LENGTH OF 5
FEET AND SHALL BE
CONSTRUCTED SO AS TO - -
ALLOW FOR FASTENING OF g MAX WITH WIRE
THE FABRIC
(6 MAX WITHOUT WIRE
WIRE OR PLASTIC ZIP TIES REQUIRES USE OF EXTRA
WITH A MINIMUM TENSILE STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC)
STRENGTH OF 50 LB SHALL (4 MAX WITHOUT WIRE `tiG
BE USED TO CONSTRUCT NORMAL STRENGTH 6
THE FENCE FILTER FABRIC) o MYN
MESH CONSISTING OF 6 MIN
14 GAGE WIRE AT MAX 0
SPACING OF 6 x6 2 -3 COARSE AGGREGATE fop
GG�SS uj
GEOTEXTILE UNDERLINER P��� P -�
a
w a
K Cn Z
NOTES
1) EXISTING ACCESS ROAD CAN BE USED BUT MUST m ¢ -
BE REPAIRED AND MAINTAINED f5 v
FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE 2) UPON COMPLETION ENTRANCES WILL BE F_ wZ
STANDARD OR EXTRA RETURNED TO PRE - EXISTING CONDITION LU 00
STRENGTH SYNTHETIC FIBER 3) MUD TRACKED ONTO STATE ROADS SHALL BE v z (n
CERTIFIED BY THE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY Q
WIRE MES MANUFACTURER TO COMPLY U TONE SHALL BE REPLACED IF IT IS FILLED WITH
MD W
WITH MATERIAL
FILTER FABRIC REQUIREMENTS IN ASTM O
STANDARDS D 6461 4632 Z
4491 4751 AND 4355
MECHANICALLY COMPACTED FILL
2 PASSES OF A COMPACTION DEVICE
EXERTING AT LEAST 60 LB /SQ IN ON
BOTH SIDES OF FENCE FENCE HEIGHT idt 10
MAX 24 NOTES 1 Q
RUNOFF ABOVE GROUND 1) AVOID JOINTS UNAVOIDABLE
DIRECTION —� JOINTS MUST HAVE 4 FEET OF
CLOTH OVERLAP AND SHOULD TIE
_ INTO THE NEXT ADJACENT POST
w�
2) PLACE ON CONTOUR EXCEPT S U.
g , , I I� I I ENDS WHICH SHOULD BE 1 ABOVE
GRADE TO PREVENT CUT AROUND
POST DEPTH 3) WRAP APPROX 6 OF FABRIC
4 24 MINIMUM AROUND END POSTS AND SECURE
FILTER FABRIC WITH TIES
pmla<7 No
4) REMOVE ONCE AREA IS STABLE 113112
Det
9/25/09
File Nam
113112 DETAILS dwg
DESIGNED ow
DRAWN Dw
1 SILT FENCE 2 CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE ��D
D awing 0 NO
10 NOT TO SCALE 10 NOT TO SCALE 10 of 13

C t0
1A 00
\ \ \\ \111► /►► /�, � N
P ; �o��� CAROI�y.,., io
25 MAN c �oEES ►0* . a
to
_ L 7'2
� � rt'o•- a
• Y OCYO
C
,,,y9l!F cI E mo m GO CO w
6 TRENCH �'J� ��y r = 'm 0 E
TOP OF BANK [[[[ n = t c
P
� nipQd
EROSION CONTROL MATTING THE WOOD STAKE SHALL BE
12 IN NORTH AMERICAN EXISTING W EXISTING CHANNEL PLUGGED
STAKE TOE OF STREAMBANK GREEN ECO -STAKE OR CHANNEL FAO - WITH COMPACTED FILL
(TYP) APPROVED EQUIVALENT -
CHANNEL BED MATERIAL
(SEE TYPICAL SECTIONS)
PROPOSED OFF -LINE PLAN VIEW
CHANNEL FILL REMAINDER OF
c
POOL /CASCADE SECTION VIEW UNCOMPACTED TOPSOIL EXISTING CHANNEL
SEE TYPICAL SECTIONS 02 MINIMUM FINISHED GRADE
FOR STREAMBANK
SLOPE AND TREATMENT - _ _- - -- - --
NOTES -- -- - - - -- - -"
1) BANKS SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF MATTING
2) MATTING SHALL BE PLACED ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS COMPACTED SELECT SECTION A —A F-
3) MATTING SHALL BE STAKED IN DIAMOND PATTERN EXISTING FILL FREE OF w 0
4) AT TOP OF BANK MATTING SHALL BE PLACED IN 6 DEEP TRENCH STAKED BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED STREAM BED DEBRIS o
a
1 COIR MATTING 2 CHANNEL PLUG C0 J
Z
W
11 NOT TO SCALE 11 NOT TO SCALE ¢ J z
m � z
MR FIBER MATTING TOP OF BANK
FLOOD PLAIN OR VEGETATED GEDLIFT U
LLI
'K7 sANxFu � 0 1
U Z
BASEFLOW o
0
z uJ
U) 0
FLOW 18 NOMINAL INSTALLED BELOW2STREEAAM BED NOTE
THICKNESS SHARPEN POINT METHOD
HEAD OF 10 -15 FEET LONG SHARPEN THE END Of THE LOG WITH A CHAINSAYI BEFORE DRIVING
ON -SITE COARSE >10 DIAMETER IT INTO THE BANK ORIENT ROOT WADS UPSTREAM SO THAT THE
RIFFLE ALLUVIUM EROSION STREAM FLOW MEETS THE ROOT WAD AT A 90- DEGREE ANGLE DEFLECTING
B �B MIXED WITH CONTROL THE WATER AWAY FROM THE BANK A TRANSPLANT OR BOULDER SHOULD 1�
CROSS SECTION VIEW BE PLACED ON THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF THE ROOT WAD IF A BACK EDDY �}
MATTING IS FORMED BY THE ROOT WAD THE BOULDER SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY
CLASS A STONE 4 X 3 X 2 m
xx W CLASS 1 TRENCHING METHOD m
EN TH OF G KEYSTONES /1 IF THE RODT WAD CANNOT BE DRIVEN INTO THE BANK OR THE BANK NEEDS
RIFF E 2 TO BE RECONSTRUCTED THE TRENCHING METHOD SHOULD BE USED THIS CI
EE PLAN 11 Lo" METHOD REQUIRES THAT A TRENCH BE EXCAVATED FOR THE LOG d
D.3 \ \ PORTION OF THE ROOT WAD IN THIS CASE A FOOTER LOG SHOULD BE 2 1�
LrJ a e�_I �, 9.4 V INSTALLED UNDERNEATH LL BELOW THE D IN ABED ONE EXCAVATED T EL m $
e ROOT WAD SHOULD REMAIN BELOW NORMAL BASE FLOW CONDITIONS a bl
m ° S. PROFILE A -A SECTION B -B
LL to
L, L. N
O ^ Ld N
O O ROOT WAD ROOT
WAD
PLAN VIEW BOULDER FOOTER LOG Project No
PLAN VIEW 113112
Date
DRIVE POINT METHOD PLAN VIEW 9/25/09
TRENCHING METHOD F to Name
113112Detads dwg
DESIGNED aw
DRAWN Qw
3 CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE CASCADE 4 ROOTWAD APPROVED
Draw R9 E
1 1 NOT TO SCALE 1 1 NOT TO SCALE 11 of 13

U
_r x
I
J J ,4114111.1 /III [ N
FLOW °���`�oEESS 0`y/y�''. o ao E
x
1n o
ER L' _rA PLAN VIEW L� W o �av o
BODLOM
0 0 �i
STREAM°EO OR Ld W �S ( J ,� m 0 Z N M Y
I CULVDR nncRT L� (­;,,L.N G BASIN cD %� �'GINF -� Roa MN W 1 FT MAX DEPTH) w ,'���9 �D ; 4�Qj` O = N ) 04 E CLASS A STONE /d L / 2 0) 5 L° x CC
aF ( rn� rm
njow— r- v) o lr
FOOTER FILTER FABRIC
RTER LIINOE
FOa CLASS 1 STONE
1Ea PROFILE VIEW B -B NOTES
1) CLEAN OUT STILLING
L
Pool BASIN OF TRAPPED
ON SITE POOL SEDIMENT PRIOR TO
ALIUVI REMOVAL
�BWI( WRH WTIl10 1
A 45 i I 211 �21 T
-I ( I HEAODT FLOW- 1p�Q1 1 0 MIN
IIIIIIIiII e3 1111111
,r III =III =
PLAN VIEW CLASS A STONE
FILTER FABRIC
CLASS A STONE SECTION A-
R
CROSS - SECTION A -A eta
w W
O
a
2 CHECK DAM w H
BOULDER STEP 2 NOT TO SCALE z V
2 NOT TO SCALE F
�O
I E �
M
1/3 BOTTOM 1/3 BOTTOM TOP OF STREAMBANK / BANKFULL ELEVATION U
WIDTH OF WIDTH OF !
CHANNEL CHANNEL
TOE
IS 15 �•� t t (1 U LLJ
Z
BANK D HEADER LOG 0.75
2/3
TO 1 BANKFULL (L' Q
20 70 3o FLOW LOG BURIED IN STREAMBANK
FLOW O o AT LEAST 8
r
30 RIEO I FLOW _.� 4r TO 107L SL O O STREAMED " O W
'l m Z cf) 0
S7REAMBED ELEVATION
BACKFlLL ON -SITE ALLUVIUM
FOOTER OR LOGS PROFILE VIEW
< I FILTER FABRIC CLASS A/B STONE R POOL 16 ;
m EXCAVATED) T F
x SECTION A - A Z E,
NO GAPS PROFILE VIEW ]U LTER FABRIC SHALL EXTEND AT LEAST 6 UPSTREAM m
BETWEEN AND SHALL BE NAILED TO LOG USING ROOFING NAJLS
BOULDERS �-
u BURY FILTER FABRIC WITH MATERIAL EXCAVATED FROM m
CHANNEL NOTES, g
m 1 LOG SHALL BE A HARDWOOD SPECIES AT LEAST DD
12 DIAMETER RELATIVELY STRAIGHT AND RECENTLY
SCOUR HARVESTED
POOL � EXCAVAT MIN 10 DIA POST DRIVEN
SCOUR INTO SOIL AT LEAST 3 BELOW LOG 2 MULTIPLE SMALLER LOGS (MIN DIA 8 ) MAY BE it
SCOUR POOL EXCAVATED HEADER ROCK mo OL
WITH
PER DIRECTION of ENGINEER � SUBSTITUTED FOR A SINGLE LOG IF JOINED #4
REBAR BENT TO SECURE LOGS TOGETHER o
PLAN VIEW BACI(FlLL @7 -SITE ALLUVIUM LOG BURIED IN STREAMBANK 3 SOIL SHALL BE WELL COMPACTED AROUND
FILTER FABRIC BURIED PORTIONS OF LOG A
NOTES FOR ALL VA:E STRICTURES.
1 BOULDERS MUST BE AT LEAST 4 3 2 EDGIER ROCK
2 INS TEERR FABRIC rFOuRR DRAWAGE BEGINNING AT THE MIDDLE OF THE HEADER 1 -2
ROCKS AND EXTEND DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER ROCK AND CLASS A/B STONE Proled No
THEN UPSTREAM TO A MINIMUM OF TEN FEET L MINIMUM
3 OK: A TRENCH BELOW THE BID FOR FOOTER ROCKS AND PLACE FILL ON UPSTREAM 113112
SIDE OF VANE ARMS BETWEEN THE ARMS AND STREAMBANK
4 START AT RANK AND PLACE FOOTER ROCKS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) ROCK BOULDER Dale
g5 CMTINUE WITH STRUCTURE FOLLOYANC ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFlCAnONS. SECTION A - A BURIED IN BANK 9/25/09
7
USE CLRA55 B STONE TO FBlll C�5 OH U�PSTaREAM SIOEOOF ABI IDERSPAND CUSS A
STONE To FILL CAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF CLASS B STONE END VIEW File N me
B AFTER AL ONE HAS BEEN N LACED ELEVATION OF TUPSTREAM P OF SIDE OF lHE
HEADER ROCK STRUCTURE PLAN 113112Detalls dwg
PLAN VIEW MULTIPLE LOGS OPTION
DESIGNED L71ti
DRAWN D1 H
3 GRADE CONTROL J -HOOK LOG VANE tl 4 SINGLE ARM LOG VANE APPROVED 1>>G
DrevAnD No
2 NOT TO SCALE 12 NOT TO SCALE 12 of 13

CLASS I RIPRAP
STILLING BASIN & SPECIAL STILLING BASIN (SEE
SPLASH PAD (SEE DETAIL BELOW)
DETAIL THIS
SHEET)
I)E PAM OR APPROVED FLOC
AGENT DOSING AT RATE
SPECIFIED BY PROVIDER FOR
TROUT WATERS CHECK DOSING
ACCURACY ON DAILY BASIS
IMPERVIOUS DI E / /DEWATERING PUMP
(SEE DETAIL BELO )
\ TEMPORARY
FLEXIBLE
HOSE
STING
ANNEL WORKING AREA
TEMPORARY
PIPING
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
(SEE PROJECT
SPECIAL
PUMP AROUND PUMP PROVISIONS)
D�
SANDBAG /STONE
BASEFLOW
WORKING
AREA FLOW
IMPERVIOUS SHEET
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
A •► li •► A cat
RNFRAWLIMMEVOWIff
1 INSTALL CLASS 1 RIPRAP STILLING BASIN & SPLASH PAD AT
THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE DESIGNATED PROJECT WORKING
AREA
2 THE CONTRACTOR WILL INSTALL THE PUMP AROUND AND THE
TEMPORARY PIPING THAT WILL CONVEY THE BASE FLOW FROM
UPSTREAM OF THE WORK SITE
3 INSTALL UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE IF NEEDED AND BEGIN
PUMPING OPERATIONS FOR STREAM DIVERSION
4 INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE AND PUMPING
APPARATUS IF NEEDED TO DEWATER THE ENTRAPPED AREA THE
PUMP AND HOSE FOR THIS PURPOSE SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT
SIZE TO DEWATER THE WORK AREA THIS WATER WILL FLOW INTO
A SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
5 THE CONTRACTOR WILL PERFORM STREAM RESTORATION WORK
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN AND FOLLOWING THE GENERAL
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
6 THE CONTRACTOR HALL DEWATER & EXCAVATE ANY
ACCUMULATED SILT REMOVE PUMPS AND TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE
HOSE /PIPING STARTING WITH THE DOWNSTREAM DIKE FIRST
7 ONCE THE WORKING AREA IS COMPLETED REMOVE THE
STILLING BASINS AND STABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS WITH SEED
AND MULCH
GROUND
FILTER FABRIC FOR
DRAINAGE TYPE 2
(NON — WOVEN)
CLASS
NOTES,
1 EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ONLY DRY
SECTIONS OF CHANNEL
2 IMPERVIOUS DIKES SHOULD BE USED TO ISOLATE WORK
AREAS FROM STREAM FLOW
3 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE AREA
THAN CAN BE STABILIZED IN ONE WORKING DAY
4 THE PUMP AROUND PUMP SHOULD ADEQUATELY
CONVEY 5 CFS
5 PROVIDE CLASS 1 RIPRAP STILLING BASIN SPLASH
PAD AND STABILZED OUTLET TO STREAM BANK
PUMP AROUND OPERATION
NOT TO SCALE
J
U
C O
O
CD o0
t N
C
m
O a0 8
t U�
W �
i U
c Z Y N T O m a
s 5
roc" E
cti I� �L o X
� n to IL
EXISTING GROUND SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
15 TO 20
12 MIN CLASS A STONE
15 MIN
FILTER FABRIC FOR
DRAINAGE TYPE 2 SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
DRAI
(NON — WOVEN)
TOP OF
STREAM BANK
PROVIDE STABILIZED
OUTLET TO STREAM
BANK
� � m
m�a �
Project N
113112
Date
9/25/09
F le Na.
113112Detatls dwg
DESIGNED 2w
DRAWN Dw
APPROVED* Ic
D wngN
13 of 13
►-
U)
12 MIN CLASS A STONE
U
LLI
J
TOP OF
STREAM BANK
O
Q
PROVIDE STABILIZED
[L-
0 UTLET TO STREAM
BANK
W
W
Q
Q
z
15 TO 20 15 M1N
m
0
Z
¢
�
U
RIPRAP STILLING BASIN & SPLASH PAD
Y
:]z
O
Lu
v
z
Q
o
Ly-
0
z
U)
EXISTING GROUND SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
15 TO 20
12 MIN CLASS A STONE
15 MIN
FILTER FABRIC FOR
DRAINAGE TYPE 2 SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
DRAI
(NON — WOVEN)
TOP OF
STREAM BANK
PROVIDE STABILIZED
OUTLET TO STREAM
BANK
� � m
m�a �
Project N
113112
Date
9/25/09
F le Na.
113112Detatls dwg
DESIGNED 2w
DRAWN Dw
APPROVED* Ic
D wngN
13 of 13