20072133 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20071213

RESTORATION PLAN
Prepared for:
NCDENR-Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capital Blvd., Suite 1 H 103
Raleigh, NC 27604
Foos stem
.~
PROGRAM
07-2133
b'
~ 1 v 2007
~~~a~ - wArEI~ c~WALI~
'~n.+wo~.~~o sr~?~ar~
December 2007
Glade Creek Stream Restoration

' Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. .. 5
1.0 Project Site Identification and Location ..............................................................................
1.1 Directions to Project Site .................................................................................................... .. 7
.. 7
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations ............................. .. 7

' 1.3 Project Vicinity Map ...........................................................................................................
2.0 Watershed Characterization ................................................................................................. .. 7
.. 8
2.1 Drainage Area ..................................................................................................................... .. 8

' 2.2 Surface Water Classification /Water Quality .....................................................................
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils ....................................................................................... .. 8
.. 8
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends ................................................................... .. 9
' 2.5 Endangered /Threatened Species .......................................................................................
2.6 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................. .. 9
13
2.7 Potential Constraints ........................................................................................................... 14
' 2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary ..............................................................................
2.7.2 Site Access ................................................................................................................... 14
14
2.7.3 Utilities ......................................................................................................................... 14
2.7.4 FEMA /Hydrologic Trespass ......................................................................................
2.7.Sa. Beaver Pond and Design Approach .......................................................................... 14
14
2.7.Sb. Research on Beaver Activity and Stream/Riparian Zone Ecology ........................... 15
3.0 Project Site Streams (existing conditions) ........................................................................... 16
I 3.1 Channel Classification ........................................................................................................ 16
3.2 Discharge ............................................................................................................................ 16
3.3 Channel Morphology (pattern, dimension, profile) ............................................................
3.4 Channel Stability Assessment ............................................................................................. 17
18
3.5 Bankfull Verification .......................................................................................................... 18
' 3.6 Vegetation ...........................................................................................................................
4.0 Reference Stream ................................................................................................................. 19
20
4.1 Watershed Characterization ................................................................................................ 20
4.2 Channel Classification ........................................................................................................ 20
4.3 Discharge (bankfull, trends) ................................................................................................ 20
4.4 Channel Morphology (pattern, dimension, profile) ............................................................ 20
4.5 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................... 21
1 5.0 Project Site Wetlands (existing conditions) ......................................................................... 22
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands ....................................................................................................... 22
5.2 Soil Characterization ........................................................................................................... 22
1 5.3 Plant Community Characterization ..................................................................................... 22
6.0 Project Site Restoration Plan ............................................................................................... 23
6.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives ........................................................................... 23
6.1.1 Designed Channel Classification ................................................................................. 23
6. ] .2 Designed Channel Structures ....................................................................................... 23
6.1.3 Target Buffer Communities ......................................................................................... 23
6.2 Sediment Transport Analysis .............................................................................................. 24
6.2.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 24
1 6.2.2 Calculations and Discussion ........................................................................................ 25
6.3 HEC-RAS Analysis ............................................................................................................ 26
6.3.1 No-rise, LOMR, CLOMR ............................................................................................ 26
' 6.4 Soil Restoration ................................................................................................................... 26
6.6.1 Topsoil Salvage, Soil Testing and Nutrient Amendments ........................................... 26
3

6.5 Natural Plant Community Restoration ................................................................................ 27
6.5.1 Narrative & Plant Community Restoration .................................................................. 27
6.5.2 On-site Invasive Species Management ........................................................................ 27
7.0 Performance Criteria ............................................................................................................ 28
7.1 Streams ................................................................................................................................ 28
7.2 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................... 28
7.3 Schedule /Reporting ........................................................................................................... 28
8.0 References ............................................................................................................................ 29
9.0 Tables ................................................................................................................................... 32
Table 1. Project Restoration Structure and Objectives ...................................................... 32
Table 2. Drainage Areas ......................................................................................................... 32
Table 3. Land Use of Watershed ........................................................................................... 32
Table 4. Morphological Table ................................................................................................ 33
Table 5. BEHI/NBS and Sediment Export Estimate for Project Site Streams ................. 34
Table 6. Designed Vegetative Communities (by Zone) ........................................... 35
10.0 Figures
Figure 1. Project Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Site Watershed Map
Figure 3. Project Site NRCS Soil Survey Map
Figure 4. Project Site Hydrological Features and Wetland Delineation Map
Figure 5. Reference Site Vicinity Map
Figure 6. Reference Site Watershed Map
Figure 7. Reference Site NRCS Soil Survey Map
Figure 8. Reference Site Vegetative Communities Map
11.0 Designed Sheets
Sheet 1. Cover
Sheet 2. Designed Channel Alignment
Sheet 3. Geometry
Sheet 4. Longitudinal Profile
Sheet 5. Longitudinal Profile
Sheet 6. Restoration Plan
Sheet 7. Restoration Plan
Sheet 8. Restoration Plan
Sheet 9. Restoration Plan
Sheet 10. Restoration Plan
Sheet 11. Restoration Plan
Sheet 12. Details
Sheet 13. Details
Sheet 14. Details
Sheet 15. Typical Cross Sections
Sheet 16. Planting Plan
12.0 Appendices
Appendix 1. Project Site Photographs
Appendix 2. Project Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms
Appendix 3. Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix 4. HEC-RAS Analysis
Appendix 5. EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
4

i ®~_.~~,
i~
' Executive Summary
The project site and easement is located on the Steven Faw property (PIN # 3999252005), at 541 Dewitt
Road, approximately 4 miles south of Sparta, North Carolina. The project reaches include the portion of
Glade Creek that flows through the Faw property as well as an unnamed tributary that flows through the
property and exits the property just before its confluence with Glade Creek. The total existing channel
' length on Glade Creek is 2,569 feet (thalweg) based on survey data and stationing. The unnamed
tributary (UT) to Glade Creek is 1,088 feet long based on the survey. There is 0.17 acre of wetland that
has been delineated beside the main channel of Glade Creek and 0.16 acre of wetland that has been
delineated on the upper section of the UT, for a total of 0.33 acre of delineated wetland on the project site.
Glade Creek and the downstream portion of the UT channel are currently unstable, with an over-wide
channel in many areas, mid-channel sediment bars, incised bed and steep, eroding, unvegetated banks
r throughout. Approximately 62% of the Glade Creek channel within the project boundary has a BEHI
rating of High, 33% has a rating of Very High and 5% has a rating of Moderate. The estimated total
sediment export per year for the Glade Creek reach is 619 tons, based on the Rosgen (2004) sediment
export curves. The entire proposed restoration reach of the unnamed tributary has a BEHI rating of Very
High, and the estimated total sediment export per year for the reach is 72 tons. The pervasive extent of
high BEHI scores indicates that the channel is widening and migrating throughout most of the project
reaches. Approximately 70% of the channel on Glade Creek had bank height ratios (BHR) of 2 or more
and all of the channel proposed for restoration on the UT has a BHR of >2. A bank height ratio greater
than two indicates a highly erosive condition for stream banks by definition, so field review of the
channel indicates that it has experienced extensive incision and entrenchment. These conditions will
become stabilized on their own only through the natural reconfiguration of the channel from bankfull
flows, which takes place over many years and introduces very large amounts of sediment from the bed
' and banks into the stream flow and aquatic habitat as the channel readjusts its geometry and course.
The goals of the project are to:
• Rapidly stabilize the channel of Glade Creek relative to natural process,
• Rapidly stabilize and preserve the channel of the UT relative to natural process,
• Restore and rehabilitate channel features and aquatic habitat in Glade Creek and the UT,
• Rehabilitate the riparian buffer along both streams,
• Preserve the existing wetlands onsite.
1 These goals will be accomplished by designing and constructing a stable plan, profile and dimension for
the stream channels and re-establishing continuous riparian buffers along the banks. Project
implementation will greatly reduce bank erosion and consequently decrease the amount of sediment load
in the stream at flows above baseflow. Restoration level (Rosgen Priority Level II) design is needed on
all but 125 feet (which will be Enhancement I) of the channel on the project, due to unstable channel
geometry, sinuosity and streambank steepness. Structures will be used to enhance holding and feeding
areas for trout. Riparian buffer vegetation will be established to provide food and cover for terrestrial
fauna and to provide a carbon source and shade for aquatic habitat.
Through its Local Watershed Planning initiative, EEP focuses resources in specific 14-digit hydrologic
units -local watersheds - in order to address critical watershed issues. This process involves conducting a
detailed assessment of the condition of the watershed, involving the local community in identifying
solutions to water-quality, habitat and flooding problems, and working to get agreed-upon solutions
implemented within priority sub-watersheds. Stream restoration on Glade Creek will help alleviate two
problems identified in the Local Watershed Plan for the Little River (Phase I) as being sources of water
quality degradation-inadequate riparian buffers and sediment. This project would address both of those
1 problems by stabilizing the severely eroding stream banks onsite and establishing a permanent riparian
buffer on them.

1

1
1
1
1
1
i

1
To meet the goals listed above, the proposed objectives for Glade Creek are to perform Priority II
Restoration on approximately 2,430 linear feet (LF) and stabilize 125 LF with Enhancement I design.
Please note that a 25-foot section of channel underneath the existing bridge was excluded from the
proposed restoration total, although channel profile and dimension will be reconfigured and stabilized.
The proposed objectives for the UT are to perform Restoration on approximately 275 LF and Preserve
788 LF. All the wetlands onsite will be preserved with the proposed project (see Table 1).
Table 1. Existin Site Stream and Wetlands and Pro osed Miti ation
Reach Existing Restoration
(Priority I>n Enhancement
I Preservation Mitigation Row Totals
Glade Creek 2,569 2,430 125 2,555*
Un. Trib. 1,088 275 788 1,063**
Column Totals 3,370 2,705 125 788 3,400

Wetlands*** 0.33 ac 0.33 ac
*25 feet of channel underneath the bridge were excluded from mitigation potential.
**The restoration on the UT will actually shorten the UT channel by 25 feet.
***All the delineated wetlands onsite will be preserved with the proposed project.
6

X74 ~ 13;:3
' 1.0 Pro'ect Site Identification and Location
J
The project site and easement is located on the Steven Faw property (PIN # 3999252005), at 541 Dewitt
Road, approximately 4 miles south of Sparta, North Carolina. The project reaches include the portion of
Glade Creek that flows through the Faw property as well as an unnamed tributary that flows through the
' property and exits the property just before its confluence with Glade Creek. The total existing channel
length on Glade Creek is 2,550 feet (thalweg) based on survey data and stationing. The unnamed
tributary to Glade Creek is 1,088 feet long based on the survey. The latitude and longitude of the midpoint
of the restored mainstem is 1392171.90N, 995691.64E using the NAD83 coordinate system. For the
tributary section the coordinates are 1392799.71N, 995076.13E. For the wetland on Glade Creek the
coordinates for the approximate center are 1392253.65N, 995752.46E
1.1 Directions to Project Site
i The project site is located in Alleghany County, North Carolina, approximately 4 miles southeast of
the town of Sparta. From the south and east, the site can be accessed by exiting Interstate 77 North at
the US 21 Bypass exit in Elkin and traveling 23.1 miles to Dewitt Road, turning left on Dewitt Road
' and traveling 0.7 miles to the site entrance on the left at 541 Dewitt Road. From the north and west,
proceed south on US 21 4 miles to Dewitt Road, turn right and proceed 0.7 miles to 541 Dewitt Road
on the left.
1.2 IISGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations
Glade Creek is located in the USGS 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code 05050001, and in the
05050001030020 14-digit Code. The N.C. Division of Water Quality stream index number for Glade
Creek is 10-9-9. This stream is classified as Class C trout water.
1.3 Project Vicinity Map
See Figure 1 (Section 10).

' 2.0 Watershed Characterization
' The Glade Creek watershed is located in a rural area of a sparsely populated county. County land area is
235 square miles. The population of Alleghany County as of the 2000 Census was ] 0,677, rendering a
population density of 45 persons per square mile, approximately 23 percent of the state average of l 65
' persons per square mile. The average temperature is 50.1 degrees Fahrenheit, the average annual rainfall
is 46 inches and the average annual snowfall is 17 inches. (Alleghany County Demographics,
http://eal leghany.net/main/demographics/)
' 2.1 Drainage Area
The drainage area of the main channel of Glade Creek at the downstream end of the project is 2,922
' acres (4.6 mi') and the drainage area of the unnamed tributary at the downstream end of the project is
approximately 521 acres (0.8 mi2), for a total watershed area of approximately 3,443 acres (5.4 mi').
The area within the conservation easement or project area itself is approximately 12 acres.
2.2 Surface Water Classification /Water Quality
Glade Creek is located in the USGS 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code 05050001, and in the
05050001030020 14-digit Code. The N.C. Division of Water Quality stream index number for Glade
Creek is 10-9-9. This stream is classified as a Class C trout water.
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils
Alleghany County is located in northwestern North Carolina, and its northern border is with Virginia.
The county is located entirely within the Appalachian Mountains region of western North Carolina.
Most of the county is located atop a rolling plateau that ranges from 2,500 feet to 3,000 feet above sea
level. The Glade Creek watershed is part of the area, and is underlain by sedimentary and
metamorphic rock from the late Proterozoic Period, clastic metasedimentary rock, and mafic and
felsic metavolcanic rock of the Ashe Metamorphic Suite, Tallulah Falls Formation and Alligator Back
Formation, gneiss, schist, metagraywacke, amphibolite, and calc-silicate granofels (N.C. Geological
Survey, 1985).
The NRCS is currently working on a revision of the soil survey of Alleghany County, and limited
information is available on the Web Soil Survey 2.0 website. However, Biohabitats was able to get
GIS soils information from the 1973 Soil Survey from the State NRCS office and analyze it. The
results for the combined Glade Creek and unnamed tributary watersheds are listed below.
Series Name Acres Percent Series Name Acres Percent
1. Watauga 1 512.0 43.9 8. Fannin 75.1 2.2
2. Chester 550.4 16.0 9. Cordurus 75.0 2.2
3. Porters 411.5 11.9 10. Clifton 73.0 2.1
4. Tus uitee 236.6 6.9 11. Ashe 44.3 1.3
5. Chandler 198.9 5.8 12. Ston Stee Land 22.9 0.7
6. Alluvial land 138.1 4.0 13. Rock Outcro 1.7 0.1
7. Tate 103.5 3.0 14. Gullied Land 1.6 0.0
15. Water 1.6 0.0
TOTALS 3 446.2 100

' By far the most prevalent soil series in the watershed is the Watauga series (44%, Typic Hapludults)
followed by Chester (16%, Typic Hapludults) and Porters (l2%, Typic Dystrudepts) soils. All these
series are upland soils, and no hydric soil is included in the list, although it is assumed that the
alluvial land category may contain hydric soils.
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
The main land use patterns for the Glade Creek watershed upstream of the project are approximately
44% (1,500 ac) Managed Herbaceous Cover (pasture), and 36% (1,226 ac) forested in Mixed Upland
' Forest (see Table 3 in Section 9). A major component of Allegheny County's economic history and
present economy is dairy and livestock production. The high percentage of pasture in the watershed
reflects this economic trend. A major cause of accelerated stream bank erosion can be related to land
' use change (Henderson, 1986). For decades livestock and dairy production has known to compact
soils, increase stornwater runoff and increase sediment loading in stormwater. For example,
overgrazing and soil compaction in the uplands often lead to rill erosion and elevated peak flows
instream. Soil can become compacted by the repeated pressure of moving animals, especially if the
i soil is wet. The combination of soil exposure and compaction can decrease infiltration and increase
surface runoff. If infiltration capacity is severely limited on a large fraction of a catchment, the extra
' runoff can quickly enter streams and generate higher peak flows (Davis, 1977.) The high percentage
of land in the watershed converted to pasture indicates a high potential for non-point source runoff
and pollution to be generated upstream of the site and transported downstream. Only 0.5% of the

' watershed is in cultivated land, the balance of the remaining land being in forest, shrub or herbaceous
cover.

In addition to erosive impacts caused by livestock and dairy production, research has shown that
' stream erosion can be caused by logging done without following Best Management Practices. Rice et
al. (1979) and Burwell (1970) showed that the quantity of sediment produced and delivered to a
stream from a logging site is determined to a large extent by the care taken by the harvesting operator.
' Toews and Moore (1982) reported stream bank erosion was more than 250% greater after logging
than before in clearcut areas where no buffer strips were left. After clearcutting an area where a buffer
strip 5 meters or less was used, streambank erosion increased only 32% over the preharvest rate.
' Logging was historically common throughout the mountains of North Carolina, and based on the
degree of incision of the restoration reach, the Glade Creek watershed was no exception. Best
Management Practices were only developed and mandated for use in the past 20-30 years.
Projected population growth for the state of North Carolina from 2000 to 2006 was 10.1 % while
Allegheny County's population was projected to grow by 3%, indicating a suppressed population and
development growth compared to the state as a whole (N.C. State Demographics, 2007). From the
same data source, the projected growth rate from 2010-2020 was projected to be low, approximately
3%. The population growth for Sparta, NC from 2000-2007 was 2.3% (http://www.bestplaces.net/zip-
code/Sparta_NC-72867500000.aspx). However, there are
2.5 Endangered /Threatened Species
A visual site assessment was conducted by traversing the entire project site. Biohabitats inspected the
site for any indication of suitable habitat for any listed species. Based on the visual assessment
results, Biohabitats determined if the project may affect one or more federally listed species or
designated critical habitats. Prior to the site visit, we obtained an updated species list for Allegheny
County from the US Fish and Wildlife Service web site (http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html).
The USFWS lists the following protected species for Allegheny County:
9

USFWS List of Protected Species in Alleghany County, N.C.
' Common Name Scientific name Fed. Stat us Record Status
Vertebrate:
Allegheny woodrat Neotoma magister FSC Probable/potential
' Appalachian cottontail Sylvilagus obscurus FSC Current
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T (S/A) Current
Eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibii FSC Historic
Golden-winged warbler Yermivora chrysoptera FSC Current
t Hellbender
Kanawha minnow Cryptobranchus allega~ziensis
Phenacobius teretulus FSC
FSC Current
Current
Invertebrate:
Diana fritillary (butterfly) Speye~•ia Jana FSC Current
Grayson crayfish ostracod Ascetocythere cosmeta FSC Historic
Green floater Lasmigona subviridis FSC Current
' Grizzled skipper Pyrgus wyarzdot FSC Current
Midget snaketail Ophiogomphus howei FSC Current
Regal fritillary (butterfly) Speyeria idalia FSC Historic
Vascular Plant:
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC Current
Cuthbert turtlehead Chelone cuthbertii FSC Current
Fen sedge Carex sp. 2 FSC Current
Gray's lily
if
G
' Lilium g~ayi
li
i
S FSC
FSC Current
Hi
i
ray
s sax
rage ax~aga caro
n
ana stor
c
Large-leaved Grass-of- Parnassia grandifolia FSC Current
Parnassus
Sweet pinesap Monot~°opsis odor°ata FSC Obscure
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum FSC Historic
Note: T(S/A) =threatened due to similarity or appearance. A species that is threatened due to similarity
of appearance with other ra re species and is listed for its protection. These species are not biologically
endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
are defined as species under consideration for listing, for which there is Federal Species of Concern (FSC)
insufficient information to
support listing at this time (USFWS, May 2007).
'
Rare, threatened and endan gered species listed by the N.C. Natural Her itage Program (NHP) for the U.S.
Geological Survey Glade Valley 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle are presented in the list below.

' 10

1

N.C. l~Tatural Heritage Program List of Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
Major Scientific Name Common Name State Status Federal
Grou Status
Invertebrate Pyrgus wyandot Appalachian SR FSC
Animal Checkered-Skipper
Natural Southern Appalachian Bog (northern None None None
Community subtype)
Nonvascular Macrocoma sullivatii Sullivant's Maned- SR-D None
Plant moss
Nonvascular Orthotrichum keeverae Keever's Bristle-moss E None
Plant
Vascular Calamagrostis canadensis Canada Reed Grass SR-P None
Plant
Vascular Carex leptonervia A Wood Sedge SR-P None
Plant
Vascular Carex woodii Wood's Sedge SR-P None
Plant
Vascular Chelone cuthbertii Cuthbert's Turtlehead SR-L FSC
Plant
Vascular Coptis trifolia ssp. groenlandica Goldthread SR-P None
Plant
Vascular Crocanthemum propinquum Creeping Sunrose SR-P None
Plant
Vascular Dalibarda repens Robin Runaway E None
Plant
Vascular Geum laciniatum var. trichocarpum Rough Avens SR-P None
Plant
Vascular Glyceria laxa Lax Mannagrass SR-P None
Plant
Vascular Hackelia virginiana Virginia Stickseed SR-P None
Plant
Vascular Hexalech•is spicata Crested Coralroot SR-P None
Plant
Vascular Lillium grayi Gray's Lily T-SC FSC
Plant
Vascular Platenthera grandiflora Large Purple-fringed SR-P None
Plant Orchid
Vascular Rhynchospora alba Northern White SR-P None
Plant Beaksed e
Vascular Robinia hispida var. fertilis Fruitcul Locust SR-O None
Plant
Vascular Spirathes lucida Shining Ladies-tresses SR-O None
Plant
Vascular Stenanthium roubustum Bog Featherbells SR-P None
Plant
Vascular Vaccinium macrocarpon Cranberry SR-P None
Plant
11

1

N.C. Natural Heritage Program List of Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species (Continued)
Major Scientific Name Common Name State Status Federal
Vertebrate Ambystoma talpoideum Mole salamander SC None
Animal
Vertebrate Crotalus horridus Timber Rattlesnake SC None
Animal
Vertebrate Etheostoma kanawhae Kanawha Darter SR None
Animal
Vertebrate Eumeces anthracinus Coal Skink SR None
Animal
Vertebrate Exoglossum laurae Tonguetied Minnow SR None
Animal
Vertebrate Glyptemys muhlenbe~gii Bog Turtle T T(S/A)
Animal
Vertebrate Myotis leibee Eastern Small-footed SC FSC
Animal M otis
Vertebrate Myotis septentrionalis Northern Long-eared SC None
Animal M otis
Vertebrate Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow SR None
Animal
Vertebrate Phenacobius teretulus Kanawha's Minnow SC FSC
Animal
Vertebrate Plethodon wehrlei Wehrle's Salamander T None
Animal
Vertebrate Sylvilagus obscurus Appalachian Cottontail SR FSC
Animal
Plant statuses for the NHP list are determined by the Plant Conservation Program (NC Department of
Agriculture) and the Natural Heritage Program (NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources).
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), and Special Concern (SC) species are protected by state law (Plant
Protection and Conservation Act, 1979). Candidate and Significantly Rare (SR) designations indicate
rarity and the need for population monitoring and conservation action. The additional significantly rare
designations "-P" and "-O" refer to species at the periphery of their range in North Carolina, and that the
range of species is sporadic or cannot be described by other significantly rare designations, respectively.
Note that plants can have a double status, e.g., E-SC, indicates that while the plant is endangered, it is
' collected or sold under regulation.
Animal statuses for the NHP list are determined by the Wildlife Resources Commission a11d the
Natural Heritage Program. Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern species of mammals, birds,
reptiles, amphibians, freshwater fishes, and freshwater and terrestrial mollusks have legal protection
status in North Carolina (Wildlife Resources Commission). The Significantly Rare designation
indicates rarity and the need for population monitoring and conservation action.
' There are no federally endangered species listed for Alleghany County. There is one federally
threatened species listed for this county, the Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii). The Bog turtle has a
shell length of approximately 4 inches with a distinctive red, orange, or yellow patch on each side of
' the head.. The Bog turtle has a light brown to ebony shell.
12

Bog turtles inhabit slow, shallow, muck-bottomed rivulets of sphagnum bogs, calcareous fens,
marshy/sedge-tussock meadows, spring seeps, wet cow pastures, and shrub swamps; the habitat
usually contains an abundance of sedges or mossy cover. The turtles depend on a mosaic of
microhabitats for foraging, nesting, basking, hibernation, and shelter (USFWS, 2000). "Unfragmented
' riparian systems that are sufficiently dynamic to allow the natural creation of open habitat are needed
to compensate.for ecological succession" (USFWS, 2000). Beaver, deer, and cattle may be
instrumental in maintaining the essential open-canopy wetlands (USFWS, 2000).

Bog turtles rarely leave wetland habitats, although recent radio-telemetry evidence indicates that bog
turtles sometimes venture into and across upland habitats (375 m, Carter et al., 2000) and cross roads
to reach adjacent wetlands (Morrow et al. 2001). Whitlock (unpublished data) also documented
individuals regularly moving back and forth across 1 km of a typical wetland habitat to more suitable
habitat patches. Successful movement across developed areas is probably negligible, due to
susceptibility to collection, predation, and road mortality.
In North Carolina over somewhat less than l year, distances between relocations ofradio-tagged
turtles ranged from 0 to 87 m (mean= 24 m) for males, and 0 to 62 m (mean= 16 m) for females
' (Heenan and Fahey, 1992).
There are 5 delineated wetlands on the project site, and they are all forested (refer to Section 5.1 and
Figure 4), While these forested wetlands are not preferred habitat of the bog turtle, based on current
scientific knowledge, they could be used by turtles as they travel between more suitable or preferred
' habitat. Based on personal communication with Dennis Herman of the N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Office of the Natural Enviromnent (July 20, 2007), a recognized bog turtle expert, bog turtles
probably travel through the site on their way upstream or downstream to other sites, and may use the
project site wetlands as stopping-over points. However, since all wetland areas within the project site
will be undisturbed during project construction and will be permanently preserved, he stated that he
believed that the short term disturbance of project construction would be offset by the long term
preservation of the wetlands. Therefore, stream restoration activities associated with the Glade Creek
Stream Mitigation site in Alleghany County will have no negative effect on the bog turtle species.
' 2.6 Cultural Resources
A visual on-site assessment was conducted by traversing the entire project site thoroughly, on both
sides of the streams. No archeological artifacts were observed or noted during the site survey. The
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. review for the project site revealed no record of mapped historic
' sites within the project area.
The State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted and conducted a review of the site. In
a response dated March 27, 2007 it was stated that SHPO was not aware of any historic resources that
would be affected by the restoration project and that SHPO had no comment on the proposed
undertaking.
A forma] letter was sent to the Tribal Historic Preservation Office of the Eastern Band of Cherokee
Indians on February 22, 2007. The project is still under review and when the letter is received, it will
be submitted to EEP.

13

2.7 Potential Constraints
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
The project site and easement is located on the Steven Faw property (PIN # 39992520005), at 541
Dewitt Road, approximately 4 miles southeast of Sparta, North Carolina. The project reaches
include the portion of Glade Creek that flows through the Faw property as well as an unnamed.
tributary that flows through the property and exits the property just before its confluence with
Glade Creek (Figure 3).
2.7.2 Site Access
The easement is accessed from. Dewitt Road by crossing the bridge over Glade Creek (the Faw's
driveway) and accessing the easement from the side of the creek opposite from Dewitt Road. A
temporary construction access road may need to be built from Dewitt Road to the creek if it is
determined that the Faw's bridge over Glade Creek is not capable of safely supporting heavy
equipment.
2.7.3 Utilities
An overhead power line services the property owner's house and passes over the easement. It is
the only known utility that passes through the project site.
2.7.4 FEMA /Hydrologic Trespass
1

1
1

As of July 2, 2007, there is no FEMA mapping for the project area, based on a review of the N.C.
Flood maps website. The proposed project is a Rosgen Priority II stream restoration project, with
no wetland restoration component, only wetland preservation. The hydrology of the site will not
be significantly altered by the project. The Faw's property and the adjoining properties will not
be hydrologically trespassed upon by the stream restoration project.
2.7.5a. Beaver Pond and Design Approach
There is an existing beaver dam and pond along Glade Creek at station 17+75. Beavers built this
feature during the fall of 2006 and then enlarged it in the winter of 2007. The proposed design
will construct a stable cham~el directing flow beside and around the pond, preserving its present
size and configuration. The mud and stick beaver dam will be removed and replaced with
somewhat more permanent channel bed material. During higher flows the pond area will serve as
additional floodplain capacity, and during low flows the stream thalweg will be adjacent to the
pond area, flowing around it. This will allow the beaver impoundment area to persist, with a
stable chamlel adjacent to it, thus providing stability while still allowing unimpeded sediment
transport in the channel. The water table is expected to be high enough to maintain water in the
adjacent pond area during periods of low flow.
This design provides a stable channel for stream flow and also maintains the small, ~ 0.1 ac
impoundment that beavers have already constructed. According to the land owner, the beaver
population is established both upstream and downstream from the project, and beaver are a
natural part of the ecosystem. Eliminating them from a limited reach of stream when their
population is established immediately upstream and downstream is generally not a reliable
14

1

1
1
1
1
control measure. There is no guarantee that the beavers wouldn't return and build a new dam
near the present pond location if it is removed. This design approach, by retaining the impounded
water in the existing pond, should allow the beavers to continue limited activity, while
discouraging them from building new dams in the project area.
2.7.Sb. Research on Beaver Activity and Stream/Riparian Zone Ecology
Much research has been published on the beneficial ecological effects of beaver activity. In the
Rocky Mountain region, beaver have been shown to facilitate regeneration of long absent riparian
vegetation (if cattle grazing was properly managed), and improve conditions for trout (Smith
1980; Munther 1981; Johnson 1984). Lack of beaver dams and impositionof grazing had led to
channel incision and deterioration of trout habitat in the mountain valley creeks. Stocking beaver
and initially providing them with aspen cuttings as food. and dam-building material enabled them
to impound water, which rejuvenated riparian zones. In such terrain, healing creeks with beaver
proved to be more economical than traditional measures (Johnson 1984). Beaver help resist
adverse perturbation of riparian areas, and their ponds improve chemical water quality (Parker
1986).
The reintroduction of beaver has demonstrated: 1) an elevated water table upstream of the dam,
which in turn improves vegetation condition, reduces water velocities, reduces bank erosion, and
improves fish habitat (increased water depth, better food production, higher dissolved oxygen,
and various water temperatures), 2) reduced sedimentation downstream of the dam, 3) increased
water storage, 4) improved water quality, and 5) more waterfowl nesting and brooding areas
(McKinstry et al. 2001). In North Carolina beavers have naturally re-introduced themselves, but
their effects on the environment are the same as if they were artificially re-introduced, as in much
of the published research to date.
15

' 3.0 Pro'ect Site Streams existin condition 0 7 ~ ~
~ ( g s)
3.1 Channel Classification
As part of the field reconnaissance, the Rosgen classification system (Rosgen, ] 994) was used to
' determine channel type at each field cross section on the basis of existing morphological features of
the stream channel. Two stable, representative riffle cross sections were surveyed on Glade Creek.
The measured channel dimensions for the representative cross sections generate a C4 classification;
except for width/depth ratio at the cross sections were 9.1 and 11.1, just under the classification
minimum for a C channel, which is l2. A width/depth ration of less than 12 is characteristic of an E
channel. For this reason, the existing channel is classified as a CE4 channel, in deference to the low
width/depth ratios at these representative riffles. However, in other sections of the Glade Creek
1 channel, where downcutting and widening have occurred, decreasing the entrenchment ratio and
increasing the width/depth ratio, the channel classification is F4 or G4. The F4 and G4 classifications
are indicative of channel instability. Only one stable, representative cross section could be located on
' the unnamed tributary. Based on the measurements taken in the field, the unnamed tributary also was
classified as a C4.
3.2 Discharge
In adjustable, alluvial, transport-limited rivers in temperate climates, flows of moderate frequency
' (e.g., the 1.5- to 2-year storm event) and magnitude perform most of the geomorphic work (Wolman
and Miller, 1960). This concept of the "dominant discharge" provides a statistical index for the flow
that corresponds with the peak volume of sediment transported. Dominant discharge is the maximum
possible product of the frequency of a flow occurrence and the amowlt of sediment transported by
that flow event. Channel morphology is ultimately a result of all flows above a sediment transport
threshold that do some geomorphic work. However, the dominant discharge is commonly used as a
single-value estimate for a flow that may be largely responsible for resulting geomorphic form.
It is thought that, in many cases, the morphological feature of a bankfull elevation corresponds fairly
well to the flow stage of the dominant discharge. This has led to the concept of bankfull elevation as
a tool in stream restoration design. However, the concept should be applied cautiously in stream
restoration design. It should be noted that as channel boundaries are more resistant or less adjustable
(i.e., bedrock, hillslope constraints, or large bed material) or in more arid environments, the majority
' of geomorphic work is more likely to be performed by larger and rarer flood events. For the purposes
of this restoration plan, here the bankfull discharge is considered to be essentially equivalent to the
dominant discharge, and serves a guiding value in many aspects of the restoration design.
As mentioned in Section 3.1, the bankfull elevation was identified in the field by Biohabitats
personnel at surveyed cross sections. The bankfull elevation at each cross section was derived from
all available indications including depositional features, changes in bank angle, vegetation, scour
lines, and storn~ debris lines. Bankfull discharge was estimated by solving the Manning equation for
discharge given the bankfull elevation, local channel geometry, slope, and roughness. Channel
roughness, represented by Manning's "n", was approximated using the standard references Chow
(1959) and Barnes (1967) based on field observations of bed material, channel geometry, and
adjacent riparian vegetation.
1 For the purpose of comparison, a predicted bankfull discharge was also calculated for Glade Creek
and the unnamed tributary using available North Carolina regression relationships for rural streams in

the Mountain physiographic province (Harman et al., 1999). The rural regression relationships are
expressed by the following equations:
Abkf - 22.1 AH, 0.67
Qbkf - 11 S.7 AW 0.73
' Wbkf - 19.9AW 0.36
Dbkf = 1.1 AW 031
where AW is watershed area in square miles (min), Abkr is the bankfull cross-sectional area in square
feet (ft~), Qb~ is the bankfull discharge in cubic feet per second (cfs), Wbkr is the bankfull width in feet
(ft), and Dbkr ~s the bankfull mean depth m feet (ft).
For the purpose of comparison, a predicted bankfull discharge was also calculated for Glade Creek
and the unnamed tributary using available North Carolina regression relationships for rural streams in
the Piedmont physiographic province (Harman et al., 1999). The rural regression relationships are
expressed by the following equations:
Abkr = 21.43 AW o.bs
Qbkr = 89.04 Aw. °.72
Wbkf = 1 1.89A,,, 0.42
Dbkf = 1 •SOAW 032
The discharge was also estimated using the hydrologic model TR-20. The results of deriving Qbkr
from the different methods are listed below, along with the chosen design discharges.
Stream Bankfull Discharge Peak Flow, Design
Manning's

E uation Mountain Regional

Curve Piedmont

Re Tonal Curve
TR-20
Discharge
Glade Creek
Dischar e (cfs) X/S l :228 3S2 267 1- r: 204 200
X/S 2: 1S3 2- r: 33S
Unnamed Tributa
Discharge (cfs) 27 98 76 1-yr: 16 20
2-yr: 23
The existing channel cross section geometry data was used in the Manning's Equation and TR-20
estimates, making those estimates site specific. Bankfull indicators were more reliable at cross
section 1 on Glade Creek. The Manning's Equation estimate at cross section 1 also falls within the
bounds of the 1-year and 2-year discharge predictions from the TR-20 model output. The Regional
Curve predictions are above the Manning's and TR-20 values, but the Manning's and TR-20 values
fall reasonably within confidence intervals on the Piedmont curve, and within a reasonable range on
the Mountain Curve. Therefore, the design discharges were determined using a combination of the
Manning's Equation and TR-20 estimates.
3.3 Channel Morphology (pattern, dimension, profile)
The existing channel morphology exhibits several Rosgen Classifications over the project reaches of
Glade Creek and the unnamed tributary (channel geometry is summarised in Table 4)._ The diagnostic
classification, measured at stable riffle cross sections for both Glade Creek and the unnamed tributary
is C4. C4 is what the entire channel would have been classified as before it experienced degradation.
17

' However, the majority of the project channel reaches have experienced over-widening and incision,
probably due to long-term increasing flows from forest conversion to pasture land upstream and from
relatively short-lived increased runoff from clear-cutting in the watershed, and are classified as F4
and G4.
The existing C4 channel has a sinuosity of 1.2, a riffle cross sectional area of approximately 5 l ftZ,
and an average slope of 0.005.
3.4 Channel Stability Assessment
The entire Glade Creek reach and the downstream reach of the unnamed tributary that are proposed
for restoration/enhancement were assessed in the field by Biohabitats using the Bank Erosion Hazard
1 Index (BEHI) (Rosgen 2001). Approximately 62% of the Glade Creek channel within the project
boundary has a BEHI rating of High, 33% has a rating of Very High and 5% has a rating of Moderate
(see Table 5). The estimated total sediment export per year for the Glade Creek reach is 619 tons,
based on the BEHI methodology and sediment export curves. The entire proposed restoration reach
of the unnamed tributary has a BEHI rating of Very High, and the estimated total sediment export per
year for the reach is 72 tons. The pervasive extent of high BEHI scores indicates that the channel is
' widening and migrating throughout most of the project reaches. Bank height ratios (BHR) were
estimated while performing the BEHI analysis. Approximately 70% of the channel on Glade Creek
had BHR's of 2 or more and all of the channel proposed for restoration on the UT has a BHR of >2.
In the BEHI protocol, a bank height ratio greater than 1.5 is an indication of highly unstable banks.
Bedrock is present in a limited number of locations throughout the project reaches, but bank height
ratios are greater than 1 throughout most of the project, and approach and exceed 2 in some places,
indicating instability and downcutting of the channel.
3. S Bankfull Verification
The 1-and 2-year water surface elevations predicted by HEC-RAS were compared with bankfull
flows calculated based on field indicators using the Manning equation to help calibrate bankfull
discharge estimates to be used in channel design. At both representative riffle cross sections on Glade
Creek, the maximum depth predicted by the HEC-RAS program using the TR-20 discharge estimate
coincided well with the maximum depth at the surveyed cross sections using the Mannings Equation
discharge prediction, listed below.
Cross Section Mannings Eq. Q
(cfs) TR-20 Q
(cfs) HEC-RAS dmax
(ft) Surveyed d,nax
(ft)
Glade 1 228 1- r: 204 2.55 2.8
2-yr: 335 3.33
Glade 2 153 1- r: 204 2.36 2.4
2-yr: 335 3.14
Unnamed Tributary 27 1-yr: 16 0.56 1.0
2- r: 23 0.71
At the unnamed tributary cross section, the correlation was not as close, but it was within 0.4 ft of the
midpoint between the two discharges. Therefore, the identified bankfull indicators in the Feld
correlate well with the predictive estimates generated by Mannings Equation and HEC-RAS. In
addition, the predicted discharges correlate well with the bankfull channel geometry identified in the
field.
18

3.6 Ve etation
g
' The riparian area along Glade Creek is in a relatively undisturbed, natural condition. The dominant
canopy species there are white oak (Quercus alba), white pine (Pinus strobus) and red maple (Ater
rubrunr). The two dominant species in the understory/shrub layer are rhododendron (Rhododendron
maximum) and mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia). Other understory species included smooth alder
(Alms serulata), black cherry (Prunus serotina), multiflora rose (Rosa mult~ora), and black willow
(Salix nigra). The herbaceous layer, where the canopy is closed, is not present, but where there are
openings it contains many grasses, including fescue (Festuca sp.), blackberry bushes (Rubus sp.) and
various wild flowers, dominated by the Asteracae family.
1

1
1

19

. 1~L
4.0 Reference Stream
Basin Creek, located in Wilkes County in Doughton State Park, was used as the reference stream (Figure
5). It was surveyed by a team of NRCS and NCWRC personnel (Angela Jessup, Dick Everhart, Greg
Goings, Jerry Pate and Joe Mickey) and by an NC SRI crew (Dan Clinton, Jan Patterson, Louise O'Hara
and Jon Williams) in 1998. The original survey data from both surveys was acquired from the NC SRI.
The data generated from those surveys was compared and used for design purposes. Biohabitats reviewed
the stream in the field in May 2007 and determined from a walk of the stream from the downstream
boundary of Doughton Park to above the confluence of Cove and Basin Creeks (approximately 2 miles of
stream), that it was a stable, suitable reference reach.
4.1 Watershed Characterization
The Basin Creek watershed was delineated (see Figure 6) and the land uses within it are summarized
below. The watershed is approximately 98% forested, and less than 1 % developed.
Land Use In Basin Creek Watershed (Reference)
Land Use Acreage
Deciduous Forest 3,963.2 91.3
Mixed Forest 139.2 3.2
Evergreen Forest 119.9 2.8
Pasture/Hay 59.2 1.4
' Developed Open Space 20.7 0.5
Shrub Scrub 20.0 0.5
Woody Wetlands 13.6 0.3
' Developed Low Intensity 6.2 0.1
Totals 4,342.0 100
4.2 Channel Classification
Based on the data collected in the field by both survey crews, the channel has a Rosgen Stream Type
Classification of C4.
4.3 Discharge (bankfull, trends)
The reference bankfull discharge, estimated from the N.C. Mountain Regional Curve is
1 approximately 425 cfs, and estimated from the N.C. Piedmont Regional Curve is approximately 300
cfs. The NRCS survey discharge estimate using Mannings Equation is approximately 375 cfs. The
very high percentage of forest land cover in the watershed (98%) serves to stabilize and maintain
bankfull discharge quantities, which in theory should remain unchanged unless the developed area
within the watershed increases, generating more stormwater runoff that reaches the channel.
4.4 Channel Morphology (pattern, dimension, profile)
The reference channel has a sinuosity of 1.1, a riffle bankfull cross-sectional area of 57 square feet
and an average slope of 0.014 (see Table 4).

. 4.5 Vegetation
The forest canopy is dominated by yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), white pine, red maple
(Ater rubrum), hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). The understory is
dominated by rhododendron and smooth alder along the stream. This community is most closely
related to a Rich Cove Forest classification (Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
21

' S.0 Pro'ect Site Wetlands existin conditions p 7 ~„ ``~ ~ °~
J ~ g )
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Wetlands on the site were evaluated based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland
' Delineation Manual. The presence or absence of three wetland parameters was documented (hydric
soils, hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology), following the guidance set forth in the Manual.
One jurisdictional wetland was delineated on Glade Creek and four jurisdictional wetlands were
delineated on the unnamed tributary to Glade Creek (see Figure 4 for map and Appendix 2 for forms).
' The areas of the individual wetlands are as follows:
Glade Creek wetlands:
Wetland 1-0.17 acres
1

Unnamed Tributary wetlands:
Wetland 1-0.009 acres
Wetland 2-0.034 acres
Wetland 3-0.033 acres
Wetland 4-0.087 acres
Total Wetland Area in Easement-0.33 acres
These wetland areas will not be disturbed, they will be preserved with the proposed project.
5.2 Soil Characterization
As previously noted, the mapping of soils in Alleghany County is currently under revision. The 1973
Soil Survey shows the area where the wetlands occur as Alluvial Land Wet, and does not include a
detailed soil color description. However, based on field investigation and soil cores taken throughout
the wetlands, the wetland soils present on the project site are Toxaway series soils (Cumulic
Humaquepts). This conclusion is based on soil color and texture. The typical horizon description for
the Toxaway series is 0-12 inches l OYR 3/1 loam, 12-25 inches l OYR 3/1 loam and 25-32 niches
l OYR 4/1 loam. From the wetland delineation soil descriptions, the hydric soils found onsite are
typically 7.5 YR or l OYR 2/1 sandy clay loams in the upper 18 inches of the profile, similar to the
Toxaway series.
5.3 Plant Community Characterization
The wetland areas onsite are individually quite small, and the dominant woody vegetation occupying
the wetlands is red maple. The herbaceous layer is often sparse, but where present, common rush
(Juncos effusus) is dominant, along with various sedge species. These wetlands most closely resemble
the High Elevation Seep community (Schafale and Weakley, 1990).

Ci' ~' _ ~ ~ ; ; ;
6.0 Project Site Restoration Plan
6.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
The goals of the project are to:
• Rapidly stabilize the channel of Glade Creek relative to natural process,
• Rapidly stabilize and preserve the channel of the UT relative to natural process,
• Restore and rehabilitate channel features and aquatic habitat in Glade Creek and the UT,
Rehabilitate the riparian buffer along both streams,
Preserve the existing wetlands onsite.
These goals will be accomplished by designing and constructing a stable plan, profile and dimension for
the stream channels and re-establishing continuous riparian buffers along the banks. Project
implementation will greatly reduce bank erosion and consequently decrease the amount of sediment load
in the stream at flows above baseflow. Restoration level (Rosgen Priority Level II) design is needed on
all but 125 feet of the channel on the project, due to unstable channel geometry, sinuosity and streambank
steepness. Structures will be used to enhance holding and feeding areas for trout. Riparian buffer
vegetation will be established to provide food and cover for terrestrial fauna and to provide a carbon
source and shade for aquatic habitat.
' To meet the goals listed above, the proposed objectives for Glade Creek are to perform Restoration on
approximately 2,430 linear feet (LF) and stabilize 125 LF with Enhancement I design. Please note that a
25-foot section of channel underneath the existing bridge was excluded from the proposed restoration
' total, although chamlel profile and dimension will be altered. The proposed objectives for the UT are to
perform Restoration on approximately 275 LF and Preserve 570 LF. All the wetlands onsite will be
preserved with the proposed project (see Table 1).
6.1.1 Designed Channel Classification
The designed channel classification, based on the existing channel substrate (DSO=12.5 mm) and
the designed channel average slope (0.004), entrenchment ratio (>2.2), width/depth ratio (>12)
and sinuosity (>1.2) is a Rosgen C4.
6.1.2 Designed Channel Structures
In order to provide stabilization to the newly graded channel, especially along outside meander
banks, in-stream structures such as log vanes, rootwads, and large woody debris bundles will be
utilized. The realignment of the channel will necessitate the removal of some trees (although the
alignment was selected to minimize disturbance to mature trees) and this material will be utilized
in these structures. Because this restoration is utilizing natural channel techniques and because
there are very few man-made constraints on this project, we prefer to use wood structures rather
than rock for bank stabilization. The logs used in these structures have a life expectancy of about
20 years which is plenty of time to establish native, riparian trees and shrubs to provide bank
stabilization. Rock structures such as cross vanes and steps will be utilized to provide grade
control and to quickly bring raised thalwegs down to meet existing elevations.
6.1.3 Target Buffer Communities
The site is located in a stream valley at an elevation of approximately 2,600 feet above mean sea
level. This location can be characterized as transitional between relatively low elevation
vegetation communities and high elevation communities. Accordingly, the stream buffer planting
schedule (see Section l 1, Table 6) incorporates species from several vegetation communities

1
1
described by Shafale and Weakley in the draft Fourth Approximation of the Classification of the
Natural Communities of North Carolina. Those communities include Northern Hardwood Forest
(Typic and Rich Subtype) and the Rich Cove Forest (Montane Intermediate Subtype). Two
notable exceptions are the common occurrence of black willow and smooth alder along the
existing channel, and their inclusion in the proposed planting schedule, and the absence of those
two species from the Shafale and Weakley descriptions.
6.2 Sediment Transport Analysis
6.2.1 Methodology
For use as a guideline for sizing the substrate in the proposed restoration channel, a sediment
competency analysis was undertaken, using shear stresses computed for the channel. The
competency analysis provides an estimate of the local ability of the channel to move sediment for
a given discharge and is embodied by estimating the local threshold grain size. For many
engineering applications the threshold of sediment motion for an unisize or unimodal sediment
can be characterized with the Shields criteria:
z~ = z ~ 0.045
(s-1)pgD
wherein is the dimensionless critical Shields parameter (in this case assumed to be
approximately 0.045), z' is the grain stress (that component of the total boundary shear stress that
' acts upon the sediment grains populating the channel bed surface), s is the specific gravity of
sediment (2.65), p is the density of water (1000 kg/m3), g is the gravitational acceleration
constant (9.81 m/s"'), and D is the median grain size of an unimodal sediment or the grain size of
an unisize sediment (in meters when adopting the above values for the other parameters). When
rearranged to solve for the critical grain size, the above equation is transformed to:
1

D = T ~ 1.37z'
(s -1)Pgz~~
where D is now in units of millimeters and z' is expressed in Pascals (N/mZ). To estimate the
threshold grain size for any location within the project reach, the total boundary shear stress
acting on the channel was computed and then decomposed into the grain stress. For steady,
uniforn flow the local total boundary stress is provided by the depth-slope product:
z ~, = PgRh S
where zo is the total channel bom~dary shear stress, p and g are as defined before, Rh is the
hydraulic radius, and S is the channel slope. In addition, the Manning's Equation holds for steady
uniform flow:
U=CRh~S~
n
where Uis the mean channel velocity, C is a dimensioning coefficient (1.0 for SI units, 1.49 for
Imperial units), and n, Rh, S and are as defined before. By using the Strickler Equation, a
Manning's n-value attributable to the sediment roughness can be estimated:
n„ = 0.013D 6
where n~ is the Manning's n-value and D is the sediment grain size in millimeters. When the
above equations are combined, an equation for the stress decomposition can be developed:
24

1
1
z n
z' n„
where all terms are as defined earlier. When this equation is folded into the Shields criteria, the
following estimate for the threshold grain size is attained:
~ _ 0.00203zo
n ~-
where all teens are as defined earlier. This equation provides an estimate of the local threshold
grain size at each cross-section for a given discharge (or shear stress).
6.2.2 Calculations and Discussion
The competency analysis provides an estimate of the local ability of the channel to move
sediment for a given discharge and is embodied by estimating the local threshold grain size.
The local threshold grain size mobilized at bankfull discharge was computed for Glade Creek and
the unnamed tributary for existing and proposed conditions. The list below summarizes the
results of the computations.

1

Computed Channel
Shear (]bs/ft~) Threshold Diameter
(mm)
Glade Creek
Proposed (riffle) 0.39 10
Existing (riffle) 0.41 11
Unnamed Tributary
Proposed (riffle) O.l 7 3
Existing (riffle) 0.52 15
The reader will note that the Glade Creek proposed conditions are very similar to the existing
conditions. This is because there was one riffle located on the restoration reach that, compared to
the rest of the restoration reach, was stable, based on the data and field evidence. Data from this
stable cross section were used to compute existing shear and particle threshold diameter. Shear
stresses and particle threshold diameters in the remainder of the restoration reach are higher in the
meanders and much lower in the F/G channel sections.
After numerous field reviews of the unnamed tributary chamlel, it was determined to be in a
dynamic state and design parameters for restoration of the downstream end of the reach should
allow for higher flows to access the floodplain more readily, thus reducing shear stress and
particle sized threshold. Therefore, the shear stress and threshold diameter for the proposed
channel are lower than existing.
25

'
6.3 HEC-RAS Analysis
6.3.1 No-rise, LOMR, CLOMR
As of July 2, 2007, there is no FEMA mapping for the project area, based on a review of the N.C.
Flood maps website. The proposed project is a Rosgen Priority II stream restoration project, with
' no wetland restoration component, only wetland preservation. The hydrology of the site will not
be significantly altered by the project. The Faw's property and the adjoining properties will not be
hydrologically trespassed upon by the stream restoration project.
i
f
ons
or
HEC-RAS (USAGE, 2001) was used to model water surface elevations for existing condit
a variety of discharges generated from TR-20. The peak l -, 2-, 10-, and 100-year stone
discharges were all modeled in HEC-RAS.
An existing conditions topographic basemap for the project reach was constructed in ArcGIS by
merging the 1-foot contour interval channel survey conducted by Cavanaugh and Associates, PA
' with the 10-foot contour interval Alleghany County map. For existing conditions, topographic
information from the Cavanaugh survey superseded that of the County basemap. These
basemaps were then used in HEC-GeoRAS (version 3.1) to define and assemble the channel
network topology, cross-sections, and reach lengths. Cross-sections were located at hydraulic
control points (such as upstream and downstream of bridge culverts and at slope breaks), as well
as at intermediate locations to capture changes to channel and overbank geometry. The cross-
' sections were oriented to be orthogonal to, the local mean channel flow and anticipated overbank
flow. Bridge and culvert geometry and hydraulic coefficients for the bridge were measured in the
field during a site visit conducted in the Spring of 2007. The site visit also provided information
on existing channel conditions and overbank vegetation so that the channel and overbank
Manning's n-values could be estimated using a table of typical values found in Chow (1959).
' In the absence of paired discharge-stage flow measurements on Glade Creek, model boundary
conditions had to be assumed to be uniform flow with bed slopes estimated from the topographic
basemaps. A subcritical flow regime was modeled, as there were no significant areas that would
warrant calculations under mixed or supercritical conditions. Because of limited detailed survey
data beyond the reach extents, boundary conditions were calculated by assuming that a local
slope at the top and the slope from the downstream end of the bridge to the bottom of the reach
extended beyond the reach.
6.4 Soil Restoration
' 6.6.1 Topsoil Salvage, Soil Testing and Nutrient Amendments
Where grading is performed for channel stabilization, the overlying 4-6 inches of topsoil will be
stockpiled for redistribution over the site after grading is complete. Soil samples were collected
onsite and were sent to the N.C. Department of Agriculture Soils Laboratory for analysis. The
analysis report confirms the field assessment of the alluvial soils that occupy the project site, that
they are loamy with a moderate to ]ow bulk density and they will not require any more
fertilization or lime application than is usually applied for tree seedling and live stake
establishment.

26

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
6. S Natural Plant Community Restoration
6.5.1 Narrative & Plant Community Restoration
The project site is approximately 2,600 feet above seal level, in the Blue Ridge Mountains. The
planting schedule for riparian plantings (see Section 11, Table 6) reflects both the
Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest (Shafale and Weakley 1990) and the species already present on
site. The trees, mid-story trees and shrubs species listed for Zone 1, Riparian Woodlands-Mesic
are all common to the area and easily observed nearby. Many of the species are good food
sources for wildlife and are adapted to the more well-drained areas of the site. The Zone 2-
Floodplain Bench planting schedule lists a variety of willows, to be planted as live stakes to
establish root systems quickly, stabilizing the soil in the active channel. Tag or smooth alder
and river birch are listed as sub-canopy and canopy species, respectively. These species
will grow taller than the willows and provide additional shading of the channel over the
long term.
6.5.2 On-site Invasive Species Management
Multiflora rose is the only vegetative invasive species observed onsite, and it occurs mainly on
the downstream end of the project. Mechanical control and herbicide will be used to control this
species.
27

' 7.0 Performance Criteria
' All performance criteria for this project are taken directly from the Apri12003 Stream Mitigation
Guidelines, as adopted by the USACE, EPA, NCWRC and NCDWQ, Monitoring Level 1.
' 7.1 Streams
Upon completion of the project, an as-built survey will be conducted, to document the dimension,
' pattern and profile of the restored channel. Permanent cross sections will be established with an
approximate frequency of one per 20 bankfull-width lengths. The as-built survey will include photo
documentation at all cross sections and structures, a plan view diagram, a longitudinal profile,
vegetation information and a pebble count for at least 6 cross sections. The stream will be resurveyed
each year and the survey data compared to the previous year. Success is defined as the
documentation of no substantial aggradation or degradation of the channel or banks. Downcutting,
deposition, bank erosion and an increase in sands or finer substrate material must be documented for
assessment by the regulatory agencies.
7.2 Vegetation
Plant survival will be documented with survival plots and photographs. A minimum of 320 stems per
' acre must be surviving after year 3, 288 stems per acre after year 4 and 260 stems per acre after five
years of monitoring.
7.3 Schedule /Reporting
Monitoring will be performed each year for 5 years with no less than 2 bankfull events documented
throughout the period. If less than 2 bankfull events occur, then monitoring will continue until the
second bankfull event is documented. The bankfull events must occur during separate years. In the
event that the bankfull events do not occur during the five year period, the USACE and NCDWQ, in
' consultation with the resource agencies, may determine that further monitoring is not necessary.
The CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation (Lee, 2007) will be used to document and track
vegetation survival and growth.

1

8.0 References
' Barnes, H.H. Jr., 1967. Roughness Characteristics of Natural Channels. U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Supply Paper 1849.
' Burwell, D. 1970. Prevention of debris accumulation in streams by uphill felling. In, Forest land uses and
stream environment. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Pp. 118-120.
Carter, S. L., C. A. Haas, and J. C. Mitchell. 2000. Movements and activity of bog turtles (Clemmys
n7uhlenbergii) in southwestern Virginia. Journal of Herpetology 34:75-80.
Davis GA. 1977. Management alternatives for the riparian habitat in the southwest. In: Johnson RR, D. A.
t Jones, Technical Coordinators--USDA Forest Service. Importance, Preservation, and
Management of Riparian Habitat: A Symposiump 59-67; General Technical Report RM-43.
Chow, V.T., 1959. Open-Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill Kogakusha, Ltd., Tokyo.
Harman, W.A., D.E. Wise, M.A. Walker, R. Morris, M.A. Cantrell, M. Clemmons, G.D. Jennings, D.
' Clinton and J. Patterson. 2000. Bankfull Regional Curves for North Carolina Mountain Streams.
AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited by: D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy.
AWRA Summer Symposium. Bozeman, MT.
' Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., Patterson, J.M., Clinton, D.R., Slate, L.O., Jessup, A.G., Everhart, J.R.,
and Smith, R.E., 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams.
' AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited by: D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy.
AWRA Summer Symposium. Bozeman, MT. (Rural Piedmont).
Henderson, J.E., 1986. Environmental designs for streambank protection projects, Water Resources
Bulletin, 22(4):549-558.
Herman, D.W., personal communication, July 20, 2007.
Heenan, D. W., and K. M. Fahey. 1992. Seasonal activity and movements of bog turtles (Clemmys
Mulenbergii) in North Carolina. Copeia 1992:1107-11 11.
Johnson, P. 1984. The darn builder is at it again! National Wildlife Magazine (May-June 1984):9-l 5.
' Lee, Michael T, Robert K. Peet, Steven D. Roberts, Thomas R. Wentworth. 2007. CVS-EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, http://cvs.bio.unc.edulmethods.htm.
' McKinstry, M. C., P. Caffrey, and S. H. Anderson. 2001. The importance of beaver to wetland habitats
and waterfowl in Wyoming. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37 (6): 1571-
, 1577.

1
1

1

Morrow, J. L., J. H. Howard, S. A. Smith, and D. K. Poppel. 2001. Home range and movements of the
bog turtle (Clemnzys n2uhlenbergii) in Maryland. Journal of Herpetology 35:68-73.
Munther, G. L. 1981. Beaver management in grazed riparian ecosystems. Pages 234-241 in L. Nelson &
J. M. Peek, organizers. Proceedings of the wildlife-livestock relationships symposium, Coeur
d'Alene, Idaho, April 20-22, 1981. Forest, Wildlife & Range Experiment Station, Univ. of Idaho,
Moscow.
North Carolina Geological Survey. 1985 , N.C. Dept. of Envir. And Nat. Res.,
http: //www.geology. enr. state.nc.us/usgs/blueridg.htm.
North Carolina State Demographics, 2007 Provisional County Population Estimates.
http://demog.state.nc.us/.
Parker, M. 1986. Beaver, water quality, and riparian systems. Pages 88-101 in D. J. Brost & J. D.
Rodgers, coordinators. Proceedings, Wyoming Water 1986 and Streamside Zone Conference,
Casper, April 28-30, 1986. Wyoming Water Research Center, Univ. of Wyoming, Laramie.
Rice, R.M., F.B. Tilley, and P.A. Datzman. 1979. A watershed's response to logging and roads: South
Fork of Caspar Creek, California, 1967-76. USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW-146,
Berkeley, CA. 12p.
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. Applied River Hydrology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Rosgen, D. (2001). A Practical Method of Computing Streambank Erosion Rate. Wildland Hydrology,
Inc. Pagosa Springs, CO.
Schafale, M.P., and A.S. Weakley 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
Third Approximation. N.C. Natural Heritage Program.
Schafale, M.P., and A.S. Weakley (Draft, unpublished but available online at
http://www.bio.unc.edu/faculty/peet/lab/CVS/links.htm). Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation. N.C. Natural Heritage Program.
Smith, B. H. 1980. Not all beaver are bad; or, an ecosystem approach to stream habitat management, with
possible software. Pages 32-37 in Proceedings, 15"' Annual Meeting, Colorado-Wyoming
Chapter, American Fisheries Society.
Toews, D.A.A. and M.K. Moore. 1982. The effects of three Streamside logging treatments on organic
' debris and channel morphology of Carnation Creek. In, G. Hartman, editor. Proceedings:
Carnation Creek workshop: aten-year review. Malaspina College, Nanaimo, BC. Pp. 129-153.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Bog turtle (Clemmys n~ruhler~bergii), northern population,
recovery plan, agency draft. Hadley, Massachusetts. viii + 90 pp.
t
' 30

' Wolman, M.G., and Miller, J.P., 1960. Magnitude and frequency of forces in geomorphic process, J.
Geol., 68: 54-74.

1
1

31

~ 7 ._ ~' i ~~ a"3
9.0 Tables
' Table 1. Project Restoration Structure and Objectives

Restoration Station Existing Designed
Segmen#! Reach Range Restoration Priority .Linear Linear
ID (Existing) Type Approach Footage or Footage or
Acreage Acreage
Glade Cr 0+00-22+I S Restoration Ros en II 2,215 2,210
Glade Cr 22+35-23+60 Enhancement I Rosgen II I25 125
Glade Cr ~ 23+60-25+69 Restoration Ros en II 219 220
UT to Glade Cr 0+00-3+00 Restoration Ros en II 300 275
UT to Glade Cr 3+00-10+88 Preservation 788 788
Table 2. Drainage Areas
Reach Drama a Area Acres)
Glade Mainstem 2,921.95
Unnamed Tributary 520.87
Total: 3,442.82
' Table 3. Land Use of Watershed

Land Use Acre a Percents e
Bottomland Forest /
Hardwood Swamps
5 0.15%
Cultivated 16 0.46%
Deciduous Shrubland 3 0.10%
Evergreen Shrubland 16 0.45%
Mixed Hardwoods /Conifers 483 14.02%
Managed Herbaceous Cover 1,500 43.52%
Mixed Upland Hardwoods 1,226 35.57%
Mountain Conifers 165 4.79%
Southern Yellow Pine 27 0 77%
Unmanaged Herbaceous
Cover-Upland
6 0.18%
Totals 3,446 100.00%

1
1
1
Table 4. Mor holo ical Table
Table 4. Morphological Table
ProjeM Number X (Glade Creek Stream Restoration)
Item Eaisting Conditions Designed Conditions Eaistittg Conditions Designed Conditions Reference Read
LOCATION Glade Creek Glade Creek Glade Creek Tributary Glade Creek Tributary Basin Creek
STREAM TYPE Cr4/F4/G4 C4 C4 C4 C4
DRAINAGE AREA, Ac
2,922 ac--4.6 sq mi
2,922 ac--4.6 sq mi
521 ac--0.8 sq mi
521 ac--0.8 sq mi
4,352 ac--6.8 sq mi
Sq Mi
BANKFULL RIFFLE 44
7 34 12.6 12 30.7
WIDTH, (Wei), ft .
BANKFULL MEAN
RIFFLE DEPTH (dn~), ].41 1.56 0.8 0.7 ].9
ft
MAXIMUM
BANKFULL RIFFLE 2.3 2.2 1 1 2.5
DEPTH (dm,a), fr
W IDTH/DEPTH
31
7
22
16
18
16.4
RATIO (W d
n~ nom) .
BANKFULL RIFFLE X
SECTION AREA (Ae~), 63 53 9.9 8.2 57.4
fr~
BANKFULL MEAN
3.3
3.8
2
2.4
NA
VELOCITY, fps
BANKFULL 200 200 20 20 NA
DISCHARGE, cfs
WIDTH
FLOODPRONE AREA 45 >76 13-25 >44 70
(WrFa), ft
ENTRENCHMENT
6
>2.2
].1-2
>2.2
2.3
RATIO (ER)
MEANDER LENGTH 66-403 (]0) 136-261 (74) 66-93 (6) 75-84 (3) 350
(Lm), ft
RADIUS OF 34-1 ] 8 (8) 53-172 (17) 14-71 (] 0) 27-33 (6) 76-135 (NA)
CURVATURE (R~), ft
77-184 (8) SS-134 (1 S) 57-79 (7) 30-45 (5) 90-]04 (NA)
BELT WIDTH (Why,), fr
MEANDER WIDTH
3.6-18.7
1.6-4.0
4.5-6.3
2.5-3.8
2.9-3.4
RATIO
SINUOSITY 1.21 1.23 1.71 1.22 1.1
AVERAGE
BANKFULL SLOPE 0.005 0.004 0.011 0.006 0.014
(s), fr/fr
VALLEY SLOPE (s),
0.0075 0.0075 0.019 0.019 0.017
ft/fr
POOL BANKFULL 57 43 27 16 34-43
WIDTH (W „o~), fr
MAX. POOL DEPTH
5.7
4.4
3.5
2.2
3.1
(D ~„~), fr
POOL X-SECTION
AREA ( x,~) fr~ 107 77.2 49 ] 6 64.3
POOL TO POOL
110-228 (7)
91-155 (15)
NA
31-56 (5)
224
SPACING (P-P) fr
BANK HT. RATIO 12-3 <_1 ?2 <_1 <_1
MATERIALS
CHANNEL SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
D16, mm 0.136 NA 0.3 NA 0.17
D35, mm 0.87 NA 11 NA 29
DSQ, mm 12.5 NA 27 NA 58
D84, mm 114 NA 85 NA 180
D95, mm 2656 NA ] 15 NA 300
NOTE: Radius of curvature is measured along the bankfull elevation along the outside of the meander for the existing and proposed condition
For the reference reach, measurement protocol is not known.
NOTE: Sinuosity is the thalweg ]ength/valley length for the existing and proposed conditions.
NOTE: Floodprone widths and entrenchment ratios are estimated for the proposed conditions. They will be defined at the next submittal.
NOTE: Number in parentheses indicates number of data points used to determine the ratio for the item.

1

Table 5. BEHUNBS and Sediment Export Estimate for Project Site Streams
i

~
~
y
~ O
~
~ BCD y ~ ^~ W

Linear > ~ >
Time Segment/ Footage or
Point Reach Acrea e
ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % Ton/
Pre-
Project 0+00-15+75 1,575 100 425
15+75-22+00 625 100 144
22+00-23+50 150 100 0
23+50-25+69 219 100 50
Unnamed
Tributary 0+00-3+15 315 100 72
TOTALS 3,545 691
1

Table 6. Designed Vegetative Communities (by zone)
t PLANT COMPOSITION SCHEDULEI
NOTE: EACH TREE SPECIES SHOULD COMPRISE AT LEAST 10% AND NO MORE THAN 25% OF THE TOTAL
' STEMS PLANTED IN EACH VEGETATION STRATA-A MINIMUM OF 680 STEMS PER ACRE WILL BE OF
PLANTED IN ZONE 1-A MINIMUM OF 1,210 STEMS PER ACRE WILL BE PLANTED IN ZONE 2.
(The taxonomic standard follows Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia Georgia and
Surrounding Areas by Alan S. Weakley)

Zone 1: Riparian Woodlands - Mesic
Size (acres): 3.6

ver
Spacin
9
Quantity Maximum Maximum
Vegetation Stratat
Unit
a
Spacin
g Individual
feet off
(
per acre Frequency
° Stem
Species Name Common Name s
T e
yP Size
T e
yP Spacing
center) (~°) Quantity (ft,)
TREES: Minimum of 5 Species, Minimum # of Trees = 230
N/A N/A Quercus albs White Oak c, bb 2" dbh mi Random 200
N/A N/A Pinus strobus White Pine c, bb 2" dbh mi Random 200
N/A N/A Tsuga canadensis Eastern Hemlock c, bb 2" dbh mi Random 200
20 163 Quercus rubra N. Red Oak br, c, t 18-36" Random 31
20 163 Betula alleghansiensis Yellow Birch br, c, t 18-36" Random 31
20 163 Liriodendron tulipifera Yellow Poplar br, c, t 18-36" Random 31
20 163 Tilia americans Basswood br, c, t 18-36" Random 31
20 163 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore br, c, t 18-36" Random 31
20 163 Betula nigra River Birch br, c, t 18-36" Random 31
20 163 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple br, c, t 18-36" Random 31
20 163 Acerrubrum Red Maple br, c, t 18-36" Random 31
20 163 Prunus serotina Black Cherry br, c, t 18-36" Random 31
815 TOTAL
MIDSTORY TREES: Minimum of 5 Species, Minimum # of Trees = 230
20 163 Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood br, c, t 1 B-36" Random 31
20 163 Ostrya virginiana American Hophornbeam br, c, t 18-36" Random 31
20 163 Ilex opaca Holly br, c, t 18-36" Random 31
20 163 Oxydendron arboretum Sourvvood br, c, t 18-36" Random 31
20 163 Amelanchierarborea Serviceberry br, c, t 18-36" Random 31
20 163 Chionanthus virginicus Fringetree br, c, t 18-36" Random 31
20 163 Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood br, c, t 18-36" Random 31

14 2 SHRUBS: Minimum of 5 Species, Minimum # of Shrubs = 230*
20 163 Lindera benzoin Spicebush br, c, t 18-36" Random 31
20 163 Sambucus canadensis Elderberry br, c, t 18-36" Random 31
20 163 Calycanthus florida Sweetshrub br, c, t 18-36" Random 31
20 163 Callicarpa americans American Beautyberry br, c, t 18-36" Random 31
20 163 Hydrangea arborescens Wild Hydrangea br, c, t 18-36" Random 31
20 163 Symplocos tinctoria Horse Sugar br, c, t 18-36" Random 31
20 163 Rhododendron maximum Rhododendron br, c, t 18-36" Random 31
20 163 Hamamelis virginiana Witchhazel br, c, t 18-36" Random 31
815 TOTAL
8 2,445 GRAND TOTAL
Size (acres): 2.2
vera
S acin
P 9
Quantity Maximum
Stem
Vegetation Strata!
Unit
Spacing Individual

(feet off
per acre Fre uenc
q, y
Quantity
Species Name Common Name
Type Size
T e
yP Spacing
center) (~°) (ft.)
LIVE STAKES: Min. # of Stems = 870
34 651 Salix nigra Black Willow live stake 2-3' Random 12
33 632 Salix sericea Silky Willow live stake 2-3' Random 12
33 632 Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood live stake 2-3' Random 12
1,915 TOTAL
SHRUB AND TREES: Minimum # = 340
34 254 Sambucus canadensis Elderberry br, c, t 18-36" Random 19
33 247 Alnus serrulata Tag Alder br, c, t 18-36" Random 20
33 247 Betula nigra River Birch br, c, t 18-36" Random 20
748 TOTAL
6 2,663 GRAND TOTAL
Zone 2: Floodplain Bench
'All planting stock provided shall be secured from a local producer located in the mountain physiographic province, not
more than 200 miles from the site. Planting shall occur during the last full week of February through March. Bare root material
must be stored in a refrigerated truck from nursery pick-up to no more than 30 minutes before planting. Ail planting stock
must be stored properly before planting to avoid freezing or dessication, and must be approved by the Designer before it can
be planted. Bare root seedlings that have been shipped by commercial carriers will not be accepted. If proper care of the
material has not been taken, the material will be rejected for planting.
z unit type c, bb =container or balled in burlap, unit type br, c, t =bare root, container or tubling. NOTE-White Oak, White Pine
and Eastern Hemlock minimum size is 2" dbh. At least 10 stems of each of these species must be planted if available. There
should be at least 50 feet between 2" dbh stems and at least 200' between 2" dbh stems of the same species.
'Sizes listed are recommended, but are not meant to be a restriction in size.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Acres= 3.6
Lbs
/Ac Frequency Lbs per Species Name Common Name Unit Additional Quantity LBSIAC
. S ecies Amendment
ZONE 1 RIPARIAN WOODLANDS-MESIC PERMANENT HERBACEOUS SEED
40-rye 100 144.0 Secale cereale Rye grain LB of P.L.S. 76 % Ground Limestone 4,000
30-other 20 21.6 Panicum virgatum Switchgrass LB of P.L.S. 76 % Organic Fertilizer 320
species 20 21.6 Dicanthelium clandestinium Deer tongue LB of P.L.S. 76 °/ Straw Mulch 4,000
combined 10 10.8 Sorghastrum nutans Indian grass LB of P.L.S. 76
10 10.8 Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye LB of P.L.S. 76
10 10.8 Tridens flavus Purpletop LB of P.L.S. 76
5 5.4 Andropogon glomeratus Bluestem LB of P.L.S. 76
5 5.4 Rudbeckia hirta Black-eyed Susan LB of P.L.S. 76
5 5.4 Baptista australis Blue false indigo LB of P.L.S. 76
5 5.4 Daucus carota Queen Anne's lace LB of P.L.S. 76
5 5.4 Senna hebecarpa Wild senna LB of P.L.S. 76
5 5.4 Parthenium integrifolium Wild quinine LB of P.L.S. 76
100_ _ _ 252_0 _ =Total LBS
~.nrr~~ avi~nmuvv~n~~v~a~v".~, ~,...,~..,.,~.,.,~.,,,~,.,,,.," ,,,... ,.,.,.,,.._,.._......_...,_.....----- -- - ~--
2. MULCH MUST COVER 75% OF THE GROUND SURFACE.
Acres= 2.2
Lbs./Ac Frequency Lbs per Species Name Common Name Unit Additional Quantity LBSIAC
S ecies Amendment
ZONE 2 FLOODPLAIN BENCH PERMANENT HERBACEOUS SEED
40-rye 100 88.0 Secale cereale Rye grain LB of P.L.S. 76 % Ground Limestone 4,000
30-other 12.5 8.3 Veronia noveboracensis New York ironweed LB of P.L.S. 76 % Organic Fertilizer 320
species 12.5 8.3 Helianthus angustifolia Swamp sunflower LB of P.L.S. 76 % Straw Mulch 4,000
combined 10 6.6 Chasmanthium latifolium River oats LB of P.L.S. 76
60 39.6 Panicum virgatum Switchgrass LB of P'. L.S. 76
5 3.3 Coreopsis lanceo/ata Lance-leaf coreopsis LB of P.L.S. 76
100 154.1 =Total LBS
1. HF'F'LT JVIL HNI CIVUIVICIV I J CVCIVLT HIVV IIVI,VRrV RH I ~ I V h u~r I n yr v-o Ilvun~a. ~vva~iv avid nv~ ~~.~ ~ a~i vi.~ a~.v~.+vr,., ~ ,~.~,.
2. MULCH MUST COVER 75% OF THE GROUND SURFACE.
TFMPORARY HFRBACEDIJS SEED
Additional Quantity
Date Species Name Common Name Unit Amendment LBS/ er acre
Jan.1-May 15 Secale cereale Rye grain LB of P.L.S. 76 % 35
Ground Limestone 4,000
Organic Fertilizer 320
Straw Mulch 4,000
May 15-Aug.15 Setaria italica German millet LB of P.L.S. 76 % 40
Ground Limestone 4,000
Organic Fertilizer 320
Straw Mulch 4,000
Aug. 15-Dec. 31 Secale cereale Rye grain LB of P.L.S. 76 % 35
Ground Limestone 4,000
Organic Fertilizer 320
Straw Mulch 4,000
Notes:
1. SELECT AN APPROPRIATE TEMPORARY SPECIES BASED ON THE DATES GIVEN.
2. AVOID SEEDING IN DECEMBER OR JANUARY. IF NECESSARY TO SEED AT THESE TIMES, USE RYE
GRAIN AND A SECURELY TACKED MULCH.
3. APPLY SOIL AMENDMENTS EVENLY AND INCORPORATE TO A DEPTH OF 4-6 INCHES. LOOSEN SURFACE
JUST BEFORE BROADCASTING.
4. MULCH MUST COVER 75% OF THE GROUND SURFACE.

1
1
1

1
1
1
10.0 Figures
Figure 1. Project Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Project Site Watershed Map
o~--~ ~~;
Figure 3. Project Site NRCS Soil Survey Map
Figure 4. Project Site Hydrological Features and Wetland Delineation Map
Figure 5. Reference Site Vicinity Map
Figure 6. Reference Site Watershed Map
Figure 7. Reference Site NRCS Soil Survey Map
Figure 8. Reference Site Vegetative Communities Map

. i fir' - _ 8 ,~
1/`
_.. _ .~. S
1 ~ ~
• } x t ~. t
:
f f ~ _ ~ !
~..
1 T ~ t~ ~~
: ( ~ _
~~ ~..1
• YY
_ .~ .• '- ,
] ~ _ ~ ~ -
_ ~y ~..<
^ Y't e \,Y . _ *. iA•.r~ .. }~...'~, p ~:MC... -i •~ irk- ' ~ ~ .' '--~~.....
r
~--e • - -
- -,
t n .',mot . h ~+,:_ --..~'-i'° y ~.. __ ~- c 1 }'~~R
.. .v -
`c ~,;~ • ~
.... ~
~.
x r ~ ``«.
__
{:.
1
..
t 't
''fifi , _~.
._ ! - ,,~ erg-
5 ,~
1 e-
1 _u/
-
,. - ,
F. ~ S
-. - _ t
:ti< -
.~ stir
i d }•
.. ~/~.~ ,
~ ~, ~. } v
-~
~ ~ '. _
~.. .. ~.
_ ._ _
.,, .~ ' ~' Tory-.. _ ~ . j sir 4. .~ ._
:;. e"
S ~ `i. ~ -~
s, ~ ~.}
~ s t `~ ~ f~
.~, .
. ., p
'r
4: _
- ''.
_•Y - ~... v _ .
~' ~ 4 k -
.~.. ,~
R d ~--~., ~. _ ._ -,,1
-<
1 1 a. r
...: .. r _
a 'j* ~~'1
-.
a .'
.. e .~ ~' P
.. ~ __ . k.. -.
~` _ ty ~"' u ,,
J I
{, .~... ~ ~ ~ Mfr , i 4 _ ~j~ i4 N• P .. ~~ ~ Y'•.
yti _ ,~ C ~~., ~ w F ~ -t t ~ ~ ~t 3' ~ _
:
.a ~' ' ~ ~ y"P f .' G
t . _ :. ' ~ _
` ,
k ti-
.. .
~ ~,
i
r=
• b~ • -
~igure 1. Project Site Vicinity Map
Glade Creek Stream Restoration Miles
~Ileghany County, North Carolina o ozs os , , s z
December 2007 Legend
Project Boundary
~, ~~ USGS Quad Sheet Glade Valley
- ~~n~t~tem ~3iohalxtat.5

Glade Creek Wetland 1: - "~'
0.17 acres . ~~ .; .'
"'" qi ~ UT Wetland 4:
~;~~~ ~ ~ ~~ 0.087 acres
p,.
UT Wetland 1: "~ i UT Wetland 3:
0.009 acres 0.033 acres
UT Wetland 2:
0.034 acres
asst .,
figure 4. Project Site Hydrological Features and Wetland Delineation
lade Creek Stream Restoration
Alleghany County, North Carolina Fee,
~eCerl'1fJer 2007 o szs t2s zso 375 soo
Legend
Q Project Easement Boundary Proposed Mitigation
0 Wetlands Preservation
~• Streams Enhancement l
1~tr5~'titeill I3tohahit~~ts
r - ~ ~ Restoration

,I
'
i~
~ ~ ~_-T
r 5~
~!
"~
f
,
M ~
J
~~ ~ #
J
k" ~ a
J~'S~
y..
-,
r .. .._
.~ 3'L
~;;~ Y ~, ..
~- . ~.. ."
.. ~ = ,iy
-. }
J ter. _ 1
r} ~' ~ _
t - ~ r _ ~ ~ '- .r .' ti
/ _ ~
' ~ I - .. ~-~ -mot x
~ ` ` ~~` -~
'ems ~ ~f ~~ a ~-y •• ~ ~~~.
.
w .J
a
_.
. ~:. f _.1. _ "rte ...
- .- i ~ t ~ J - lhfiitaheatl 7.5 Min Topc ~ua~ "a _ ~ J ~ - '~^ - '~ _
h 4
t ~ w{'. r ',dM 1 ' ~ { ~
+{ _ 4~R
r ~ a 1~ - ,tr ' ~..
,* ,y '~ -
_ : ~:' p ,:
- ~ r ~ _ .- _
la '
_.
.~.
-- f
~,;} -.
•
..
•. .. y _
~ ~ yt
,a :;,. ?
.. ^~t
~'
.
~`~` ~ .ate .+ ~~r~ l~~ ~ ~ ~C 1 il+ J ¢~~ ~,~t 1 ~ ~
y_ ~~'. t 1
4, a ~f ~S
e~ ~XT ~.. J. YR Y f ryWJ+~ i1k 1 L
.~ K
~]J• ~
•~
~-
-
.. .. r t. a 4.=mot.. :, --- _ -
r'' ~ i ~x
,.
_ : - a w
J . }}
1 ~,, .a.
'. _ '~ ° -
., ... , y.. - ,
r _', r -
\ ~' yr ~ .3}'u ~ .
v ..
figure 5. Reference Site Vicinity Map
Glade Creek Stream Restoration
Ileghany County, North Carolina o oz5 05 ,5 z"""e5 N
ecember 2007
Legend
Reference Reach Site
~ r~
F~.Ynti~titem ~13ic~1?al~it~}~y

,. r,~ , y
/ 7 :~';
,. ,~~
;~".`~ ~ ;` f .fir Wh~~~ead ~ _ ~ "~`_` ~ ~~,:• v ~~
~ ~ .tip. ~ +f - .. ._
1~,+ _ 4.'. '~p~ 4 +~. - ~4 f 1` ~ y Y 9,y ~.'~Il~/M
~ ~ M•~ -{ _
~- * ~ w r,~i '^, n i. Vim' -
.. ~ : .'' 3
.. F- M - . T - ~,~ , Mi. ~ ~ , . 1 y ,. ,, _ ,r
- '~~'" >,,_ _ ~ "rte ... - .-- ~ ~ _
,t; - . ~ ~ ~,~' 2
~.,.
~ ~ .fir .. _ ^q^~ - _ _ _ - Y'C ..
'~h s~~rti i
y..,
~' _
_ _
' ~ ,, ~ .. ~ s,. '
It r' P,~Y X44 ;.7i ' < ~- , ~ ~ v ~~,,~~4E~vr~ ~ ~t ~-
.. #' Y +k
1'
' _
I. - -
1
. -~ n ~ - , -. - _ ;fir
i K ~, rV n_' i Y
T~
is ~! ..
.. 9
~' :-r ~ ~ R,~'cr:~at~ion~-{area ~. -. ~ ~~, -
I{ ~ s . ~
•, ~ .. .. IA :, 1 .~
.~ 7y_i ,t x t •~ a~4.. IM ~••4
~ • 1 Y ~
1' '
. .. ~ - ~ !.
/ ,, ! }
r
,y r ;~, ,~
.P r ~ . I
'^.
. V~'`~: 11 ~ °T ~i•1Y.Y1 b ~N T1TY 1 '.IS I,IIC }R ~ ~'~~ .(~~~
'.. ~ ..~_` _.b T~• ? .;.~, ~Y^vAy Ar.1 w'i^: .4111 .~ ~Y. / ~~I .Y
.n _ _ ~
. -'
..
. ~
..
• ~ 4 .• y
~~ : l'fzt••7~. l
..~. - .- Y + %. ?r . a - r
_~.
' •. ~ ^ idyl F ~ 1 • t
_I
yi ~ 1~,. t_. Y ~y ~p .,~ ~ ~r1 d •_ 1. S.T~ ~ Y- '.t , 4- 'I' ~ ~.
- Y
' ~ ~,. ~ ~ T
4
.- i
_ C..
Figure 6. Reference Site Watershed Map
Glade Creek Stream Restoration ~ee,
Alleghany County, North Carolina 3,z5 sZ= ,~5° ,E;S ~5°°
December 2007 Legend
' Q Reference Site Watershed Boundary
Reference Reach Site
~,[:[hyctell] r~ }3ic,~llahita~s

_ "yl ""ya.M vA t y 1 t w o 2 r
°
~ ~~s`~ t~~ '~„e ~~~ ~~' ~~`+~ a E" s* + •fi ~ d t ~ 'd ~ ' ~ ~ ~ s ~'°-. y4 ~~'r ". i'+,i ~" ~' ~ ~d ~ ?
~ ~ ~ i
~t, ~ ~~ a ~~ ~° 't t air a~ _ { ~d s . w, t ,~ 1 __~ ~ t 2 yac 'Y ' `"•
t ~ ~ S t;i " , ~ "~ tor' ° v, tf 7 + ~ }t"'~ ° f ' ` ~ • "` ~~~ ,~ `` 1, ~~
.T ,
..•
~ a '~ a ~
~t ~~ .- - ., ti ~ ?
~a~ '~R ~~~c ~r e a t `i o ~ A'r e.a ~ , ; ~ ~ ~ ~•~
,,,~ t $ f~`N _ e rya, ~ t ~ P ~ i ' .4 ~~ , ~ •r ~.^
~, / G
:~...,w'~MS .~ K._.,• 1 e' r ~.'~ u° + c'^ } ~ / ~" ~,.''. ^. ~,.,-~~+. ` ..~.,~,•~'^~£.F •r ryt ~{t`' R •~..
>>
ti o
__ .~ 4 A 1 d~
,, ~ ~ r
_ ~. .p ~~. ,. _s-~, k 'v.. „'' a ~ 1 1 `,. •+ E ~ ~ ~ ^ ~°~ a°~11 ~ rp I ~. u,-+ ~ ' '. ~ i d R ,~ i~
~ , ~
~1 5 ~ ~ '1 1
~- - ~... "v+~'r( ~ ~ m ~ F j ~ . s ~ Y J ~. S.. + ° (`~ ~ .1 t. ` r 2 ~ ¢ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~` t ~ ....
s
,~" tl ~ '3 `e,
~,~~ ` 1`r
a tti fi 1 rdr ~r
3 "'IF a a 55
J ~~` r fi ~ ~ F ~dc s ~" 1 e x c d ~`a f a rl ~ ~, , I' i X~ P
a ~.,.,_ C .~ ~ 4 _ t ds' p t ~~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 P ..
z i ,-
[{(
• ~ ~ ;
• -
..w.~.u.,OM ~ n -° ~ `"" _*r,.,~ S *5. ~ "` ~r ~'yl ~b'' ,~ ~ p, '' ~~ d , P ~ k s t ~ '~
4c. •~• _a" .. f 3k
r .
.., ? +
b. f ~"~' i~' f
o,"r k
`°_
i ~. ".a
w.
.r" ~.~ qrf~ b "@` y , 5 ~' ~~ •.. ....- b v ~ t ~ f~ ~ t ~ ~~°~ 1
r
e R ?$i
i ~ _ - ,- °
e ~ g '-u.
~v{
'~T f*~' ,
r y
,~
~.
_. •. «, ~~ .w.w .r~'
.e,n. ~. , ~ ~ ..m
.,
.,
_.
t
,_ _ __ .. ,
.,..._ ,__ z., r
~M
'# ~ j
+.n
i ~ ~~ ;
_ ..
~ + ~ : "'- ~ ;,,~ ,..-'K ~....! .,a. ~ ,~ Mi ' t4 , k "* ,,.'`v, j ~ P V f a~.C ~x3
~~ 4 ~ - a- ,~ t 1 "1~~ t '1... ~~y ~ 1 ` it i ~ ~, ~ ` r
_. i~"~~ °w ,lea ., ' p °k,' • ~. ~ ~~ •Ik ~ ~ { ~ t 4 ~ ~r$ P
,. .rv ~. ~ a - .._ ~", a ~5"'> .. - t ,yY ~ "~` 04~ s 14 t '~ t
~frs~ .~ t ," "~, ., - ~ ~a f.,,i~.$,+ *° y 1'r c 5 •~+~;4 Ewa _ t t 1 #t,. ~h '4 a r`~ gt~F , ~ i
. _ -^
m~'. ~~t~~~ ~~~ lft!^ arrb a~~j ~r t3 k ~ 'ri.13
~" A `y
.Ay,. Y -
_r a e4.44 ~ !~ - f p y e* ~ '{ ) ~,.wa. r •F L~ i ~ i ;. ~+
v
t F ~ __„ r
_ ~ ,
..
,,
~~
d. 4. y. -,.~....a
~, ,
- t
_.
y
"-,-
•,^
,. r
_.
1 ~,
Figure 7. Reference Site NRCS Soil Survey Map
Glade Creek Stream Restoration
Alleghany County, North Carolina e 250 Soo ,oeo ,500 ~oooP1
December 2007 Legend N
_ a.- 'Reference Reach Sire ChesbN-Edneyville 2560% per cent slopes, ChE Evar6Cowee complex, 251o W % slopes, EsE
' ~~ ~ Streams/Creeks Chestrwl-Edneyville a to 25 % slopes, ChD Greenlee-Oshn complex, 3 to 40 % slopes. GrD
u ` f Ref ce Reach Site Soils Cleveland-Rwk outcrop. 8 to 90 % slopes, CrF Tate fne sandy loam, 8 ro 25 % slopes 7aD
~:enp~teiil +-il~~lla(~l~lt>' &atldockcleylaam 8-25%.BrD2 _~ardq~avellvsanMloam t5 to25i dopes FrD
,,,,,, ,. Chesty U!-AShe, 25 to 9G `~~ sln f,es G:~"

i
f
. _''' ,r'r ...►+'fir -
a,
r
Ae
It
a ti 1
a: J vt
of
r _ _
=J7tFUtk .a EQ� -
.. ''T H [ I kl C],w' Tr i" I I .`. T II .4 3,: tt 11.01 1 E E.
' 4
Ih-
a' y
� C a
v � '
lFigure 8. Reference Site Vegetation Communities Map
Glade Creek Stream Restoration
Alleghany County, North Carolina Miles
0 0125 ozs os o.�s t
December 2007 Legend
Reference Reach Site Land Cover Type Developed Open Space Pasture/Hay
�
� 7� ('`, Reference Site Watershed Boundary ® Deciduous Forest ® Evergreen Forest ® Shrub Scrub
7
IrwsyStem 4P Biot bitat5 Developed Low Intensity Mixed Forest Woody Wetlands

1
1

11.0 Designed Sheets
Sheet 1. Cover
Sheet 2. Designed Channel Alignment
Sheet 3. Geometry
Sheet 4. Longitudinal Profile
Sheet 5. Longitudinal Profile
Sheet 6. Restoration Plan
Sheet 7. Restoration Plan
Sheet 8. Restoration Plan
Sheet 9. Restoration Plan
Sheet 10. Restoration Plan
Sheet 11. Restoration Plan
Sheet 12. Details
Sheet 13. Details
Sheet 14. Details
Sheet 15. Typical Cross Sections
Sheet 16. Planting Plan

GLADE CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION
LBQBID POR DRAWNOS
"CJ
~" EXISTING TREE
>
~~~~~~~-~~-352 •--•••••• EXISTING CONTOUR
EXISTNG iHALWEG
~~ PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED BANKFULL LMTS
ENT
CONSERVATION EASE
M
-L00- LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE
STABALIZED CONSTRUCTK)N ENTRANCE
® PLANTING ZONE 1
PLANTING ZONE 2
____ R O,W--~- RIGHT OF WAY
WETLANDS
LOC VANE
~ ROCK vANE
ROCK J•VANE
ROCK CROSS VANE
ROCK TOE
• ROOTWAD N7TH LARGE
w00DY DEBRIS DEFLECTOR
STEP POOLS
~~
9
~~y°~ ~~
~a92~ y~~
o `''
~~
~~
0~'
~ SITE
BLUE RIDGE PKWY
~~Y~
INDD( OF
1 TITLE SHEET
2 DESIGNED CHANNEL ALIGNMENT
3 GEOMETRY
4 LONGITUDINAL PROFILE
5 LONGITUDINAL PROFILE
6 RESTORATION PLAN
7 RESTORATION PLAN
8 RESTORATION PLAN
9 RESTORATION PLAN
10 RESTORATION PLAN
it RESTORATION PLAN
~ oEraLs
13 oETaLs
14 DETAILS
15 PLANTING PLAN
NuN Cadlne
F »+m~Em.nv~w~
2728 Cep8ul &.d, BdY 1H 107
rwd~, NC 27801
TdAi&715M78
BIOHABITATS, INC.
TM BbCIN BuBtlYp
alai avwr adk ~a
edum,..rn.y~a zi2n
Td: 416f6401k Fu 61PSr1-0188
bbkElhis
Be!'fM1J I uldJ/u(d Mru!!I!'
GLADE CREEK
CHERRY LANE TOWNSHIP
ALLEGHANY COUNTY, NC.
STREAM
RESTORATION
'"' oeao~.ro
mar
YLSMTN JRY
wcw~im.
J%WEMN
°~ JUNE 2007
uww.:
1 OF 16

m
H
i
J
a
z
0
0
r
N
W
K

r
I
m
ZN
J
d
Z
0
f
K
0
r
N
W
K

v
~ ~ ~~ ~ ; W O ~ ~ O
~~ ~
^
W I ~+~ ~ ~~~ 4 W~O
~ _ ~Nw Z ~ i
~ n ~~ o
I ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~

~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4
/'~
~"J
...,._,....„,,,y,~,,,_„,.... ......
4~, ~
,..
~i ,
~~;~.
W ~'~ ,'°
~,
S
~ _.. `w, .,mow ~.
__
W ~''~
~~, ~
~%~/..
[.f
Q -~ k21,~3 ~ ~' °
~ ~~r N
_._. _W
> ~ t
1~ ~~ ~~I~
t x. ~ ~\ C'
o ~ d,
~<~2, ~"^». `'gy`p \o°) _' ~~"w --/ ~~.~~( ~~ ~
'^,, ~ (y
`' ~ IBC
.~; . ~~ k `
.,
~w ~~.
n ~x ,, ,,
.. OD ~~ ~-
Pb y % x~ ~ oo~ _ ~- -''`
~ ~ A 1 ."" QOl ~ p07
.~~
.~ ~,; .,,..w
.tom ..~ ~ ~~4ry .~
~,
~` `°~,
~~ f q, k4`t,'`y,
~^,, ~ ~, !!d 'w
S
~ V. W
4 +;,
'~y ~m 4..
». ~ Wes. a?~
.~+"`
s
~'..

S

tr
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 9
D
n
~_
Z
m
2
m
V
!~
L~
D 9f~ qp
r' ~~~
I,n~ dr!' Tii~irr~a
mN
r Ile wrw
~~~
~rrnr~
1. w-~~a4~rrlw..ldr
GLADE CREEK
CFBSRY LANE P
ALLH~FNNY ~NC,
,v
STREAM
RESTORATION
w ~w e.a
MMIM IN
~ wrs
~71~
~ ~1i10A
~en~
8 OF 16
r'
f
r f
~~~
r ~~
~~
,= r
~,,
r~
F
r 1
rl ~.
~~ ~ ~;~'
r
~£
~~
t ~, j
f ~~
~` ,~ ~ ~ ~~
`~,~ ~ a
~~ A ~
~~ ~
D
t
~ ~ ~ a' '~
7 F a
t t I ~~-a
f
t f ~ t
r f J
Pt ~ f ~ Ij r
~ r
j ~ r
j ~ ,S° Y,,
J~ t r f
,r r ~~I~ ~de~ ~
~ ~ t ~` t ~`
P~
d ~'~r,~ ~~ t~
'{' a
f f ~
p/~ ( ~~T f /
d !d r
f ~{
~~ zF. ~ !
/ °~ ~
t,: ~/ rl
I i~
8 r
~ ,~ ~ i
:` ~
RESTORATION PLAN SUBMITTAL

0
w
w
2
w
w
_Z
J
U
Q
,y
,~. ',"'
4e
`~ y
tt
it S
~,
,~
4
~~~
i
4
s
1 ~,
t
~:
~ FILL EXISTING ~;
~`(~ CHANNEL
.~
~~ ~ } ,-~
~~ `,_~
~~ ~~`~ ~ 9
~= a ~ ~
~, ~ ~
~ g
1 :.~ ~ sngrrw~
1 ~ ~ ~"';..~.I.
~~
n ~ ~ ...~...,,~.~..
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 8 N
----~°~
GLADE CREEK
CFERRYLANEiOVMN&#P
ALLEOFh1NY COUNTY NC.
STREAM
RESTORATION
~~
9 OF 16
~o _~ s
o~/
....~ - ~ .~ `oe
~``^ .
`~
~`'`~
z
~~ °~,
t
\~ ~~

BEAVER DAM CONTROL
STRUCTURE
``f~
~~
~~
RESTORATION PLAN SUBMITTAL

~ ~~~ ~ ~ F ~ I~ ~~ i i °
{~ w
~}i~ ~ ~ ~
~~~ ~ ~ W ~
~~~ : ~ N ~
~ ~ ~ ~„
~= ~ ~ a ~ ~~
~_~: ~~+
+~ -a, ~
sus Tea
~~~ ~_ ~
~~ +r~ ~ ' I
c.~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~al
<Y~ .,_~ ~
+~ i h° La! til ltla
~.~ _.~ ~_
.~„ ~ ~
tL
C.'~ ~ f
{ ~ tx3
Lr Y t/! ~~„
T~ ~ ~~
.~
~ ~. ~, ~' ,
~~tY~ ~
. ~
~~ ~ ~ ° (n
~' ~ TOp~
c~I, ~~ W
~ i ~ i~. ~ ~ 8 ~ Lqo ~ W
i q ~~ t~. ~ <oo
~x,~~ ~ ~ ~ ,~~ /^'~
r ~c ~ , / ..-__ --__ ~ coo /,."J W
~ rri ,» ~~ 3' .,,.. ~ X J
?' tTY "y ~ Jr J j ~ n f. CO J
s rr, ~ Z
~ ~
r
r ,r ° ~
~` T~~~ ~ ~s..- a'
V i /, r /
.~ ;~ ~ x,
F
d % ~ ~~~ ! ~
.,° ~ ~ ~ ..~ dP7 t~3 tt"D', i
/, ~ /, ~ ~4
mod' / ~ ~ ' do ~ V~ \< r/~ ~~~
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ l
<
/~~ Vw ~ c0 ~ V~ \
i i ~,
/ t
i g ~ ~ ~y ~ a $~ ~ ~`~,
~ ~ 1~ dL~ 7
c
i ~ g a i i~ t ~
i ~ .r s s s i t `~ C~
~ ~ aa: ~ ~ i i°~ t~ -~
W / ~ ~ ``~ t ` d 1 ~ \ ~' ~' (U
~ ~ ~ X ".. S~ ~,.
S~ <~~
~ .a .~ T ~
~ ~ ~ ~Oo
~+
2 ~ ~ ~.
~~~ t ~~-~. ~,
H ~~ ~~
_~-~_
d i,
... ~_~ _~
._~
~.~ ~- ~.
,r~r gin` ,~> ,~
S
z~
R
0
~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J

O
W
2
W
W
W
Z_
J
U
t- ©~
Q c~ m
~ ~r
~U
~~
~~
0
~~
t
j 0
!~O
C~
~~
~~
~4 U
~..\<<
`4
tY„ .~
`C°~ ~(J
~ /"
IY
~"
x
a'e t
~,
;.
;,
.x~~
x
i ~~
P
t
J
~.
9
t~
d a
~~~~ ~ ~ _~
~~-~_ ~"
1
i~
ex~,
vr~
F' `tom
V)
~-
~. t~z
f
_,
"• „~ 4~),
OO i.,.s 7 ~ ~~ l~ t
~J ~ S
(,max ~~'~:. , ~-
( t`~• ~` ~
O
O
x
i r
r"
C1 ~`7
s ~ Ls. ~ U 9 .~. 5~,~ ~\~.
.-
• "'~ ~ x•,1.1' ~ 1 ~~ ~v 11 -.
,4y7 'rr.•~ f.~ ~. e,lr
i~ ~~'
m
~~~,:~ y

i

i

1

ii
i~
,r NAEAM m.,P r wAM le¢N Ioa AoAr.
:~-' ~AMEIN Or NM
~x MMW ImMn s
ATMmAe aAE r
// ~ ~~ Y OB11 M
nLA \ iIOP
Pml9>ECmE NEW x rMAm roe
ier uomn
KTE
erx oAx rer Eaa
NIYM m' ATME
omuM ~~
PROW
lOP VEW mMAA~ts r REN~vAr roe ~ oAei A
- xMx~ rMPMUIrNm
ias x MaAo
r~ss gcrall
EGIe A EAnE
iNlli 1feMAE PI1R
.DPTw ITD ACNCENF 9LT ~r~
f91lE SFt11016
WMRea M®rA1HM
L MAa AeEI{ aYl E A EYY P i' IMM PAed M' IMIY Nm x
MEIM. EE !em NAIL E If A 1r PNmE RPMAW 4R, Q K MAETQI
RNMAYf bMl AMO Tat E E OM19M1111' MMM~ rm IOPn 4 E
PLWMI 1 E Y C4 YIMM MW ld TIIII im PPM IU IIMA NN.
L ®OML MIVI t feDe ®ali A Ltll IMQ iCPf MRI R Ip
E PLYIe AT 17 AIP IaR'lIW Am M/N1 Rt x fOIOM RRFTII
m mEIM[ OAf R
1BeE AATMm m uN OEI tm! m a
lTA![ nmlw E l~ pMO tee IME PeA
na uE oa aµ n / TEAR OAAV ae MYr m
nFUO vrloML~ rs OEA) toe NEI ML
3 MPE aE Q flTIIMt fAR rAlf 1R1R 1ET EMl E 01RIIIAT.
mom AE EAnm m near Eelpf NPAa
l ti FFAE M/Ml E IIPfL'® Ails EAMI EANFML lTMlf MM YAInND Ma
rm ~ e Ala mmrt AmYlAla A61M6 s v x AAMC imrc
SILT FENCE
m A IGEE
d IeMfA~
I Fw (r IMU
E~m EYY
I
~
f70M IAAOaI
[MN ILL
AtOCIMe 9AE Y nR M IFmIATl
E Enm mMAr r v r-r AIlNAFE
mnM MATMA

P ote logN AID alx m
oRUenAe
ROFIE

aA1PVM PAM1 PLAN VIEW ~E IML
1
PAlpplf
casalcoaN EFalrAnaw
1. IF1101N - IMMEY Of !r (70' 171 9NmE AE~tM¢ lOn,
1 .ma - 17 wNUN, 91dAD a FlN® Ar TFE Elmmlc ROAD ro nrorce A maw
i EOE%IIF FAmEC GiTT tlDll~ sWy E P1.1fm OAT TE EDSia: amAm PWOA
m P1N710 smlE '+x PWI APPROVU AITTItldIY YAr wT RFAtIRF 9NOIE PALLT
RE90DICFS ro LM[ ®mnc
s. sFVE - 01091m AaAETrm (L' ro » OA I®AN® qt ECYCID CONmEIE
EOJNNENT 91ALL E PL10E0 A71EA3T !' OFPP D1O1 x IDDM AND'piX ?TIE
[NIRNICL
6. lUEACE aTET -ALL 9EFAQ MTR ROEPM ro mL OlAtirlED roMUm fAA61EIClgx
ENIRNA]S 41ALL t PPFD TEWOI 11E ODRANCE YAlIUNAM P0E1NE ORANACE PR
NSTµ1FT TEgAI TE LTAmI® CmEImN:fDN aTWNE 9Wy E PRJIFLED 'MIX A
YOIAiTAEF E701 EM Y1 1rP6 AND A wrE 6 r 6 sloE au THE PPE PPE MAl
m ~ 9ffD ACtl71mN0 ro TE ORANAOE 'MEN TE 9I M ITfAiFD AT A Nw 9qT Aw
NAS w DRAIUMC ro CONYEY A RPE WLL NDT a NEtlSAAY. PPE 9OUD EE !®
ACiV10N8 ro Tt AYOINT P MJNOFF m E A C NEMEY mu E At77,RD.
6 IDCAiIpI - A STAA1gD CpMIMICFpN F)m1.Wft 9lµ1 E IDCATFD AT E'EAT PONE
NIIOE COM4IRUCI101 TRAFFIC DIIOAS !R IU.VES A CO141M1LTmi 97E VDM7FS LFAVMC
THE 9ff WISr TAANL OYEA x 9TIFE IDIOTI CF 71E SgmIIID CpIdIROCIpN FNIRANrE
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
IMt A ICNf
Ainve m!rlew EY¢
oPauAE xw
sntw ETm nr
idM R.RP
e F ~
A ~
FruNE
..~. xr~
f Meettt mE
arAn aTP or¢
nAPP P1V1 CdINZ
~~
mMSAGEEI QE ~oK •K•~
~1F]DCIIY 1NA7 DImUM E
A mOl Im~Hk'fRWIY{I
IPfdAnM META
PEI AIFA ~ ~Y
EOlel A-A' e
~IEIi
h
ELII71 P-r
PUMP AROUND AND VELOCITY DISSIPATER
Na W rAIE
N[ITES'„~ PATTEM 16 ANg1g14 I mn~ (3 A4g10R3 / Yl3T~yj iTdt
s u - aAAVm w orAw, MET/l Oro7Gly PAR IE4IMAAA Pomp ~
nAS1C SME7 C/M E V9T A AMCIq 1RI~ m x MIMAM 9AFACE
COIR FIBER MATTING- STAPLE PATTERN GUIDE
~ a wuc
r' ~~~
.. „~,I F,TM1Y81PME
,E E1lATTaO RAO 9LAly E WDF P Ndi-'104fl1 om,ExmE
Ea A E1 9MFAlE AIEA P'ffi5plyAE FFET Pa SpE All
STMICTMAL ffA16 9Wy E eFIE eM A DOIIELF 51TW U9M
A DmIEIE NEETIE W1tlME mrx uoll MEAD. ME
EAY SIE)MTI 9V1y YTlSfA1O loo E u91AD ASIY o-NM1
AdLY00ATE A~mIMO MI 01401AAQ N~ 7XEL~
MOIDE l11µ1 E Y/AFD TmITT ARmM x m9CXMfE NDE
IPH A S1RW OR 9NlM EMCE ro PIF14Nf IMTAFATD MTR
fTON ETfNTMC x oED1F%xILE FAmtlC flAU e A NON-N01fM
rAEEC rTM TIF PolyorAC iPOPETTCa
pIwRAO'9 IFSf ASIY C-AEa 6
lE4T A64t1:fON4/N
AMOCO FABRIC
X4557 12 OZ.
NON-WOVEN
FROM DIRTBAG
W 5@~AYA44E5
~~ I~2 '
I6 °n5 T ANaoRs
GEDTE X7ILE FABPo C FDR DIR7 BAG
FTOPWI6 T6f IErlim IoPrs NoxPalN ss
aRAeN°0 hMSEE
RI
PETIPTMtt
Mll1Fll mmsT
~~f ~ A"s"Im o- u
ASN o°-'4w1
A4111 o-AAil
AA~7rnLL oo--sieE
A51N 6-l~ ~°
~p~~
EGI
LESHt
.SS 70m
io
l.~
cEo
1m00
nlowNTE xcs
TOP VIEW
NOID
fTCtPT~ OF~1XEUFA~ Wtl»~E OVfr~fll Y Y
PoR IEOINA OET.
C016TRI1C110N lE OEWArL'R1D EAC 9AALL BE
NSdWD OcER A ] mW LimE mlA1k1 BAE R7 SmE AGCEGIE LNT]U
oR smAM PME eASE m fimlTFOIE RA1RATgN
AND DDA1TEAl0 P nE aw norFAC RArE 9ULL ff COiImOILFD ro NEAflAf SIDE NEW
E1f~9SM1E PES9IPE ET1M 11E FLFFR PAC Al 7E BA6 BECOIE4 FlIIFD MTI
EmENi IE PLWw RATE 9wt EE Enucm. 7E RTT EAC 91µy EE xocAAmEn,
EM014D AND d9'09D P IAGN COPIEION P nAaw TOIAt101a a AFIFA rt
THE &~9~L4L E~9M~Ma N~AMEI.PfA1D AAFA NM A~ ET/N L~1 XOIR
DEWATERING BAG DETAIL FOR
CONTROL OF SEDIMENT IN PUMPED WATER
Nm m..".
"~; ~ GLADE CREEK
rT
`
~J
~
BASfFL01Y
fb AL i~
NOTES
1. mANCETS 91ALL EXIEID DOMN9DPE m MAgF10M QIANIEl.
2 SECidrE BDTIOM EDGE OF FAANEEr AS DONE AT lOP Of 9DPE. b
..
,v DETAILS
COIR FIBER MATTING -TYPICAL SLOPE CROSS SECTION

TYPICAL SLOPE CROSS SECTION
"°'"°"P
~~ _
~~.
12 OF 16
RESTORATION PLAN SUBMITTAL

1 I '~~-YAIS tltl ~fIW alw MfrtTN11 tla
/ / A`l1iry vµ~w{wnrN ~°~
nine np Wfl[IAI. NWIw aY+l{
~ {W. fN~ ~Aw {f{/~~w WI MiRNiM{ Y~IW lNA1 A~
]. W ~ I% fR 1t1rM/ ~A ~ Uf L~~f.
1. rwnt eia{ Rif f~1/pN~Itl~.Oy~ t(.
AT tip. YNYI' iR M1ANfIw MAN ISM YNM. W 'IY41flw
ROCK GR055 VANE
PROFILE 1O"0101E
SECTION- TYPICAL
wi vuls wA1.L w wtlw A
YIN. 7.0' nriNO m rNALtw
/JI/ ~f ~~ 0 rtaY uNfft
10f~lDe
LOG VANE / ~~A,wwR locA
G1ANNS1. rNAUfc
lfrfR fi gaGlrlOAf ION{ ANO /I.ANfINi
RAN IOR /LNIfIW ANO I//01 Ni \
r INI NMO itAOf A{ {fVOt,
ON iRAOI W MTI{ 1
BANNML
eirvAnoN
VKAV! LOLL
L01 YAw{
A
LOG VANE
PROFILE ELEVATIDN °101CYt
ANWM ROOF
n~ ~-ICO VNE
LOG VANE
CROSS SECTION A-A' ~`n`N`
~Y na
nu. Aw alw Au
wlw nrx
RJII1eAn wntlAi
M iNii ANY~if.~ 1UYAfIM {01 fARw nt tIa YAw
ROCK VANE
PROFLE ELEVATION -TYPICAL
~r~nrW,'. Ttl1NfW1

GLADE CREEK
CHERRY l/1!E TOVMNBHP
ALLE(iIiANY COUNTY, NG
DETAILS

_ ~~
13 OF 16
ROCK CROSS VANE
PLAN VIEW ~"~"
I{e II NAIpI NY /NYAfIRY111{ fA1M M[ RKi YAw
N fMl{ {Iwr.
ROCK VANE
PLAN VIEW- TYPICAL

NOIE FOOTER LAC NOT SHOYRI.
ROOTWAD/LARGE WOODY DEBRIS *LWD* DEFLECTOR
PLAN VIEW NDrrorxa
'~
~ON lOP OF
~~ ANCHOR ROCJC
root"ad
~[Q~Q yD~F
THAL~DO ~OOiQt
LDC IF BEDROCK LS PRESFNi. ,~gQ~~,,'
~rTMaofroE LOG
ROOTWAD/LARGE WOODY DEBRIS *LWD* DEFLECTOR
CROSS SECTION view rroTroscAlF
Rootwad 6nly
BUNDLE YUST HAYS YORE THAN 10 BRANgfES
FOR CpIPLIX COVER gFl~SH HABITAT
A~ND~S1P PftYOOF CABLE CL AP
1e• ~
,~
ROOTWAD/LARGE WOODY DEBRIS LWD DEFLECTOR
LARGE WOODY DEBRIS (LWD)
w•wwLronl
ROCK "J" VANE
PLAN VIEVIF TYPICAL ~~
STE
DOL -POOL
SECTION -TYPICAL
MrOlrr
r~Iy~
~YrNfY
BIOFIABRAI8,
WA~>~t
hA Rs MNI~
~~~
~ ~~
,.y.» ...c .,rrr..r,~i
GLADE CREEK
~wu~caxc.
L
DETAILS
_.
vuKn
...
e ,~.m
_.,
~. 14 OF 16
~ PaNI
STEP POOL
PLAN VIEW -TYPICAL
"RP' ~ ~'
PROPOSED FlYAL DRADE (TOP of Rogf)
~~~
STEP Roa
wiEx ROtlf
>;
FlLL ALL VgOS Y17X SLB51NA7E YATERAL
1' (YN.) SUB5IRATE YATERIAL
STEP POOL -STEP
CROSS SECTION -TYPICAL '~'°"~
RESTORA710N PLAN SUBMITTAL
ROCK'J' VANE
SECTION A,A'

FLOOD PLAN ViIDTH VARES
SEE ORADNO PLAN
94'
BANIffULI. ELEVATION
1.r t 1.r
6 ~-11' 11' 6'
THALWEO
MAINSTEM RIFFLE
sECTION TYPICAL
NOTTOBCALE
FLOOD PLAN VYDTN VARES
SEE f#tADNO PLAN
~'
BANI~I!<L ELEVATION
r
o' r e' e'
THALVYK~
MAINSTEM STEP
SECTION TYPIrJ11.
NormsrxE
FLOOD PLAN wDTH VARY
SEE ORADNO PLAN
SANIffI!<I. ELEVATION
-C-~- THALVYH3
8.B
1.B
27' 3' !C T
MAINSTEM MEANDER POOL
SECTION TYPIGL
NOT TO SCALE
FLOOD PLAN WDTH VARES
SEE ORADNO PLAN
BANI~Ul ELEVATION
4' ~
1r ~ a' ~ e' 1r
n~~LwEo
MAINSTEM STEP POOL
s~TION TYP~cu
NOT TO ~

~
~

FLOOD PLAN YrDTFI VAREB F a
SEE OItADNO PLAN ~~
~ 12' BK.. R.1
BM1~UI.L ELEVATION ~~
O.r pr aw
7 4' 4' 2'
11iAWYE3
TRIBUTARY RIFFLE
8EC
T10N TYPICAL
NOT TO SCALE
FLOOD PLAN WIDTH VARES
8EE ORADNO PLAN
o'
-;
BANI~U.L ELEVATION
o.r c o.r
r ze za r
THALWEO
TRIBUTARY STEP
SECT
O
I
N TYPIGL
Nor To SCALE
FLOOD PLAN wID'iH VARES
SEE ORADNq PLAN
-;
BIWKFULL ELEVATION

THALVYE(i
~~~
' P 7 9 4 '
r.a.r

TRIBUTARY MEANDER POOL
SECTION TYPIGI.
NoTTOSCALE

~'L
~n""ww~i. R"°i...I.
.
.rr

FLOOD PLAN YYDTH VARES .
~
! ri. B'ni Yu....~!

SEE ORADNO PLAN
1$'
~~~A110N GL
AD
E
EK
1' S
~
~
RESTORATION
4' 2.B 2.B 4'
~~
couNi+~
TRIBUTARY STEP POOL
~~N TYPE DESIGNED
~TO~ CHANNEL
ALIGNMENT
~...,,.,,, - r..I.

.~,. Ri
,B.tl

'~

...
^lir
00 ~,
;i:.::rrB..i B.i.Bi
Y
.
.
B: R~~ `.
`
~ r... 15 OF 16
~
B
~
~
W
IBt
r.r,,.Brr.rBrrrB. ~:
REBTORATgN PLAN SUBMITTAL

8peoies tome CammonNme lhll Addkiona qurGty
Date Amendners LBSryencre
,gn.I~May l5 Sewleaereak Rye gran LB oI P.LS.781 36
Gmuntl UmeNOne 4p06
Ogamc FertlGstt 31D
S1nm NNlch 4A~
Iqy 15~AUp.tS Setaria 7aka lianas mills LB o1 P.LS. 78 t 4D
Grountl UmeNOne 4,000
Olpazac Fenllktt 320
Scam Mlloh 4,D00
Aup. 15-0ec.31 Stcale certak Rye gain LB of P.LS.76% 35
Grountl limestone 4,D00
Oryanic Fenildtt 310
Saaw kallch 4,000
/r
I ,• `
t t l~~c .
J i~~
p` '1
Ia~ ~'
I
1. SELECT AN APPROPRIATE TB4P0 RARY 5 PECIES BASED ON THE DATES GIVEN. zf(~ tl ,~
1. AVOW SEEDMG IN DECEMBER DRN.NUARY.NNECESSlJiTTD 5EE0 Ai THESETINIES, USERYE A~,t~.r. `f
GRAIN AIWA SECURELY TACKED fdUICH. ` `~'~
3. APPLY SOIL AMENCIMENF<F,ENL7 AND INCDRPORATE TO AOEPTH Of 46 MCHE3. L005 EN SURFACE 1~ 11 Ig tc"~~a r 1 p - i

11 T .10+60.99 ~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~``~1"~~'~~~'! ,~
r, ~. -~ .JJJ.) ,
/~~~~ ~~
.~ ,
4
~ PLANT COMPOSfTIONSCHEDULEf 1 A.1~ ~~
~~~• II UTE'EACN TREE SPECES SH UU LD CUWPPI`E AT LEAST 7O° AIID IIO MURE TN All A6° OF THE TUTAL t~'`~~` ~~~~~~~
`D,, § ~ X
R .:. ,
.a

E
1
M s.
1
STEMSPLABTEDNEACH VE GETATIOII STR ATA-A MBIRUMUF 081STEMSPERACREWLLBE OF
PLNI TE D III ZUIIE 1-A MII III M OF 1?71 STE MS PE P. ACR E WILL B E PLAIITE D CI ZUII E ?.
IS3 IThehaoltorcic slaoda OfoUoaas Fbla of theCarofnas. VigMMa Georgia and
Sunoundirg Areas by Aqn S. WalsM,ryf
7nne1•Nena an WnMlande-Ne¢4 .,e~...m.
DveraR

Spadnp
puakity Maximus Wximun
Vegdal'on Stntal
Ihit
5padng IMiNdual
(feet ~
per acre Rrepxrcy Stem
Spec es Name Commm Name
Type Size
Type Spacing
cerde
1 ~~ gwrdky IM I
14 22 TREES. Ifinimum O755 crts, Minimum Md Tre es=230
NIA NfA pemus eESa abhke Oak c, Db "dbh mi WMan 200
NIA WA Pmvs shobus Mike Pine c, Db "dbhm WrrdWn 160
NIA NIA 7sape caredensn Eastern I}mlock c, Db 'dbh Wntlom 1D0
10 1B3 percus rube N. Red Oak hr, c,t IB-36' FaMan 31
70 163 &tuH aaegMnskrrsis Yekow Bixh hr, c.t IB-38' Wrdan 31
20 163 tinoderafmn trnFpR2 Yellow Poplar hr, c,t IB-38' Wndom 31
76 163 Tde americars Basswood hr, c,t IB-38' Wndom 31
7D 163 PMtarxa ocadertaYs Sycamore hr, c,t IB-36" Whom 31
76 163 BetuY ryn Po~Bimh br, c,t 1836" Wndom 37
20 1W AcersdcClanmr 5ugalAaple hr, c,t IB-38" WMOm 3i
70 183 Acernilme ltd N4pk G, c,t IB-38" Wndom 37
~ 163 Prtras serotin Black Q~emy 8•. c,t IB-38" Wndom 3f
Rf5 TOTAL
14 12B MIDSTOPY TREES Minimun d55pecies. Minimum Md Trees=236
76 183 prpirrca wmNmdre amwood br, c,t IB-36" Whom 31
20 163 Gaye 'aA'^ia^a lanes®n HOphomDeam br, c.t 1836" Wndom 31
10 163 kxopaca Holly br, c,t 1836" Wndom 31
i6 163 OgoFrwan arboretum Souwood br, c,t 1836" Wndom 31
20 163 NekxkeraAOrea Serticebeny br, c,t 1838" Wndom 31
26 183 GnorerMrs drgixus Fdngdrce br, c,t 1836" Wndom 31
1D 783 Camas fbm'a Flowedn m mood br, c.t 1838" Wndom 31
615 TDTAL
14 2D3 SHRUBS. Minmur~o55 des, NinmVn Md S hrub:=23 0"
16 1B3 lirelen arrzoM BDieebush br.c,t 1830' Wndom 31
16 183 Sam6wus caadertsrs Btlerbeay br, c,t 1838" Wndom 31
]0 183 6ycardAuafmrga 5weetshnsb br, c,t 1836" Wndom 31
]6 163 6MCarry amerkare Amedan Beautybeiry br, c, t 1838" Wndom 71
16 763 Ffjdrargea arbomscerts IMId lydnn~a br. c,t 1838" Wndom 31
70 163 Sy pkcostixrora Wrse Suga br, c,t 1838" Wndom 31
16 1B3 RmdoaFmdNrv magnum Phododm~dron br, c,t 1838" Wndom 31
IO 181 IimmeFs tiryarrana Buhchhsel br, c,t 1838" Wndom 31
815 TOTAL
8 2,4fls GRAND TOTAL
Overall
Spac rig
4uartdy Manmun
F
Stem
Vegetal'on Stnlal
Unt
Spacing In3wdua

Iteet dl
per are regxrcy
puaMity
Spec es Name Lommm lk~
Type Size
Tgpe Spacing

cerrterJ ~~ I><~
7 BA LNE STAKES: Yln. Xot St ems=870
34 ~1 Sakxngra BIacN NM1llow the sntr 23' Wndom 17
33 632 SaFxseroea Silky Ndllom ene mle 23' Wndom 12
~ 631 Comes amomun SiYVW mood lik halm 23' Wndom 12
1,915 TDTAL
18 7~ SHRUB AND TREES: Mirimum M=3d0
34 254 Lm6acusareoMSrr Bdemerry br, c,t 1838" Wndom 19
33 147 AYrtrs sm,Yata Tap Aka br, c, t 1838" Wndom 1D
33 147 Betue 'ra Rvr Wmh br, c,t 1836" Wndom 16
7a6 TOTAL
6 1b63 GRAN0TO7AL
0.11 plaMirp stock povided step be securedfram a local groducer locattl in fie moudan ghgsioprapKc province. nut
mare that 2D0 milesirom the site. Planing Sall occu tludngihe lasttull week d FeMUrythro~ Maroh. Bare root material
mid be gored in a rdrigented truckfran nuntrypickup m ro more tten 30 mmuks before parsing. All parting flock
mid be 9oretl prcprlybelrre plarding m avoidtreezirg a demcation, antl muM tx approved bathe Desigrer before d an
be plarded. Wre rod seedlirgstfet have been Srppetl irl commerdal amens will rid De accepetl. I proper care dth
material has ml been taken, tPe material will be reledetltor planking.
unittype c, tb = cortalner on balletlin bulap.lnittype br, c, f =bare root, container orliblirg. NOTE~Wnde Oak, Whke Plne
aM 6stem I4mlod minimum size is 7 dbh. k Iea41D stems d each d tkese species mist be plardedif avalade. There
~oJd be a least 50fed bdween 2" dth sleets and at least 200' bdween 2" dbh gems of fie same species.
Sizes Ilsletl are recammendeq bJ are rot mearMto be a reslricEen in sre.
Q/ ~W~IWWW'1
(~
i ! ~ ~t)
Z
I
) t
~`T~ zE~
f ~ o
0
't !•
f rr 4
(:`4~~° /
~`
~~
~~
~ f
4~
~ ~
..~
o\
~~
b^
3
q2 f
1`'1
~~ ~~F~
~~3r! ~~1
I~~ I
~/
t
LEGEND
ZONE1
ZONE 2
N
I~C/41..Q
IrOrN /IrM~
' M1IM1~~h/M wN1~
ill'Ill 1/Ntl//q

GLADE CREEK
CF~ItY WiET0YYN8HP
ALLEI3FYJiY COUIIfYr NC.
1Y
PLANTING PLAN
ataNraa, ~~ erNM ~,~
wr ~~
16 OF 16

1
1

1
1
1
1

12.0 Appendices
pT~. <~ 1 r~
.. ~9
4. 5,:1
Appendix 1. Project Site Photographs
Appendix 2. Project Site USACE Routine Wetland Deternunation Data Forms
Appendix 3. Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix 4. HEC-RAS Analysis
Appendix 5. EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist

0
0
N
c~
i
w
r
~~
.~
Ql
N
i-i
~..~
N
'C3
a1

bank at ~ sta 2+25 on Glade Creek
-- .-
~ ~'..
~-
:~
~~ t . x ,ram„ ~,.
,~... t
~~:
,_
W.~•,
ti~M" ~ ,.
-~ ~~,.
ti°
., ~
<, ,. ~.
~. ^nSw. 1*aww:. .urn w:.µ „.r:. ~~~~ tip.
Pool beside large 30'~~~hite oak at - sta 3+25

" ~,;'
p
:~~
~~ ~

,. n.,
~M ..-
,. y,Y +y. ,,. ,..
+ a
,. ~ 9 w'V~Ya
uq ~N , 'mJww+r
a ..... d ry '".y,~,....
Glade Creek-right bank at -- sta 6+75 - 8+00 ire

v
~,
v
r_
O
O
~n
c~S
t
.~
a.
~o
c~
O
aS
N

of beaver pond ~ sta 16+00 on Glade Creek
S: r ~~
<~
-,:'
'~" - ~`,
~-
" :~'.
..~ ,
':~;:` .
.~.
"~~ .
...
,.
..~~ ~, .,
~,
~r~. ~ ~~ ~~~ ;
Glade Creek-right bank at ~ sta 16+50 u/s of beaver pond

:~~
,~ .

die r. i ~ ,~ ,;.
~ ` _
~ ~
~.

~ .
.
}~~- ~ti `r
1 ~

~ i
~ ~ ~ i t~
'-h ` ~ 4 ~.
~ ~ 4 ~~4 ' y ~, ~~4
CD
A~ j'~r~`t~ ~ „R~ {,
CZ.
~ ~'~ ~~
A

~.
~ .
~ ~;
~ ~ ~ R~
~ ~ ,/
P~
C
C1.
A~
..,
~.
.~
1
.~
W
~~
v
~J
N
~O
I~
w
Q..
~~
~~
~~
~'

Looking upstream at ~ sta 24+75 on Glade Creek

0
0
0
1
~'
~,
0
~.
0
v
c~
.~
d-+
f^
~!-"-'1~
i-~
~+-I
3
v
.~
~,
¢.

>,
~.
v
r
r_
O
O
O
.--~
c~
2
.~
aS
3
a~
.~
.~=~

C
w
~'
r
.--'
1
.-'
N
N
O
.~
C
:~
.=+
.~
C~.
.-.
C
P~
r ~ ~ ~ ~ r ^^r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~

~.
.~
v
0
r`
V
~.
e-~
O
.~
c~
;~
O
~_
'~
O
GA
.~
.~
,.fl
O
in
N
ai
t
3
.~
a~
~.
0
C~

Y ~ ,f k
{(
y~ ~1~F~~ "Y~~~ -.

si+~~ ._f
f R
e ~ '. _~'a
~
_
..v
..
- .. R .,
sg. ~ r _. ~ `Es
~
~
.a

~
_ ~, ~'t
-4
_
'
~ r*
~
~/ '"
y
r ~y. ,t .
~
r

...,. .r... ~.. .~,.
Upstream view at ~ sta 0+60 on Basin Creek
.,,~,~ -~

~-

~-
~ ~ r
• ' t 1 ~_ ~ ~ ~. r i t

. . _~ '_ x~ _. ~ _
1~a~,.t

d
0
~'
0
~'
n

DATA FARM
ROtI't'1t~ YYETIAND OET~iAT'ION
{)987 CO£ Wetlands Detkteatlon Manual}
Pro}eft/Site: ~^~3.1i~f,. ~.i'f~-' i~K''~,.~~c E~~ 1't'it~u~=~tt ~~-t ~~-3 Date: ~! ~' ~r~
APPltcantlOwner: Ni~ t~ 1
CouitY: ~.;,
,~ ,~~ ,•~,;
lrnrestigatOr ~ a /1 ~: r1n 1~/'~ _ StAte: 11,}i~_ ~_-__
Da Normal Grctrnsiarmes exist on Fhe site? ~ Pb Corrnrxmity ID:
is thF sits sgntFicantiy disturbed {Atypicsi Situation)? Yes Transed fD.
is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: ~Y:_} kna ~a '_'....
1i needed, a in on reverse. , _ 4~# ~;:--~~ ;i:-,
VEGET ATIdN
~~"',~ .
~- .
Cx,mn.an~ ~fa~~_s .~xs-
- _,_ , recum _ FW~t
a Qonr~ant PSaret sneaes Syetum _ tna~cetor
.
~
1
- ` - ---- - - -- -- - .-. - - -- _
r p
i tS
a _ __ __--__ t2..__ ,_ _ __ __ _
ti3
6 __ -- _. _._. .-_.__ 56 .. _._... ___. .._...._._ __. _....__ _. _..
7 1 ~i
!i t Ci
Ferc~eOZ or Domrnanr Specacss ttset arr UE3L. FACW ur FAC y ~...
ercAudn FAC-1
ta i 1 ,,'~
Rynwrk!.
F. 1° .~ ,.. . _ ~ ~ . ~ s, . ~ ' ~~:. t. , e * .~'1 t ~.;
r r
t
.-7 ~ _
k
FlYDRdLdGY
ReccxUed Data tDescnhe n Rramarksl Wellant7 tiytrciogy tMtcators
Shaam. Lake, or Tefe Gauge Prmarv ts3ca4xs
Aerial r~Yurtograt~ hundaAed
Clther ~
Sattn8Se6 n Upper t: fiches
/
/ tdc: Rec;a~3 Dais Avawat~le J
y_ W 3lar Nbrl~
DrYfl tJnes
S9dRn9rIS GepC7bh5
F~eid !Jlx>ervaliort5 Drattbpe Panems in Wetlands
Secondary trbiCatpls (2 u mae rHgtarFfd7
Craptt; :~ Surta::e Water to 1
- __._.-_ ___ _ CT>edtzed Runt Cis rt+ Upper t hctrec
Waiter-Star~etl Leawss
L~eplh to Free Water n Pit _.. ~ (r. f
_ _. _
_-- Loci Sol Svvey Gafa
FAC-t.leiriral Test
__~.
CYe~ti W SalurateQ Sat ie: ~ Other (E>¢llarr+rn Remarks)
ker,arks ~,,,.., ~.. s. ~ s , ,7 U . , ~` (,. t
BZ Appendrz B 61ank and Example Gala f•urtns

SOILS
Map ttut r~-rmt ~ . ~
~
~'
~ ~~, ,
'
"', .
T^
'~ €
'
~
r.
1Series rna Pi,assl
s/
~
~ r
- ~ -~,
,
_ Orainape gsca
-
- --
~-
fM406wvHtioaa
~ aaanomv (Subgroup) ._._ °_------- Confirm Mapped Type? Yes bb
1'Ipll~f.>.IQHSd]Q11011.
Deptt. Malra Color
1ffi>~4&1 Mormon fiLnrt tiouti IM
MoWa Goiors Mottle Abundance' texture, Ganaetlons.
untai Moiatl SIxeJContrut ${pLoture_ elc.
-r___...

rlydnc. Snn tndtcetors
Hstosol _ Conore0gns
_- `islet F;upedon -High tkgarat Comem w'+ Surface Layer 1n Sandy Sots
Sulfide Odor - Organic Streaknp n Sandy Sots
Aquc Maature Regerr Lrsted on Lord Fiydnc Solis Liss
/ Reducing Candtbons __
Dated on f~LOnal Nydnc Sots L6t
y l.~k'yed a Low-Chrama Coors __
- OMn (E»Iv+ m Remarks)
Rr~nuri6
WETLAND DETERM{NATION
M~*>F*Mw vege~ron Presents IYes~ No iCacleJ (C.rx:lel
W effsna ryerolegy Presant~ ~ vac No
`hdr+r. Sails Present^ iY'es No is Cus Sampkng Pont WqM n Wd{~a~ ~ Nu
Remarkf. r ~~
~ i y~~t 4~~-.
Anorvved ~ ht4usACE ~sz
A{;ienaix B sunk ana E rtampW Data Farms B 3

DATA FORM
ROUTINE YVETt.AND DETBtYMUT10N
(1987 COE Wt'ttands t~etheStlDn fiAanual)
Prolect~Site ~ ~ '" `C T+~w N {,`i1n;:M l~~ h Date. ~'
AppltcarltlOwner: C: - - County: :' ' ~ ~
Investigator J(tvt--, ~v,~r':: ~ y State: _
Do Normal Circumstances e>QSt on the site? No Comnnmrty !D:
Is the site sigr>aFicantty disturbed tAtYPIC81 Situation)? Yes Transact ID: _
_
!s the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: ~tt~
Z
It needed. e h on reverse. x'17 I
HYDROLOGY
Rer-crded Uata (Describe n Ramarier) We4anC r~ydrology trdreadcxs
°>trearn, Lake, or Tide Gauge Pnn,ary ttdK,eK+rs
t+enal PtxnogragNts hundated
CNher ~ Sakirated n tktPer 12 Ir~tres
yP Pb N.nc:ar3eA Uata A>riHie:Aa }~ Watex Akrks
Drtl! Lines
Sedanerrt DepasRs
FKld ,~~.4r~adars _. Dralneye Patterns m Wetlands
5ectxidary fndrea~rs r2 or mores requrexit
Depth <d Surta[ a Wa~~r ,n ? __ {?w6ized RoQ Charmets n Lipper 12 inc:het.
__ Water-Stained Leaves
Uerpth to Free Wafer n Pit. ~;_ n i
_ Lncat Sal Sutiey Uata
cAG-iJautral Tt~t
(N4tt, to SattGaled SciA tern. ~. Other jE>~ar~ n Remarks I
Rwnerks
B~J Rp~xrtdtx $ Blank and Exsnpie Uata Forms

SOILS '
~
~
t Sertes
ena Phaae! _ r` ~ ! ~ i:h ~~ 11 ' -^t }
-
-- ]1.'~/; ~?(1 c: L `
t 1 41>v
~w~ _
-f` -
_
~
T c
~
tawnamy ts~ssr~rvl. __._._. __ ____---- Confirm MtppW Type9 vea Pb
g
Dxotr. Matrtx Cobr bAoltt
(A~uu
AAor
t1
~e1 ~brtmn
d
f~Aurr
i
IQ
,' a Golortt Motes -Ibwldeloer Tetaxe, Cont~etiona.
ae Moot) 9iaetCano-.aa S1nx~ro. euc.
-
J
~
,
~1
~
~
J j ' r_
t'1~IK. S(~ t,d,CelOf6
Hstusot _ Cortaebons
risUC [DPSdon __ Iiyh Orpentc Content m SurfeCS Layer c $endy Sotto
s„Kw~ oaol _ asnK sve,k.,y .n sney soa.
Aquit Mbiriure Repmle Crated on Local Fydrtc Solk List
-
f Reouanp Condroons - Laced an Neeonal ti/dric Sots Lxt
Gkyed a LorrC.hrama Coors _. Olt+er 1E,plem in Remarks!
RhmarM r

WETLAND DETERMMdATION '
FiVdrophytrc Vegetation Present? Yes Pb (Gc1ej ICrdel
Weeatd M/drWogy PrsaenY' Yes ~ Alo
Fivrk,c Sots Present"' Yes' Mo k t~,s Sams, Pant Wtt-te, a WetlWnd? Y'~~ Nlp
kemahs i,,
~pprcrved by FtOIJSACE 392
~,en~x t3 BterN, anti Exampia Data Fame 63 ,

1
1
1
1
1
DATA FORM
ROLrTME WETLAND DETERMNATION
11987 CAE Wetlands D~kteation Macxial)
Protect/Site -' "~ ~~ 1 A ~ 1 ++ ~ Date' ~~ ~ ~~
AppitcartUOwrler~ '' Cotrr+ty: ~},jj_~t#,
t
-r~vestigator..~~_ j'-~y~ r , f _ ~
State: j~(%.___
Do Normal Circumstances e~ost on the site? ~ No Camnnmity ID
-S the site si~lificantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes 6b Transed iD:
ks the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ~+b) Pbt kD: yt,,l'~I~v
-t needed, a in ~ reverse. , ~ ~„t- 4a~ ~
VEGETATION
~~~1~~ ,;
~~~
QUff/nani Wlera~C1~t5 ._______. -_ ~. hd `A~l~ ~(7{nlninl PY9tK S StrHtUm hdKBtor _

IQ

a 12
t3
~ - -- _ 'a _ _ _- _.. -__ _ _- _
i 15
8 tfi
F~ernartt W 6onmtmt Speaes mat ert OBI.. ~ACW w FAC tt,,ll
~
teaktd FAG-
Vim`
Rertwtl:s
I~IYnROt_ocY
Rrx.urWrd Uata tDesctipe rn Remark:.) Wetland i-iydralopy t~icalorx
SMaam. Lake. a Ttde taa~ge Pnmary hdlralcrs
Rena r'hcxogratnhs h;rtdaled
Ottw ~ Saturated n lJUtwr t~ Inches
i
~f Nu F2ec:cxded Data AraiaUe r
Water hrtsrks
_ Ortil Lrtes
Sedmtent Deposits
Ft~n Otnervattuns ~ Dratlape Paltertrs h Wetlands
Secmdary tndcatars (2 o more requred i
D«yM~ of SuAace Watet tut + __ 4wcized Aoo1 Ct>err,ets s lfpper 12 hc:ttes
~'~ Wald-Sla~tedieaw
rteplt+ to Free W~a n Pi _ _~ _ _iut t _
Lx~ Soi Strvey Data
FAC-Neutral Stssl
Ckytrr In SMirated SnA Sm '~. _.. t7lfter (Emtat~ n Remarksi
Rrxnatit_~, 1 ( ~ ~`, ~ p~

~~
Apprrtdrr B BtartM and i= trample Data F arms

SOILS
MaP Une Nlnl! '(
1
j
~
j,
_,~i
~4
~~,X)ti~ ,`~~
f SanB6 and Phaee) ~51~
7 e'(
,J~t~,~ DriRiSpE G~fE: __.__ _.._._.__
''~'~~yt
V
-
{ Y
` fpld OMervetiont
7e,wra+rN (~+apr~) _.__ _. -.-- Confirm Mapped Type4 Vea Rb
QOOII.
DaDtt: Metoc Cobr MopM
fttfffifel~ hlpf>7Gf1 (~ Moirtl IMum
Colon Mottle Abuneancar Te~tura, Gawsuons.
d MoaA1 9me/Cormaer StrucWro_ ett
_-_
f ~j ~ -- _ _r
-
_~__
-
_ - y~~ ~/~ -- -- -
-------
t 1 _ _ __
Hydru Sob hdreators
Hstosol _ Cpnapipns
Hatu EApedor: _
._ Hph Orpamc Gotnerrt m S~urtaae Layer m Sandy Sons
Su1RdK Odd _ Orgmr Saaakmg n Sandy Soya
Aquc MonRuro Repime
Reduanp Condl6ons _ LMaO on Lo~l Mydnc SoHc Lip
LWetl on National ttydnc Sole :qi
~ >
Y Gleyed w t_avr~Ctucxsa Cobrs _
01Mr (P.rplem m Rsma+ksl
Rwmarvs
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Itlydrnphybc Vegstadm Prosent~ hb (Crde1 IGclel
Wetlantf Hydrology PreserN~ Y We
HydrK: Sole Pnauenr~ Nc; k ttus SampYnp Pans WNFan a Wetland" Ves N;,
kemadu; ° ,~a
~~ ~ V ,; {- j~,.. ~ 1
Appr[TMed tty HDU°...AGE 3l9Z
~txrrra. B [itarw~ arW Esam4~a Uara Forms g3

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
DATA FORM
ROl1TM~ NtETLJ1ND DETEWAMATiON
(1961 CAE Wetlands Delheation t+Aarrua!)
Protect/Site: bE~i ~Ei: " Mk;~~ W ~1 tJ„t+td~Yq {~ ~`1q: Date- t ~`~
Appftcantipwner: G - -!' County: ! a i,c~~
Irtvestgator ,~~,;~, ,; -'1rll:y ~; State:
Do Normal Circxirnstances ewst on the site? Yes No Commtmity ID:
is the site sgnificarKty disturbed (Atypical Sduatbn)? Yes No Trartseci !D _
-
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Pb Plot. !D: ~4'i''~
if needed. a in on reverse. 1=~ .:.,a} e+z w~ ~ yti lrs,
VEGETATION
~Wlarrt PteM _- Stratum hdreetnt D9hInN11 ~t 9oenes ~~__ hdrratw_
~-~
j ~ ~ ~ _

_
_---. tD _
~
_- ---- ------ - t -

f _ __ __ _ ------_._.. -- -__. __. _-___--- f4.____.__~.__-._.. _... _. _. '.
iS
R 16
F'eroenr eX Uorrrrent Spepea Mal ere G1EiL rACW a FAC ff''
~
fettiud FAG tl
kernerks
HYDROLOGY

F2ar.cxdetl Data fDescrtbe n Rernarkis 1 Wetlarw Hydrdopy hdicatcrF
Stream. La4ce a Tg1e Garptr F'renary lydrCatnrS
Aenat F'hotographc Y~imdated
c.)Rrer
~ X~ Satucaied n L1P~et F2 txires
t('
NCr kec:ordexl Data AvnMaUlc Wabr hterk5
_ Drat lses
Setlimeni Oeposgs
rbrd t~be.ervaaons ~!' Dranape Paeems n Weltanas
Secondary kidic:aKOra 42 a more requrodJ
De~+tt+:ri Sur7ac.e Warier in i
__ _ - CJwtized Root Chartnets n llpgar t2 tx.hes
_
Weser-SidnedLeaves
Gepth tr+ Free Water n Pk ~ 1 n ~ _ __ L.~al Sall Survey D~a
F PC ~iJeutral Test
iHr{rR~ It, Saluratexi 3~r17 to 1 _.. Other (E7Qlian n Ftemene,J
kr^~rart~
ez
AtX+ende 6 BWM and Examtr~ Data Form<_

SDILS
Mst, tArs hlrnc
iSwna6 and Phasat ... __ _.__._-_ _...--- Uryrrrape Qew. -
F~ld OAwrvst~wr
?erunomy iSubprouyl- _._ _ CArKem tdspped TypeT Yet 1Vo
@S9~L(~~{Npd
Deplt, sA~trts Color 110RIY
t!•'!fd1S@L. Fiomm~ lkAurreetl 1Ad~f1 ~
t CObrt NbeM Abundarwa! T~raura, C,onaetgns,
( ~AOtstl .g4mM.Orltrftt ~(tlL7)tl(e. elc.

r'tydlK $di k+dK;atorts
~SIS)SOI _ lMI~S
_. IistK Eyrpeoon ~ riph OrpanK Gornent n Surtaae LeVei n Seney SWs
:iUMIdK Odor - Orpank $treaiunp n Sxwy SoNs
~ AQUC Abia0.ne Raper _ Listed on Locei !iydnc Sons Lill
~+ anp C~dtdons Listed oer tJeLOnal Mrdne So11s Lai
Gleyed a Low~C.hrorn Colors _
_ Qlher (E~plan m Remarks)
Rwrvryrks
WETLAND QETERMINATION
kvdra~Va vegelefronPreserrl? as. hb ~Ckde) lcerie)
WetlttK} ~t~o£7Y PresarR~ Yes ~ tyo
tiydric Sc>tb Pret;ari~ Yes We k 11us Samplrrp Pont WrUm t Wdtand? vas ' Nc
kemasks ~ ( ( }
7. ti,t, ~ r,` ~ l~' ! ~" ~. ~i~e ~.{I C~~i- liv c 'C ~ 7i-. tCj `1 - ~ `f ~ f'~1 1.L"v 1 1'1 d. .i (~
~- l
~~t ~~>~~~-i~ `~
Aoomved tH FIOtJSACE 3142
grvan~u B Blank ane ExarrrPla Data (pmts g~

1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMNATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Df~Mileetiott Manual)
Project/SRe~ i~_e.~~- ~[.~~ t~"i L''i~~t~l.~-~w4 ~'t ~1. ~
~
~
Date:
)~
.

ApplicantlOwner: { ((; ~~i~' _
-~
~~_
Cotrtty;
~~~
__ _~
~~_,_-
Irtvestigatar ltlti .n~ ~sr n-u ~..~ State: A. ~ _
Do Norma! Gircxxrsstarxes east on the site? ,Y s:. No Commuraty 1D.
is the sae significantly disturbed (Atypif~l 5lttsation)? Yes Trartsed 1D'
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes
` Plot ID' ~ p~_~-
If rfeeGed, a non reverse. `' ~
VEGETATION
Qonrnrmt~,t soexs
t n tt
r Doms~artt Rsrn Stxaes Strartm,
htlcatnr
_
_,._ .__
_ qq 11 ,,. ~.
'l
P _
_
t a.I ! (.
.~'~+g;oC z 4~ t.1a.3 T~`. ti
F ,-C. _ ~~~._.. 9.
~ t
~ Y
~ w*'` ~ ` i #3~~ .....__.. "1..~ 1.1 ~~

r~ •.a
-'_
t t S
t3 tE.
f+~rcxrti pt ppmnani Speves that are OBI. FAGW a FAG
semkbn FAC- .
r{efllefY,K
3
~
*
,t ~
HYDROLOGY
Rec cxt)ea Ctata IDescnbe to Remarks ; W etlano NydrdoQy hd~cators
Stream. lake. or TKfe t~a,.~ge Petmary Yr~Calars
Agsa1 F7~nt;praphs _ _ I~~deted
` C~tl'~nr Sa6xated r~ Imps 12 hct,as
t/ rk: htd:urded Data Avawat~te Wafer AAerks
Onll llte5
SedmeM DKpt:pS
i=~d +~tnorvaticna Dranage Patlerrw m Wetlarttls
Seccxrdarv hd~cators (2 or e~ore rep~red'
Chgtt, nt S~rlace Water in ? __ Owei~zed Rod Cfiattnets n Upper S2 haws
Walar-Startetl Learr~
_
t-yefMt to Free Wales r PR (n f
_ ='~ Sol Su~ey Data
'r AtNeu4at Test
U~fh to Satiuated `.5'Ud {n s __ C?lAer fE~tan n Remads'.
F[ernark> ~.
1• ~ ~ i
t ~~
y-
62
Appen~rx B Stank arr~ Example Data Fcxms

SOILS
Mon Vitt name 1
;Banes end PAluel _~ `~{''~
. ~ t' ~ 1„ t ~~i~{', l ; II
1 . ' i.._. Ikawlps CI~K: ------
y
Tetw~omy (SuUgroup) _ _----._----- __ _ Confirm Aispped Typed Vas I~b
gn~InSlCxcmtna
Deptr, iiatru Cobr 6ioUla Cai
Ls~ei t~umsxi tAttirnsel Nlni~¢t !l~utaM 1tl
ots MotBe Abundrrca± Tnsure, GonasOOns
otat) SimlCattreat Slru~rtt. etc.
r _ - -- --
_ ..
`' ` `7 ~_ s~1_`l j ~
_ - _ __ _ ___ - -

_ - L ~ ~ '
~~Ni.
~ r / ~ 7 1
MyMK. Scdl t+dtcaWre
ricitwpl Con.7MlOrti
~- Er~°d°^ . ~ 1•'1flF Orpantc COrriertt rn Suriaos layer n Sandy Sots
__ SuHidre Odor OrpanK Slrealmy n SendY Soak
_ Apus: Moisture Repcne _ _
_ Listed on (,oral Hyd~c Sods Lis?
Reduony Gondt6ons _ Listed on Na4onel M/Onc Soil lst
Gleyed u Low Chrome Cobh Othe+ tEtmtam m Rerrerksi
(
RMmwrkt~ ~ ! -
1 j
WETLAND DETERMMATION
Mydro{thyt[.VegetahmPratsertt? Vas iPb~fGrcle) ICYcM)
wetland Hydralo~y PresaM'~ Yec !Nc }
FiytY~c Snlis ~eserM~ Ves ~ lc tMS SampMng Paei wrt~n a W atland^ Vas ~J
kemarks
,..
~ ` > -1~
~t ~ _--
- +--
..r--
ul
fptwoved try FIOUSACE 3192
ptKx*rdu b thank arxi Enartde Dare Forms g3 '

y
1
1
DATA FORMA
ROUT'ANE WETLAND DETERMNATAON
(1967 COE Wetlands Defkteation Manual)
Pro}ect/Situ~~7.Li~~ '+~irJ+° s~~~ Dl~' ~W1`'s1"!i"1 ti C~G Date: .3~ l G /
Applicant/Owner ~'v~.E. County: 2 (,it;.i~-
lnvestgator. ~ ~ ~ ~ „ ~~,;,y State:
Do IJnrmal Circumstances east on the site? ~ hb Community tD
Is the site sigrtiftcarrtly disttxbed (Atypical Situation}? Yes No Transact 1D~
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes IUo Plot ID: Gl'~1 ~:.. axa
It needed. a in on reverse. a~ '~l~ ~ . c.. -
VEGETATION

~OOmnnant FSant Soeam _ _____ .- ; Yrd to
_ Qorryriarit aieKfS Sbeaes utratum haK:afar
e ~ r ~'h ~ ~ o, l ~--
-+~li+iCv'3 ~K'L'?Ir`1 - .
- -~?_t~-- t ~
--_. L,.~'v~ l 9 _ - _._ _--- - -
11-- -- ----- - ---- -- --- -- ---___ _..
a 12
-, - - _.. __._- ___--- -- t3 ------.... _._.._~..____.~_~.- _. .._._ _.. ._ -. _ _..
f; ~ a
1 iS
8 i fi
Peroem W Dommant Spsaea [Rat ere OBL. FACVY nr FAQ ~ ~,~1
(emMudn FAC-i W
RartwAs
HYDROLOGY
Rer:a;fnd Data fDescrtbe r Remari~ : Wttllaretl SiydrdoQy Indicators
Stre~ir~ lake. a r¢te Ga;xie PrYR3y trrdicaYxs
~1EI7al Pl rc%trgraptl5 1nurAatad
~ cltt>er ~' Satuaud n UPPer 1? Inches
y' 'vu kac:cx~e Data A.vatatie --y~`iNater Nola
OrAlt~nes
Sednnent Geposrts
Frern ~~bf.exvali[xrs _ Drainage Pellems a~ W eliert05
Sec:onclary 1'Wicaltxs iZ .x mae regi u1
DeplR nt Suriaue Water to ; O>od¢ed Root Ctserureds m 1Jpper is tK:fett:
/~ water-Staneo Leaves
D~ to Free W star m PR 1. ~ ;~ j
_ ._... _ - ~. L.x~ Sotl Spivey D~Aa
= W_-Netbal Tesi
Urf[.Ah 4> Sialtl(alg,''1 =>CM; !~ 1 - ~1her {6gHam If1 Remal'k_c)
ItiWnaflC,
CL
ApF>l+ndtr B 8lanic and ExamWe Data F,xmc.

SOILS
Map lY~p nrnr ~~~ ^l~ ~
~ ~
~
~ ~~~
(Serrtx snc Rtafbl _ . _S.~ y ~3 5_~_~
(1
i1
~I _,~ _-~ ~_.-:.t~. `~__ Orfr~De C4as __ _.
Y
0 ~ F
1A O
4
-
1
1
1 a~^~r (Surgrouvl ___.. r
bwrva
ona
~
C.onfinn Mnppad Typal Yes to
Deptt~ Matru Cobr Mottle Cabe Mottle Abundanaa~ Taaure. Lonasoons.
tID~.~i +~++~ [AVmef Morn ~1 `,3talCormeat _ Stnxt-tro_ etc __--„-
---, - -
,,L -7- _ -
Htrlrr Stpi hd~tors
HFtnsr,l Ccu+aeams
~is1R Einoedor' __ liph OrDanK Goment rn Surtaw Layer m Senay Soda
SrlfldK. Oea ___ Orpanc Streakhq n Santly Soya
Aauc Momhne Ragune __ usteC on Loco! M'dnc Sots fiat
Reoeonp GondKtons L~teO an nYationat t~dnc Solis Lrt
L,t t~lryed a Lcn-t~rcxrae Colors _ Other (E+Cirin m Remarks 1
Rymbrkt
WE7LMID DE'f£RMiNAT10N
t+xkaptryue Yegetaenn Present ~ es Ire; ICac4e} tGde)
Wetland Ftytrntogy Prosern'~ Y9a , tJc
It~tfnr Sots Preaerd~ Y " Mo k Uus Samping Pomt'Wtllm a Watland~ /~ No
f2emasts
... ~
~.~+,-

approved by HQl1SACE 392
/+tax..cix B Blanlt and E><ampW Gana Forms B3 '

1
1

1
1
1
DATA FARM
RQtITME WETLAND DETERMNATION
(1967 COE Wetlands Detkteation Maxuai)
Pro
}
ectlSit
~ LX °
e Date. "' R'7
/
y~~
ms
.j
Appi-carrt/Owner. ~, Cotsrty. ,u
lnuestigator ~,. ~~ , ~ ~ r~ ~ ;~ State: ~~ _
i...
Do t~iormal Circumstances etost on the site? Yes No Gomrntmity ID
is the site sigttifx:atvtty disttrbnd (Atypical Situation)? Yes Plo Trat'tseCt iD:
is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes tJo Pbt ID: (,~(?lat~'~
if needed, e ~ on reverse. iu:~Tin ~ ,l~
VEGETATION
,~,,,~ ~„-~~z f ~ ~t
QonrraM Ram `~_ nd _
__~
__._
_. ~
t jhu". _ ~'V'1 ~.tY' _ .L
~. _ < .. __ -y-. -
~ ~ `} `
~ ~M1Cc~.1•~ `til"sr~t1 .Yi'Y' tvk. `1 5. Jb~- ~~w_
a
5
h.
Peruam or Uomnant Specroy that ere C)ftL. FACW or f AC . 7 ~
EerGudnp FAG i ~-~
kamxrts
HYDROLOGY
kixorded Data (Describe n Remaria 7 Welland Hydratogy FidictAacs
Stroam : ake, n F,~e Ga~x~e Pnmary tuicsins
Aortal Phdopraphs hundaled
i.>•her Saturated n 110Uer 11 hctters
%f tJ[, H~;atietl Dale AwaNa:An watex Merits
Drift Lines
Sedenenl Deposits
Fyya Ouservahor+s Drainage Paeams ~: Wetlands
Secondary fd+car•orF t- a mare requred
Deptt~ r>t S~rtac:a Wafer :n , _ Oxid¢ed Roof Gharuieis n lbPe< 12 Ik:hes
1M1tatarStened leaves
rlelHh !fl Free Water r Pit ;n ;
_. _
Lxaf Scti Sway Data
FAG-tJatrtrai ?est
lY+utF~ 1:~ Sa4watae Srel Fe' ~ Other (E~r n Remarks)
~~
kry-r:uk.5 ~,~ l.vY:'~ .'r° z.-'
-'~(' -,~,,b f:. u~ ..,~,i
, ~~
L'b'C,c ~ (i.a`~_ ~-~..y"L,
az
Aonandn 8 Blank aril Ezarr~VMt Data Fcmrs.

SOILS
~ UnN Nrme , . .
!Se~iee entl Afiaasl ..~+1"-'•'. l n ~ w~~i• i~ , C _~~ ~__ pra~yVe 4pe. _-.._..
Vt-^---~~iw ~~ FrillObwn~Na~a
Tr~anomy tSuDp~a+D) --_ -- --_----- Confrm MaaOed Typed Yes hb
BLO~tICi~10[i.
dam Metrtx Color t~Aotllr Colon cAoltle Abuntlartca~ To#ure, Gancrsaonn.
ififd~l f'a!]7at1 lRltnee~Aloledl 1lhmultyb1611 9~rGontrsat gp~llD,_,QF,6
- _ - _.~__. _w.---_. -_
HyMK. Sat t+dK-ators
Hstosol _ Ccxeveoons
Ks'tK Ep+osoon _ KGF•, Org~ank`G~,.o~nwlent n SuAaw layer u, SanOy SoU
-.... SIfMWK OtlOf ~MK ""'°'~y Ifl SM1OY SOA!
_ Aquic Afoialure Reyrne Crated on Lam Mydric Sons List
-_ Reduonfl Contltbona ^_ Ltstetl on National tirdnc Sots Lkp
Gleyed or Lo~Chrcxra Colors _ OUier {E~tPlrin m Remarks)
Rbmark6 `` n
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydraphylr; Vegelalon Presents Yes (Crete) fGelel
Wetland MyOnbgy Presents Yes
tiyctrK Sots Presenl~ Vas is Itvs SampMng Pork WAkn a Wetland^ Vac ~.
itemacks
~ }}y~ /-
Apprc~ued try h1pU5ACE 3A2
Atrt~nax tl Blank and Ezarrtple Uate Forms
B3

n F
1
North Carolina ~ivisian of Water Quaiity -Stream Ident~ficsti
o
orin; Version
3.
l
r
t
t ~f .i'+i+'-M1 i'7 j
~}
~
'Y 17,.L,. li ~>1d( M'~k'[
' ttac.:.3~~ ~ ~~ ~~ -
vr+ojsct: 5~~~ s~ ~ ~ '~ t~tiwae: ~~ ~ ~? 3
3 ~ ~ -~+ 6~ ~' ~
~~ .

' Evaluator: Ker't1~ ~j~.ynty
Total Paints: Site: I7~~C ~,~% ~ „."~"^ ` Longitude:.3~
~~~ ~ - ~D ~ . ~~
- ~t
>> ~ -
'
"~~
~
$tream u at least urtem+dtiartr CK
if t t 9 or oerar+niar it 230 r? ~: + ~ 1
COUnly. ~~
~ ~j 2Gj ~(i 1 L~ e.g Quad Name: C
~ Zr
`
:,
A. Geomor~t~io r .(Subtotal = 3L ) Absent ~ Weak kAodsrate Strw~
1' Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2 Sinuosity 0 t 2 3 y
3 In-channN stnxsture_ ri111e~oo1 sequence 0 t 2 3
4 Soil texture or slrsam substrate sorting 0 1 __ 2 ~
- -- ~
--
5 Adivelr,elic floodplain _ _
_
0 - -
1 .
2
3 i
6 Depositional bars or bencriea 0 1 2 3 ~~
7 Bra+ded channel 0 t 2
8 Resent alluvial
~
~° _ _
0 __
1 , _ _._
2 _
_ _ ._ _ . __ -_- ___ __ ~
_. __ __ ~_ _
_
9' Natural levees _~
0 --
~' - _ ~
2 _
3
10 Readouts
11 Grade cortttols 0 ~
0 1
0 5
~ 1 ~ 3
L5
12 Natural valley or dremagewey 0 0 5 ~ t
13 Second or greater order channel on xisti /''~-
USGS or NRCS map or other documented Nt o = 0
~
~ Yes = 3
' evidence. --
_
~ Man-mode ditches are not rated: see daarsaawrs in manual _._
B Hydrology (Subtotal = G ~~ )
14 Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
' 15 Water in dtanr-el and > 48 firs since rain, Q _
0 1 2 r;
~
J
Water mchannel -dry or Qrowinc~season .
__ ____
16 Leaflitter -
1 5 1~ 0 5 0
_.
17 Sediment on plants or debris
t 8 O
ti
il
li
d
W
c _ _- -
0
0
0 5
0 5
1 _
1
1.5
1 5
k
nes}
rgan+c
ebris
nes or p
ra
es (
19. Hydnc sotis (redoximorphic Features) present? _ ` No = 0 es = 1 5 _
C Biology (Subtotal - ~,

20° F+brous roots m channel _
3
2 -- -_ _
1: __
0
~ __ _.. -_-- _- _-- _. ___ __ __
21 Rooted plants in channel h
' 3 _ _- -
2 _-- _-*
1 __
0
22 Crayfish _
23. BivaMes 0
~ 0 5
1 1~
2 1 5
3
24 Fish 0 O S 1 1 5=
25 Amphib+ans 0 0 5 i 1 5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) _
_- _ _ _- -- _
_ 0
-, -- - ~ _ r.,~
~t 1 5
27 Filamentous algae: penphyton _ 0 1 r" 2 3
28 Iron oxxf¢irg gactena/iungus. 0 _
0 5 1 1.5
29 i' Wetland plants in streambed FAC 0 5; FACW = 0 75; OBL t.5 SAV = Z 0; i~ j
r' Items 20 and 2 t focus on the presence of upland plarrts. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland ptaMa

Notes (use back side of this form for additional Hates ) Sketch
~t

( - 7 -- -
~ {
i
4

w~',7
~~/,~
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL ~-`~~
EVALUATION FORM l ~7
A('71(» [f1 ,4PPL.1C.4NT tiAME ~L-~ ~ UATT: ~' ( C'
w k
Z
PROPOSF:G CHANNELV-'ORK(t e., cu'•'ett, relocation, etc 1 _~~ ,' I'~t ~ f`"~'~'~~'l'Lr.''}TtY7
1JY1rki V1~, ,.~ + -~
~t'A7"ERBUUI /RI\'ER BAS[N ~ ~'I;~1.~•[, L ~~L~~:- ~ ~ ~ti~, ~ ~ co~T~.T~'rcrn~ ~ ! 'J~ a t 5 c-t ~~~ ,,~z~
RE('F:tiT N'E.4THF,R C(JNp[TTOVS
P sP vP Observation Comments of Description
Ftsh'Sheitfish'Cruataceans Present
Benthu Macro tneertcbrates
L-' Amphibians Fresent'Breedtng
,/ .Algae And'Ur Fungus (water quality futxuonl
v` ~-ttdide Channel Usr (i e. tracks. fears, shells. ntherx'~
,/' Federally Pratected Species Present (Descnniinue)
Riffle:Poal Structure
Stable Streambankc L
Channc! Suhstratr
l t e ruvtl, rubble. mc%, caatae sand) "
~ r" - 'S K 1 ~ ~~ 'V ~ i^ i ~.
Rtpanan Canopy Fttsent tiSP ='~ 5p°-o closu-es
1_'ndcrcut $anks'lnstream Hahhat $tntcture
Flom In Channel
1
I wbtlands .Ad;accnt Tc,'Contig 'r4'tth Channel
tDtscnntmue) } '! ,
y„f_~'(~o•,;~ - l`1~.' v' t ~~~~ .+ 4 >L -~ L' i(~1.;`f ~ -
J
/
V Persistent Ponls~Saturated Bottom
i!une thr;,u~h Se t.l t
Crv..~..i y~ 5C' -~ ~'~ ~-.~1,~ ~, y /,. t. ~~>y.~.~
~/ Sceps~C,rounduater Dtschargr 1 Tune through Sept ! (+ !I + u + Y t t
Adtacent Flaodplatn Present
Wrack Matenai at I>rift Ltnes
flydrophcnc \'tgetahon m adyacent to channel
C~~'-~t
yrrt4:+n~~t+'1
11l ~~~~

Important T'o Domestic Vlater Supply? ~ ~ '
Drxs ('hannel Appear On A (?uad Or Soils ~1ap :'~ I \ Appmtt. Drainage Area: L" ~ ~ ' ~ ~-
Uetcrmtnatton '
Perenntai Channel tat+~P) Important Channel LF PROJECT MCR Initials _,
Intermittent Channel tprocetdt Unimportant Channel: 1.F
Ephemeral (channel ino tdl tattach map tndrattng locauon of tmpartaneumm;,,,rt,nt channels '
Cyttch Through L~piand in;~ td)
+~ ~ } ;
,.~ l~)-v.a~t 1l
Esaluator's Signsturr ~-~~ ~ ~ %~
of other than C' i> E protect managed
P=Present SP=Stc~ngly Prrsent tiP''Vgt Present 11'4'.+!( ,

North Carolina Division of Water Qwlity -Stream Identificstion Form; Version 3.1
tHte: ~ / ~ I ~ pro, t-~.T S cr.~M, s tt- Latibuds: ~; ~ c ~ S ~ ~ ~
Evaluator ~, d i h `V li +1 ~%k Sloe: ~ Cd ~ C..C' ~ j' ,.~,.. ~y+L°r+~it~'da ..x~: ~ ~l , I Z
-..~__
Total Points: p~~
Stream is at best interm+ttant Cou
it 2 f 9 or oerennia! A 23'0 ~ J ~ ~ (ti'~'1 ~'~(y. y1 ~ e p Qr~ad Name:
A. Geo hoi Subtotal = Absent
morP__._.~Y ~ _ __ _.. --- - -
t' Continuous bed and bank D ~ Weak
-- - _ -
t Maderatet Strong
_ - - __ .- T
2 ~;i~
2 Sinuosity 0 1 2

3 In-channel stnxxure: nffle~pool sequence
_
D
1
2 _
_. _._..
4 Soil texture or stream substnrte sorting - ~ t . 2
5 Acbvefrelic floodptain 0 -
1 2
~ 6 Depositional bars w Aenches
7 Braided channel
_
--
-
-_ __ 0
0
__ _ t
1 2
2
.

-
. ------
- ----
_
- ___
8 Recent alluvial deposits .
0 _ _ _
t _
_ --
2 3%
-
9' Natural knees
: 0 t 2 ' ~:J
_ ___ _
10 Headcuts
_ __ __
t t Grade Controls 0

0 ~
`~J
~ 5 2

-' - 1 _ __! 3

,

12 Natural valley or drainagevvay___V__,_„ _
0
0 5
t ~J..~

' i 3 Second or greater order drannei on xl n
ItSGS or NRCS map or other doaxnented
evidence.
No = D
Yes = s ?
_
Man-made ditdres are not rated: aee disarssions in manual
B. H rol Subtotal - I
_ Yd ~Y S _,__-~2.__ - _
__ _ __
_

_
14 Groundnrater flow/discfia '' 0 1 2 3 ,
,
t 5 Water m Channel and > 48 hrs since rain, os 0 1 2 _
`~3,%
__ t
Water mchannel -_dry or~rowin~season ___ _ ~,
16 LeaflitUer 1 5 ~ 0.5 0
' 17 Bailment on plants or debris __ __. _
t 6 Organic debns lines or piles (VVradc fines) _- 0 -- T
0 r- _
_0 5
-- 0
5 t
1 ~ 5
~ _ t
19 H
ils
r
f
tures)
nt?
c
ed
an
hi
e
d .
N
= 0 _ Yes
t 5
y
n
(r
ox
pr
so
o
p
c
ea
se
__._ o =
_
c. Biol Subtotal = ' 3 .
°
20
Fibrous roots in Channel
_ _ .
6 3
. __ __ _ 2 ___ ~
2 - _ t 0
21
Rooted plants in channel t 0
' 22 Crayf+sn
23 Bivalves ~ 0
0 0 5 ~
2 L5
3
~
24 Fish 0 0 5 1 _
_~_
--
25 Amphib+ans
~ 0 0.5 ~ _ 1.5
26 Macrobenthos (note dnrersdp and atxmdance)
_ _ _ __

27 Filamentous algaeper~hyton 0
_

0 0 5

- __.
1 ~ 1

-
2

-
3 ~
us _ _
2B Iron oxidizing bacterratFun - 0 -- - 0 5 -_
t _
t 5
~
29 `' Weiland plants in streambed FAC 0 5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = L5 SAV = 2 0;

' ~ Items 20 and 2 t focus on me presence of upland plar•As, Hem 29 toarses off the presence of spuatic m wetland plarHs

trees: fuse back aide of tttis tam for adddianal Holes.) ske~r,
r _ __
_ _t~, r
J
~. yy ~f .jj,~ • ~ /'` (fit [
(l ~ t
1"~i ~°.~ 4l l_.t.) ~'-~.'-• Z
l,. ry-{'L<'1~ \ ~tL~~'~ y `L~I~ ~ ,rj
t
~![
E

~~ ,.
it^i
~ ~~~tr
INTER~'1iITTENT CHA1VTiEL ~'` ~=
EVALUATION{{--FORM
ACTIn't ID .4PPLIC.A.1'T VAt-iE ~ ~. ~ Lr~ llATE ~ t0_1C~
PR(7YUSF'.D CHA'S1EI. W'ORIC {'i e., eufver., rtilocation, etc 1 _ -C ~'7 '~1~'~Af,,Ci't1L'v1~ L'T' ~ ~'~'~'lC'~
t~ ATERSODt'~7LIt'ER BA51!~ ZL [~ ~ • COt'~T1"IC1T1' ~ ' i~~~ '1 Wtih. J ~' ~ ~'vT~
~.1
RECF.tij w'EATHI~R CORT)ITIU!SS YLt' i'~.V~1 ~ tl }
P SP ~P Ohsenation Comments or Descrirtion
~/ FuhShrl',fishiCrusaceans Presen!
Ben?hie Macru Inrertrbrates
~~ Amphibians PresentrBreedm,
41gar .4nd'Or Fungus (water quality furcttur,l
hi'tldlife Channel t?se (i.e. tracks. feces. shells. nthersl
Federally Protected Species Present (Dtscontinuei
~ Rt[fle'Fuoi Structure
Stable Streambanks _,t„L~ ~~ lrr: t ~~~ vC:"~ ~ ~C°) ~, ~ t1
~`~~
Channe: Substrate
~t e rave! cobble, rock, coarse Sandi f
~ ~ ~= 1'~Lt~.t_l.
R;panan Cannily Present (SP = > >0" 6 dosurel
L'ndercu? Banks`lrstream Habitat Structure
f Flox In Channel
f
V Wetlands Adjacent I'o`Cnnti~ V1'i;h Channel
iDtsci,ntmuel ~ -`{, +` ((I~, ~-- '
~~C w~x..(- ~L{nw? ~i~ 4~,: /~ (~~1~(.
Persistent Puols'Saturated Rnttom
iJune thrnu h Se !.i
Seeps'Groundu~ater Discharge iJune through Sept 1
u Ad~acrnt Floodp;ain Present
,~ Wrack Maunal w Dnri Lanes
~ }fydrophyuc 4'egezauor, ta'adiacent to channel
Important T'o Domesric tt"ater Supple? 1' /~j
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils !11ap:'~ / \i Approx. Drainage :tree:
Detcrminatton.
Perennial Channel ~;ti'p' 8 Important Channe't: LF PRQIEC.T M1iGR ]nitials
Intermittent Channel rproceed} Unimportant Channel' LF
Ephemeral Channe) inn ldi {attach man indicating location of important unim~ octant channeCi
Ditch Throu;h Upland tnc,}di
Evxluat~~r's Signature. ~~~'~'~ ~ • ' "' ""~~uk`~
ttf other than CC) E pro~act managed
P-Pre cot SP=Stoneh~ Present NP=Not Present
11;~%9`!
1

1

1
1

+~a '

HEC-RAS Plan: Tributar Rivcr: Glade Creek Reach: Tributar

ach

°
v~

'ri
~.~,
p;

:

~«.
i°,
w

t
=~
ea

o

F"
O'

+
~~
W
.c

~

~

v

~

W

~

3

y

v

°

U

a,
>

H

v
~«.

d
.~

ar
;~

H

~
s
on

RS

ar
~ w

~"
~
v
O
.a

La
a
~ w

Q'

O
t:G

Le
a,
vi `~'
C
h

,~
U

R

d
~

~

u

o

p
~,

Tributary 1205 1 Yr 16 2611.43 2611.9 2.89 0.37 0.08 0.4 0.99
Tributary 1205 2 Yr 25 2611.43 2(,11.99 3.3 0.53 0.21 0.14 0.48 0.98
Tributary 1205 ]0 Yr 98 2611.43 2612.49 5.17 1.17 0.73 0.42 0.21 0.87 0.99
Tributary 1205 100 Yr 184 261 1.43 2612.91 6.38 1.48 1 0.58 0.32 1.16 1

Tributary 1127 1 Yr ] 6 2610 2610.56 1.65 0.12 0.47
Tributary 1127 2 Yr 25 2610 2610.71 ].87 0.17 0.13 0.02 0.01 0.13 0.46
Tributary 1127 10 Yr 98 2610 261 1.63 2.63 0.48 0.38 0.07 0.05 0.19 0.38
Tributary 1 127 100 Yr 184 2610 2612.38 3.19 0.67 0.39 0.1 0.05 0.24 0.38

Tributary 1057 1 Yr 16 2609.3 2610.18 2.11 0.17 0.52
Tributary 1057 2 Yr 25 2609.3 2610.34 2.5 0. ] 7 0.18 0.02 0.02 0.22 0.53
Tributary 1057 10 Yr 98 2609.3 261 1.24 4.17 0.56 0.38 0.1 0.06 0.46 0.58
Tributary 1057 100 Yr 184 2609.3 2611.96 5.07 0.71 0.76 0.14 0.16 0.6 0.59

Tributary 954 1 Yr 16 2608.29 2609.01 3.82 0.59 1
Tributary 954 2 Yr 25 2608.29 2609.17 4.4 0.3 0.06 0.72 1.01
Tributary 954 10 Yr 98 2608.29 2610.05 6.33 1.05 0.36 1.16 1
Tributary 954 100 Yr ] 84 2608.29 2610.73 7.36 1.42 0.54 1.42 1

Tributary 927 1 Yr 16 2607 2608.26 2.41 0.2 0.48
Tributary 927 2 Yr 25 2607 2608.47 2.95 0.2 0.21 0.02 0.02 0.28 0.53
Tributary 927 10 Yr 98 2607 2609.42 5.75 0.76 0.87 0.18 0.22 0.84 0.73
Tributa 927 100 Yr 184 2607 2609.93 8.3 1.25 1.38 0.43 0.49 1.61 0.94

Tributary 787 1 Yr 16 2606.33 2606.96 3.58 0.54 1.0]
Tributary 787 2 Yr 25 2606.33 2607.1 4.13 0.31 0.19 0.06 0.66 LO1
Tributary 787 10 Yr 98 2606.33 2607.88 6.34 1.04 0.69 0.34 0.18 1.14 0.98
Tributary 787 100 Yr 184 2606.33 2608.61 7.23 1.08 0.78 0.33 0.2 1.28 0.89
Page 1 of 2
~r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~^^ ~ ~ i ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~

HEC-RAS Plan: Tributar River: Glade Creek Reach: Tributar

ach

ya

f~

`

y
~

O'

.
~
W
,~

~

W

~
W

~

~

a~
`~
~
v
~

_

y
`'
~«,
a
i

,
V
s
on
a
~
,~
Q.
.n

O
..7
v
~ ,~
4:
Q.
~

O
R;
d
~
~:
o^
~
C
s
U
a
v~

_

.Y
~
a,
o
w

Tributary 438 1 Yr ] 6 2603 2604.1 2.04 0.16 0.48
Tributary 438 2 Yr 25 2603 2604.28 2.42 0.2 0.05 0.02 0.2 0.5
Tributary 438 ] 0 Yr 98 2603 2605.24 3.99 0.72 0.51 0.14 0.09 0.41 0.54
Tributary 438 100 Yr 184 2603 2606.08 4.83 0.99 0.64 0.22 0.12 0.53 0.54

Tributa 300 I Yr 16 2601 2601.81 4.1 0.65 1.0]
Tributa 300 2 Yr 25 2601 2601.99 4.69 0.39 0.39 0.08 0.09 0.78 I
Tributa 300 10 Yr 98 2601 2602.99 7.2 1.21 1.29 0.42 0.46 1.36 0.98
Tributa 300 100 Yr 184 2601 2603.87 8.63 1.49 1.5 0.54 0.55 1.69 0.95

Tributary 188 1 Yr 16 2600 2600.83 2.04 0.15 0.44
Tributary 188 2 Yr 25 2600 2601.05 2.36 0.19 0.08 0.02 0.18 0.46
Tributary 188 ] 0 Yr 98 2600 2602.33 3.54 0.62 0.54 0.1 0.08 0.3 0.43
Tributary 188 100 Yr 184 2600 2603.33 4.35 0.84 0.45 0.15 0.06 0.4 0.44

Tributary 78 ] Yr 16 2599 2599.78 4.24 0.68 1
Tributa 78 2 Yr 25 2599 2599.98 4.88 0.42 0.45 0.09 0. ] 0.82 ]
Tributary 78 10 Yr 98 2599 260].03 7.71 1.28 1.31 0.46 0.48 1.53 ].Ol
Tributary 78 100 Yr 184 2599 2602.1 1 8.44 1.21 1.43 0.38 0.49 1.56 0.88
Page 2 of 2
~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

H EC-RAS Plan: Mai ntstem River: Glad e Creek Reach: Main stem

ach

]

a

y

a

w

~
o
O'

~

~"~
.L"
~
~

~

W

3

~

C~
~,
~
~

~

~
a
~

~

h
~
bD
a
>
w
~
~
~

O
~
~ y^
W
~
~
~

~i
~
~ ~
w
~
~
,~
~
V
L
~

~

~
b
w

Main stem 2567 1 Yr 204 2612.38 2614.93 3.94 0.39 0.51
Main stem 2567 2 Yr 335 2612.38 2615.71 4.46 0.15 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.46 0.51
Main stem 2567 10 Yr 1637 2612.38 2618.62 9.57 1.09 1.04 0.28 0.27 1.64 0.73
Main stem 2567 100 Yr 3367 2612.38 2620.47 12.77 1.59 2.09 0.52 0.79 2.64 0.84

Main stem 2377 1 Yr 204 2611 2613.06 7.28 1.43 1
Main stem 2377 2 Yr 335 2611 2613.71 8.43 0.59 0.28 0.15 0.05 1.75 1
Main stem 2377 10 Yr 1637 2611 2617.67 10.72 2.21 1.53 0.84 0.48 2 0.76
Main stem 2377 100 Yr 3367 2611 2619.97 12.51 2.14 2.65 0.78 1.08 2.45 0.76

Main stem 2245 1 Yr 204 2610 2612.82 3.22 0.26 0.4
Main stem 2245 2 Yr 335 2610 2613.38 4.11 0.15 0.24 0.01 0.02 0.39 0.46
Main stem 2245 10 Yr 1637 2610 2616.99 8 0.75 0.76 0.14 0.13 1.1 0.57
Main stem 2245 100 Yr 3367 2610 2619.77 9.29 l .5 1.73 0.38 0.48 1.31 0.55

Main stem 2132 1 Yr 204 2610 2612.31 4.16 0.49 0.64
Main stem 2132 2 Yr 335 2610 2612.9 4.69 0.43 0.3 0.07 0.04 0.55 0.6
Main stein 2132 10 Yr 1637 2610 2616.84 7.09 1.22 0.72 0.28 0.13 0.87 0.52
Main stem 2132 100 Yr 3367 2610 2619.57 8.74 1.75 1.6 0.47 0.41 1.16 0.53
Page 1 of 8
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~

H EC-RAS Plan: Mai ntstem River: Glad e Creek Reach: Main stem

ach

C

a

w

i,

~

V

o

O'

../

W

~
~

i

~

~
3

~

"
~
_
~

~

"
a
..
>

j y

~+

..
~ w

a.
y

p

~
~ w

~
y

O

v
~ .-,
w
a
~

~

v
v,

3,

v

o
~

Main stem 2054 1 Yr 204 2609.11 2611.18 6.45 1.18 0.99
Main stem 2054 2 Yr 335 2609.11 2611.69 7.6 0.27 0.33 0.05 0.06 1.48 1
Main stem 2054 10 Yr 1637 2609.11 2616.25 8.99 0.42 1.61 0.06 0.46 1.36 0.63
Main stem 2054 100 Yr 3367 2609.1 ] 2618.78 11.49 0.45 2.25 0.07 0.78 1.99 0.68

Main stem 2009 1 Yr 204 2609.02 2611.09 3.45 0.32 0.49
Main stem 2009 2 Yr 335 2609.02 2611.78 3.9 0.26 0.33 0.03 0.04 0.36 0.46
Main stem 2009 10 Yr 1637 2609.02 2616.58 5.73 0.89 0.78 0.15 0.12 0.53 0.38
Main stem 2009 100 Yr 3367 2609.02 2619.11 8.08 1.26 1.32 0.26 0.29 0.95 0.46

Main stem 1922 1 Yr 204 2608.42 2610.69 4.04 0.42 0.53
Main stem 1922 2 Yr 335 2608.42 2611.36 4.81 0.25 0.24 0.03 0.03 0.54 0.55
Main stem 1922 ] 0 Yr 1637 2608.42 2615.99 7.73 1.04 0.74 0.22 0.13 0.98 0.51
Main stem 1922 100 Yr 3367 2608.42 2618.26 10.66 1.94 1.78 0.59 0.52 1.69 0.62

Main stem 1844 1 Yr 204 2608 2610.48 3.63 0.32 0.45
Main stem 1844 2 Yr 335 2608 2611.14 4.49 0.26 0.26 0.03 0.03 0.46 0.49
Main stem 1844 10 Yr 1637 2608 2615.87 7.47 0.86 0.88 0.16 0.16 0.9 0.48
Main stem 1844 100 Yr 3367 2608 2618.08 10.5 1.78 1.83 0.51 0.53 1.63 0.6
Page 2 of 8

HEC-RAS Plan: Mai ntstem River: Glad e Creek Reach: Main stem

ach

i'

a

„

i,

v

~
o

O'

w

'~
U

~

-~

~
'~"
W
~
~

~
~
U
•-•
~

~

~
~l
•-~
>

w

r..,
'two
~
-,
> W

~•

:~
O
~
a.
~
r~i~ w

a•

C
O
f~
L
~
~ r.+
W
a

[
,~
U
~,
~
~

s

U
~„
-o
o
~,

Main stem 1789 1 Yr 204 2608 2610.23 4.17 0.44 0.53
Main stem 1789 2 Yr 335 2608 2610.83 5.22 0.4 0.31 0.06 0.04 0.63 0.58
Main stem 1789 10 Yr 1637 2608 2615.57 8.22 1.11 0.96 0.24 0.2 1.09 0.54
Main stem 1789 100 Yr 3367 2608 2616.83 13.34 1.94 2.09 0.68 0.76 2.73 0.81

Main stem 1739 1 Yr 204 2608 2609.96 4.54 0.54 0.61
Main stem 1739 2 Yr 335 2608 2610.5 5.66 0.43 0.45 0.07 0.08 0.76 0.66
Main stem 1739 10 Yr 1637 2608 2615.61 7.46 0.9 1.13 0.17 0.24 0.9 0.48
Main stem 1739 100 Yr 3367 2608 2616.39 13.09 1.73 2.27 0.58 0.86 2.66 0.81

Main stem 1669 1 Yr 204 2607 2609.72 4.02 0.39 0.48
Main stem 1669 2 Yr 335 2607 2610.16 5.48 0.28 0.18 0.04 0.02 0.7 0.6
Main stem 1669 10 Yr 1637 2607 2615.55 7.14 0.77 1.11 0.13 0.22 0.81 0.45
Main stem 1669 100 Yr 3367 2607 2616.28 12.45 1.54 2.2 0.47 0.8 2.39 0.74

Main stem 1637 1 Yr 204 2607 2609.74 2.87 0.21 0.36
Main stein 1637 2 Yr 335 2607 2610.23 3.76 0.16 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.33 0.42
Main stein 1637 10 Yr 1637 2607 2615.79 4.54 0.51 0.84 0.05 0.12 0.32 0.28
Main stein 1637 100 Yr 3367 2607 2616.65 7.92 1.1 1.57 0.22 0.38 0.95 0.47
Page 3 of 8

HEC-RAS Plan: Ma intstem River: Glad e Creek Reach: Main stem

ach

~

v~

a

~

o

a

~

~
o
H
O'

~
~
W
.~
U

~

+
>
W

3

~
~-+
`'~
.C
U

~

\

~
y
a

~

y
4~-i
~
~
0.~

>
c•
.G

p
~l
~.
ca
v, w
Q'
~

O
fx
~.
cis
v, ~
II'
~

~
U
s.
cv
~

1~.r
U
d
'a
~
~,

Main stem 1621 1 Yr 204 2608 2609.64 3.44 0.33 0.53
Main stem 1621 2 Yr 335 2608 2610.15 4.07 0.16 0.15 0.01 0.0] 0.42 0.53
Main stem 1621 10 Yr 1637 2608 2615.83 3.91 0.42 0.76 0.04 0.09 0.24 0.25
Main stem 1621 ] 00 Yr 3367 2608 2616.77 6.71 0.95 1.39 0.16 0.29 0.69 0.41

Main stem 1610 1 Yr 204 2608 2609.54 3.8 0.43 0.63
Main stem 1610 2 Yr 335 2608 2610.08 4.19 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.46 0.58
Main stem 1610 10 Yr 1637 2608 2615.83 3.76 0.42 0.74 0.04 0.09 0.23 0.24
Main stem 1610 100 Yr 3367 2608 2616.77 6.52 0.92 1.34 0.15 0.27 0.65 0.4

Main stem 1593 1 Yr 204 2608 2609.47 3.54 0.35 0.54
Main stem 1593 2 Yr 335 2608 2610.02 4.13 0.31 0.38 0.04 0.05 0.43 0.53
Main stem 1593 10 Yr ] 637 2608 2615.8 4.01 0.52 0.76 0.05 0.09 0.25 0.25
Main stem 1593 100 Yr 3367 2608 2616.69 6.96 1.1 1.39 0.21 0.3 0.73 0.42

Main stem 1581 1 Yr 204 2608 2609.3 4.3 0.54 0.7
Main stem 1581 2 Yr 335 2608 2609.87 4.74 0.27 0.48 0.04 0.08 0.58 0.63
Main stem 1581 10 Yr 1637 2608 2615.8. 4.01 0.54 0.82 0.06 0.1 0.25 0.26
Main stem 1581 100 Yr 3367 2608 2616.68 7 1.05 1.48 0.19 0.33 0.74 0.42
Page 4 of 8

H EC-RAS Plan: Mai ntstem River: Glad e Creek Reach: Main stem
~ ~ .~
w
c Q' a'
,~ ~ ~ a ~
O v
~
v~ ~
~ w
~ >
= ~
~ ~
~ ~
two p
~ CY ~
U ~„

~
~ ~,
~
4.
o
U W

~ ,
U
a
~
s.
~.
s.
b

Reach
~
w
O' c
~ v
~ ..
>
~ ~
> ~
~i ~
~ ~
~ o
~,

Main stem 1441 1 Yr 204 2606 2608.79 3.39 0.29 0.44
Main. stem 1441 2 Yr 335 2606 2609.36 4.21 0.16 0.24 0.01 0.03 0.42 0.49
Main stem 1441 10 Yr 1637 2606 2615.74 .3.96 0.4 0.73 0.03 0.09 0.24 0.24
Main stem 1441 100 Yr 3367 2606 2616.52 6.99 0.83 1.37 0.13 0.28 0.73 0.4

Main stem 1186 1 Yr 204 2606 2607.77 4.07 0.46 0.61
Main stein 1186 2 Yr 335 2606 2608.4 4.57 0.33 0.34 0.04 0.05 0.51 0.57
Main stem 1186 10 Yr 1637 2606 2615.67 3.39 0.67 0.63 0.07 0.06 0.17 0.2
Main stem 1186 100 Yr 3367 2606 2616.29 6.3 1.29 1.2 0.24 0.21 0.57 0.35

Main stem 1073 1 Yr 204 2604 2607.41 3.42 0.3 0.44
Main stem 1073 2 Yr 335 2604 2608.06 4.17 0.35 0.08 0.04 0.4 0.47
Main stem 1073 10 Yr 1637 2604 2615.64 3.49 0.67 0.62 0.07 0.06 0.18 0.19
Main stem 1073 100 Yr 3367 2604 2616.15 6.59 1.3 1.18 0.25 0.21 0.62 0.36

Main stem 984 1 Yr 204 2604 2606.91 4.64 0.05 0.57 0.64
Main stem 984 2 Yr 335 2604 2606.99 7.29 0.22 0.19 0.03 0.03 1.39 0.99
Main stem 984 10 Yr 1637 2604 2615.55 4.12 0.83 0.56 0.1 0.05 0.24 0.23
Main stem 984 100 Yr 3367 2604 2615.73 8.21 1.67 1.12 0.4 0.22 0.96 0.45
Page 5 of 8
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

HEC-RAS Plan: Mai ntstem River: Glad e Creek Reach: Main stem

ach

~

~

>
a

~

«
L
a

w

~
~
o

F'
O'

''
w
.c
U

C
~

~

>
==
W

~
~

iw.,

~
U

a
~

~

~.
~
...1

a~
>

~
~
~
'two
~

v
> w

C"
\

O
-.a
s,
ca
.C
v~ w

C"
\

O
fx
~.
~
~
v~ ~
c..
B'
~
~

,~
U
s.
~
~
v~

C
U
~
b
a
i'
Gar

Main stem 555 1 Yr 204 2602 2604.8 3.82 0.4 0.56
Main stem 555 2 Yr 335 2602 2606.18 3.02 0.39 0.35 0.04 0.04 0.21 0.33
Main stem 555 10 Yr 1637 2602 2615.54 2.51 0.57 0.5 0.04 0.03 0.09 0.13
Main stem 555 100 Yr 3367 2602 2615.71 5.07 1.15 1.02 0.17 0.14 0.35 0.26

Main stem 519 1 Yr 204 2601 2604.78 2.68 0.19 0.36
Main stem 519 2 Yr 335 2601 2606.18 2.35 0.26 0.27 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.24
Main stem 519 10 Yr 1637 2601 2615.55 2.22 0.46 0.49 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.11
Main stem 519 100 Yr 3367 2601 2615.74 4.48 0.92 0.99 0.11 0.13 0.27 0.22

Main stem 462 1 Yr 204 2601 2604.75 2.04 0.1 0.24
Main stem 462 2 Yr 335 2601 2606.17 1.99 0.27 0.24 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.18
Main stem 462 10 Yr 1637 2601 2615.56 1.93 0.48 0.46 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.09
Main stem 462 100 Yr 3367 2601 2615.78 3.88 0.97 0.94 0.11 0.11 0.2 0.19

Main stem 388 1 Yr 204 2601 2604.64 2.75 0.15 0.25
Main stem 388 2 Yr 335 2601 2606.02 3.28 0.19 0.26
Main stem 388 10 Yr 1637 2601 2615.51 2.63 0.34 0.54 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.12
Main stem 388 100 Yr 3367 2601 2615.58 5.36 0.71 1.11 0.08 0.16 0.38 0.25
Page 6 of 8

H EC-RAS Plan: Mai ntstem River: Glad e Creek Reach: Main stem

ach

~
v~
''
°'
~

„

~

L-
a

w

~
~
o

O'

.+
~'

~
U
~
~

-.
~
>
W

v~
3

,
w
~
~
U
..
~

-.
~
~
~
a
..
~

-.
~
~
~
'won
f~
.~
>

C"
~
...
~
~
~
s,
~
in w

C"
~
C

~
f~
s.
~
~
a.,
~`
~"
p
C
~
~
U
s.
~
~

.,
.~
U
~
^ts
o
w

Main stem 378 Bridge

Main stem 370 1 Yr 204 2601 2603.37 4.32 0.44 0.5
Main stem 370 2 Yr 335 2601 2604.07 5.46 0.64 0.55
Main stem 370 10 Yr 1637 2601 2606.95 13.73 3.23 0.99
Main stem 370 100 Yr 3367 2601 2610.58 17.5 4.48 1

Main stem 334 1 Yr 204 2601 2603.36 3.26 0.27 0.42
Main stein 334 2 Yr 335 2601 2604.14 3.66 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.32 0.42
Main stem 334 10 Yr 1637 2601 2608.18 6.11 0.89 1.49 0.16 0.34 0.63 0.43
Main stem 334 100 Yr 3367 2601 2610.34 9 1.89 2.52 0.54 0.82 1.24 0.54

Main stem 277 1 Yr 204 2600.32 2602.47 6.81 1.29 1.01
Main stem 277 2 Yr 335 2600.32 2603.04 7.94 0.66 0.77 0.17 0.21 1.56 0.99
Main stem 277 10 Yr 1637 2600.32 2606.56 11.85 2.14 2.14 0.85 0.86 2.48 0.89
Main stem 277 100 Yr 3367 2600.32 2609.72 12.15 2.03 1.96 0.69 0.66 2.24 0.73

Main stem 197 1 Yr 204 2598 2602 2.72 0.2 0.4
Main stem 197 2 Yr 335 2598 2602.73 2.94 0.19 0.44 0.02 0.05 0.21 0.35
Main stem 197 10 Yr 1637 2598 2606.57 4.94 0.47 0.86 0.06 0.14 0.42 0.36
Main stem 197 100 Yr 3367 2598 2608.51 7.25 0.9 1.3 0.16 0.28 0.82 0.45
Page 7 of 8

H EC-RAS Plan: Mai ntstem River: Glad e Creek Reach: Main stem
w w ,-.
w
v~ c a'
.. ~ ~ ~
w _~ ~ w
~
` ~ ~ ~
U
~ ~ w
.c >
=' '
~ ~
~ ~
'~a
n O
~ O
f~ c
U ~,
~ o U w

l .
U ~ ~
~ s.
ec s.
~e :,
ee ^d
~

Reach >
~ o
a H
O' ~
~ v
~ ~.
~ ~.
~
> a~
~i ~
~ ~
~ o
w

Main stem 101 1 Yr 204 2598.01 2601.03 6.24 0.11 0.23 0.03 1.04 0.87
Main stem 101 2 Yr 335 2598.01 2601.58 7.58 0.81 0.73 0.22 0.19 1.4 0.91
Main stem 101 10 Yr 1637 2598.01 2605.2 10.75 2.02 1.14 0.74 0.31 2.02 0.79
Main stem 101 100 Yr 3367 2598.01 2607.07 13.4 2.97 1.94 1.34 0.71 2.86 0.85
Page 8 of 8

~.-
r
Fcosstem
PROGRAM
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by tl~e National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain 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 Floodplain Administrator with three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. Edward
Curtis), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit (attn. John Gerber) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project: .Glade Creek Stream Restoration
Name if stream or feature: Glade Creek and unnamed tributary to Glade Creek
County: ~ Alleghany
Name of river basin: New
Is project urban or rural? Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality/county: Alleghany
DFIRM panel number for
entire site: As of September 26, 2007, County Not Mapped by NC
Floodmaps
Consultant name: Biohabitats, Inc
Phone number: 919-518-0311
Address: 8218 Creedmoor Road, Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27613
Design Information
Provide a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a reference
orthophotograph at a scale of 1" = 500''.
The site is located off Dewitt Road, approximately 3 miles south of Sparta, N.C. on property owned by
Steven Faw. Rosgen Priority II stream restoration and enhancement are proposed for the Glade Creek
channel and preservation and Rosgen Priority II restoration are proposed for the unnamed tributary
channel.

Summarize stream reaches or wetland areas according to their restoration priority.
Reach Len h Priori
Glade Creek 2,430' Two (Restoration)
Glade Creek 125 ' Two (Enhancement)
Unnamed Tributa 788' Preservation
Unnamed Tributary 275' Two (Restoration)
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
t" Yes ~ No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
r Redelineation
r Detailed Study
r Limited Detail Study
r Approximate Study
r Don't know
List flood zone desi nation:
Check if applies:
r AE Zone
~" Floodway
t' Non-Encroachment
~ None
r A Zone
t" Local Setbacks Required
~' No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are re wired, list how many feet:
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway/non-encroachment/setbacks?
~ Yes ~" No
Land Acquisition (Check)
r State owned (fee simple)

r Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
t- 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 Neily, [phone])
Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
~' Yes ~' No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to NFIP (attn:
Edward Curtis, [phone] x369)
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator:
Phone Number:
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer/applicant following verification with the LFPA
r No Action
f No Rise
r Letter of Map Revision
r Conditional Letter ofMap Revision
r Other Requirements
List other requirements:
Comments:
Name: Signature:
Title: Date:

1

1

1
1
1
1