20072133 Ver 1 - Glade I_854_MP_2007 - in color - 6/15/2016

7 Oki to Ity,"I N_Ali`9 9 WINI
Glade Creek Stream Restoration
Prepared for:
NCDENR-Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capital Blvd., Suite 1H 103
Raleigh, NC 27604
r~
E an�stem
ement
PROGRAM
December 2007

CA
Biohhabita.ts
SOUTHEAST 13]OitEGION
8218 Creedmoor Road, Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27613
Office 919-518-0311 Fax [phone]
Project Manager: Kevin Nunnery

Table of Contents
ExecutiveSummary................................................................................................................... 5
1.0 Project Site Identification and Location................................................................................ 7
1.1 Directions to Project Site...................................................................................................... 7
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations ............................... 7
1.3 Project Vicinity Map............................................................................................................. 7
2.0 Watershed Characterization................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Drainage Area....................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Surface Water Classification / Water Quality....................................................................... 8
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils......................................................................................... 8
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends..................................................................... 9
2.5 Endangered / Threatened Species......................................................................................... 9
2.6 Cultural Resources..............................................................................................................
13
2.7 Potential Constraints...........................................................................................................
14
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary..............................................................................
14
2.7.2 Site Access...................................................................................................................
14
2.7.3 Utilities.........................................................................................................................
14
2.7.4 FEMA / Hydrologic Trespass......................................................................................
14
2.7.5a. Beaver Pond and Design Approach..........................................................................
14
2.7.5b. Research on Beaver Activity and Stream/Riparian Zone Ecology ...........................
15
3.0 Project Site Streams (existing conditions)...........................................................................
16
3.1 Channel Classification........................................................................................................
16
3.2 Discharge............................................................................................................................
16
3.3 Channel Morphology (pattern, dimension, profile)............................................................
17
3.4 Channel Stability Assessment.............................................................................................
18
3.5 Bankfull Verification..........................................................................................................
18
3.6 Vegetation...........................................................................................................................
19
4.0 Reference Stream.................................................................................................................
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
5.0 Project Site Wetlands (existing conditions).........................................................................
22
5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands.......................................................................................................
22
5.2 Soil Characterization...........................................................................................................
22
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
6.1.2 Designed Channel Structures.......................................................................................
23
6.1.3 Target Buffer Communities.........................................................................................
23
6.2 Sediment Transport Analysis..............................................................................................
24
6.2.1 Methodology................................................................................................................
24
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
Table2. 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

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
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.
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
5

problems by stabilizing the severely eroding stream banks onsite and establishing a permanent riparian
buffer on them.
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
there. 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).
Reach
Existing
Restoration
(Priority II)
Enhancement
I
Preservation
Glade Creek
2,569
2,430
125*
Un. Trib.
1,088
275**
788
Column Totals
3,657
2,705
125
788
Wetlands
—0.33 ac
—0.33 ac
*25 feet of channel underneath the bridge were excluded.
**The restoration on the UT will actually shorten the UT channel by 25 feet due to the unduly high
existing sinuosity.
IN

1.0 Project Site Identification and Location
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
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 214 miles to Dewitt Road, turn right and proceed 0.7 miles to 541 Dewitt Road
on the left.
1.2 USGS 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 10,677, rendering a
population density of 45 persons per square mile, approximately 23 percent of the state average of 165
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://ealleghany.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 mit) 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 mi2).
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 revising 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 (Figure 3). The
results for the combined Glade Creek and unnamed tributary watersheds are listed below.
Series Name
Acres
Percent
Series Name
Acres
Percent
1. Wataujza
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. Stony Steel) Land
22.9
0.7
6. Alluvial land
138.1
4.0
13. Rock Outcrop
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 (12%, 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 Alleghany 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 stormwater 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
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
Alleghany 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).
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 Alleghany
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 Alleghany County:
X

USFWS List of Protected Species in Alleghany County, N.C.
Common Name
Scientific name
Fed. Status
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
Vermivora chrysoptera
FSC
Current
Hellbender
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
FSC
Current
Kanawha minnow
Phenacobius teretulus
FSC
Current
Invertebrate:
Diana fritillary (butterfly)
Speyeria diana
FSC
Current
Grayson crayfish ostracod
Ascetocythere cosmeta
FSC
Historic
Green floater
Lasmigona subviridis
FSC
Current
Grizzled skipper
Pyrgus wyandot
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
Lilium grayi
FSC
Current
Gray's saxifrage
Saxifraga caroliniana
FSC
Historic
Large -leaved Grass -of-
Parnassia grandifolia
FSC
Current
Parnassus
Sweet pinesap
Monotropsis odorata
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 rare species and is listed for its protection. These species are not biologically
endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation. Federal Species of Concern (FSC)
are defined as species under consideration for listing, for which there is insufficient information to
support listing at this time (USFWS, May 2007).
Rare, threatened and endangered species listed by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) for the U.S.
Geological Survey Glade Valley 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle are presented in the list below.
10

N.C. Natural Heritage Program List of Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
Major
Scientific Name
Common Name
State Status
Federal
Group
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
Hexalectris spicata
Crested Coralroot
SR -P
None
Plant
Vascular
Lillium grayi
Gray's Lily
T -SC
FSC
Plant
Vascular
Platenthera grandiora
Large Purple -fringed
SR -P
None
Plant
Orchid
Vascular
Rhynchospora alba
Northern White
SR -P
None
Plant
BeaksedLye
Vascular
Robinia hispida var. fertilis
Fruitcul Locust
SR -0
None
Plant
Vascular
Spirathes lucida
Shining Ladies -tresses
SR -0
None
Plant
Vascular
Stenanthium roubustum
Bog Featherbells
SR -P
None
Plant
Vascular
Vaccinium macrocarpon
Cranberry
SR -P
None
Plant
11

N.C. Natural Heritage Program List of Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species (Continued)
Major
Scientific Name
Common Name
State Status
Federal
Group
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 muhlenbergii
Bog Turtle
T
T(S/A)
Animal
Vertebrate
Myotis leibee
Eastern Small-footed
Sc
FSC
Animal
Mvotis
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 and 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 1 year, distances between relocations of radio -tagged
turtles ranged from 0 to 87 m (mean= 24 m) for males, and 0 to 62 m (mean= 16 m) for females
(Herman 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 Environment (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 formal 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
As of September 26, 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 channel 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 channel 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

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.
2.7.5b. 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 imposition of 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 Project Site Streams (existing conditions)
3.1 Channel Classification
As part of the field reconnaissance, the Rosgen classification system (Rosgen, 1994) 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 12. 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
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 amount 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 and 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 storm 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.
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 Aw 0.67
Qbkf =
115.7 Aw 0.73
Wbkf
= 19.9Aµ, 0.36
Dbkf
— 1 • lAw 0."
where Aw is watershed area in square miles (mi2), Abkf is the bankfull cross-sectional area in square
feet (ft), Qbkf is the bankf ill discharge in cubic feet per second (cfs), Wbkf is the bankfull width in feet
(ft), and Dbkf is the bankfull mean depth in 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:
Abkf =
21.43 Aw 0.68
Qbkf =
89.04 Aw 0.72
Wbkf
= 1 1.89Aw 0.42
Dbkf
= 1.50Aw 0.32
The discharge was also estimated using the hydrologic model TR -20. The results of deriving Qbkf
from the different methods are listed below, along with the chosen design discharges.
Stream
Bankfull Discharge
Peak Flow,
TR -20
Design
Discharge
Manning's Mountain Regional Piedmont
Equation Curve Regional Curve
Glade Creek
Discharge (cfs)
X/S 1: 228
352
267
1- r: 204
200
X/S 2: 153
2 -yr: 335
Unnamed Tributary
Discharge (cfs)
27
98
76
1- r: 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 summarized 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 51 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
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.
3.5 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 Manning's Equation
discharge prediction, listed below.
Cross Section
Mannings Eq. Q
cfs)
TR -20 Q
(cfs)
HEC -RAS dmax
ft
Surveyed dmax
ft
Glade 1
228
1- r: 204
2.55
2.8
2 -yr: 335
3.33
Glade 2
153
1- : 204
2.36
2.4
2 -yr: 335
3.14
Unnamed Tributa
27
1- r: 16
0.56
1.0
2 -yr: 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 field
correlate well with the predictive estimates generated by Manning's Equation and HEC -RAS. In
addition, the predicted discharges correlate well with the bankfull channel geometry identified in the
field.

3.6 Vegetation
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 (Acer
rubrum). The two dominant species in the understory/shrub layer are rhododendron (Rhododendron
maximum) and mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia). Other understory species included smooth alder
(Alnus serulata), black cherry (Prunus serotina), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), 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.
19

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
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
(Acer 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

5.0 Project Site Wetlands (existing conditions)
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
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 10YR 3/1 loam, 12-25 inches 10YR 3/1 loam and 25-32 inches
IOYR 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
(Juncus effusus) is dominant, along with various sedge species. These wetlands most closely resemble
the High Elevation Seep community (Schafale and Weakley, 1990).

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 channel 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 (D50=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 11, Table 6) incorporates species from several vegetation communities

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:
0.045
(s-1)pgD
where z* 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/S2), 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:
D = i' 1.37x'
(s—1)pgzc
where D is now in units of millimeters and z' is expressed in Pascals (N/m2). 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,
uniform flow the local total boundary stress is provided by the depth -slope product:
ro = pgRh S
where zo is the total channel boundary 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 = C RYY
S
n
where U is 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:
i
nD = 0.013DY'
where nD 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

zo n f
z' nD
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:
D _ 0.00203zo s
n�V2
where all terms 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.
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 channel, 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
Computed Channel
Shear (lbs/ft2)
Threshold Diameter
(mm)
Glade Creek
Proposed (riffle)
0.39
10
Existing (riffle)
0.41
11
Unnamed Tributary
Proposed (riffle)
0.17
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 channel, 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.
HEC -RAS (USAGE, 2001) was used to model water surface elevations for existing conditions for
a variety of discharges generated from TR -20. The peak 1-, 2-, 10-, and 100 -year storm
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 superceded 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 low 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

6.5 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 April 2003 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.

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
muhlenbergii) 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.
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.
Herman, D. W., and K. M. Fahey. 1992. Seasonal activity and movements of bog turtles (Clemmys
Mulenbergii) in North Carolina. Copeia 1992:1107-1111.
Johnson, P. 1984. The dam builder is at it again! National Wildlife Magazine (May -June 1984):9-15.
Lee, Michael T, Robert K. Peet, Steven D. Roberts, Thomas R. Wentworth. 2007. CVS-EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.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.

Morrow, J. L., J. H. Howard, S. A. Smith, and D. K. Poppel. 2001. Home range and movements of the
bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) 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. Brosz & 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, 15th 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: a ten-year review. Malaspina College, Nanaimo, BC. Pp. 129-153.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), northern population,
recovery plan, agency draft. Hadley, Massachusetts. viii + 90 pp.
30

Wolman, M.G., and Miller, J.P., 1960. Magnitude and frequency of forces in geomorphic process, J.
Geol., 68: 54-74.
31

9.0 Tables
Table 1. Project Restoration Structure and Objectives
Restoration
Station
Glade Mainstem
2,921.95
Existing
Designed
Segment / Reach
Range
Restoration
Priority
Linear
Linear
ID
(Existing)
Type
Approach
Footage or
Footage or
Evergreen Shrubland
Acreage
Acreage
Glade Cr
0+00-22+15
Restoration
Ros en Il
2,215
2,210
Glade Cr
22+35-23+60
Enhancement I
Ros en 11
125
125
Glade Cr
23+60-25+69
Restoration
Ros en II
219
220
UT to Glade Cr
0+00-3+00
Restoration
I Ros en II
1 300
275
UT to Glade Cr
3+00-10+88
Preservation
Totals
788
788
Table 2. Drainage Areas
Reach
Drainage Area Acres
Glade Mainstem
2,921.95
Unnamed Tributary
520.87
Total
1 3,442.82
Table 3. Land Use of Watershed
Land Use
Acreage
Percentage
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%

Table 4. Morphological Table
Table 4. Morphological Table
Project Number X (Glade Creek Stream Restoration)
Item
Ezkft Condbleas
Designed Conditions
Existing Conditions
Designed Conditions
Relkrence Reach
LOCATION
Glade Creek
Glade Creek
Glade Creek Tributary
Glade Creek Tributary
Basin Creek
STREAM TYPE
C,4/F4/G4
C4
C4
C4
C4
DRAINAGE AREA, Ac-
2,922 ac --4.6 sq on
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
WIDTH, (Wk,), ft
44.7
34
12.6
12
30.7
BANKFULL MEAN
RIFFLE DEPTH (dbkf),
1.41
1.56
0.8
0.7
1.9
ft
MAXIMUM
BANKFULL RIFFLE
2.3
2.2
1
1
2.5
DEPTH (dna„), ft
WIDTH/DEPTH
RATIO (WbkAdbkf)
31.7
22
16
18
16.4
BANKFULL RIFFLE X
SECTION AREA (Abxr),
63
53
9.9
8.2
57.4
ft
BANKFULL MEAN
VELOCITY, fps
3.3
3.8
2
2.4
NA
BANKFULL
200
200
20
20
NA
DISCHARGE, cfs
WIDTH
FLOODPRONE AREA
45
>76
13-25
>44
70
(Wf'), ft
ENTRENCHMENT
6
>2.2
1.1-2
>2.2
2.3
RATIO (ER)
MEANDER LENGTH
66-403(10)
136-261 (14)
66-93(6)
75-84(3)
350
(Lm), ft
RADIUS OF
34-118 (8)
53-172(17)
14-71(10)
27-33 (6)
76-135 (NA)
CURVATURE (RJ, ft
77-184(8)
55-134(15)
57-79(7)
30-45(5)
90-104 (NA)
BELT WIDTH (Wbit), ft
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), ft/ft
VALLEY SLOPE (s),
ft/ft
0.0075
0.0075
0.019
0.019
0.017
POOL BANKFULL
51
43
27
16
34-43
WIDTH (W moi), ft
MAX. POOL DEPTH
5.7
4.4
3.5
2.2
3.1
(D l), ft
POOL X -SECTION
107
77.2
49
16
64.3
AREA ( ,�) ft2
POOL TO POOL
SPACING (P -P) ft
110-228(7)
91-155(15)
NA
31-56(5)
224
BANK HT. RATIO
1.2-3
51
z2
51
51
MATERIALS
CHANNEL SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
D16, mm
0.136 NA 0.3 NA 0.17
D35, mm
0.87 NA 11 NA 29
D50, mm
12.5 NA 27 NA 58
D84, mm
114 NA 85 NA 180
D95, mm
2656 NA 115 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 length/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 parantheses indicates number of data points used to determine the ratio for the item.

Table 5. BEHIABS and Sediment Export Estimate for Project Site Streams
0
+�
Z
Linear
..
Time
Segment/
Footage or
Point
Reach
Acreage
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
1 3,545
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
691

Table 6. Designed Vegetative Communities (by zone)
PLANT COMPOSITION SCHEDULE'
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
overall
Spacing
P 9
Quantity
Maximum
Maximum
Vegetation Strata/
Unit
a
Spacing
Individual
( feet off
per acre
Frequency
Stem
Species Name
Common Name
z
Type
Size
Type
Spacing
center)
,
(��)
Quantity
(ft.)
TREES: Minimum of 5 Species, Minimum # of Trees = 230
N/A
N/A
Quercus alba
White Oak
c, bb
2" dbh min
Random
200
N/A
N/A
Pinus strobus
White Pine
c, bb
2" dbh min
Random
200
N/A
N/A
Tsuga canadensis
Eastern Hemlock
c, bb
2" dbh min
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 americana
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
Acersaccharum
Sugar Maple
br, c, t
18-36"
Random
31
20
163
Acerrubrum
Red Maple
br, c, t
18-36"
Random
31
20
1 163
Prunus serotina
IBIack Cherry
I br, c, t
1 18-36"
1 Random
31
815
ITOTAL
14
226
MIDSTORY TREES: Minimum of 5 Species, Minimum # of Trees = 230
20
163
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
br, c, t
18-36"
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
Sounaood
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
1 18-36"
Random
31
5
TA
14
22
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 americana
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
ITOTAL
8
1 2,445
IGRAND TOTAL

Zone 2: Floodplain Bench
Size (acres): 2.2
Overall
Frequency
Lbs per
Species Name
Common Name
Unit
Additional
Quantity LBS/AC
"/o
Spacing
p 9
Quantity
Maximum
Stem
Vegetation Strata/
Unit
40 -rye
Spacing
Individual
feet offFrequency
per acre
LB of P.L.S. 76%
Ground Limestone
Species Name
Common Name
Type
Size
Type
Spacing
center)
Organic Fertilizer
NQuantity
species
20
21.6
Dicanthelium clandestinium
Deer tongue
LB of P.L.S. 76%
(ft-)
4,000
combined
10
LIVE STAKES: Min. # of Stems = 870
Sorghastrum nutans
Indian grass
34
651
Salix nigra
Black Willow
live stake
2-3'
..T.m
12
LB of P.L.S. 76%
33
632
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
live stake
2-3'
Random
IR
12
4 ADDI V
33
632
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
live stake
24
Random
12
5
1,915
TOTAL
16
340
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 ITOTAL
6 2,663 IGRAND TOTAL
'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. All 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.
2 unit type c, bb = container or balled in burlap, unit type br, c, It = 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.
3Sizes listed are recommended, but are not meant to be a restriction in size.
Acres= 3.6
Lbs./Ac
Frequency
Lbs per
Species Name
Common Name
Unit
Additional
Quantity LBS/AC
"/o
Species
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%
4 ADDI V
5
5.4
Andropogon glomeratus
Bluestein
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%
1 APPLY
100
SOIL AMENDMENTS
252.0
EVENLY
=Total LBS
AND INCORPORATE TOA DEPTH OF 4 6 INCHES LOOSEN SURFACE JUST BEFORE BROADCASTING
2. MULCH MUST COVER 75% OF THE GROUND SURFACE.
Acres= 2.2
Lbs./Ac
Frequency
Lbs per
Species Name
Common Name
Unit
Additional
Quantity LBS/AC
NS
Species
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 lanceolata
Lance -leaf coreopsis
LB of P.L.S. 76%
4 ADDI V
100
Cull AAA -1-A-1-
154.1
C\/C
= Total LBS
V A- IAI-D-DA- - A IICD U - A C IkII`L I !1-ki - IDC - II ICT D -n- -A-A-1-
2. MULCH MUST COVER 75% OF THE GROUND SURFACE.

TEMPORARY HERBACEOUS SEED
Date
Species Name
Common Name
Unit
Additional
Quantity
Amendment
LBS/per acre
Jan. 1 -May 15
Secale cerea/e
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
Seca/e 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.

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

_ _
s' � �, .
... �: } .
_ ..
..
r
�-
•.,
� .a �. , _, , .�
._.., ,. e
_, ��� �
y- ...
.. _ •. i
. „,
,.

,.. .. "
B ¢'. + � _ -, �" a e ,: J' ' __._ •` _
ILI
'a �. � 4 b •.. �� t a. 1
s

- -,
0
Figure 3. Project Site NRCS Soil Survey Map
Glade Creek Stream Restoration
Alleghany County, North Carolina
December 2007
Feet
0 62.5 125 250 375 500
Legend
--_ Q Project Boundary Soil Types - Chester loam, 10-25% slopes, CeE - Watauga loam, 10-25% slopes, WaE
.seeees Streams - AJI.ial land, Ad -Chester loam, 2-6% slope, CeB Watauga loam,6-10%slopes, WaC
}} I3iolikitats Chandler silt loam, 25-45%slope, CaF -
Chester loam, 6-10% slopes, CeC - Watauga starry loam, 15-05% slopes, Wal'
1'd I I I[1�917e11t - Chandler storry silt loam, 25-45% slope, CdG Tus uitee loam, 6-10% slopes, TIC

A.
Glade Creek Wetor
land 1:
0.17 acres
I
_F e i
` P
7
+
L
i 0 '
4 + UT Wetland 4:
0.087 acres
.0
..t-
w ° i
UT Wetland 1: UT Wetland 3:
0.009 acres 0.033 acres
UT Wetland 2:
0.034 acres
Figure 4. Project Site Hydrological Features and Wetland Delineation
Glade Creek Stream Restoration
Alleghany County, North Carolina
Feet
December 2007 Legend 0 62.5 125 250 375 500
Project Easement Boundary Proposed Mitigation
����,Wetlands Preservation
5 teinOfthahtaits Streams Enhancement
FInV cement i� Restoration

mix ,. Farr ,f, �.._ _ _ _
• a tr° ,�R 3 ;� � • w

ti � � � , tib. �"� �t i ��k M � { +Yh.
w.' :. �. �

017-11 717

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

L83END FOR DRAWNW
EXISTING TREE
--.........-.352 ........... EXISTING CONTOUR
EXISTING THALWEG
PROPOSED THALWEG
PROPOSED BANKFULL LIMITS
CONSERvAT10N EASEMENT
LOD LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE
STABALIZEO CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
PLANTING ZONE 1
PLANTING ZONE 2
R.O.W.-.RIGHT OF AY
......_.......__.
a a a a
WETLANDS
LOG VANE
rCrCC)oM==:• ROCK V
•
ROCK CROSS vANE
WOODYROCK TOE
ROOTWAD WITH LARGE
1.
I I
r r r r
STEP POOLS
GLAC)E CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION
-P !4- T
o �y
o tiC'
�O
O
* SITE
BLUE RIDGE PKWY
E:II NIP -■
1 TITLE SHEET
2 DES,CrNED CHANNEL ALIGNMENT
3 GEOMETRY
4 LONG TUDINAL PROFILE
5 LONGITUDINAL PRFILE
6 RESTORATION PLA%
7 RESTORATION PLAN
8 RESTORATION PLAN
PL
0 RESTORATION PLAN
11 RESTORATION PLAN
12 DETAILS
13 DETAILS
14 DETAILS
15 PLANTING PLAN
1=-L===3
North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capitol Blvd, State 1H 183
Raleigh, NC 27804
Tel 919J18-0470
BIOHABITATS, INC.
The Stables Building
2081 Clipper Park Road
Baltimore, Maryland 21211
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
w .blohabitsts.com
GLADE CREEK
CHERRY LANE TOWNSHIP
ALLEGHANY COUNTY, NC.
TRE:
STREAM
RESTORATION
rota .: 08801.03
sFPL: DESIGNED 9Y ORSWN BY'.
VLSIKTN JPW
CHFCAEG: APPROVED:
JXR/EMM
DATE: JUNE 2007
MG. NO.
1 OF 16
RESTORATION PLAN SUBA/ITTAL

lopo`
I
I
/
/
00
/
FC = 11
e
r rr r
pp LOD LO r4
D — LOD — LOD —
1 / LOD n
�p0 LOD
Vpo
I
//� '/i
/
//IF of 000 / O
i °
00 /PC = 8+60.06 00
Pi
100
ow
100
O ✓ � o
/ X00
3~ /pC
.6'7
Sy ti
0
°p7 �.
� On,
(§1
b'
O
=�Q/+94,63
LOD LO
ALOD LOD
16+00
a� \1
\ \
BEAVER DAM CONTROL
STRUCTURE
v n 1
LO°
\ \ LOD W °O RILL 0087A0 1 f
J 1
\\ N a OOCXANNEL19
1 1 1
\ 1
r
IU PT o
Lop
� 1 PC 96.96
\ 2
%
x
o r\\
O
�- LOD — LOD
411
T
� oO
°k0p
SITE
pi1K am¢ rKwr
VICINITY MPP
(N.T.S.)
h ' OJ•�01/!M Wr7X70/
wstem . mi�nsw
GLADE CREEK
STREAM
RESTORATION
CHERRY LANE TOWNSHIP
ALLEOHANY COUNTY, NC.
ddd
1
IT i '�„1r�I
Ir
r
ar��lr1,41
SCA��
O 30 QO
OF 16
RESTORATION PLAN SUBMITTAL

N�lIO�Y�
l/1NEMftd=µ r7N7d
wwPfB/N1
GLADE CREEK
CHERRY LANE TOWNSHIP
ALLEOHANY COUNTY, NC.
SCALE
.1►ElOm
O 30 CO
Tw of . r��lae�um'arwNm%omm ITOF 16
r.rn.+ofp - "I rte,rtirorirearrbrr,Ile
r7
RESTORATION PLAN SUBMITTAL

IRL
r7
LEGEND
N o.Ym
N7f0m
GLADE CREEK
STREAM
RESTORATION
CHERRY LANE TOWNSHIP
ALLEOHANY COUNTY, NC.
OF 16

r7
IRL
LEGEND
N.lIO.eYm
EMftd=l/1Nµ FM
N7f0m
cm
GLADE CREEK
STREAM
RESTORATION
CHERRY LANE TOWNSHIP
ALLEOHANY COUNTY, NC.
16
RESTORATION PLAN SUBMITTAL

°
O
4.00 9.
Y 1�
tN
o
/ -_'1, 1i
24" TREE
WHITE PIN
10" TREE
PAUL & CORNELIA REEVES
DEED BOOK 84, PAGE 164
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 7
I e ls�N
'O ��1 i
\ 1
�� \\
III z n
(2) 16 TREE
0
qj
ot
i a�/
`'`
'
do,/
o0
i
i
02,
N
•( o°1�
VOID
volD
14" TREE
WHITE PINE
(2) 12" TREE
WHITE PINE
1010 EE
\ WHITE PINE
r
r
8c�bm
20 40
V
I
10
ofcfl
�
N
�I
426
qj
ot
i a�/
`'`
'
do,/
o0
i
i
02,
N
•( o°1�
VOID
volD
14" TREE
WHITE PINE
(2) 12" TREE
WHITE PINE
1010 EE
\ WHITE PINE
r
r
8c�bm
20 40
V

MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 8
Ali
��
�• I f 24 TREE / tv r7 W..NIN
cV
oM
scAl s
11��dOoasic 20 40
GLADE CREEK
CHERRY LANE TOWNSHIP
ALLEOHANY COUNTY, NO.
OF 16

for .,.r, Nlpo %We ..r, %life . � , .,r,
Ar / A .do alto alt, .dr, alr, alt, (>, , ab, ab, a
J
i\e ,�Ir, air, Al, All,
°Oe
b, alo ab, alt, alt, dr, ryl%� dr, alt, Ir Al, Jr, ab,
i (/
1� .dr, %I, aL, .d, alt, lIVS %&0 MO .I 40 ab, aV, ab, aV, Is al,
Of
""�11001.n ,Jr. Wil .dr, alt, ,Ir. .dr. ", .dr, alt, ab, ab, ala ,dr, Wr,
� /Off
aL, .Jr, % e %Ir, alt, ala dr, ,dr,
xp�. � LOD — LOD — LOD _.. LOD — LO %V, ab,�' %%L %11/, 4, aL, ,
/
° / / p — Cop .Jr, ab, ab, L � _
n a,� � _ ODS / �..
_ L s /
Jr
2 r Q0' fill.T Loo \ D — doe
AFF /
.e y� / . LOD A
" / : ` Lo /
, f• °Q / ` ` ``` �``�` LOD LDD LOD— D—. LOD r LOD — LOD — LOD
/ /✓�/tR� / , °
`\`
4 Off,
�� Of,.
P C = o ��' l -------- ----------
og-- _
5 i _ P �.p / r�lip LOD
�`�`� //.P / / LDD i\ Z
40D m
ee LOD LOD
ll cn
° 1 �__ //� �0 /
� j
� oo �'•' EE/ `\� 26''�
cn
N�
co
¢ \\ J `D it \N1 / �8s ► 1\ �\ O m
O `\ Ir 0
° r / � /
? % FF `D .5 O� ' $ 22" TREE ' F� `\ `> -�°°� m
r / / 1 WHITE PINE `.\\ �
N / ° h °
0 LOD
too
P 17M
rrwmr
100 00" 00 wome Rgsmmw
81 ell) Tpvo=
if 00 'dW
feeOff, Off Or grel
OD
JOO
// / °
r
r °i
=
` \\ a
1Of
ti
O• / / MOO
l / O !•r'MbJ lnbJM•IJ6�u
(0 J`00 mop Joe
doe
000 00
for jor
149t4l .00"
a' fee
PC = 8+60,06'" Jor Joe
I iy�°/fee
/11Vo' !/ // /
eoO
000,00,
/•O` N� /®/
000 //
/ I at �° N
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 9
(B
8c^Lm
11��dOoasi! 20 40
GLADE CREEK
OF 16
RESTORATION PLAN SUBMITTAL

o 6RVATIONEAN �
SEME
o� SFE NOTE # 3 AREA \
X � `
BEAVER DAM CONTROL
LOD — LOD —p LOD _ ,��• __��' STRUCTURE \ \,
LOD - LOD Q
J (] J ` a!
1 L� \
LODUj�``L _ Lop ' LOD _ LOD _ _ `CJ '`
S _ \`
D LODE COD
Qc,
°a\ (5) 12" E `� O N0
Q �),�,,.AHlTF FIRE '\ Q
00
16+00 N
400
00 <o /\ I
—_
<oo
LODL ( O
' ,'- \ X00
---------- ` \\ ----------- _ W FILL EXISTING
00
L°° CHANNEL 0) N
X00 7 N O I
\�
FILO AREA. �� �� ��TRFF T�;'\\\ 9+00 ;y100
rn
WIN
!°
i i k
It
��\ o� i
(^ a
D — LOD =LOD — LOD - LOD — LOD — LOD — LOD — LOD — LOD — LOD — LOD — LOD — LOD — L !� LOD — L �.
----- `_ — / s / ��-------------- \ �\ \ coo
400
ob
LOOS L'`_—'II,PII . O
�1 I
MATC
i
HLINE SEE SHEET 8 N
T s
0 20 40
ft�cl
Stoll ww"Woom
GLADE CREEK
OF 16
RESTORATION PLAN SUBMITTAL

MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 9
�li10�i
<i EXISTING PK NAIL
al
N: 995409.73 FEET
11 `�`� \<g�'' \� i I� T
29, \ L E: 1392896.74 FEE
-------j
<O
<06
1 1 I \ \\ GRAS
10
I I ' I \\e\� r\"`I', ' -- fJla� \R_f i rry `�% �J ,� too \ \
u)
ca , \ \ EXISTING RAILROAD
'�°o \ �O� ��� `� /Ooh AV* / SPIKE
1 04 Zoo 0
<o� `; ` : � ` TBM-2 SET ON 5 87
�' \ <Oo `\ G\„ ,. `` °° \\ r\� 1 EIR W/CAP
oo
<
e \ \ p� N: 995313.78 FEET
>� r E: 1393028.60 FEET
\\ t \ \ zoo \\ S LELEV_ 2618.67
`' ; ► \ 0 `.
♦ \
%
00
I
AO ooh
11 CIS\ / 1 1 \`♦ \\
s
n / /
cp
Oj
STA7TI:
de
`615.42' R(
5/8" EIR i ZO 6" �Ezeo,�
16
AX
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 11
.o.f.ti,
ftmr .
8�w
0 20 40
GLADE CREEK
CHERRY LANE TOWNSHIP
ALLEGHANY COUNTY, NC.
STREAM
RESTORATION
10 OF 16

r A
- i vI)
op
5/8" EIR ^ nF&-
I — �r
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 10
F 2+75.2 _ G, '�.�-.:0aQj
,
3-+nO
nn _
-z
FARMS, A
1r
_ ( 1 -, p /� ! If'
x.slo.r■
nsa Mir
GLADE
GLADE CREEK
CHERRY uwE TQV SHIP
ALLEOHANY NTY, NC.
16
RESTORATION PLAN SUBMITTAL

10, MM" CENTER TD as" MNxuX uaHOm FAH HOST,
DMV£11 A MNMN OF 14' INTO
. TTrr z
REWATOBM DEMQN' MINYW HOOHT d: AN D HOSES
ODIEXNEMSSF 1pwREN/ E HOSE N PIAN8N'DYNro OEP1H IN ' pOEWATEAING RIYP
NINEPnDw now
PERSPECTIVE NEW �M�FENCE \ A AFLTER INTAKE
CLOTH NDSMNMIM 20'FLOW OROIND SEDIMENT DINEUNDISTU✓ff0 CEM WATER DIMEMOUM27MWR E CLASS F SUMP HOLETOP VIEW A YNMM a: 8' VFRTCALLY PENCE POST DRIVEN A DBMUMESEPOOLINTO THE fAgIID MNYUM O 16' NTD SS TOtY 1Y1 )POSTS 1X9 aMM UCTY CROSS SECTION I DEX ARG C) lA @
SECTMN A SEDIMENT DIM LENGTH MT TO Df®
1STAPLE TO FORA VELOCITY THAT WHICH CM BE
STAPLE SfAMA1D DISSIPATION POOL COMPLETED N ONE WY
30D LXEAI. FEET YMMII
JOINING TWO ADJACENT SILT YPFAMWB WRITTEN;
FENCE SECTIONS
COISIRUCIIOI SPECIFICATIONS
I. FENCE POSTS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF No LONG DINVEN 18' MINIMUM INTO ME MRN AREA
RNOIPDI DI
M0. WOW POSESH
S ALL BE IT X IY MARE (MM") CLT. W H^ MAmTEII W� O (D l` RJ
(MCMC) ROID AND SFHAL BE OF SOUND GUAITY HMOWOW. SML PDSTS YLL BE `H
STANDARD T W U SECTOR NOCHTNO MT LESS IHC 1.00 POM PER UNEM FUM. SECTION A -A'
2 GEOIDGm SHALL BE FASIFNET SECURELY TO EACH FENCE PORT WIN VIBE TEs
OR WAPUS AT TOP AND MD-SECDON AMD Mg11 MEET THE F UM HEWB M O
FOR GEOR%IEE MSS P. BOR LBLDTH 6
SEGMENT am
TENSILE STDUU.15 x M/1M (MN.) TEST. OUT SDP
FLOWTENSILER MWULUS IT LBS/BI (MIL) NEST MMT EI SBS
FLOW RATE 0.3 CAL R / MIMJIE (MAX) NEST. MT 322
RIERM EFigFNCY 7E[ (MR.) LEST: MS1Tf J22
NOTES:
1 WHERE EMS OF OEOTEXOLE FIHNC COME TIMMER. THEY SIAL BE OVFAAPPED, SECTION B -B' 1: PPCHO& PATTERN 2.5 ANC CRE I M37/64 (2 ANCHORS / YE37,fi4) FOR
FgDED AND STA TO PEET VIE SEDIMENT 81PAS < SLDM < IN: 1
2. U - SHAPED WERE STMLM METAL GEOTEXII E PINS TRIANGULAR WOODEN OR
w SILT FENCE SIMLL BE NSPECIFD AFTER EACH RAINFALL EVENT AND MANTAMD MEN PLASTIC STAKES CAN BE USED TO ANCHOR TRMs M THE GROUND SURFACE
BULfiu ODMR OR WHEN SEDIMENT ACCIMMT(N IEAO® BOE M THE FA PIC HOW.
SILT FENCE PUMP AROUND AND VELOCITY DISSIPATER
NOT TO SOME COIR FIBER MATTING- STAPLE PATTERN GUIDE
NOT TO SCAIE
xm TD BCALE
3' MOUNTABLE
BDWI (6' MX.)
WMIY
PLAN VIEW
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATION
ENs-AP vEAExT
EARTH RLL
. PLPE AS IECEYSMY
mom THE DEWATERING BAG SHALL BE MADE OF NON -WOVEN CE07EXTILE
PAEMENT MiN A MIN. SURFACE AREA OF 225 SQUARE FEET PER SIDE. ALL
STRUCTURAL SEAMS SHALL BE SEWN WITH A DOUBLE STITCH USING
A DOUBLE NEEDLE MACHINE METH NON SII NGM THREAD. THE
SEAM STRENGTH SHALL WITHSTAND 100 ID .USING ASTM D-4884
TEST METHOD. THE DEWATENNG BAG SH HAVE A NOZ2lE LARGE
ENOUGH TO ACCOMODATE A FOUR INCH DISCHARGE HOSE THE
NOZZLE SHALL BE SEALED TIGHTLY AROUND THE DISCHARGE HOSE
MN. WITH A STRAP OR SIMILAR DEVICE TO PREVENT UNTREATED WATER
FROM ESCAPING. THE GEOIEXTILE FABRIC SHALL BE A NON -WOVEN
_ FABRIC WITH THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES:
NOTE
TGE6TBAG 55T:10EST M THMASTM D-4864 b
1. LENGTH
- MINIMUM OF
50' ('30' FOR
SINGLE RESIDENCE LEY).
2. WIDTH -
10' MINIMUM,
94OULD BE FLARED
AT THE EXISTING ROAD TO PROVIDE A TURNING
RADIUS.
LEAST e' DEEP
OVER ME
LENGTH AND WIDTH OF THE
3. CE07E%TILE FABRIC (FILTER CLOTH) SHALL BE PLACED OVER THE EXISTING GROUND PRIOR
TO PLACING STONE. "THE PLAN APPROVAL AUTHORITY MAY NOT REOUIRE SINGE FAMILY
RESIDENCES M USE GEOTEGTILE
C STONE -
CRUSHED
AGGREGATE
(2" TO 3') OR
RECLAIMED
OR RECYCLED CONCRETE
EQUIVALENT
SHALL BE
PLACED AT
LEAST e' DEEP
OVER ME
LENGTH AND WIDTH OF THE
ENTRANCE.
PUNCTURE
ASTM 0-4633
LBS.
ISO
ROW RATE
5, SURFACE WATER - ALL SURFACE WATER FLOWING TO OR DIVERTED TOWARD CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCES SHALL BE PPED THROUGH THE ENTRANCE, MAINTAINING POSITIVE DRAINAGE RPE
INSTALLED THROUGH THE STABUZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH A
MOUNTABLE BERM WIN 5:1 RAPES AND A MINIMUM OF 6' OF STOGIE OVER THE PPE, PIPE HAS
TO BE SIZED ACCORDING TO THE DRAINAGE WHEN THE SCE IS LOCATED AT A NON SPOT AND
HAS NO DRAINAGE TO CONVEY A PPE DILL NOT BE NECESSARY. PIPE SHOULD BE SIZED
ACCORDING TO THE AMOUNT OF RUNOFF TO BE CONVEYED. A 6' MINIMUM WELL BE REWIRED.
8. LOCATION - A STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE LOCATED AT EVERY PONT
WHERE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC ENTERS OR LEAVES A CONSTRUCTION SITE VEHICLES LEAVING
THE SITE MUST TRAVEL OVER THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
NOT TO SONE
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC FOR DIRTBAG
PROPERTIES
TEST METHOD
I UNITS
NONWOVEN 55
WEIGHT
ASTM 0-3776
OZ AM
10
GRAB TENSILE
ASTM D-4632
fftw
270
PUNCTURE
ASTM 0-4633
LBS.
ISO
ROW RATE
ASTM D-4491
GAL/MIN
70
PERMITIVITY
ASIA D-4491
SEC -1
1.3
MULLEN BURST
ASTM D-3786
LBS.I142
550
UV RESISTANT
AM
ASTM 0-4355
IASTM D-4751
X
70
�Rn
AMOCO FABRIC
#4557 12 OZ.
NON -WOVEN
FROM DIRTBAG
TOP VIEW
A05 X RETAINED ASM 0-4751 X 100
NOTE
ALL PROPERTIES ARE MINIMUM AVERAGE ROLL VALUE 3' ME
EXCEPT THE WEIGHT OF THE FABRIC WHICH IS GIVEN ELM
FOR INFORMATION ONLY,
CONSTRUCTION: THE DEWATERING BAG SHALL BE
INSTALLED OVER A 3 INCHR07 STONE GRAVEL BASE #57 STONE AGGREGATE INDERUYM
ANDSDDEWATERIINNGBOF THE TO
BAGS PUMPING INFILTRATION
SHALL BE CONTROLLED TO PREVENT SIDE VIEW
EXCESSIVE PRESSURE WITHIN THE FILTER BAG. AS THE BAG BECOMES FILLED WITH
SEDIMENT THE PUMNG RATE 34ALL BE REMOVED AND ISCOMPLETIONOSEDPIOF UPON COMPLETION OF PUMPING OPERATIONS OR AFTER CED. THE FILTER BAG SHALL BE AIT
IERED,
HAS REACHED CAPACITY MECHEM OCCURS FIRST. 114E DEWATERED SEDIMENT FROM
THE BAG SHALL BE SPR(:AD IN AN UPLAND AREA AND STABWZEO WITHIN 24 HOURS
.F"�iHiLP.7Tf�9
IN SPOUT
GN STRENGTH STRAPPING
R HOLDING HOSE IN PUCE
WATER FLOW
FROM PUMP
15
6
NOTES:
1. BLANKETS SHALL EXTEND DOWNSLOPE TO BASEFLOW CHANNEL
2. SECURE BOTTOM EDGE OF BLANKET AS DONE AT TOP OF SLOPE.
COIR FIBER MATTING - TYPICAL SLOPE CROSS SECTION
TYPICAL SLOPE CROSS SECTION
IWdsndists Niki
ROT TO sCAE
�ilY1N 7i
G
GLADE CREEK
CHERRY LANE TOWNSHIP
ALLEGHANY COUNTY, NC,
DETAILS
HNNiTH.: 9B191A1 lout Nn
Me f•eR /CALMER
VINKiN IPM
OO! MIO!
�V
aae Imam
fIR16:
12 OF 16
RESTORATION PLAN SUBMITTAL

ROCK CROSS VANE
PLAN VIEW wfoOlIMA
fIN10N09 ORAO0 Ae
OHM ON FLANe
RANOOO TO Mf II NOO ANY$ NHO AROUNOORIOC4.
Mae VANE
e'
OAXF. U f"VAf IN 6ANKFW 0"VAflM
r wo. 1 -ex
L VANE ROOK fll
RLI
IL f00ftR ROCK MA
RI
NO 6Me e411NHIN VANE ROOKO
NPife:
I. f ofoltAG6N ROOAe muefVAW M / , copMA KIP /RO0AMO GRANT.
2. 600 M0NT OF ORNi ROCKO YU6f 1166,A BBANB DOTINI"#W fOOfK ROM.
1. eOf /ROFILO FOR PROP0300 MOR ROOK
ANP ACOOOANM.L 0L0VAf ION.
f. MOff[ RMOO HOT 6HRO 900 FOR ROLK fW ON eOYONO e4. "6b LIMIf.
S ROCK 6R OO' ANO AWIN PLANTIN6 AT FOO 6N0 Of VANfe. eff '/I.AN41N6
AT ROCK VANVB' ON FLANfIN6 pffAILB ANO 6G1000L{6.
ROCK GR099 VANE
PRO>% I LE
U"fROM OXTONf
Of RIM" 600 MAfKIAL
OWN ON "of I" VANE ROOI
pB{p
{L0 ATIO fNA"W
D
—f00f0R ll L s
RIF/I.f 000 MOKIAL
ROCK CROSS VANE
SECTION— TYPICAL """0YC"`R
iXfmo ROOK
OAYONO OANI
LIMIf IIHKF
INOILAffO ON
6KAOIN6 /LANs
A.
LOG VANE
PLAN VIEW—TYPICAL
IN -10f
L06 VANE 6HALL Of OURIOV A
MIN. 9.0' 60YONO fH0 fHALWf&
iAeU900 FROM L{NfOR
♦ LOb)
ANCHOR ROOK
RRPOR TO OPOGIf ICAf IONS ANO FLANTIN&
PLAN FOR PLANTIN6 ANO 60001N&
OHANNiL THALWf&
LOG VANE
PROFILE ELEVATION
FIN16H00 &KAOO At,
ON &MAOI N6 FLANO
e
ANCHOR RacK
2
LOG VANE
N
LOG VANE
CROSS SECTION A—A'
ANCHOR ROOK
600 VAMOG
0
1.0' MIN. Of
1066fRAfO MAfORIAL
P*OfOR ROOK
VAN/ ROOK
1 -1U
e
/—am ROOK BNALL
WWV OURIfO IN
ROMA
Ae Of
_
S11M
A
fOR 01 Of ANG" AMO fLOVAf IONO Off CAOLF FOR ROOK VANE
ON fHl6 eNfff.
ROCK VANE
PLAN VIEW— TYPICAL
ONANNXf
'71NO
�OO K ROCK
VANE ROOK
—FIL1. ANC CHINK ALL
FOR 01e1AN000 ANO f"VATI0W Eft fAOLf FOR
ax Me eNfff.
ROCK VANE
PROFILE ELEVATION — TYPICAL
,�pw�ld
rYY1.WafPlaYedatl
rarmdr■Mwrr
� amlpHod
GLADE CREEK
CHERRY LANE TOWNSHIP
ALLEGHANY COUNTY, NC.
DETAILS
M: O�OOR OIWIIOM
VIM(iN JPW
O0ot0! II01O!
�V
OAR
"Raw
OIRX1
13 OF 16
RESTORATION PLAN SUBMITTAL

BURY ROOT WAD OLOG PINTO OTREATOP OF ROOTWAD.
BANK MATH A MINIMUM OF 2 OF COVER
k, • 1••1$•- riy' • r
TAT
r- •
OKI 'r
FLOW OOTWAD� ///
LARGE 00 YJ
1/3 LENGTH B613IOS LWD
nr i w
MULTI RANCNI GIIN-INIM
1 3 OFGLEENGTNB',
•• r
NOTE: FOOTER LOG NOT SHOWN.
ROOTWAD/LARGE WOODY DEBRIS *LWD* DEFLECTOR
PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE
PLANTING PND NSEEDING ABOVE
BANKFULL ELEVATION —
CHANNEL THALWEG
LppLG py�pT��{ Ca�pNE E�
7HA81
LL DO NOT TUSEL OOF TER
LOG IF BEDROCK IS PRESENT.
ANCHOR ROCKS
TO OTNAD ON TOP OF
ANCHOR ROCK
rootwad
ANCHOR ROCK TO BE PLACED
ON TOP
HOSIDES OF roolw AND
"RE T rootwad ON FOO R LOG*
ROOTWAD/LARGE WOODY DEBRIS *LWD* DEFLECTOR
CROSS SECTION view NOT TO SCALE
Rootwad Only
BUNDLE MUST HAVE MORE THAN 10 BRANCHES
FOR COMPLEX COVER FISH HABITAT
18'
ROOTWAD/LARGE WOODY DEBRIS
LARGE WOODY DEBRIS (LWD)
LWD DEFLECTOR
VAtm BANIo-7LLWWTH
OC
PLAN VIEW TYPICAL
SECTION /=
VGEBNR omvm
,A..,I3111
%P�RENCE PC
STEP POOL
PLAN VIEW — TYPICAL NOT TO sc&E
WPENCE POINT
PROPOSED FINAL GRADE (TOP OF ROCK)
J I E - r r V V L — J I I -
CROSS SECTION —
ROCK
R ROCK
FILL ALL VOIDS WITH SUBSTRATE MATERIAL
11 (MIN.) SUBSTRATE MATERIAL
TYPICAL
STEP POOL — POOL
CROSS SECTION — TYPICAL NOT TO SCALE
STEP/POOL
PROFILE TYPICAL NOT TO SCALE
TN.dmMINlrM Hb Yr
YngnlNllafRaYNNNI
rarmdr■Nwrr
r=
G
GLADE CREEK
CHERRY LANE TOWNSHIP
ALLEGHANY COUNTY, NO.
DETAILS
anlm rwc N=
rK ODOR 611w11R
VWKiN JRN
OO! II•IO!
�V
OAr
"Raw
O 141014-
14
Y:14 OF 16
RESTORATION PLAN SUBMITTAL

FLOOD PLAIN WIDTH VARIES
SEE GRADING PLAN
34'
BANIFULL
1.r
r
�11'
THALWEG
MAINSTEM RIFFLE
SECTION TYPICAL
NOT TO SCALE
FLOOD PLAIN WIDTH VARIES
SEE GRADING PLAN
24'
BANIFULL
2'
THALWEG
MAINSTEM STEP
SECTION TYPICAL
NOT TO SCALE
dldjp ; 1 , , 0 1■
A
/ SEE GRADING PLAN \
43'
BANIFULL ELEVATION
THALWEG 3.5
1.5
2r ' T , v r
MAINSTEM MEANDER POOL
SECTION TYPICAL
NOT TO SCALE
FLOOD PLAIN WIDTH VARIES
SEE GRADING PLAN
36'
BANKFULL
4'
1
12' 6' v 12'
THALWEG
MAINSTEM STEP POOL
SECTION TYPICAL
NOT TO SCALE
a
FLOOD PLAIN WIDTH VARIES
SEE GRADING PLAN
1r
r
2' 4' 4' 2'
THALWEG
TRIBUTARY RIFFLE
SECTION TYPICAL
NOT TO SCALE
FLOOD PLAIN WIDTH VARIES
SEE GRADING PLAN
9'
O.r 0 v O.r
THALWEG
TRIBUTARY STEP
SECTION TYPICAL
NOT TO SCALE
— FLOOD PLAIN WIDTH VARIES —
SEE GRADING PLAN
43'
BANIFULL ELEVATION
w 2' T 4'
TRIBUTARY MEANDER POOL
SECTION TYPICAL
NOT TO SCALE
FLOOD PLAIN WIDTH VARIES
SEE GRADING PLAN
13'
SANIFULL
1'
V '2.5(2.5 4'
TRIBUTARY STEP POOL
SECTION TYPICAL
NOT TO SCALE
0Q v'.p 1.w
U m
Mdeslllr� YYrndOrlP+Ymp+dW rash am
Ylraas - drar.6raldras, left p.prV ds"oft Ye
rd r m r r■ uw r war y r prR tr� d(arpapd woad
b rasnrldolddend as11dY1, Yli
RESTORATION PLAN SUBMITTAL
!RTE
E aocE PKWY
VICINRY MAP
(N.rs.)
rasa... lr�
J�wain�..711N
The
M NMI
...rddrl.aaa
l.Mab,� lob�,oldxu./i(y
GLADE CREEK
STREAM
RESTORATION
CHERRY LANE TOWNSHIP
ALLEGHANY COUNTY, NG
DESIGNED
CHANNEL
ALIGNMENT
M:
VIAII(iN
==
=w
JPYY
"Now
OaL16:
15 OF 16
RESTORATION PLAN SUBMITTAL

TEMPORARY HERBACEOUS SEED
4uartity
per acre
Maximum
Freq.lemy
l%1
Maximum
Stem
4uartity
Vegetation Strata.)
Species Name
Common Flame
Unit
Type`
Size'
Additional
4uartity
Date
Species Flame
Common Name
Unit
Rmendnert
LBS )per acre
Jan 1 May 15
Seca7e cemak
Rye grain
LB_ of P.L.S. 78 %
White Oak
White Pine
Eastern Hemlock
N. Red Oak
Yellow Birch
Yellow Poplar
Basswood
Sycamore
Rw Birch
Sugar Maple
Red Maple
Black Cherry
35
2 dbh mir
2 dbh mir
2 dbh mir
18-36"
18-36"
18-36"
18-38'
18 38'
18-36"
18-36"
18 38"
18 38"
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random-_
Random
Random_
Rand_
om
Random
Random
Fandom
Fandom
200
200
200
31 _
31 _
_ 31 _
31 _
31 _
_ 31 _
_ 31 _
_ 31
31
Common Flame
Ground Limestone
4,000
Type
Spacing
center)
Organic Fertilizer
320
Straw Mich
4,000
May 15-Aug.15
Setaria RaAca
German millet
LB of P.L.S. 78 %
228
40 _
34
851
20
183
183
183
183
183
183
183
Ground Limestone
4,000.
br, c t
br, c t
br, c t
br, c t
br, c, t
br, c t
br, c, t
18-36"
18-36"
18-36"
18-36"
1838"
18-36"
18-38"
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
Organic Fertilizer
_
320
20
Silky Wilow
I stake
20
Straw Mich
4000:
Aug 15 -Dec, 31
Seca7e cemak
Rye grain
LB of P.L.S. 78 %
TOTAL
35
228
SHRUBS. Mirimui of 55 cies Minmui Hof Shruts
= 230
12
Ground Limestone
_
4,000
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
183
183
183
183
183
183
183
183
lire'era 5mzom
Saw 5ucus camdeami
Ca7ycarRMrs fkrro'a
Caftarpa an ernima
h]o'raryea arb omscens
Sympkcostmctorra
Omdoobredma naxmm
hhnaw eks wgn ma
Spicebush
Elderberry
Sweetshrub
Annefican Beautoerry
Wid Hydrangea
Horse Sugar
Rhododendron
Wrtchhazel
Organic Fertilizer
320
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
31
31
31
31
31
31 _
31 _
31
Saw 5ucus camdeami Elderberry
815
Straw Milch
4.000
e<<
/
yr /
/stn' �.�.��•
11+434
✓ F,
/ P
Notes
1. SELECTANAPPROPRIATE//
2. AVOID SEEDING IN DECEMBER OR JANUARY IF NECES 5ARY TO SEED AT THESE TIMES, USE RYE
3. AP P LY S O IL FNA E NOME NTSTEMPOEVE NLYY ANDRARYS INC G RP G RATEPECIESD TO A DEPTH 0EF 4-8 NCHES LO GS EN SUR FACE / / c;
G RAIN AND A S EC UR ELY TACK ED M U LCH
1
JUST BEFORE BROADCASTING.
4. MULCH MUST COVER 75% OF THE GROUND SURFACE.
/. /mer.
f
ar �r a y�rr rbar�r r
r rry�j r�' r rr r
q`b BIAS CONTROL '1 \
+MI!w .e;�r►�Illlli�
9 g 1
1
y�
V Yli aFILLERI81M I I
CHANNEL
i4ly,\ I
x
i f 9 V PLANT COMPOSITIONSCHEDULEI
ROTE: EACH TREE SPECIES SHOULD COMPRISE AT LEAST 700.-p AND NO MORE THAN 25°+6 OF THE TOTAL
S TE MS P LAN TE D IN E ACH VE GE TATION S TR ATAA MN MU M OF 680 S TE MS P E R ACR E WILL B E OF
j PLANTED IN ZONE %-APAHIMMOF 1,210 STEMS PER ACRE WILLBE PLANTED IN ZOITE 2.
/ " (5e k L +94,63 {The tax ononvc standar(I follows Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia Georgia ant)
/�,�. + �� Surrouneling Arcus by Alan S. W�.wikle �,
1 IR
z
/ y`/+A ,/ Zone %: Riryarian Wootllancls-M�ic 5¢e(acresjc 3.5 II \lei<:;.
� b
c�l(i
Uy� N
Mr?P' q I /
// ss9 blur / 5wlo
Of
I
pxp�'�r
/ C III •
4f
'A\
Overall
Spacing
P 9
[ feet df
center]
4uartity
per acre
Maximum
Freq.lemy
l%1
Maximum
Stem
4uartity
Vegetation Strata.)
Species Name
Common Flame
Unit
Type`
Size'
Spacing
Type
Irdiyidual
Spacing
[H.]
14
228
Maximum
TREES: Minimum of 5 Sp ecies,
Minimum Hd Trees- 230
Unit
NIA
NIA
NIA
20
20
20
_ 20
_ 20
20
20
20
20.
NIA
NIA
NIA
183
183
183
183
183
183
183
183
183
QiRmus aka
Pmstro8 us
Tsuga camdeami
QIRMus rLbm
BetuM akeghaameams
lidoo'eredroa LW#kra
Tda anernima
cc
P7atar o&dales
BetuM nigra
Acersacchaam
AcerrLbrs
Purcs semtma
White Oak
White Pine
Eastern Hemlock
N. Red Oak
Yellow Birch
Yellow Poplar
Basswood
Sycamore
Rw Birch
Sugar Maple
Red Maple
Black Cherry
c bb
c bb
c bb
6r, c t
br, c t
br, c t
br, c, t
6r, c t
br, c t
br, c t
br, c t
br, c, t
2 dbh mir
2 dbh mir
2 dbh mir
18-36"
18-36"
18-36"
18-38'
18 38'
18-36"
18-36"
18 38"
18 38"
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random-_
Random
Random_
Rand_
om
Random
Random
Fandom
Fandom
200
200
200
31 _
31 _
_ 31 _
31 _
31 _
_ 31 _
_ 31 _
_ 31
31
Common Flame
Type
Size
Type
Spacing
center)
Imo:]
[n ]
7
815
TOTAL
14
228
MIDSTORY TREES: Minimum d 5 Species, Minimum H Trees= 230'
34
851
20
183
183
183
183
183
183
183
Carpmrc caroAia ma
Osrye Ie kwimra
lexopaca
O,,j?&rm'rm a bomtm
Ane73rcheerwboma
gdoaar&ure Iergrncus
Cbr fkrk'a
Inwood
Anefican Hophombeam
Holly
Sourwood
Senicelbery
Fnngetree
Flowering Dogwood
br, c t
br, c t
br, c t
br, c t
br, c, t
br, c t
br, c, t
18-36"
18-36"
18-36"
18-36"
1838"
18-36"
18-38"
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
33
832
20
Silky Wilow
I stake
20
Random
20
20
20
20
33
815
TOTAL
14
228
SHRUBS. Mirimui of 55 cies Minmui Hof Shruts
= 230
12
_
1,915
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
183
183
183
183
183
183
183
183
lire'era 5mzom
Saw 5ucus camdeami
Ca7ycarRMrs fkrro'a
Caftarpa an ernima
h]o'raryea arb omscens
Sympkcostmctorra
Omdoobredma naxmm
hhnaw eks wgn ma
Spicebush
Elderberry
Sweetshrub
Annefican Beautoerry
Wid Hydrangea
Horse Sugar
Rhododendron
Wrtchhazel
br, c t
6r, c t
6r, c t
br, c t
br, c t
br, c, t
br, c t
br, c, t
18-36"
18-36"
18-36"
18-36"
18-36"
1838"
18-36"
18-38"
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
Random
31
31
31
31
31
31 _
31 _
31
Saw 5ucus camdeami Elderberry
815
TOTAL
8
2,445
GRAND TOTAL
'7nnP7c Flnnrinlain RPnrh
g17P la rrPck 73
Overall
Spacing
P 9
4uartity
Maximum
Stem
Vegetation Strata)
Unit
Spacing
Irdiyidual
[ feet df
per acre
Freq.rercy
4uartity
Species Name
Common Flame
Type
Size
Type
Spacing
center)
Imo:]
[n ]
7
870
LIVE STAKES: Min. Hof Stems= 870
34
851
Sakxim
Black Wilow
Iitis stake
23'
Random
12
33
832
Sakx serkea
Silky Wilow
I stake
23'
Random
12
33
832
Cbr an ON
Silky Dogwood
I stake
23'
Random
12
1,915
ITOTAL
18
397
- SHRUBANDTREES: Mirimum#=340
34
254
Saw 5ucus camdeami Elderberry
br, c, t
18-38"
Random
19
33
247
AArcrs aemn'ata Toa Fllda
br, c, t
18-38"
Random
20
33
247
Betu'a rfqm Rw Birch
br, c, t
18-38"
Random
20
748
TOTAL
8
2,563
1 GRAND TOTAL
All planting stock proyidedshall be securedfmm a local producer locatedinthhe mountain physographc province,not
morethan 200milesfromthe Ate. Plartingshhall occudunngthe lastfull week of Fehruarythrough March. Bare root material
mho be Aoredin a refrige rated truck from nurserypickupto ro more than30 m nutesbefore plaiting All plait ngstock
must be Aoredprcperlybefore plantingto avoidfreezirg or desacation and must be approved bythe Desgmrbefore itcan
be planted. Bare rod se edl i ngs that have been AN pped by comme rd al ca rn a rs wi 11 nd be accepted. it proper care tithe
m ate n a l ha s rot be en take n, the material wi 11 be reje ote d for pi anti ng.
unit type c, bb = corta fine r or bal l e d i n burl ap, brit type br, c,t= bare root, corta fine r or htil i ng. NOTE -White Oak, White Pine
and Ea stem Hemlock minimum Aze is Z' dbh. At least 10 Aemsd each dthe se spe ci es must be pi anted if avail a d e. There
should be at least 50 f et between 2" cbh Ae ms and at l e ast 200' between 2" dbh Ae ms of the same species.
'Si zes I Aed are recommended, but are rot meant to be a restri d on in Aze.
Ii illi
i ,llll�tl j�'
/-
II I %%
I� III ���■
II 111111 11 I �7■
1
'i
0 -mo mil aw
�F.
r a
§1
LEGEND
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII • �.
ZONE 2
} SCALE
ai 1 ��y
+ 0 30 60

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

h
MW
Upstream
view
at — sta 0+00 on Glade
Creek
i
-
1Rf

Pool beside large 30"white oak at — sta 3+25

it bank, just ustream of beaver
sta 16+00 on Glade Creek
Glade Creek -right bank at — sta 16+50 u/s of beaver pond

Beaver dam view at — sta 17+75 on Glade Creek
View of left bank d/s of beaver dam at — sta 19+75

Looking upstream at — sta 24+75 on Glade Creek

Upstream view of unnamed tributary at d/s end of property line, — sta 0+00

view at — sta 0+50 on unnamed tributary
Upstream view at — sta 1+00 on unnamed tributary

Upstream view at — sta 1+75 on unnamed tributary
Upstream view at — sta 2+25 on unnamed tributary

A t L
f {
v �
y r
L�

. �,. i1cV - �X�6• . ��t,.- Y mil
�1� tiA� '
1i
z
Upstream view at — sta
0+60 on Basin Creek
IMIlk
41
--.aim-=--�--
� e
Downstream view at — sta +70, begin
of reference reach, on Basin Creek

79
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 GOE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: �. ''A c L (f ' -- wcC 0 itiv►(,l n L" Y1 w �A o1 t C '� t ��
Date: °
Applicant/Owner: W, i'
County; A1146hAAAV
Investigator:ISP v o vl 11ju vi n ter i
State:
too Normal Circumstances exist on the site?Yes No
Community ID:
Is the site significantly distwbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes (Ep
'Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes
Plot ID:
If needed, explain on reverse.
' } h4 r
VEGETATION
and PI 1ig Stratum
1 ��C iY1?C%1� I rY11J�W1 _
3
Llornirant P1an1 g2pges 51MIL- dndka5or
g,
11.
4.
12.
5.
13.
- -
6
T.
14,
15.
DO Lines
Sediment Dapozg3
Percent of Dpminanl Species that are 08L, FAGW or FA: + y
eraaudin FAC-)
Remark! y -e-4 {4"uG{ ��i � V° G1 ti ��f- +YE Lid t 1411 tyA XI
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Pala (Describe in Remarks).
Welland Hydraiogy ksdicators:
Stream, Lake. or Tide GaLKje
Primary k dicakws:
Aanal PNADWaphs
Inundated
01er17
SaAratad in Upper 12 taches
_
y% No Recorded Data Available
Water Marks
DO Lines
Sediment Dapozg3
Field Obsenrations:
_ Dn maps Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary hkators (2 or more required).
Depth of Surface Waiter: (in,)
_ O*kzad Root Ctarxtels in Lipper 12 l wbw
WaferStaned Leaves
^_
Depth to Free Water in R. 011:)
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Nouiral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: _ _. (in.)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: V �1
B2 Appends B Blank and Example Data forms

SOILS
(Ser Ls d rne
Phi J j� )VAS
{Banes and Phase): + � Drainage Gass:
Heid Cbsery%Uma
Tarnnomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
2LQnw UefiUM lan:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle colors Motile Abundance?-telduro, Concretions,
0=1111111 1OQQU__ (W05211 dp (Muni9µWall SIZOIC&Otrast 5ttu :.
Hydric Sail Yrdicalors-
Flsiosol Concretions
_ Hstic Epipedon _ Figh Organic Content In Surleze Layer In Sandy Soils
Sulgdic Odor _ OrganiC Streaking in Sandy Wle
Aqulc Moi lure Regime Listed on Local Hydric Spits List
IV Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Solis List
t/Gleyed or Low0nirome C+oiors Other (€ala4ain in Remarks)
Remarks.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Ffynirophytic Vegetation Present:?ey":
No (C�a) (Grcie)
Welland Hydrdogy Present? No
Ffydnc Soils Present? NO lS Ous Sampling Point Within a Weiland? riles No
Remarks: r 1—
Approved by H OUSACE 3192
Appendix B Bisnk and Example Uata Forms B3

M
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecVsite: i�
Date: ' 1 71
Applicant/Owner: L
County: of
Investigator: 2J V% ")f
State: IJCZ '1
Do N omial Circumstances east on the site? No
Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes
Transect iD:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes
Plot ID: WeAj-
It needed, explain on reverse.
OZA,, 1
Pi xi =1 Vt1Lel:
onxirxan] PI nt m h Dant �t § Stratum Indiralw
�orr_�rx9.
2 10.
:1 11.
a 12.
5 13,
6 14.
1 i5.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are f]BL, FACW or FAC � P.
exrtkadn FAG-), 7
Remarks.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe an Remarks)
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide age
Aerial Ptaotograpiw
r _ Outer
t,r _ No Recorded Data Mailable
Wetland Hydrology hdcators:
Primary haicators.
"dated
SaturaW n Ui per 12 hchas
. wafer Mwks
Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field observations,
_ Drainage Patlems in Wetlands
Secondary #1dicalors (2 or more regti red)
Depth of StOaca Water: _ (n.)
_ oxidized Root Channels m Upper 12 hctm
T Water -Stec ied Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: _.^(in.)
Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-N&Aral Test
Depth to Saturated Sc*. {in.)
_ 06wr (E)axlain in Remarks)
Remarks
B2 Apperdet B Blank aid Example Date Forms

SOILS
PAP u b NlumeA t_l g G� �'1�Ui t� (� ij rt A IAA cL ( n..wne ,cmc:
csener: end Phase):
Field Observation
Texmorry (Subgrr pry Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Dept Matrix color Mottle Coiurs Mattis Abundencel TeAure, Conuetlons.
iinffi4lrii. Harlem fWann Nk&9 (Wold Maim) Slaett a U= e - Structum,
Hydric Sall lndicafora'
listosoi Concretions
Fistic Epgmdon = High Organic C4rnent in Surface Layer in Sandy Sob
SutNdic OdorOrganic Streaking in Sandy Sob
Aquic Moisture Regime — Listed on Laces Hydric Solls List
Reducing Conditions — Listed on National Hydric Sails List
Gleyed or Low Chrome Colors Olher (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
HydrophyUc Vegetation Present? lies No (Circle) (Grate)
Wetland F"dogy+PresenV Yee Na
Hydric Suis Present? Yes No k Cris Samplim Point Wim s Wadand-7 Yes No
Rer„arlts: ; r
Approved by HOUSACE
AWpendm 8 BW* and Example oafs Forms 63

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND MERMINATION
(1987 C©E Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProjecVSite: r'.r.. —M
a
{late: II&IC7
ArpplicantfOwner: JI& LE V
FmAd Observations:
County:
Investigator.
State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
(SI No
Community ID;
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Yes
Transect IO:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Yes
Plot ID:
It needed, explain on reverse.)
?'94
VEGETATION
DDminani Neal §2UqW Stratum Indicator Dominant Et"t Nmm_ _ Stratum Indicator
a ta.
.l tt.
a t 2-
5 t3.
6, ta-
r
15,
a ts.
Pemunt of Dominant Species that are 08L. FACW or FAC
(e=luding FAG -
Remorks.
HYDROLOGY
Rrx;orded Data (Descrihe in Remarks)
-- Stream, bike. or Tide Carge
Aadal Photographs
/ _ O*W
16/ No Recmded Data AvaaUe
Wetland Mrdugy lndicalcm:
Primary Irx6cskws:
Inundated
�! SaluraW n Upper 52 ktchas
Water Merles
Drift Lines
_ Sedunent Deposks
FmAd Observations:
Drainage Patterns in Wet wds
Secax9ary lndicakn (2 or more rsquired):
Depth of solace Water:
(n.)
OxK!zed Roil Channels in Upper 12 Inches
u Water -Shrewd leaves
DepM to Free Water in Pit:
(in.)
Local Soil Survey Data
FAIGNeutrat Test
DWM to Saturated - -----
— fin.)
_ O@wr (Explain in Rem arks)
rSolt.
Rflm ddCS'.
B2 Appendix B Blank and Example Data Farms

SOILS
Map Unit Name 4
++
(Sanaa and Phase): /] [f i 1
ji "hc Drainage Ciess:
rField Obs wvakwons
Taionomy(Subgroup):
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Naga DBK6"n
Depth Waft Calor Molle
(Inchea) Hoftlon (b lrisell M21et3 (Munsell
colors ll > Abundance/ Teaum Concretions.
Moist) SianlCrtmrest $fit M, etc.
��____ rl���,
f
l9l'7'1�411 1 �i�►'1
hydric SoN Y+dicalow
- klstasol
_ Conwebons
"Sk Epipedon
— K& Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sola
Suftic Odor
— Organic Streaking it Sandy Sols
Aquic Moisture Regime—Listed
on Loral Hydric Solls Wet
Reducing Conditions
Listed on hlational Hydric Sorts List
Gleyed or Low-Chtorm Colors
Olher (Evinin in Remarks)
Remarks.
W ET LANG
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No (Circle) (Circle
Weiland Hydrology Presarro No
Hydric Sols Present? No Is this Sampling ?airs( Withirs a Wsdand?Yea No
Remarks: UT
W e j[_w
Anorn%ffit by HOUSACE 392
Appendix B BW* and Exampla Data Forms B3

pq
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERM NATION
(1587 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Rrojec"S te: Gi' Gv 6ti') 11yie �k �,
Date. {%
CoLlrrrty:
ApplicantlQWner; t
Investigator: tnnov�l
State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Community 10:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
Piot ID: W`WA*Z-4—
if needed, explain on reverse.
(a4kr t,4t drl VtrlAu94 •�, ,
VEGETATION
nYnant Plan hd�tg� 1 Plant cies _ Stratum hdoto—r
z ��L 1a.
3P.� �iW�] 11.
4. 12.
5 _ 13.
6. 14.
T 15,
R T8.
Pe+oent o1 Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW OF FAC
ezckA FAG . V li
Remarks.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Wetbnod Fydrdky Wcators:
_ Strewn, Lake, or Tide Cxa<xle
Primary ktdicaters:
Aerial Photographs
inundated
_
Qiher
Saturated in Upper 12 triches
No Recorded Data Available
Water Morks
Drift Lies
— Sediment Deposits
Field Ob&erva iom:
,[ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary kWicatrxs (2 or mos required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
_ OxKkzed Rod Channels in Upper 12 Inches
-Stained Leaves
Daplh to Free Water in Pt —_Q —(n -)Local
_Water
Sod Survey Dab
_— FAC-Natod rest
Depth lo. Saturated SoU. (in.)
— 01her (Explain in Remarks)
Ratnarks.
B2 Ap wckK 8 Bleu and Example Data forms

SOILS
h4ap Unp rierm
(Series and Phase):
Drainage Dass:
t field Ohsenretions
Taxonorny(Suhgroup):
Confirm Mapped Type? Yea Nu
Depth Mate Color Mottia
41nche l Hung=__ IMunad i Mod
Gabes VZWS AWundevical TeAum. Concretions,
._ SlaetContrast Sinkturs. etc. .
Hydric foil lnd€catora
_ listosol
Concretlans
Hstie Ep*edon
_
_ Vigh Organic Content In Surtace Layer in Sandy Sob
Sulfidic Odor
____.Organic Streaking in Sandy Sails
Apuic Moisture Regime
_ Listed on Local Hydric Sa#s List
V , sducing CondiHais—
s LWW on National Hydric Sods List
Gleyed or Lovfms ChroColors
Other (fxplain in Rernenra)
Rwmarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
H rkophybic Vegetirtm Present? NesN No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland HydrdM Presratt? UY-
No
Hydric Som Present? No Is this Sampling Paint Within a Wetland? (S No
S2emasks: 17U vo � W &X�4
BYO P 1-46t& 6
ur W41 -AJ �
Approved by HCUSACE 3152
Appendix B Blank and Example Data Forms 133

ri
w
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETEMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
PrajecUS>fe: Lit~+'.'', '_ '`id�r 6`tI�I11i1flc�
i�}.
Dane:
Applicant}Owne : �i i1 s
o.
11.
12.
Cony: w
Investigator: .v�,. �� �; /
_
State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
No
Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is the area a potential Problern Area?
Yes
Yes
Transect ID:
Plot ID: tirA
if needed, a fain txt reverse.
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
4
VEGETATION
Qorrtilnanl E!gpnt SDe2n aorn
Uorrinant Ptent §P@20 Straturn k3ftgtor
Stream. Lake. or Tide Gauge
2t
r S i t1 '^n I
3C4rf�]_7f11iay U
o.
11.
12.
4 ]BWJ� bVy? —
S.
6
13.
14-
t
15.
A
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
eedudin FAC- .
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Rema*s):
'
W etlerw Hydradogy itdicakirs:
Stream. Lake. or Tide Gauge
Pn nary Inclicators:
Aenal Photographs
_ Inundated
/ Ciller
� Sa rated rF Upper 12 laches
y_ No Recorded Data Available
Water hAerks
Ord Ulm
— Sedlnlem Depo6Its
Fk4d Observabons.
Drainage Patterns In YWedands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Deplin of surface Water -- —_(In.)
— Oxid'¢ed Rod Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Walar-Stakried Leaves
Depth to Free Water in PC _ - — - —--(in.)Local
SCAsirvey Data
FAC-Neseal Test
Depth to Salurated Sd. Jin.)
_ Cllher (Explain in Remarks)
+
Remarks � j � �
i
B2 Appendix 8 Blank and Example Data Ftxms

SOILS
Map Unit lVarrte
(.Serias end Phase): 1I f'.L�1 _ 1i }�( Drainage pass:
i Fuld Obwvalions
Tsx�knony (Subgrc p): - Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Depth Metrnt COW t titch Calors Wtba Abumlanced T.1L., Concretions.
[.hCrS$19p) E'lmilm -. l .mom j;MMAd h&M1 SiaelCantrast . MS1a ¢!l. abc.
Ifs lr'� Q cl lh n
t-ydtk Son Indicators:
listosot _ Concretions
— 1.1 Eplpedon _ VS& Orgastic Content In Swifaes Layer In Sandy Sobs
SulNdic Oder _ Organic Sirsaldng in sandy Sona
— A4uic Moisture Regime—Usted on Local hydric Sons UA
RedudN Candlifims Listed on National Hydric Sofa List
Gieyed or Low aroma Calors ____ Olher (Evtaln in Remarks)
R®marks:
FIUN
Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? Yes lNol (circle) (Circle)
Watsnd Hydrology Present? Yes I No
Hydric: Soft Present? Ya, is this Sampfng Part Within a Wetland? Yes
Remaft:
AvJ 6,v\
VWY C��t 4tI&W
Aonround, bre
Apperorlix B Stank and Example Data Farms $3

M
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND OF -TERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ite: CC71 �t + �li Itwt�i6:*+i
Bate:
pwrrer:
County: eor:
k.�J:1& f1i �r g4� ✓
F
State:a!
Circumstances exist on the site? NO
Community ID:
significantly disturbed (Arypica! 5ltuatbn)? Yes Nr�
a a potential Problem Area? Yes No
iransttID:
Plot ID: Ohtded,
explain on reverse.)
I AAA 0-414
VEGETATION
Dominant Rent Soe&R#a tndu-tw DominantPlant.&m _ . Vatum _ Indicator
z _ _ tI-.A_
3 LW rAfl L 11.
4 12.
5. t3.
6.- 1#.
f 15.
8 18.
Perrenr of Dominant Species that erre 08L. FACW or FAC j
156
(excluding FAC- . 1
Romerlm
HYDROLOGY
( --� tr*J 1)
Reccxded Dala (Descnba in Remarks):
Sham. Lake, or Tide Gauge
As" Photographs
_ oew
Na' Recorded Data Amabble
Welland Fly&akW Indicators:
Primary kx6cators:
_ Inundated
/Saturated in Lipper 12 Rhes
A/Water Mwk5
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
-
Field Observations.
_ Drainage Patterns in Wettari&
Secondary indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water. _(in.)Omdlzed
z Rod Channels in Upper 12 inches
W eterSteined Leoavea
`
Depth to Free Water in PC _ Sin 1
Locdl Sail Survey Data
FAC-Neub-9 Test
Depth to Saturated Sail: -- _- On
Other _ Other ('Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
B2 Appentioc 8 Blank and Exarnpla Data Forms

SOILS
Mop lha Name � "
(Serres and Phasef: w _ ,,,y � A�-� Dralrtage Class:
\j �� Field Obserwtiiorn
my
Teuno(Subgroup): Confirm NAapped Type. Yes No
Prollie Dgfi rdotftn
Depth Vladix Color Mottle Colors Mottle AbundwmW Tenure, Concretions,
wuhbst BAZ t �1 hkw (UMns" f !? 9rLT&afflat ShiWro_etc
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Hatosol _ Convebons
Hsw Epipedon sigh Organic Corr In Surtaca Layer in Sandy Sols
_ Sullidic Ockw Organic Streaking in Sandy Soft
Aquic hbisture Regime Listed on Local "Aric Salts List
-dRad ck,g Condilio+ra Usted on Nasional Hydric Softs List
V'Gleyed or Lo wChroma Calors _ Other (E>Q)lain In Remarks)
Rnrnarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hytilropl y Vagetabon Present?e5 No (Circfe)
nd ( D
wetlaHydrology Prossnt. Yes No
Hydric Solea Present? Y No is obis 5arnptktg ?dal Wow a. WUatlarrd? Yes No
Remarks=
Gwe, Cr W41 -A4 I
Anorovad by HOUSACE 3192
AppermJm 5 Blastic and Exampie data Farms $3

M
DATA FORM.
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
i�ro;ecUStte: G1iy'
Date: ''
Applicant/Owner:
County:
Investigator: �V1nty\
state: wKt:-7j
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the .site? Yes No
GommurAy
is the site slgnif"rytly distwbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ND
Transect. 10Is
the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
Plot I'D:If
needed, a Iain on reverse.
fu> >k r
VEGETATION
Percent of Dominant Spades that are QBL, FACW or FAC
Remarks.
HYDROLOGY
t�t1t� v � Inair�»or
a.
1D.
11.
13.
Recrwded Data (Describe in Remarks)
_Stream, LOA. of Tide Gauge
Aerial Pho(Waphs
Other
_ No Recorded Daa AHa0aheWater
Wetland FVdrdogy Indicators:
'Primary kxbcakirs:
_ hu ndated
Saturated in (Upper 12 Inches
harks
6 Drift Lines
� sediment Deposits
Field Observations.
Dminatte Patterns Wi Wodands
Secondary Mars (2 or more required).
Depth of Surface Water_
— -- ,—(n.j
_ Ox dized Rout Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water -stained Leaves
Dap>h lo Frei& Water in Pit:
-- -- —(Jon
Soil Survey Data
FAC -Neutral Test
Depth to sakrated Sail:
— --- (in.)
— Other (E)Oairl in Remarks)
RemarksKo LfJ ��"Y�
GVLi1 (Oql
B2 Pppen&K B Blank and Example Data Farms

r
SOILS
MnD Unit t+hrne
(Series and IPh.)- 1� + ,k } 0 Drainage Ctaas;
Haid Observal5ons
TauDnorny (Subgroup): Confirm Wapped Type? Yes No
Protfe DsaaWtjWn
Depth MaVkx Coke Mottle, Colors Mottle Abundancest Tatum, Concretions.
4incheal Ihittrtaatl Watt (wrieef MOW) SLia1Contra11 sruclura_ or.
Hydric Soil l ndic t .
K00301 _ Concretions
L Kstie Epipedan i Kgh Urganic Content in Surface Layer In Sandy Serfs
_ Sulfldic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soft
Aquic Moisture RegkrneUsted on Local Hyd Salts Lis!
ed
_ Rucing CondiSfon�s — Listed on National Hydric Sofa Lieu
Gleyed or Low,Chrorns Colors — Other (Erpialn h Remarks)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hynlrop W Vegetation Present? 'Yes (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland HydreiM Present? Yea
i+ydric Shca Present? Yes-inIs this Sarnpfrig PoirtlM1 ida Wetland? Yes
Remarks.
Anorovad bv HOUSACE
Appendix B Blank and Example Data Formes B3

A
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Frm; V4
0 1%'' w% Ih
Onto: 3�f1 6 7Projeclr EEP sirir Latitude: ® o
l�
Site:
U t Longitude: �,qb
OEvaluator4\} Aav 7R /�i�Iw
Total Points:Odw
stream is at Med ivdef"wien County: e.g. Quad Nam:if t 19 or aamnnial if t 30 4j 11al L!
3.1
kA, I+qr-A w+44
3 4v,r J --'Y
j� +-o
6 i{1,1,L CAr
A. Geonxa hat Subtotal = 30
Absent Weak
Wdenrte
8tra►ng
1'. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity
0
1
2
3
3. In -Channel structure: riffle -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
0
1
2
1 1
5. ActivelreFc floodplain
0
1
2
1
6. Depositionat bars or benches
0
1
2
1
7. Braided channel
0
1
2
2
S. Recent alluvial
0
1
2
1
9' 'Natural levees
0
0
2
3
10. Headcuts
0
1
3
11. Grade controls
0
0.5
i
1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway
0
0.5
1
13. Second or greater order channel on mistino
USGS or NRCS map or other documentedE�)
evidence.
Yes = 3
Man -Made ddd►e8 are not rated; s designs in RUWUM
R- Hvdrainav Muhtatal = M -A 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge
0
1
2
0
15. Water in channel and > 48 hre since rain, gt
Water in channel - d or grovAng sesson
0
1
2
f 3
16. LeaBitter
1.5
1
0.5
0
17. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack iines)
0
0.5
1 1
1 .5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?
0
No = 0
1
es =1.5
C. Biok)av (Subtotal= Id 1
Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
0
21 . Rooted plants in channel
3
2
1
0
22. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Bivalves
0
1
2
3
24. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversiht and abundance)
0
0.
1
1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton
0
1
2
3
28. iron oxidtring bacterialfu us.
0
0.5
1
1.5
29 b YVetland plants in streambed
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5
SAY = 2.0; RZtW-
11A'2w01MUZi, � R slI.�.

INTERMITTENT CHANNEL --mow -W
EVALUATION FORM J
ACTION ID APPLICANT NAME- P DATE fP 1�7
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., Cuv rn, rl�t+`
relocation, etc.) &oTIr�L ,)e. rA l
vt>ir'ttLlryl�
WATER13ODYMIVER BASIN "b COUNTYICITY f 7
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS
P SP NP Observation
Comments or Description
Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present
Benthic Macro Invertebrates
Amphibians Present[Breeding
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (Le. tracks, feces, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
RiffledPool Structure
.47
Stable Streambanks
Channel Substrate
i.e. ravel, cobble, rock, coarse sand
f
60 5 W�'i.,{,[ 1iA
Riparian Canopy Present (SP =/3 50% closure)
Undercut Bankslinstream Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel
(Discontinue)
__
V4j�rI'IIErt d`7 0AV Ad4UJ
/
V
Persistent PooWSaturated Bottom
(June through Se t."I%
S r>�' 11 W �j (,
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June through Sept.)
(+ i1 it u qti t 1
V/
Adjacent Floodplain Present
77
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
Flydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y 1
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map?G/ N
11 �ttri t -
Approx. Drainage Area: Z—) m l 1{,
Perennial Channel (stop) F Important Channel; LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) LJ Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (noid)
Evaluator's Signature:
&:y3 � ,
(if other than C.O.E_ project manager)
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present 11/4198
r

I
North Carolina Division of Water Quality -- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Dais: -3/4 fecep
S " si+ 4atit de: 9 i o S -i 3
Evaluator: 'yt� +Vvh Slfs: 66Ue- CregVS Longitude: d {
Total Points: ] j� Other
Stream Is at least kam mmw County: 1 r1Lw1
e.g. Quad 1Yarrra:
ir249orialit230
A. Geo hof Subtotal =
1'. Continuous bed and bank
Absent
0
Weak
1
Moderate Strong
2
2. Sinuosity
0
1
2
3. In -channel stnicture: riffle -pool sequence
0
1
2
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
0
1
2
5. Acxivelrelic floodplain
0
1
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
7. Braided channel
0
1
2
a. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
9' Natural levees
0
1
2
10. Headculs
0
1
2 3
11. Grade controls
0
0.5
1
12. Natural valley or drainageway
0
0.5
1
13. Second or greater order channel on eadstina
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
GD
Man-made tliCC m are not mWd; see discusslaria In mammal
R _ Hvdenlnnv t5ubtntel = 11. r, 5
14. Groundwater flow/discharge
0 1
2
15. Water in channel and > 48 hm since rain, gt
Water in channel - dry or growing season
0 1
2
16. Leaflitter
1.5
0.5 0
17. 'Sediment on plants or debris
a 0.5
1 5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines)
0 0.5
1
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic 6eaturrrs} present?
No = 0
es 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtow = 13 A 1
20 ,Fibrous roots in chanmN
3
2
1
0
21 . Rooted plants In channel
CW
2
1
0
22. Crayfish
0
Q.5
1.5
23. Bivalves
a
2
3
24. Fish
0
0.5
1
.5
25. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversft and abundance)
0
0.5
1
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton
0
d2
2
3
29. Iron oxidizing bacteriaMInqus.
0
1
29. Wetland plants in streambed
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
SAV = 2.0;
= 0
' Rema 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plsrds, Item 29 txxzes an the presenoe of aquatic or wetland planta.
Nates: (use tack aide of tlYs tam for addttkxral nates.)
Sketch:
_ t

O
ACTION 1[)
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL �-
EVALUATION FORM
APPLICANT NAME N (� E LP DATE -3/41-0-7
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, r location, etc.)
WATERBODWRPvv ER BASIN VI C. V[ � 7f 1�, 1 f'i� r' � + COUN I'YICITV AGA1 45 j
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS 'tn V'ti&A 4V1
P SP NP
Observation
ion
Comments or Description
FishlShellfishlCtustaccans Present
Benthic Macro Invertebrates
Amphibians Present/Breeding
V/
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
Riffle/Pool Structure
Stable Streambanks
U1 2WW, —2 1'ir
Channel Substrate
i.e. ravel, cobble, rock, coarse sand)
/)
y-qul
Riparian Canopy Present (SP =1> 50% closure)
NJ
Undercut Banksflnstream Habitat Structure
Flow In Channel
Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel
(I)1SCOIItmtleFj
lu �l J X( ww
�,z�,t.t,d L�v4ts,,
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June through Sept.)
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June through Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
Wrack Material or Drift Lines
Hydrophytic Vegetation inladjacent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y /@
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Sails Map:)1 N Approx. Drainage Area:
Determination:
Perennial Channel (stop) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no id) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no A
Evaluator's Signature: " d
(if other than C,C.E. project manager)
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present 1114198
Ad

Page 1 of 8
HEC -RAS
Plan: Maintstem
River: Glade
Creek
Reach: Main stem
v
w
�
w
\
e
W
a
fx
U
o
U
Reacha
1 y
0
�
�
�
�
�
Q
�
W
�
4
Ln
o
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
1.5
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 stem
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

Page 2 of 8
HEC -RAS Plan: Maintstem
River: Glade
Creek
Reach: Main stem
ww
U
un
W
>
°~'
'ion
O
�l
O
U
_
o
U
W
U
Reach
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
2609.11
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
10 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

Page 3 of 8
HEC -RAS Plan: Maintstem
River: Glade
Creek
Reach: Main stem
ww
U
un
W
>
°~'
'ion
O
�l
O
U
_
o
U
W
U
Reach
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 stem
1637
2 Yr
335
2607
2610.23
3.76
0.16
0.16
0.01
0.01
0.33
0.42
Main stem
1637
10 Yr
1637
2607
2615.79
4.54
0.51
0.84
0.05
0.12
0.32
0.28
Main stem
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

Page 4 of 8
HEC -RAS Plan: Maintstem
River: Glade
Creek
Reach: Main stem
ww
U
un
W
>
°~'
'ion
O
�l
O
U
_
o
U
W
U
Reach
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
0.01
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
100 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
1637
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

Page 5 of 8
HEC -RAS Plan: Maintstem
River: Glade
Creek
Reach: Main stem
ww
U
un
W
>
°~'
'ion
O
�l
O
U
_
o
U
W
U
Reach
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 stem
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

Page 6 of 8
HEC -RAS Plan: Maintstem
River: Glade
Creek
Reach: Main stem
ww
U
un
W
>
°~'
'ion
O
�l
O
U
_
o
U
W
U
Reach
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

Page 7 of 8
HEC -RAS Plan: Maintstem
River: Glade
Creek
Reach: Main stem
Reach
un
_
o
W
U
>
°~'
W
U
'ion
ww
O
�l
O
U
U
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 stem
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

Page 8 of 8
HEC -RAS Plan: Maintstem
River: Glade
Creek
Reach: Main stem
w
w
1
w
C
U
Reach
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

Page 1 of 2
HEC-RAS Plan: Tributary
River: Glade Creek
Reach: ibutary
Reach
CG
^�
W
o
U
W
U
a
fx
w
�.
aRi
w
G
y
04
�.
ami
w
w
4
U
i
d
U
�
y
b
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
2611.99
3.3
0.53
0.21
0.14
0.48
0.98
Tributary
1205
10 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
2611.43
2612.91
6.38
1.48
1
0.58
0.32
1.16
1
Tributary
1127
1 Yr
16
2610
2610.56
1.65
0.12
0.47
Tributary
1127
2 Yr
25
2610
2610.71
1.87
0.17
0.13
0.02
0.01
0.13
0.46
Tributary
1127
10 Yr
98
2610
2611.63
2.63
0.48
0.38
0.07
0.05
0.19
0.38
Tributary
1127
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
0.17
0.18
0.02
0.02
0.22
0.53
Tributary
1057
10 Yr
98
2609.3
2611.24
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
184
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
Tributary
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
1.01
Tributary
787
2 Yr
25
2606.33
2607.1
4.13
0.31
0.19
0.06
0.66
1.01
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

Page 2 of 2
HEC-RAS Plan: TributaryRiver:
Glade Creek
Reach: ibutary
Reach
a
1
o
C
U
a
C4
C
4
U
U
a�
a
Tributary
438
1 Yr
16
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
10 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
Tributary
300
1 Yr
16
2601
2601.81
4.1
0.65
1.01
Tributary
300
2 Yr
25
2601
2601.99
4.69
0.39
0.39
0.08
0.09
0.78
1
Tributary
300
10 Yr
98
2601
2602.99
7.2
1.21
1.29
0.42
0.46
1.36
0.98
Tributary
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
10 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
1 Yr
16
2599
2599.78
4.24
0.68
1
Tributary
78
2 Yr
25
2599
2599.98
4.88
0.42
0.45
0.09
0.1
0.82
1
Tributary
78
10 Yr
98
2599
2601.03
7.71
1.28
1.31
0.46
0.48
1.53
1.01
Tributary
78
100 Yr
184
2599
2602.11
8.44
1.21
1.43
0.38
0.49
1.56
0.88
Page 2 of 2

%o-
Z -.d&
Ego,s
gehent
PROGRAM
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the 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
Length
Priority
Glade Creek
2,430'
Two Restoration
Glade Creek
125'
Two Enhancement
Unnamed Tributary
788'
Preservation
Unnamed Tributary
275'
Two (Restoration)
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
C Yes E No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
F Redelineation
F Detailed Study
F Limited Detail Study
F Approximate Study
F Don't know
List flood zone designation:
Check if applies:
F AE Zone
F Floodway
C Non -Encroachment
E None
r— A Zone
C Local Setbacks Required
C No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet:
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway/non-encroachment/setbacks?
E Yes F No
Land Acquisition (Check)
F State owned (fee simple)

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