20090632 Ver 1_401 Application_20090609

09-0632
Transmittal
CYNDI KAROLY
To: 401 WETLANDS UNIT Date: 5/29/2009
From: Toni Wyche Jones, E
Re: Application for 401 Certification
Hand Delivery
? Urgent X For Review ? Please Comment X Please Reply ? Please Recycle
?[A@fflowffng
JUN 1 2009
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH

F" 9RG1, RAM
May 29, 2009
CYNDI KAROLY, UNIT SUPERVISOR
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
401 WETLANDS UNIT
1650 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699 - 1650
Re: Permit Application - Lower Stream Restoration - Resubmittal
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Attached for your review are two copies of the site restoration plans and the revised PCN for the
Lower Creek Stream Restoration Project located in Caldwell County. Please note, the NW 27 /
404 Permit for this project was issued on May 21, 2009. Please feel free to call me at
919.715.1324 or email me at [e-mail] with any questions regarding this
plan.
Allow me to call to your attention the removal of the UT to Zack's Fork portion of the project
due to budget constraints. The intent of the Restoration Plan and design sheets did not change as
a result of the removal of UT to Zack's Fork except any statements or design sheets referring to
UT to Zack's Fork. An amendment cover letter is included that details any adjustments as a
result of this modification.
Thank you very much for your assistance.
s, El, CFM
Coordinator
Attachment: Lower Creek Stream Restoration Plan (2 originals)
PCN
?' ?.?t
09-0632
of wArER
1 1
I?i?l o <
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
la. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 27 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? N Yes ? No
1 d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
N 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ? No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1 g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below. ? Yes ® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ? No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Lower Creek Project
2b. County: Caldwell
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Siler City
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Attention: Toni Wyche Jones
3d. Street address: 1652 Mail Service Center
3e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
3f. Telephone no.: 919.715.1324
3g. Fax no.: 919.715.2219
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name:
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Jason Claudio-Diaz, El, CFM
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc.
5c. Street address: 4651 Charlotte Park Drive
5d. City, state, zip: Charlotte, NC 27217-1911
5e. Telephone no.: 704.954.7464
5f. Fax no.. 704.333.0845
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
Base tract info: Tax IDs 2737193156 and 2737280909
totaling 53.94 acres +/-, DB 1494 PG 27
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): CE area total is 4.58 +/- acres; CE not yet recorded; plat
is recorded in MB 25 Pg 213 and 214
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 81.59563 Longitude: - 35.86516
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1 c. Property size: 59.59 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Rhodhiss Lake
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C, WS IV
2c. River basin: Catawba River Basin
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The majority of Lower Creek, UT to Lower Creek, and adjacent land is cleared and used predominately for livestock
grazing and agricultural practices.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
None identified
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Approximately 4,460 linear feet
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the proposed work includes, but is not limited to the following: 1) to create a functional uplift to the
ecosystem, 2) create a stable stream system, 3) improve the water quality and biological habitat of the streams, 4) reduce
stream temperatures, 5) control the invasive exotic vegetation, and 6) eliminate impacts from livestock.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Primarily utilizing track hoes, the project involves 2,138 feet of stream enhancement, 1,281 feet of stream restoration, and
11.7 acres of buffer restoration. Please refer to the attached restoration plan.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
? Yes ? No Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary ? Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company:
Name (if known): Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ? Yes
®No ?Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply).
? Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? PEI T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ®P ? T Enhancement/
Restoration Lower Creek ® PER
? INT ® Corps
® DWQ 55 2,138
S2 ® PEI T Restoration UT to Lower
Creek ® PER
? INT ® Corps
® DWQ 10 1,281
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 3,419
3i. Comments:
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number- (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.

6a.
? Neuse ?Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact required?
?Yes
B1 ?P?T ? No
?Yes
B2 ?P?T ? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The project has been designed to create a functional uplift to the ecosystem, create a stable stream system, and imporove the
water quality and bilogical habitat of the streams. The design involves the utilization of sedimentation and erosion control
measures, and land disturbance activities have been minimized.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
The existing stream will be enhanced and restored within the assigned construction easement. Sedimentation and erosion
control measures will be under the regulatory oversight of the DENR Division of Land Resources.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ? No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this

project? ? Mitigation bank

El Payment to in-lieu fee program

? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type ::: Euantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested. acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 30%
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ® No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: Stormwater management is incidental to
enhancement and restoration construction activities. Please see the attached restora tion plan.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, na rrative description of the plan:
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? N/A
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
? USMP
apply (check all that apply): ? Water Supply Watershed
® Other: N/A
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties

4a.
Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? HQW
? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
® Other: N/A
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ? Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
? Yes ® No
letter.)
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
No wastewater is anticipated to be generated from this project. However, the contractor will be held responsible for
protecting all sewer lines and water lines that exist. The designer is required to show all utility lines including sewer lines on
the design sheets. The contractor is required to verify the exact location of the sewer lines. In addition, the contractor is
required to call the "Call Before You Dig" toll-free number at least 48 before initiating construction activities.
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ® Yes ? No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ® Yes ? No
impacts?

Raleigh
®
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. ® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
A search of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's website and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's website
indicates two endangered species and three threatened species potentially occurring in Caldwell County. The species,
their habitats, and status are described in Table 4 of the attached restoration plan.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
A search of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's website and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's website
indicates two endangered species and three threatened species potentially occurring in Caldwell County. The species, their
habitats, and status are described in Table 4 of the attached restoration plan
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
? Yes No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office conducted a review of the project
and concluded that the project would not affect any historic resources or archeological sites.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ® Yes ? No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: No Rise Study with Letter of Map Revision; A decrease in water
surface elevation is expected; therefore, a CLOMR is not needed.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA FIRM 3710273700 J
Toni Wyche Jones, El, CFM,
Review Coordinator I . 29 May 2009
Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1
plic t/Agent's Signature Date

Applicant/Agent's Printed Name (Agent's signature is alid ly if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page I I of 12
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
Page 12 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
FINAL
Restoration Plan
Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Contract Number: D07005S
State Construction Office ID # 050668901
Prepared for:
r-?l
Fcosystelli
NCDENR-Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
September 2008
©Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2008
•
? ? ? Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
March 4, 2009
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
2728 Capital Blvd, Suite 1H 103
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Re: Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites Restoration Plan Updates
0
This letter is to document the updates to the Lower Creek and UT to Zack's For Sites
Restoration Plan submitted to EEP as final in September 2008. After the Restoration Plan
was submitted, it was decided by EEP staff that the UT to Zack's Fork site would no
longer be pursued as part of this contract; therefore, its project components were
removed. The intent of the Restoration Plan and design sheets including the project goals
and objectives did not change as a result of the removal of UT to Zack's Fork except any
statements or design sheets referring to UT to Zack's Fork. Those statements and design
sheets should be disregarded. The project linear footage and planting plan estimates will
be adjusted as follows:
¦
4651 Charlotte Park Drive,
Suite 300
Charlotte, North Carolina
28217
Asset Reach Existing Linear
Foota e1,2 Design Linear
Footage' Design Linear
Foota e2 Planting
Estimates' Planting
Estimates2
Lower Creek 2,138 2,138 1,9703

UT to Lower Creek
1,281
1,252
1,2414
13,700 11,200
UT to Zack's Fork 1,041 1,043 0 0
Totals 4,460 4,433 3,211 13,700 11,2
00
'Per the Restoration Plan dated September 2008 2Current as of March 2009
3The Lower Creek design linear footage was reduced due to the addition of a cattle crossing in the
upper section limiting the buffer width. 4The design linear footage is less than existing due to
the restoration approach which involves correcting the extreme radii through pattern adjustments.
Lower Creek is located at latitude 35.865161 and longitude -81.595631 and UT to Lower
Creek is located at latitude 35.863318 and longitude -81.588635. The nearest receiving
body of water is the Rhodhiss Lake located about 6 miles northeast of Morganton.
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Will Wilhelm, P.E., CFM
Project Manager
•
?r
¦
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
•
0
•
FINAL
Restoration Plan
Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Contract Number: D07005S
State Construction Office ID # 050668901
Prepared for:
r?
1'?()1?SteIll
NCDENR-Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
September 2008
©Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2008

PJ
Prepared by:
? M" WeyHom
and Associates, Inc.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
4651 Charlotte Park Drive, Suite 300
Charlotte, NC 28217
Phone Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
Project Manager: William R. Wilhelm, P.E.
E
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of
service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and
improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and
• Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
11
Restoration Plan
Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Executive Summary
Site Descriptions
Lower Creek Site
The Lower Creek Site includes a segment of Lower Creek and a segment of an Unnamed Tributary
(UT) to Lower Creek. The site is located approximately 4 miles southwest of Lenoir, North Carolina in
Caldwell County near the intersection of Rocky Road and US Highway -64. Both Lower Creek and UT
to Lower Creek appear to be historically straightened, and cattle actively access the streams. Located
adjacent to Lower Creek on the right side is a manufacturing facility that is no longer in operation. The
Cardwell property, located on the left bank, is dominated by active cattle pasture. There is little to no
woody riparian buffer located on Lower Creek or the UT to Lower Creek. Along the Cardwell property,
a new meander is actively eroding large sections of bank. This area is referred to as the "Blow-Ouf
section throughout this report.
UT to Zack's Fork Site
The UT to Zack's Fork Site is located off Spring Meadow Road, approximately 5 miles northeast of
Lenoir, North Carolina in Caldwell County located on land owned by Jack and Sherry Adams. A
majority of the watershed is being used for agricultural purposes. UT to Zack's Fork also appears to be
historically straightened with little to no woody riparian buffer; however, the easement area does
contain invasive species.
Kim ley-Horn staff wetland scientists reviewed the site for wetlands following the guidelines presented in
the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. There are NO wetlands on either
the Lower Creek or UT to Zack's Fork Sites, therefore, will be no impacts to existing wetlands during
the construction of either project site.
Restoration Approach and Reference Reaches
Lower Creek will be enhanced/stabilized by creating bankfull benches, adding woody vegetation, and
livestock exclusion. The Blow-Out section will be restored/stabilized using the existing bedrock feature
combined with boulder toe protection, j-hook cross vanes, and a rock cross vane located downstream
that will serve as grade control. An active floodplain area will be established along most of Lower
Creek through the creation of a bankfull bench.
UT to Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork will be restored using Rosgen Priority 1/11 approaches. Each
UT's dimension, pattern, and profile will be designed using the appropriate reference reach data
combined with data from previous projects and published literature. Four reference reaches were
identified and chosen to serve as a basis for design (see Figure 7). These reference reaches were
used on the restoration of Purlear Creek (phases 1 and 2) and have been previously approved by
NCEEP and NCDWQ. The references are located within the same hydrophysiographical region as the
project sites. Two of the reference reaches were used as templates for the B stream types, and the
other two were used for C stream types. One of the B stream references is located on Upper Big
Warrior Creek southeast of the Town of Wilkesboro in Wilkes County, North Carolina. The other B
• stream reference is located northwest of the Town of Wilkesboro. Both C stream reference reaches
are located within Basin Creek, north of the project area. The B stream references were used as a
3 ? ? ? Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
•
Restoration Plan
Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
basis for designing UT to Zack's Fork and the upper section of UT to Lower Creek. The C stream
references were used as a basis for designing lower section of UT to Lower Creek.
Project Goals and Objectives
Currently Lower Creek is an unstable system that has steep, eroding, vertical banks and no vegetative
buffer along the left bank. Cattle have open access to the stream and are degrading the water quality
along the reach. The "Blow-Out' section as referred to above is severely eroding (see Pictures 3, 4,
and 5 in Appendix 1) and is negatively affecting the entire reach downstream through a dramatic
increase in sediment load.
UT to Lower Creek is also an extremely unstable system that is highly incised and features severely
eroding banks. This reach also has little to no vegetative buffer and has been historically cleared and
straightened. As with Lower Creek, this reach also has open access to cattle and is experiencing
degradation in water quality.
UT to Zack's Fork is an unstable system that has been historically straightened and cleared. The
channel is incised and lacks the appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile for its' valley type and lacks
adequate habitat features such as defined riffle or pools and/or structures. The vegetative buffer
contains shrubs and grasses some of which are invasive and does not contain a canopy.
• The goals of the restoration project are as follows:
¦ To create a functional uplift to the ecosystem
¦ Create a stable stream system
¦ Improve the water quality and biological habitat of the streams
¦ Reduce stream temperatures
•
¦ Control the invasive exotics
¦ Eliminate impacts from livestock
The above project goals will be achieved through the following objectives:
¦ Remove excess nutrients and sediment through the establishment of 11.7 acres of vegetated
buffers
¦ Convert the existing pasture to a Piedmont/IVlountain Bottomland Forest as described by Shafle
and Weakly (1990)
¦ Stabilize 2010 LF of Lower Creek, restore 1252 LF of UT to Lower Creek and 1043 LF of UT to
Zack's Fork through bioengineering and natural channel design techniques
¦ Stabilize Lower Creek, in particular the "Blow-Out" section, through bank grading and the addition
of in-stream structures such as rock cross vanes, j-hooks, and boulder toe protection
¦ Convert a G to a B/C channel on UT to Lower Creek
¦ Convert a incised E to a B/C channel on UT to Zack's Fork
4 ? M ? Kimley-Horn
M and Associates, Inc.
Ll
•
•
Restoration Plan
Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
¦ Increase dissolved oxygen concentrations through the use of in-stream structures such as rock
cross vanes and rock a-vanes and the turbulence they produce in riffles and pools
¦ Improve substrate with structures such as constructed riffles and rock cross vanes and the
elimination of major sediment sources (bank erosion).
¦ Create habitat diversity by introducing woody structures such as log vanes and/or rootwads
¦ Exclude livestock through fencing
The pattern, profile, and dimension of the UT to Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork will be adjusted to
approximately match reference reach conditions and the North Carolina Regional Curve values.
Structures such as rock cross vanes, a-vanes, J-hook cross vanes, log vanes, and root wads will be
used to provide grade control, added habitat, and/or bedform diversity. Lower Creek is going to be
enhanced/stabilized through bank stabilization and in-stream structures.
Table 1: Project Restoration Summary
Restoration Type Existing Linear Footage Designed Linear Footage
Lower Creek Enhancement 2,138 2,138
UT to Lower Creek Restoration 1,281 1,252
UT to Zack's Fork Restoration 1,041 1,043
5 ? M ? Kimley-Horn
M and Associates, Inc.
Restoration Plan
• Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. ...................... 3
1.0 Project Site Identification and Location .......................................................................... ......................8
1.1 Directions to Project Site ......................................................................................... ...................... 8
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWO River Basin Designations ...................... ...................... 8
1.3 Project VicinityMap ............................................................................................... ...................... 8
2.0 Watershed Characterization ........................................................................................... ......................8
2.1 Drainage Area ........................................................................................................ ...................... 8
2.2 Surface Water Classification/Water Quality ............................................................. ...................... 9
2.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils ............................................................................ ...................... 9
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends ......................................................... ...................... 9
2.5 Endangered/Threatened Species .............................................................................. .................... 10
2.6 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. .................... 11
2.7 Potential Constraints ............................................................................................... .................... 11
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary ........................................................................... .................... 11
2.7.2 Site Access ........................................................................................................... .................... 11
2.7.3 Utilities ................................................................................................................. ....................11
2.7.4 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass ..................................................................................... ....................12
3.0 Project Site Streams ...................................................................................................... ....................12
3.1 Channel Classfication ............................................................................................ .................... 12
3.2 Channel Discharge ................................................................................................... ................... 13
3.3 Channel itforphology ................................................................................................ ................... 13
. 3.4 Channel Stability:Assessment ....................................................................................
3
5 B
ll 1'"
k ................... 14
.
an
fu
eriftcation ................................................................................................ ................... 15
3.6 Vegetation ................................................................................................................ ...................15
4.0 Reference Stream ............................................................................................................................. 15
4.1 Watershed Characterization ..................................................................................... ...................15
4.2 Channel Classification ............................................................................................. ................... 16
4.3 Discharge ................................................................................................................ ................... 16
4.4 Channel Stabilitv Assessment .................................................................................... ................... 16
4.5 Bankfull Verification ................................................................................................ ................... 16
4.6 1 egetation ................................................................................................................ ................... 16
5.0 Project Site Restoration Plan .............................................................................................................17
5.1 Restoration: Project Goals and Objectives ................................................................. ................... 17
5.1.1 Designed Channel Classification ............................................................................... ................... 19
5.1.2 Target Buffer Communities ....................................................................................... ................... 19
5.2 Sediment Transport Analysis ..................................................................................... ................... 20
5.2.1 Methodology .......................................................................................................... ...................20
5.2.2 Calculations and Discussion ..................................................................................... ................... 20
5.3 HEC-RAS Analysis ................................................................................................... ................... 21
5.3.1 No-Rise, LOMR, CLOMR ......................................................................................... ................... 21
5.3.2 Hydrologic Trespass ............................................................................................... ................... 21
5.4 Stormwater Best Management Practices ................................................................... ................... 21
5.4.1 Site-Specific Stormwater Concerns ............................................................................ ................... 21
5.5 Soil Restoration ........................................................................................................ ................... 22
5.6 Natural Plant Community Restoration ...................................................................... ................... 22
5.6.1 Reforestation Scheme ............................................................................................. ................... 22
5.6.2 Planting Zones ....................................................................................................... ................... 23
5.6.3 Plant List ............................................................................................................... ................... 23
• 5.6.4 Plant Sources ........................................................................................................
5.6.5 Plant Care and Installation ................... 24
.......................................................................................
5.6.6 Schedule ............................................................................................................... ................... 24
...................24
? ? Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Restoration Plan
Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
5.6.7 Stabilization ..............................................................................................................................25
5.6.8 Site Preparation ........................................................................................................................ 25
5.6.9 Planting Review ........................................................................................................................ 25
5.6.10 Monitoring and Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 25
6.0 Performance Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 25
6.1 Stream Success Criteria ............................................................................................................... 25
6.2 Vegetation Success Criteria ......................................................................................................... 26
6.3 Schedule Reporting .................................................................................................................... 26
7.0 References .......................................................................................................................................28
Report Tables
Table 1: Project Restoration Summary ................................................................................... ........................................... 5
Table 2: Drainage Area and Stream Classification .................................................................. ........................................... 8
Table 3: Existing Land Cover of the Entire Watershed ............................................................ ..........................................10
Table 4: Endangered Species - Caldwell County .................................................................... ..........................................10
Table 5a: Lower Creek Ownership ......................................................................................... ..........................................11
Table 5b: UT to Zack's Fork Ownership .................................................................................. ..........................................11
Table 6: Summary of Stream Classification ............................................................................ ..........................................13
Table 7: Peak Discharges of Project Site Streams .................................................................. ..........................................13
Table 8: Restoration Reach Characteristics ............................................................................ ..........................................14
Table 9. Peak Discharges of Reference Stream ..................................................................... ..........................................16
Table 10: Summary of Shear Stress Calculations ................................................................... ..........................................21
8.0 Restoration Tables
•
Table I: Project Restoration Structures and Objectives
Table II: Drainage Area and Stream Classification
Table III: Land Use of Watershed
Table IV: Morphology Table
Table V: Designed Vegetative Communities (By Zone)
9.0 Figures
Figure 1: Project Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 and 2a: Project Site Watershed Maps UT to Zack's Fork Watershed Map
Figure 3 and 3a: Project Site NRCS Soil Survey Maps
Figure 4 and 4a: Project Site Hydrological Features Maps with Gauge Locations
Figure 5: Project Site Sanitary Sewer Crossing Locations
Figure 6: Reference Site Location Map
Figure 7: Lower Creek Survey Location Map
Figure 7a: UT to Zack's Fork Survey Location Map
10.0 Design Sheets
11.0 Appendices
Appendix 1: Project Site Photographs
Appendix 2: Reference Site Photographs
Appendix 3: Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix 4: Southeast Regional Climate Office Rainfall Information
Appendix 5: Geomorphic Survey Data
Appendix 6: Sampled Stream Materials
Appendix 7: Entrainment Calculations
Appendix 8:
• Appendix 9: Archeological Survey (Archeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.)
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
7 Kimley-Horn
? ?
and Associates, Inc,
U
Restoration Plan
Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
1.0 Project Site Identification and Location
1.1 Directions to Project Site
Lower Creek and UT to Lower Creek: From Raleigh, take Interstate -40 to Hickory. Exit onto US
Highway -321 North toward Lenoir. Turn left on US Highway -64, and travel about 5 miles. Turn left
onto Rocky Road, and travel approximately 0.25 miles. The site is located on the south side of Rocky
Road.
UT to Zack's Fork: From Raleigh, take Interstate 40 to Hickory, and take exit 123B onto US Highway
-321 North. Follow US Highway -321 North 17.7 miles to Lenoir, and turn right on US Highway -64
EasVNC -18 North (Wilkesboro Boulevard). Go 3.4, miles and turn left on Wildwood Road NE. Travel
0.2 miles, and turn right on Spring Meadow Road. The site is 0.5 miles on the right.
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations
The Lower Creek Site is located in the USGS HUC 03050101 (Upper Catawba). The project streams
are located in the Catawba River Basin and the NCDWQ 13-39-(0.5) sub-basin.
• The UT to Zack's Fork Site is also located in the USGS HUC 03050101 (Upper Catawba). The project
stream is located in the Upper Catawba River Basin and the NCDWQ 13-39-01 sub-basin.
1.3 Project Vicinity Map
Please refer to Figure 1 located in Section 9.0 for the project site vicinity map.
2.0 Watershed Characterization
2.1 Drainage Area

Table 2 below provides hydrological and surface water classification information for the major project
reaches. See Figure 2 for the project site watershed map.

Reach Drainage Area Surface Water
Stream Order
(mil) Classification
Lower Creek 57.4 I C 4
UT to Lower Creek 2.4 C 2
Zack's Fork 0.05 C 1
Table 2: Drainage Area and Stream Classification
8 ? ? ? Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
•
Restoration Plan
Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
2.2 Surface Water Classification/Water Quality
The NCDWQ stream index number for Lower Creek is 11-39-(0.5), and the NCDWQ stream index
number for UT to Zack's Fork is 11-39-1. Lower Creek, UT to Lower Creek, and UT to Zack's Fork
have a DWQ classification of C. Class C waters are used to supply water for drinking, culinary, or food
processing purposes for those users desiring maximum protection for their water supplies. WS-IV
waters generally are in moderately to highly developed watersheds or protected areas, and involve no
categorical restrictions on discharges. There are no restrictions on watershed development or types of
discharges.
2.3 Physiography, Geology, and Soils
The Lower Creek project is located within the Northern Inner Piedmont physiographic province of North
Carolina. The Northern Inner Piedmont is rolling to hilly and has higher elevations, more rugged
topography, and more monadnocks (or mountain outliers) than other areas of the Piedmont. It also has
colder temperatures, more snowfall, a shorter growing season, and it has mostly mesic soils, as
opposed to the thermic soils that cover other regions of the North Carolina Piedmont. The geology of
the site consists mostly of intrusive rocks such as metamorphosed granitic gneiss (OCgm), which is
described by the North Carolina Geological Survey as foliated to massive, grantitic to quartz dioritic;
• biotite gneiss and amplibolite common. Chewacla loam and Dogue fine sandy loam cover the
floodplain of Lower Creek and UT to Lower Creek. Wehadkee loam and Rion sandy loam cover the
floodplain of UT to Zack's Fork. Caldwell County Soil Survey soil mapping of the project area is shown
in Figure 4.
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
The regional Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) maintains a database of historical black
and white aerials for parts of Caldwell County. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. staff obtained aerials
from 1940, 1967, 1982, and 2004 for the Lower Creek and UT to Lower Creek areas. Listed below are
observations from in each aerial.
• 1940 - A majority of the Lower Creek, UT to Lower Creek, and adjacent land is cleared and is
apparently used predominately for livestock grazing and agricultural practices. Less than 5%
of the project site appears to have any forested vegetation. There also appears to be a
channel flowing from north to south that enters Lower Creek approximately in the middle of
the site.
• 1967 - The channel flowing from north to south appears to have been filled or diverted. It also
appears that all of the remaining forested vegetation has been removed from the site. Barns
located just north of the UT to Lower Creek have been constructed.
• 1982 - Most of the right bank of Lower Creek has grown a forested buffer. The watershed has
been developed with some residential build-out; however, several forested areas have been
reestablished.
• 2004 - No changes in the watershed are apparent. The downstream section of Lower Creek is
migrating toward the Cardwell property causing severe erosion in several areas.
? ? ? Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
•
Restoration Plan
Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
The regional NRCS office does not maintain any historical aerials (prior to 2004) covering the UT to
Zack's Fork site. The North Carolina Division of Transportation (NCDOT) provides a 1998 color
infrared aerial. Little change was observed between the 1998 and 2004 aerials, indicating that the land
use is mostly agricultural or undeveloped and that the site is not experiencing a significant increase in
impervious area.
The existing land use for the watershed is listed in the table below.
Table 3: Existing Land Cover of the Entire Watershed
Lower Creek/UT to Lower Creek UT to Zack's Fork
Land Cover Acreage Percent Cover Acreage Percent Cover
Pasture 9,600 25% 18 55%
Forested 13,400 35% 13 40%
Residential 7,700 20% 2 5%
Commercial 7,700 20% 0 0%
Total 38,400 100% 33 100%
2.5 Endangered/Threatened Species
Federal law, under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended, requires that any action likely to adversely affect a federally protected species be subject to
• review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A search of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's website
(endangered.fws.gov) and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's website
(http://207.4.179.38/nhp? indicates two endangered species and three threatened species potentially
occurring in Caldwell County. The species, their habitats, and status are described below in Table 4.
A review of the project area and surrounding habitat by Kimley Horn biologists determined that the
habitat for these listed species does not exist within the project areas of Lower Creek or UT to Zack's
Fork. The National Heritage Program's database did not indicate any documented occurrences of
these species within a one-mile radius of the project areas. A letter was sent to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife for comments on (dated July 24, 2006), and a reply has not been received.
•
Table 4: Endangered Species - Caldwell County
Federally Protected Species Listed for Caldwell County, North Carolina
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Habitat Requirement Habitat
Status Available
Corynorhinus townsendii Virginia big-eared bat E Warm areas of caves No
virginianus
Microhexura montivaga Spruce-fir moss spider E Fraser fir and red spruce No
communities
Hexastylis naniflora Dwarf-flowered T Acidic sandy loam soils along No
heartleaf bluffs, hillsides, and ravines
Liatris helleri Heller's blazingstar T High elevation rock outcrops No
Note: t = endangered
T = Threatened
10 ? ? ? Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Restoration Plan
• Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
•
2.6 Cultural Resources
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
conducted a review of the project and concluded that the project would not affect any historic resources
or archeological sites. A review of the National Register database revealed that there are no properties
listed or proposed for listing within a 1-mile radius of the project area. Archeological Consultants of the
Carolinas, Inc performed on-site archeological shovel tests and they found no archeological artifacts or
remains and recommended the project proceed as planned (see Appendix 8).
2.7 Potential Constraints
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
The conservation easement for Lower Creek will be located on the properties of four owners. The
conservation easement for UT to Zack's Fork will be located on the properties of one owner. The
tables below show the properties' owners, PIN numbers, and easement areas in acres.
Table 5a: Lower Creek Ownership
Current Owner PIN Numbers Easement Area
Acres
Kathleen Cardwell 2737193156, 2737280909 7.1
McCreary Modern 2737096482 2.3
Aldridge & Sons Nursery 2737391010, 2737172851, 2737171703,
2737170831,2737079737 1.4
*Reba Cardwell 2737382202 0
*1,326LF of UT to Lower Creek on this property has been designed; however, it has been removed from the project
due to multiple liens on the property and thus the inability to secure a conservation easement.
Table 5b: UT to Zack's Fork Ownership
Current Owner PIN Number Easement Area
Acres
Jack Adams 2861312236 2.1
The conservation easement boundary is shown in the attached Design Sheets.
2.7.2 Site Access
Lower Creek Site: The site likely will be accessed for construction via a proposed access onto the
Cardwell property off Rocky Road. No site access issues are anticipated.
UT to Zack' Fork Site: The site likely will be accessed for construction via a proposed access onto the
Jack Adams property off Spring Meadow Road. No site access issues are anticipated.
2.7.3 Utilities
Lower Creek Site: The Town of Gamewell has a sanitary sewer easement that runs parallel to Lower
• Creek through the Cardwell property. Preliminary engineering plans show the easement crossing the
11 ? = ? Kimley-Horn
M and Associates, Inc.
PJ
Restoration Plan
Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
UT to Lower Creek outside of the conservation easement. Kimley-Horn has coordinated with the Town
of Gamewell to verify the location of the crossing prior to producing Construction Plans and
Documents. See Figure 6 for the location of the proposed sewer easement.
UT to Zack's Fork Site: No existing utility easements were identified in the study area.
2.7.4 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass
Lower Creek Site: According to the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), number 3710273700 J (preliminary August 23, 2006), Lower Creek is in
Zone AE with floodways determined. Zone AE represents areas within the 100-year flood zone; base
flood elevations and flood hazard factors have been determined.
UT to Zack's Fork Site: This stream is not mapped under FEMA FIRM current mapping.
3.0 Project Site Streams
Lower Creek: Lower Creek is a perennial channel flowing north to south and forming the boundary
between the Cardwell property and the McCreary Modern property. The top of bank width is
approximately 56 feet with a low flow of approximately 20 feet, average water depth of approximately
1.6 feet and an average bankfull depth of approximately 2.8 feet. The substrate along the stream
channel consists of sand and small cobble. The left bank of Lower Creek contains limited or no buffer
and thus has multiple areas of extreme erosion. Approximately 2,200 linear feet of Lower Creek is
located within the project area (see photos 1-5).
UT to Lower Creek: The UT to Lower Creek is a perennial channel that enters the project study area
flowing southwest south of Rocky Road and ends at the confluence with Lower Creek. The top of bank
width is approximately 20 feet with a wetted width of approximately 6.3 feet, average water depth of
approximately 0.6 feet, and average bankfull depth of approximately 2.1 feet. The substrate along the
stream channel consists of sand and gravel. This stream is extremely incised and possibly straightened
due to agricultural practices. The channel lies within a flat valley (slope <0.5%) and typically more a
meandering riffle-pool channel is expected in this setting. Approximately 1,300 linear feet of UT to
Lower Creek is located within the project area (see photos 6-9).
UT to Zack's Fork: The only stream located on the subject property for this site is an unnamed
tributary to Zack's Fork Creek (Figure 3a). The channel begins at a headcut on the property and flows
parallel to its southern boundary. The existing channel consists of approximately 270 feet of perennial
stream, 670 feet of intermittent stream, and 270 feet of ephemeral stream (see photos 10-12).
3.1 Channel Classification
Kimley-Horn performed a geomorphic survey (cross sections, longitudinal survey, and pattern) and
sampled stream materials (classification and entrainment pebble counts, bar samples, and
pavement/sub-pavement samples) on several reaches representative of the geomorphic settings within
12 ? ? ? Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
•
•
Restoration Plan
Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
the project area. Table 6 below summarizes the channel classifications of the surveyed reaches within
the project area, and Restoration Table IV (Section 8) provides detailed morphological data.
Table 6: Summary of Stream Classification
Assmt.
Reach Drainage
Area mi Entrenchment
Ratio Ankr Wnkf Width/Depth
Ratio K Slope Stream
Type
Lower Creek 57.4 1.4 150.9 56.1 21.6 1.0 0.0061 F5/1
UT to Lower 2
4
Creek . 1.4 24.6 9.6 3.8 1.0 0.0049 G5
UT to Zack's 0
05 Incised
Fork . 4.2 2.0 3.2 5.4 1.0 0.0375 E5
3.2 Channel Discharge
The peak flows for the 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year storms using the North Carolina rural flood frequency
equations for the Blue Ridge-Piedmont Region (United States Geological Survey 2003) are shown
below in Table 7.
Table 7: Peak Discharges of Project Site Streams
Assessment Area Bankfull
Dis
ar
ge*
2yr Q (cfs)
10yr Q (cfs) 25yr Q 100yr Q
Reach (ac.) (
) (cfs) (cfs)
Lower Creek 36,736 1,030 2,318 4,877 6,488 9,364
UT to Lower Creek 1,536 112 250 597 837 1,288
UT to Zack's Fork 32 12 17 46 69 115
Calculated using Manning 's equation and associated "n" value for stream type.
3.3 Channel Morphology
Lower Creek: This channel may have been historically straightened and to maximize usable pasture.
The existing channel has become incised possibly due to clearing of the surrounding vegetative buffer
as a primary cause and/or the nature of the unconsolidated nature of the sediment As a result of the
incision, the channel has been disconnected from the historic floodplain. Sections of Lower Creek do
not exhibit any stable pattern or defined riffle-pool sequence. Based on visual evidence and historical
photos, Lower Creek is unstable in the lateral/cross sectional direction and is creating a blowout by
rapidly eroding the Cardwell property (see photos 3 and 4).
UT to Lower Creek : This channel may have been historically straightened and relocated to the edge
of the valley to maximize usable pasture. The channel is nearly linear with an unstable profile and as a
result, the channel has become incised and disconnected from the historic floodplain. This channel
does not exhibit any pattern or defined riffle-pool sequence. UT to Lower Creek is unstable in the
• horizontal and vertical directions, eroding both its bed and banks as evident by vertical banks,
headcuts, and the lack of pools and riffles. (see photos 6 and 7).
13 ? = ? Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.

Restoration Plan
Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
UT to Zack's Fork: The channel is incised and disconnected from the historic floodplain. This channel
does not exhibit any pattern or defined riffle-pool sequence. (see photo 10).
Restoration Table IV shows complete channel morphology data including channel, pattern, dimension,
and profile for all restoration and project reaches.
3.4 Channel Stability Assessment
Lower Creek: The restoration reach lies within an area currently and historically used for pastures,
agriculture, and manufacturing. The vegetative buffers along the left bank (Cardwell property), in most
cases, have been cleared and currently are open fields with some invasive species along the banks.
Sections of Lower Creek (Cardwell Property) allow for cattle access. Locally, the lack of a riparian
buffer and open cattle access has contributed to the severe erosion along the banks (see photos 1-5).
UT to Lower Creek: The restoration reach lies within an area currently used as pasture and for
agricultural production. Most of the areas along the channel allow for cattle access. The vegetative
buffers, in most cases, have been cleared and currently are open fields with some invasive species
along the banks. The streams also have been historically straightened to maximize usable land,
resulting in an unstable system (see photos 6-9).
• UT to Zack's Fork: The restoration reach lies in an area currently used as pasture. The vegetative
buffers, in most cases, have been cleared and currently are open fields with some invasive species
along the banks. (see photos 10-12).
Bank height ratios (low bank height divided by the maximum bankfull depth) were determined for the
surveyed reaches. In the methodology used for this report (Rosgen, 2001), bank height ratios between
1.1 and 1.3 are considered "moderately unstable," ratios between 1.3 and 1.5 are considered
"unstable," and bank height ratios greater than 1.5 are considered "highly unstable."
Table 8: Restoration Reach Characteristics
•
A
t
R
h Bank Ht. Vegetative Buffer Adjacent Disturbance
ssm
.
eac Ratio Left Bank Right Bank Land Use 1 Relocation
Straightening
Piedmont/ Pasture / and cleared
Lower Creek 2.7 Open field Mountain Agriculture/ buffer with
Bottomland Manufacturing cattle access
Forest on Cardwell
property

UT to Lower Open field with Open field with Pasture and Straightening
Creek 1.7 scattered trees scattered trees Agriculture and clearing
and shrubs and shrubs
UT to Zack's
3
5 Open field with Open field with
Straightening
Fork . scattered trees scattered trees Pasture and clearing
and shrubs and shrubs
14 ? ? Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
•
Restoration Plan
Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
3.5 Bankfull Verification
Determination of the bankfull elevation is vital to generating meaningful geomorphic values. There
were sufficient bankfull indicators on-site such as benches, point bars, sediment deposits, and rack
lines. To verify bankfull elevations, the bankfull area values for the project reaches were compared to
the North Carolina Piedmont rural regional curves (Harman, Jennings, et al. 1999). The results
indicate a general agreement between the three sets of values (site, references, and regional curves),
thus providing a measure of validation. Regional curve values are compared to field indicators in the
Restoration Tables in Section 8.
3.6 Vegetation
Two major areas of land cover were observed within the project areas: Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland
Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990) and open fields.
The Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest community is situated along the right bank of Lower Creek.
This area is dominated by various bottomland trees such as the tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera),
chenybark oak (Quercus pagoda), american elm (Ulmus americana), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata),
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), sugarbark hickory (Carya ovata), and
butternut hickory (Carya cordiformis). The shrubs in the area are painted buckeye (Aesculus sylvatica)
• and bursting heart (Euonymus Americana).
The open fields are dominated with fescue (Festuca spp.). The small amount of woody vegetation in
this area consists of sparse trees and shrubs with little to no rooting depth.
4.0 Reference Stream
4.1 Watershed Characterization
Four reference reaches were identified and chosen to serve as a basis for design (see Figure 7).
These reference reaches were used on the restoration of Purlear Creek (phases 1 and 2) and have
been previously approved by NCEEP and NCDWQ. The references are located within the same
hydrophysiographical region as the project sites. Two of the reference reaches were used as
templates for the B stream types, and the other two were used for C stream types. One of the B
stream references is located on Upper Big Warrior Creek southeast of the Town of Wilkesboro in
Wilkes County, North Carolina. The other B stream reference is located northwest of the Town of
Wilkesboro. Both C stream reference reaches are located within Basin Creek, north of the project
area. The B stream references were used as a basis for designing the restoration of UT to Zack's Fork
and the upper section of UT to Lower Creek. The C stream references were used as a basis for
designing the restoration of the lower sections of UT to Lower Creek.
The watershed characteristics for the above references are similar to those of UT to Zack's Fork and
UT to Lower Creek. It is in a rural setting, demonstrates similar land use, and is in the same
• physiographic region as UT to Zack's Fork and UT to Lower Creek.
15 ? M ? Kimley-Horn
M and Associates, Inc.
Restoration Plan
Lower Creek and LIT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
•
4.2 Channel Classification
The Purlear Creek reference reach is classified as a Rosgen 134c-type channel, the Upper Big Warrior
Creek reference reach is classified as a Rosgen B-type channel, and the Basin Creek reference
reaches are classified as Rosgen C-type channels. The reference stream morphology is included in
Restoration Table IV.
4.3 Discharge
The peak flows for the 2-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year storms using the North Carolina rural flood frequency
equations for the Blue Ridge-Piedmont Region (United States Geological Survey 2003) are shown
below in Table 9.
Table 9: Peak Discharges of Reference Streams
Reference Area Bankfull
Discharge 5yr Q 10yr Q 25yr Q 100yr Q
Reach (ac.) cfs * (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
Purlear Creek 365 59 165 230 331 525
Upper Big Warrior
Creek 448 69 190 264 372 596
Basin Creek 2,342 354 886 1,188 1,639 2,469
Basin Creek 2 4,608 369 921 1,234 1,700 2,559
Calculated using Manning's equation.
4.4 Channel Stability Assessment
The reference reach streams appeared stable with morphological measurements indicating stable
dimension, pattern, and profile. All of the reaches exhibited stable banks and established vegetative
buffers.
4.5 Bankfull Verification
Determination of the bankfull elevation is vital to generating meaningful geomorphic values. There
were sufficient bankfull indicators on-site such as benches, point bars, sediment deposits, and rack
lines. To verify bankfull elevations, the bankfull area values for the project reference reaches were
compared to the North Carolina Piedmont rural regional curves (Harman, Jennings, et al. 1999). The
results indicate a general agreement between the three sets of values (site, references, and regional
curves), thus providing a measure of validation. Results can be seen in the Restoration Tables in
Section 8.
4.6 Vegetation
Vegetation in the reference areas is Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest (Schafale and Weakley
1990) as described in Section 3.6.
16 ? ? ? Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Restoration Plan
• Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
5.0 Project Site Restoration Plan
5.9 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
The goals of the restoration project are as follows:
¦ To create a functional uplift to the ecosystem
¦ Create a stable stream system
¦ Improve the water quality and biological habitat of the streams
¦ Reduce stream temperatures
¦ Control the invasive exotics
¦ Eliminate impacts from livestock
The above project goals will be achieved through the following objectives:
¦ Remove excess nutrients and sediment through the establishment of vegetative buffers
¦ Convert the existing pasture to a Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest as described by Shafle
and Weakly (1990)
• ¦ Stabilize 2010 LF of Lower Creek, restore 1252 LF of UT to Lower Creek and 1043 LF of UT to
Zack's Fork through bioengineering and natural channel design techniques
¦ Stabilize Lower Creek, in particular the "Blow-Out"section, through bank grading and the addition
of in-stream structures such as rock cross vanes, j-hooks, and boulder toe protection
¦ Convert a G to a B/C channel on UT to Lower Creek
¦ Convert a incised E to a B/C channel on UT to Zack's Fork
¦ Increase dissolved oxygen concentrations through the use of in-stream structures such as rock
cross vanes and rock a-vanes and the turbulence they produce in riffles and pools
¦ Improve substrate with structures such as constructed riffles and rock cross vanes and the
elimination of major sediment sources (bank erosion).
¦ Create habitat diversity by introducing woody structures such as log vanes and/or rootwads
¦ Exclude livestock through fencing
Stream Restoration Approach
Lower Creek is a fourth order stream with a drainage area of 57.4 square miles. Most of Lower Creek
will be restored using a Priority III approach. Currently, the profile is dominated by a series of bedrock
outcrops and has likely reached its maximum level of incision, however, Lower Creek is adapting by
trying to add pattern (`Blowout' section). The `Blowout' section is the only area on Lower Creek where
it is feasible to add in-stream structures to address the profile issue by adding grade control and re-
directing the flow over the existing bedrock. It is the opinion of KHA, drawing from previous project
experience with other large scale systems, that stabilizing the channel through the addition of a bankfull
17 ? Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.

Restoration Plan
Lower Creek and LIT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
bench and stabilizing the low flow bank slope is sufficient to decrease the shear stresses on the banks
during higher flows thus eliminating bank source sediment loads. In the "Blow-Out" section, a bankfull
bench will be added from the top of the boulder toe protection. It will extend for a minimum of 10 feet
and be into the existing bank at a 2:1 slope. It is not recommended to add fill directly into the channel
in order to attempt to adjust the dimension due to FEMA constraints on fill and the unconsolidated
nature of the sediment. Other areas where Near Bank Stresses are high due to the existing bedrock
deflecting flows into the banks will be addressed by the addition of boulders to redirect the flow into the
center of the channel thus reducing the Bank Erosion Hazard Index associated with those areas(see
Station 200+25, Design Sheet 12).
UT to Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork will be restored using Rosgen natural channel design Priority
II and III methodologies for adjusting the channel dimension, pattern, and/or profile to a stable
configuration for all restoration reaches. UT to Lower Creek will remain approximately in place for the
entire reach and a bankfull bench will be created. The appropriate dimension and profile will be
enhanced to approximately match reference reach values and rock cross vanes will be added to
provide grade control, bank protection, and habitat. Some pattern will be added to UT to Lower Creek
by Meandering the channel between the existing top of banks.
UT to Zack's Fork will be restored using a combination of Priority I, II, and II restoration approaches.
The channel will be relocated to the center of the valley and the profile will be raised to the historic
floodplain. The lower section of UT to Zack's Fork will be restored/stabilized in place. Rock cross
vanes and rock a-vanes will be added to provide grade control, bank protection, and habitat.
The restoration reaches are based on reference reach morphology, values from regional curves,
regime equations, experience from other restoration projects, and the existing channel morphology.
These reference and proposed values are presented in Restoration Table IV. The stream restoration
either restores the streams in place or creates a new channel.
UT to Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork will be restored based on the criteria listed below.
Dimension
The channels' riffle cross-sectional areas were calculated using the hydraulic geometry curves, which
were derived from the reference reaches and regional curves. The proposed riffle cross sections were
shaped to have a mean depth and width capable of transporting existing and predicted future sediment
loads for the designed channel slope. A bankfull bench was added to create access to a lower, flood-
prone area. The pool cross sections were shaped based on riffle-to-pool cross section relationships
found in the appropriate reference reaches. Initially, the bankfull width will be slightly overwide;
however, it is expected that this width will narrow once the vegetation is established and sediment
begins to deposit The upper reach of UT to Lower Creek is sized as a Rosgen B-type channel due to
property owner constraints. The lower reach of UT to Lower Creek will include some slight meanders
and is sized as a Rosgen C-type channel. UT to Zack's Fork is designed as a Rosgen B-type channel
due to its location in the valley and steep profile. The reference dimensionless ratios are included in
is the morphological table (Restoration Table IV).
18 ? M ? Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
L_J
Restoration Plan
Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Pattern
The channel planform was dictated by reference ratios for meander wavelength, a radius of curvature
derived from the reference reaches, and typical Rosgen reference reach values for C-type channels.
The belt widths were based on reference ratios but were limited in some areas by the topography of the
valley and/or property owner constraints. The proposed planform sinuosity allowed pool-to-pool
spacing and riffle locations to match reference conditions. The planform values and ratios are provided
in the morphological table in Restoration Table IV, and the Restoration Plan Design Sheets show
the designed channel alignment
Bedform
The B-type channel bedform design will resemble a step-pool system. The pools will spaced closer
together than in C-type channels to dissipate energy and create habitat. The C-type channel bedform
design predominantly consists of a riffle - pool sequence with runs and glides between them. The
design depths and pool-to-pool spacing of the features were based on reference reach values and
typical Rosgen reference reach values (Restoration Table IV). In the C-type channels, the pools were
located in the apexes of meander bends with riffles located between the pools in the tangent portions of
the channel. The pools will be over-dug to allow for some sedimentation during construction activities.
The profile section of the Restoration Plan Design Sheets shows the designed channel bedform.
• Structures
The designed channel includes in-stream structures for grade control, pool-to-pool spacing, and
maintenance of the overall design slope. The Lower Creek restoration will incorporate the use of
boulder toe protection, j-hook cross vanes, and rock cross vanes to deflect the velocity vectors away
form the Blow-Out bank and add grade control. The types of structures incorporated into the total
restoration project include rock cross vanes, rock a-vanes, j-hooks, root wads, boulder toe protection,
and log vanes. Root wads were used only for the purpose of providing habitat.
Riparian Buffer Restoration Approach
Reestablishing the riparian buffer will restore habitat connectivity throughout the conservation
easement. Prior to planting, the soils will be treated as described in Section 5.5 to facilitate plant
establishment. New plants will be installed as directed in Section 5.6.
5.1.1 Designed Channel Classification
The restoration reaches are designed as Rosgen B-type and C-type channels. UT to Lower Creek has
been designed as a B-type channel for the upper section and as a C-type stream for the lower section.
UT to Zack's Fork has been designed as a B-type channel. Lower Creek is designed to be stable, and
bankfull is considered; however, it does not have a defined stream type due to the restoration
approach.
5.1.2 Target Buffer Communities
The reference vegetation was developed using recommended native species and on-site species lists.
. Recommended Native Plant Species for Stream Restoration in North Carolina, by Karen Hall of the
19 ? M ? Kimley-Horn
M and Associates, Inc.
Restoration Plan
. Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute, was used along with planting plans and monitoring data
from previous projects to develop a species list for each riparian zone. See Restoration Table V for
the proposed species list by zone.
5.2 Sediment Transport Analysis
5.2.1 Methodology
Sediment transport was calculated using shear stress equations to verify that the designed channel
would be able to transport its bedload at bankfull without aggrading or degrading. The Shields curve
was used for the initiation of particle movement and to estimate the range of particles transported for a
given shear stress.
Two physical characteristics of the channel design that affect the shear stress on the channel bed are
the slope of the channel and the hydraulic radius.
T=yRs
Where: T = shear stress (lb/ft2)
y = specific gravity of water (62.4 Ib/ft3)
R = hydraulic radius (ft)
s = water surface slope (ft/ft)
The hydraulic radius equals the cross-sectional area divided by the wetted perimeter.
R= A
P
Where: R = hydraulic radius
A = cross-sectional area (ft2)
P = wetted perimeter (ft)
5.2.2 Calculations and Discussion
The restoration reaches (UT to Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork) were designed with a mean depth
and slope sufficient to transport a range of particles. Table 10 provides the results of the sediment
transport calculations using the shear stress equation and Shields curve. The channel is designed to
eliminate bank erosion, flush the sands, and transport predicted sediment loads.
•
20 ? ? Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Restoration Plan
• Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Table 10: Summary of Shear Stress Calculations
Proposed Proposed Particle
*
Restoration Reach Hydraulic Shear Stress Transport Size
Slope
Radius
(ftfft) (ft) (Ibtft2) (mm)
Lower Creek N/A** N/A** N/A** N/A**
UT to Lower Creek 0.0005-
0.0017 1.6 0.049-0.170 17-41
UT to Zack's Fork 0.0100-
0.0300 0.5 0.312-0.936 65-145
*Grain Size is based on the Colorado Data: Power Trendline
**Not applicable due to the size of the stream and the restoration approach.
5.3 HEC-RAS Analysis
5.3.1 No-Rise, LOMR, CLOMR
Lower Creek is in a mapped special flood hazard area therefore No-Rise analysis must be performed
and submitted to Caldwell County/FEMA for review. Pending on the No-Rise certification's approval
construction may begin. After construction is complete, a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) will be
• submitted because floodway widths are expected to change.
5.3.2 Hydrologic Trespass
The addition of a floodprone area through the grading of a bankfull bench on Lower Creek will reduce
the flood stage by increasing the streams' flood capacity. Also, the reconnection of the streams to their
floodplains will allow greater flood storage and infiltration. This is expected to reduce or not change
downstream flooding and therefore will not cause any hydrologic trespass.
5.4 Stormwater Best Management Practices
5.4.1 Site-Specific Stormwater Concerns
The Lower Creek Site and the UT to Zack's Fork Site are situated in predominately rural settings. It is
anticipated that the reestablished riparian buffer will be a sufficient filter and treat any stormwater runoff
from the adjacent property. Any concentrated flows (stormwater swales) that come into the project
area will be stabilized (likely by changing dimension, plan, and profile) and properly tied into the
restoration reaches. These areas are shown in the Design Sheets.
Lower Creek Site: In order to treat the runoff from the impervious area (rooftops and parking) on the
McCreary Modern property, an existing BMP will be improved and a level spreader will be installed to
distribute the flow across the buffer and into the channel. These areas are shown in the Design
Sheets.
•
21 ? ? Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Restoration Plan
Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
5.5 Soil Restoration
Soils within both project sites' riparian restoration areas will be treated to facilitate the growth and
development of plantings. The soils will be ripped prior to planting to break up compacted soils and
create a favorable environment for new plantings.
5.6 Natural Plant Community Restoration
The goal of the riparian restoration for this project is to improve the long-term ecological function of the
existing forest community. The Restoration Plan Design Sheets have been developed to provide
these functional uplifts through the re-establishment of targeted natural communities. The targeted
natural communities were determined by comparing existing site conditions to established communities
and verifying appropriate species in the proximate reference natural communities. Based on the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program's Nature Community Classification, the site's riparian area most
closely correlates to the Piedmont/Nbuntain Bottomland Forest in the riparian areas (Schafale and
Weakley 1990). It is anticipated that both project sites will be constructed under one contract. The
discussion and approach below applies to both sites.
5.6.1 Reforestation Scheme
The goal of the planting scheme is to establish a riparian community consistent with the reference
S community, using an approach that accelerates the successional process and leads to a mature
riparian community. The planting plan will use the reference plant communities discussed in the
previous paragraph as a base for designing a planting scheme and developing a vegetation list.
Recolonization of cleared riparian habitats characteristically begins with the invasion of a pioneer
species that creates an environment (e.g., shading) suitable for species typically found in a mature
community. To initialize the proposed riparian community, the restoration area will be planted with a
mix of pioneer and climax species that have been selected and arranged to meet the following
objectives:
¦ Establish a mix of shade-intolerant canopy and shade-tolerant understory species
¦ Provide a vegetative source of dominant species
¦ Establish local seed sources for those species less likely to migrate into the restoration area
¦ Stabilize disturbed or high-stress areas
The design of a planting plan involves several components. Four planting zones have been developed
considering site hydrology, soils, and disturbance regimes and are referenced to natural communities.
Each zone has a unique environment that dictates species selection and community structure. A
planting list is developed for each zone to match the vegetation in the reference community and meet
the objectives given above. The planting list only includes species that are readily available and have a
reasonable expectation of survival. For a given zone and species, a plant source and planting type
(e.g., containerized or bare root) is recommended. Then, a planting schedule is developed so that site
preparation and plant installation occur at the optimal time and season. After installation, the planting
will be verified. Finally, a maintenance plan is developed to promote the long-term success of the
planting. The planting plan components are described below in more detail.
22 M ? Kimley-Horn
M and Associates, Inc.
Restoration Plan
• Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
5.6.2 Planting Zones
The planting plan for Lower Creek, UT to Lower Creek, and UT to Zack's Fork includes 5 zones of
distinct vegetative composition and structure.
¦ Zone 1- Stream Channel
¦ Zone 2 - Stream Bank/Riparian
¦ Zone 3 - Upland
¦ Zone 4 - Transitional
¦ Zone 5 - Disturbed area outside the conservation easement
Zone 1- Stream Channel
The stream channel zone includes the stream channel from base flow to bankfull. This zone features
the steepest slopes and highest saturation levels of the four zones. It will be planted with fast-growing,
obligate pioneer species to provide stability to areas at or below bankfull.
Zone 2 - Stream Bank/Riparian
The stream bank zone includes the area from bankfull outward away from the stream to the back of the
• bankfull bench or to 10 feet away from the stream, whichever comes first It is an area exposed to
regular stream flows and frequent soil deposition. The most stressed areas are located on the outside
bends of meanders. The banks will be planted with fast-growing, deep-rooted species that will provide
biostabilization and shading to the stream.
Zone 3 - Upland
The upland zone includes the area beyond Zone 2 to the edge of the easement, where the buffer is not
immediately adjacent to an open field. If the buffer does border an open field, the outer 10 feet of the
buffer will constitute Zone 4. The composition of the vegetation in Zone 3 includes a mix of canopy and
understory trees.
Zone 4 - Transitional
The transitional zone includes an approximately 10-foot buffer between Zone 3 and an adjacent open
area such as a field outside of the conservation easement. The planting list for this zone consists of a
subset of smaller species that will tolerate full sun and eliminate an abrupt boundary between the open
field and Zone 3.
Zone 5 - Disturbed areas outside the conservation easement
This zone includes any areas outside of the conservation easement that are disturbed during
construction and will be planted to restore their to pre-construction status based on landowner input.
5.6.3 Plant List
• The plant list (See Restoration Table VI) for both sites is based on the target community, reference
community, and recommendations from the North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute (Hall 2001)
23 M ? Kimley-Horn
M and Associates, Inc.
Restoration Plan
. Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
and the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (Smith 2004). The selection of species
depends on availability from local nursery sources.
5.6.4 Plant Sources
The planting plan for both project sites preferentially selects local genetic stock and utilizes three
sources of plants. Two sources-nursery stock and on-site transplants-will be tied directly to the
initial planting and will be used in numbers that meet permit guidelines. The remaining source-
recruitment-is factored into the selection of species in the plant list, as the plant list includes a
significant portion of species that likely will not establish by natural propagation.
Nursery Stock
The planting plan may include any of the following nursery stock forms of woody species: bare roots,
containerized seedlings, and ball and burlap. Additionally, the planting plan may use sod or seeds from
commercial sources. The planting plan prescribes that nursery stock be grown under environmental
conditions similar to the target environment The planting list includes alternates in case specific
species of pre-ordered plants are not available or acceptable for installation.
On-Site Transplants
• Several favorable species grow within the existing site. In the course of constructing a new channel
alignment, some individual plants may need to be removed. The individuals of a target species that are
of an appropriate size and age may be transplanted into the restoration area.
Recruitment
It is expected that the restoration sites will be populated with species from adjacent communities. The
restoration sites will be maintained to keep the number of unwanted species at less than 10% of the
total population.
5.6.5 Plant Care and Installation
The plantings for both project sites will be cared for and installed based on guidelines provided in the
included planting notes in the Design Sheets. When planted properly, bare root seedlings are the
most cost-effective and successful plant material. Containerized plantings, live stakes, and other plant
materials will be used based on the needs of the planting zone (e.g., frequent disturbance and
immediate shading among others).
5.6.6 Schedule
The planting plan for both project sites will be scheduled around stream construction activities and
growing season. Efforts will be made to stabilize disturbed areas that include newly constructed
channels and temporary construction easements. The final vegetation planting will occur after proper
site preparation (described below) during the appropriate season.
Plantings may be staggered based on surrounding activities. Live stake planting on stream banks
• (Zone 1) will follow closely after channel construction to provide immediate stabilization. On-site
transplants will be planted immediately after they are removed from their existing habitats. Planting of
24 Kimley-Horn
? ? and Associates, Inc.
Restoration Plan
Lower Creek and LIT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
Zones 2-4 will occur from late winter to early spring, after construction, to minimize or eliminate threats
from the construction, exotic vegetation treatment, and/or unpredictable weather.
5.6.7 Stabilization
Immediately after construction, the stream banks and all disturbed areas on both project sites will be
seeded with permanent and temporary seed mixes. If the season is appropriate, permanent seeding
will be completed in conjunction with construction, and temporary seeding will be applied according to
Land Quality Section requirements. Within the stream channel (Zone 1), pioneer species that provide
immediate bank stabilization will be planted. Live stakes and bare roots will be planted around
structure installations and the outsides of meander bends to provide an area of high density root mass.
Coir fiber matting and live stakes will be used along the entire reach of the restored channels to provide
stabilization until vegetation can be established.
5.6.8 Site Preparation
Prior to planting the riparian buffer, efforts will be made to eradicate fescue and invasive plants such as
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Chinese privet (Lingustrum sineses), and Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica) from the project sites. A permanent seed mix can be used after application of the
pre-emergent, and woody planting can follow during the dormant season.
• 5.6.9 Planting Review
After the final planting is complete, the planting supervisor will verify that both project sites were
properly planted using stem counts and condition inspection. The planting contractor will be
responsible for replacing damaged plantings.
5.6.10 Monitoring and Maintenance
Monitoring will verify that the restoration area is meeting the restoration goals. Damaged plantings will
be removed, and replanting will occur if the planting survival fails to meet the restoration goals. If
monitoring indicates that an area is trending toward greater than 10% coverage by nuisance
vegetation, that area will be treated to remove the nuisance vegetation.
6.0 Performance Criteria
6.1 Stream Success Criteria
The stream geometry will be considered successful if the cross section geometry, profile, and sinuosity
are stable or reach a dynamic equilibrium. It is expected that there will be some changes in the
designed cross sections, profile, and/or substrate composition. Any changes that occur during the
monitoring period will be evaluated to determine whether they represent a trend toward a less stable
condition (e.g., down cutting, erosion, etc.) or are simply an increase in stability (e.g., settling,
vegetative changes, coarsening of bed material, etc.).
0
25 Kimley-Horn
? ? and Associates, Inc.
I'
LJ
Restoration Plan
Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
An initial, though not exclusive, indicator of success will be the stream's adherence to design or
reference ratios of stream geometry found in the morphological table (Restoration Table IV) or in
comparable, stable reference systems. The channel may not adhere to design or reference ratios of
stream geometry, but can be considered stable if the following key indicators are present:
¦ Stream Type: Maintenance of the design stream type or progression toward or conversion to a
stable stream type such as C or E will indicate stability.
¦ Bank Height Ratio: Bank height ratio between 1.0 and 1.2 will indicate that flood flows have access
to the active floodplain and that higher flows do not apply excessive stresses to stream banks.
Determination of true bankfull may be difficult until the stream has experienced adequate flooding
events to create strong bankfull indicators. Erosion upstream of Lower Creek will persistently
contribute sediment to the project reaches due to unstable upstream banks. Excess sediment will
either be routed though the project area or deposited in target areas such as point bars and the
floodplain. Minor sedimentation of pools and glides may occur. The pools are designed to be over-dug
to account for some sedimentation of pools and glides. If a large storm event occurs before the woody
vegetation has established, isolated bank erosion may occur in sections where the flood-prone area
has been restricted by topography and/or utility easements. Areas of bank erosion will be repaired as
necessary.
0 6.2 Vegetation Success Criteria
The success of riparian and vegetation planting will be gauged by stem counts of planted species.
Stem counts of more than 320 trees per acre after three years, and 260 trees per acre after five years
will be considered successful. Photos taken at established photo points should indicate maturation of
the riparian vegetation community.
6.3 Schedule/ Reporting
The monitoring plan to evaluate the success of the stream restoration project is based on guidance
provided by The Stream Mitigation Guidelines disseminated by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers - Wilmington District (McLendon, Fox, et al. 2003) and recommendations from the
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). The collection and summarization of monitoring data will be
conducted in accordance with the most current version of the EEP documents entitled "Content,
Format, and Data Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports."
Upon completion of the restoration project, an as-built survey will be conducted that documents the
following conditions:
¦ Geomorphology (dimension, pattern, and profile)
¦ Channel materials
¦ Channel stability and in-stream structure functionality
¦ Vegetation

26 Kimley-Horn
? ? and Associates, Inc.
•
Restoration Plan
Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
The survey of channel dimension will consist of permanent cross sections placed at approximately two
cross sections (one riffle and one pool) per unique stream segment The cross sections will represent
approximately 50% riffles and 50% pools. Annual photographs showing both banks as well as
upstream and downstream views will be taken from permanent, mapped photo points. The survey of
the longitudinal profile will represent distinct areas of restoration and will cover a cumulative total of
3,000 linear feet of channel. The profile survey will include pattern measurements and the permanent
cross sections. Channel material measurements will be collected using pebble counts for at least six of
the permanent cross sections.
The entire restored length of stream will be investigated for channel stability and in-stream structure
functionality. Any evidence of channel instability will be identified, mapped, and photographed. All
structures will be photographed and inventoried for functionality.
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a stream mitigation site is dependent upon hydrologic
restoration, active planting of preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant
community. In order to determine if these criteria are achieved, vegetation-monitoring quadrants will be
installed across the restoration site as directed by NCEEP monitoring guidance. The number of
quadrants required will be calculated using the EEP Required Plots spreadsheet Each quadrant will
cover 100 square meters, and the cumulative area covered by the quadrants will be approximately 1-
3% of the revegetation area. Initial vegetation monitoring will occur in the spring following leaf-out.
• Individual quadrant data will be provided including diameter, height, density, and coverage quantities.
Relative values will be calculated, and importance values will be determined. Individual seedlings will
be marked such that they can be found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality will be determined
from the difference between the previous year's living planted seedlings and the current year's living
planted seedlings. At the end of the first growing season, species composition, density, and survival
will be evaluated. For each subsequent year until the final success criteria are achieved, the restored
site will be evaluated between July and November. Permanent photo points will be set up for each
quadrant.
Monitoring will occur annually for five years. The monitoring period should include two separate years
with bankfull events. Bankfull events will be verified using an installed crest gauge that will be
inspected during each monitoring visit. If a bankfull event has not been documented by the end of the
second year of monitoring, a mandatory quarterly check will be required. If two bankfull events do not
occur by the end of the second year, the monitoring period may be extended at the discretion of the
United States Army Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Project Manager and the
NCDWQ 401-Wetlands Unit. Monitoring reports will be submitted during every year for years 1-5.
0
27 ? ? ? Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
•
Restoration Plan
Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
7.0 References
Hall, Karen (2001). Recommended Native Plant Species for Stream Restoration in North Carolina.
Raleigh, NC, North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute, NCSU.
Harman, William A., Gregory D. Jennings, et al. (1999). Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for
North Carolina Streams. Wildland Hydrology Symposium, Bozeman, MT, AWRA.
McLendon, Scott, Becky Fox, et al. (2003). Stream Mitigation Guidelines. United States Army Corps of
Engineers - Wilmington District, United States Environmental Protection Agency, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission and North Carolina Department of Natrual Resources - Division of
Water Quality.
Rosgen, David L. (2001). A Stream Channel Stability Assessment Methodology. Seventh Federal
Interagency Sedimentation Conference. Reno, NV. w: 18-26.
Schafale, Michael P. and Alan D. Weakley (1990). Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation, NC Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NC
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Smith, Cherri L. (2004). Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration. Raleigh, NC, North Carolina
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources - Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
United States Geological Survey (2003). The National Flood-Frequency Program.
•
28 Kimley-Horn
? ? and Associates, Inc.
•
•
C7
m

a

(3
H U

C
? N
m
E
O
O ca
N
U _

cn
Y
C
co
co
O L N
r- CU Cc

CO
C14
m

0 N O
O
d J O
p LL N
cm L
C Cu
CO

N N O
W J LOi N

h
+
cc 0
'
' 2
z - -
O
UJ
Q O
d
Q
d

F- O O O O

? U O O O
CO CO cn

w

co
G! N L

c
c
co 1? M
o
?
(D
CD
y
(D N ? c
o
CD
p
C:)
p
O O
O
N
t
CU •-? 0i
a a0
i
O
cc U LL

U
N fQ
Y
cu
E
U) •? 4)
3: 0
J N
O O
N 0 J ~

Q I
d
7
V
b
N
O
a
0
Ul
v
At
0
CL
d
H
z
c
c
O
ca
_rn
E
E
ca
.g _
N C
fa V
? w
a
N vNi
O U
C E
O ?
O
O
a cn
N
a
c
O m
o
Q
aa) a
C ?
m o
C ..
L
N ?
O ?
'a
O
E
m

?t

N
L ?
d
M
V ?
0 N

toN
r-
C= U

U

U

U
R
m
Q
4) N
CD'-
0 E
G

CD

N

O
O
O

0
Y
Y

t ? N
U O
LL.
)

I

J J

O
E-

N
O
F-

0 N
O
•+

L

°

L

L

O
LL
Y
U
d lf7 LO
0
N
O y
F- cc
Q co m N c2 M
M
Y

O L

L d
>

o O O
O L
N M N cl C

J L

° d
a
F-
M
m

U cv °o a
? °o o° o
L W co ? r
C"IP
0
J

O
F-
O
U

a
c
ca
J

-ru

N
O -0 E
m 0 O O
Q- Li of U
a
m
s
CD
co
0
N
N
a
W
J
N
Table V: Desiened Veuetative Communities (Bv Zone)
Woody Vegetation Planting
Tree/ Shrubs Bareroots Livestakes
Zone 1-Stream Bank (1.3 Acres - 3' centers)
Cephalanthus occidentalis S 630
Corpus amomum S 1,570
Salix nigra T 1900
Salix sercicea S 1,570
Sambucus canadensis S 630
Totals 6,300
Zone 2-Riparian/Bankfull Bench (2.6 Acres - 8' centers)
Betula nigra T 350
Celtis laevigata T 350
Fraxinus pennsylvanica T 350
Nyssa sylvatica T 200
Platanus occidentalis T 200
Corpus amomum S 350
Totals 1,800
Zone 3-Upland (4.8 Acres - 7' cent ers)
Betula ni ra T 220
Liriodendron tulipifera T 1070
Fraxinus pennsylvanica T 220
Nyssa sylvatica T 1070
Platanus occidentalis T 220
Quercus nigra T 1070
Quercus phellos T 210
Quercus shumardii T 220
Totals 4,300
Zone 4-Transitional (1.9 Acres - 8' centers)
Alnus serrulata S 260
Aronia arbutifolia S 60
Betula nigra T 40
Cephalanthus occidentalis S 260
Corpus amomum S 40
Fraxinus pennsylvanica T 30
Lindera benzion S 60
Liriodendron tulipifera T 130
Nyssa sylvatica T 30
Quercus michauxii T 130
Quercus nigra T 130
Quercus phellos T 130
Totals 1,300

•
0
`o
LL
Q Y
O N
Q v
U `m
0 5
o
J
2 ? U
IL t
it _°
O Z
J U d
co
H ? U
a
m
0
C
A
d
E
v
s
m
0
E
C
8i a
m
c
v ?
c S
m
o
D
E a
m ?
? L
8
lD a
m g
ILL
c m ?
o d
o ? U
T O
2 ? J
y ? N
.. H N
U ? -O
N d
= m ?
w
a
x
0
Y
K
tt
O
O
3
0 0 0

C
V
Q IL
0 ?
J N
Q c
_U 10
O E
-j 2
= 3 m
U
IL
K o Z
O
D c
7 0
?U
J U
`m 3
m ?
Q O O
H ? U
J
J
V
A
U
O
E
E
0
U
d
U
of
N
d
d
3
0
m
U
r
0
z
d
L
O
d
Ot
QI
N
m N
? O
C N
N N
E Y
E m
E w
U
_ m
E
> E
a o
y U
m Z
:7
`o_
m U
m s
n
E c
L m
?E
C m
= o
v m
L m
fn
5 0
0
? m
Tm
- J
0 N
u
j E
u t
v
' c
?a
? O
- N
I ?
N
3 0
1 ?
i N
IU
m
a
m
i
U
00
R
x
0
E
3
0
4•
0
U
3

•
•
•
184
1t 321 s^
268
19
90
_ I ? ?? .i mss' 64 J
1 221 k•' 11{ u
226 181 r
o' 70 114 t . 321
' 112) I 1 _
0 R lull 18 it 10 20
-J
I= =,& 64?? " r Miles
UT to Zack's Fork Project Area
so
a ?. o
1307 1523 l od"
v_ ?Q ?°?a o
n / 1602 a
)o c °7r? 1587
-may D 6? ?Q 1,545 18
m
?m? Fr
Mpg
1301 _0 1
eSa J a?? ,I 90
?e
m P
Go,\e0e I
18 I enoir m
? yd^N 1
1314 1 's64 321 h 4
1404 Robe
64
G ))
rshee'ly Rd S/4%)
3acOb?ln 66s??a J
o So,
V^? ?fhw 1208 321 ° o
gQ "???ta esrej? y 3
T
r1a
1933 Victor. Ln -' 1835 0
?o am Lower Creek Project Area 1276 °
o 1945 ? cn 1933 1796 ?
cn o` J
C N
SR#•1239 •j•=
0 0.5 1
?? Florai'?r .. v .. -; I I I
CarouselrLn Miles
Title Project Site Vicinitri, Map
Prepared For
Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork
Project Caldwell County, North Carolina
?tlcowlStCli1 Date Project Number Figure
9/ 1 108 018327000 1
P'018327000 Lower Creek: Restoration Pin Figures :Revised Figures Prepared by Jasonln- run .=-I.
20080401U2evised Report Figures (LowerCreek)'0080401 doc
268V x
F
321
kj 64
64
:321 %
1? ,? r, (? 4\!It\
. 1
?A \
r
..or
v '321
18
Lower Creek
-- ?, DA: 57.4 Sq. Mi. !- ...
LIT to Lower Creek ?. r _.
DA: 2.4 Sq. Mi. =y
Miles
Title Lo«er Creek Watershed Map (I JSGS (quad Map, Caldwell County, North Carolina 1987)
Prepared For
? FC=ewell Creek Site and UT to Zack's Fork
Project County, North Carolina
1'i Stelll Date Project Number Figure
I K. `1 `.1 ! 1 l 9 11,08 018327000 2
•
•
C
P:'.018327000 Lower Creek`Restoration Plan'.Figure Re ised Figures Prepared by Jeson.Di- mn rex aiK
30080401\Revised Report Figures (LowerCreek)20080401.doe
J
•
•
P:\018327000 Lower CreekRestoration Plan'Figures'Revised Figures Prepared by Jason.Di-
20080401\Revised Report Figures (LowerCreek)20080401.doc
Soil Soil Series Description
Cm Chewacla loam occasional) flooded
DoB Dow e fine sand loam, 2 - 8 % slopes
•
H dric Soil
e.
r
3
a E3 YA
_ MaD
.z ?
x - ?1 ?_ S l.wf
CV
..,`VJ
CeS }
i
Legend ?. 250 500
6 Conservation Easement' Feet
Title l.oxyer Creek Site NRCS Soil tiur\CN :Mal, i 1994)
Prepared For
Project Lo'yer Creek Site and UT to Zack's Fork
Caldwell County. North Carolina
Date Project Number Figure
L,cu?y?tc.»1
9 11 08 018327000 3
PA181-000 Lower Creek' Restoration Plan Figures Revised Figures Prep-d by JasonDw Curl =11"M
M080401',Revised Report Figures (LowerCreek)20080401.doe

I p % ? T F :I i L• 4L
Soil Soil Series Description
RnF Rion sand loam 25-40% slopes
Wk Wehadkee loam, frequently floodec
_
H dric Soil
j46 .

rs e i

¦
i

I LA go

? 0
•
ry?, yr
M
r k
?u
i. ?
9
t?r
Cie B
a
N +L
Ir e
?.
Legend 0 250 500
-- - ° Conservation Easement„ - I
Feet
Title U[' to Zack's Pork Site NRCS Soil Suave- Map 1994)
Prepared For:
Lower Creek Site and UT to Zack's Fork
Project Caldwell County. North Carolina
I',C?SyStell] Date Project Number Figure
9/11;08 018327000 3a
P:`.018327000 L wer Creek',Restoration PIa Tig-',Revised Figures Prepared by J... Diaz
20080401 Revised Report Figures (LowerCreek)20080401.d-
? w?i..a?eem,i2
?a
5 rx
®/'.
4'3' bra .? .
TI

....
0 -
4 wt
M?: gat
4• .. ?}
O-A
Oil
'+ ?u Y
r ,.
5 ?
a a ! = 4 t? All r
sta. ,.
i
Legend
t_r? Conservation Easement y, 4: 0 200 400
DWQ Stream's
Feet
Title Lower Creek Site HNdrological Features Map ith Gauge Location, (21)u4 Acrial)
Prepared For.
Lower Creek Site and UT to Zack•s Fork
Project Caldv.ell Count. North Carolina
r-,?J -
141 OSySMII Date Project Number Figure
9 11 08 018327000 4
•
•
C
P: .018327000 Lower Creek`Restoration PIwi Fig.- Rmsged Figures Prepared by Jwon.Di-
20080401 \Revised Report Figures (1AwerCreek)20080401.doc
•
•
•
t:
No ¢trearn gallges exist with ! r-,r r1 area
ks r Yc e, p s ? Ak
t ?
.FJ r y, ?.1 ?^• ? ?? i F? ?? ? ??1.'

t as. s ? ?, 1 s Y.3Y D s
K ; 1 I
-Ok

,? N ?? .t.r j1 tf 3 . fYY. l .. ?,e

O 4,
?
- , y' Tai
1
; ? 46 # y:.

00
?r r t °1 r•. "? .y / r
Y
.
<
•?
??
r
{ 4.+`, 1.\ ? '?
.,
^:?jt? a.r.. ? ?
.opt ??
41
y
"IN
`t? ? ^??• ? :.
g JyC1 >c l , ff?? ?_
?'r Via,:'
? ?` s '4.
'G
F; I
; •
A
., i
a .
',?` 'It 1: t_ 1 ? 1 .. r r ? t?7! +„'11 1a ?3? ? ??ttp •.' N ,
S
?
r
y?
"
?d
'?1
M-
'
?
', - ? ^? ?
,t.? ?
,? - ? .t
y.1 11..E -4?
,
?
« a{,'.
+ eja . R
4
9 ?; )•
7?

,
".? k ?-- ? may} Y
_ '. '9
? 1??• ?
,
?
.
? ? ?
yam 5? b
-?? ??,??
l
?+h
C
?
.
,
ss
-__
,
0 \
•/ .. -"
a W
EL
d
egen
s
J
------ Conservaton Easement 0 100
DWQ Stream"`{ =e*.
_.
'Ail I;k
Title OF to Lacks Fork Hvdrological FCdtUres Map with (iauge Locations (2004 Aerial)
Prepared For.

Project
Lower Creek Site and UT to Zack's Fork
Caldwell County, North Carolina

141)SYSteI I I Date Project Number Figure
„ . , ,.. 9' 11,08 018327000 Ala
Pf.018327000 Lower Creek`,Restoration Plan`.Figu es Revised Figures Prepared by Jason.Di- [fin n.im
200804011 Revised Report Figures (Lower(-'reek)-"0080401doe
e
t ?
^
•
V '
,.? "
'
vt
? ?.. 1yy1'
?? .
_
t 4 ?.
to
..
V
?1
?
. rl `,? " '
i?1 .. ? ?. ?r#w a
A 01"
V

oil
A? IT

4 ? d A > ?
- 4p

I -Z
et,
r
t r
IM;
te
G
r,?,

S'*i A4

1
1%
w?>
t
S'a' y
r
AALI

t J`C•- `fir+? ?. i ? ? .? ?? .. ??jN

'•'SL?B t
a
.y ? ? I s
00

1k
'1 , AY
All. 14
!
.
' .T-
fi'
?
'
'r!
yyy ?

-t
.
Legend
a I K.
,
j(r?
.fa
g11
T ,ry,
y
y
lot t
Conservation Easement
Proposed Sewer r r 0 200 400
1
DWQ Stream ' Feet
'yi tt, y ?
Ole
Title Sanitan- Surer Line by the Toxin of Gamev%ell
Prepared For:

Project
Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork
r_?s
Caldwell Co
unty. North Carolina
kc0s
Stem Date Project Number Figure
y 911 08 018327000 5
•
C
•
P.'01832°000 Lower Creek Restoration Pla Figures`. Revised Figures Prepared by Jeson.Diaz
20080401'Revised Report Haures 11. owerfreekj'0080J01. doc
•
•
•
_ -'
eev`
I
Gt
Basin Creek
-r 3. eV6
-
_

-A
.3ijM? 1?' 999, r

cbs County.,
r•4?
YY

m? 18

16

UT of Purlear Creek

ro 421
268

115
o

Upper Big Warrior Creek N
W t
S
16 0 2 4
I I
Miles I
Title Reference Site Location Map
NT-d For:

Project Lower Creek and UT to Zack's Fork
Caldwell County, North Carolina

I t(1)Sy`1CCIll Date Project Number Figure
91,11/08 018327000 6
r: wta?_,wu LOWer t: re k'Restorabon PtM%.Ftgures'Jie ed Figures Prepared by J.-Diaz r_cn rwm
wriovie.?2
20080401 Revised Report Figures (I,ower('reek)?0080401.doc

? • h
'

%

yet
do ,ze
l

l
71

All
POP
.
d
.
• ??
I ??fl
,+???•
wa
'
'
:
IL
?
1 ka? T < {j??.S ? j?
\1M = I r `
..
s tr ?+c q.
\?
+
'# ,
! t
'
`
m
.
A,
-y
4
, ?
A
.. h
F?71'
'
en
L
i '? f ,?.y
rxt
?
q "
J
?
y
,
Legend } .? }?w}?'`•(?: s?c,l
Pebble Counts !, fybp y .6 r' l
p Y" 'T > '''""" ll t,
t
N
%K
1
V
a Cross Section Locations ;• ? '' -?yN" nY S
Profile 200 400
--- Conservation Easement Feet

Title Lower Creek Survey Location Map (2004 Aerial)
Prepared For.

Project
bower Creek Site and UT to Zack's Fork
r_d?l Cald-,ell Count. North Carolina
Stelil
ITOS Date Project Number Figure
Y 9 11 08 018327000 7
is
C?
•
P'018327000 L,wer C-LRestoration Plan\Figures\Re\ised Figures Prepared by Jwon.Dw CCI1 .b a'm
20080401\Re\ised Report Figures (I..owerC-K00080401.doo
•
•
0
$? L
i. l4 y ,` ?
I
r T O ' ?;
?'1? I 6
7, 4
Li.. so

, 10 -N
i
4 tit'
4,
?tt 'spry ,? +t {',-}hf
tA, q?.
t • \
? r ,.
}ti' a i! r :r.
Legend
Conservation Easement
Stream Classification Forms
• Pebble Counts
- Profile
a Cross Section Locations
r
•
. J .T
1•_ ?5 R '
- /
}
A
41.
R
00,
a
N3
7 t
.?, 2+,
O ? ?*` ?? ' ` ! as
??,` ^ ?rt • * "may
OA, - 1-k
«+l
41
iy t'{ ? j `* _ {,.?' ?i ?. d ?• ? ? r ? X77 ri': .
fix
A- AN
to 'A.
0 100
+r
'??'++ \ ;' *?.y Y _ Feet /
Title Zack's Fork Survey Location Map (2004 Aerial)
Prepared For:
Lower Creek Site and UT toZack's Fork
r-d?l Project Caldwell County, North Carolina
cnSySrCl11 Date Project Number Figure
E,. 9%11!08 018327000 7a
P',018327000 Lower ('reek,Restoration Plan\Figare',Revised Figures
20080401\Revised Report Figures ('Lowell reek)2008040Ldoc
Prepared by Jason .Di-
[on =.
•
E
0
R ?- O
Q ?
\ Z ?
/ H
I \
LEI 0
i ?; \ I cQi ?
\ \ ° Q-O
I , C7
I
I
ZI ? v ' i
\ ? W
\ ? W
\ \ U
r\
\ ? ? W
?l
J I_ ?
I
I
\J
\.... N
-- LI
???555 I c
`r I I
J
Y
z Q Z J
Z z
m m z
m z O
F
W Q<z?
Z W Q Z
?_°a V) 0? Z
M U W
CD I I
W -j V) J N= n
z O W W U W W
Z
_ w Z o 0m o 0
U J m
Z
W + + ? ?4
+++ ? 0 a 4
a w
W ? ? W
J O
z W Ox F M U
> W W F- Q _ LLJ
F-
(f) z m m M
(n Q Q W W W W W V) O
O > > Z w W ti
I a- L)
f?; U Q Y > Q w O Q wm O -?
Z Y Y O_ Y 3 V) W U O a Q
LLJ V)
Z) z
H
Q
C7 O O U O
J m © '... $1 ?QdF/i
0 O F- V)
r + Z w Z L?
W J J
VL'j
? K F- N J W li z Z; L?
gip) J W ?' {yJ w '12 d. ? Z z (i p F7-
Z >- J d Q W Y x O O W Q H 0
O Z W F}- V) U U Z Z Z U Y W z (n W (n
J Q O > CC W Q O W O O Z W m W U z Q J~ J W
J > w Q x >- K C.? W Z 0 Q m x W W Q W LL,
W W O o Z m N W J O? O W J O LL F m = V) Y Q J J H N
Y z x¢ ?' ¢ m F¢ z a- O N w z U > OpZ
Q U p z a (n o z E h W F- wi w ¢ O O U (n
W W J W Z:
L,j O ZH m w O ( ( (( - ZWD
W O W Z J Z W I I ( 1. p-
O WO Q? > p E ((r I N
W K
o M W Y O I ( I ( I - O Q
W a? (n z
ck: a c WWw mm _3 m j I ?aIU
I . II `. I a mF-0
1 I i I ?wwo
I I ( ( I Ow_j Z
Z 0 W Q
xolP'---q :(B --Bl:a - BOOL 'Y( Arr
W
M
U
W.
O
J
Q
aC)
zO
Oa
OC ~
V W
cc z
OQ
z=
LL Z
O
LLI
HN
Ny
O
U
W
U
C
N
CD
?p U
= S
aC/)
E ?
Y cz
?i
&-P'133H5 A3N-l\BO-LO-Y\-old 1OI7-om f\wa\w-o -Mal
of
°o
n
cli
to
0

W
O
O
m
Cf)
W
Y

C
yi
S sa
?c
61

gad
?
P
71
0 0 0
O
0
Q II ?-,
Q (U II
CC) °
CD M o
0 + +
+ rl M
CD O J
I' I I
CD CD
0 CD
+ M CD
CD
Q Q Q
J ?
W I
V
z ?
Q
CIE
Q
z?z
X ?
U
W
W
Q ? \?

O
o
D! U
Z in
H z
O
H U
J
W O
0
O
z
W
Q
Z
B- ?
W
n I I-'
l.J Q
00
W + Q
W-I1,J
LLJ
l V H
U LL-
I
cy- W
3°rq
ED J
J J
H
J
J
LL-
z
Q
as
CIE
Q

<I
Q CL
W
Q LLJ ? W ? J
m LL
M Q m o
M -
H L n
LL-
CD + ?,D CD
O ED R J
E (U W
CU O
Ul
Ri

?,D
CD l --1 -1 CD
Q o
00 +
Uo N0

L Q CD Q o cU
f? J
LL N CU Q CD E Q
- O Ln -?
L
? ?
? -
r^^
V l ? ?
2 J r
r^^
? V l
(4 q
/
<l: 0
LLJ ti J
_j
y LL -
z
Q
m z
Q
m
LLJ
QW
Q
Q W
lv

ry
W
w m
J
? N A
M n-

I? r 0? O I-
+o
+ -+ 0+
W o
W
o
?
W.?(U
-? Ln
CJ
W
Ri (U W
(U `D CD I CU CD
W + ?,D
CD r-
Ln +
CK CD
CD Rj
+ CD LLJ CD
0-

Q?
o
Q
a_
D?--
<?
?? M o?

W
Y
Z
Q m
Q ? ti
W (Zj
I
=SIP' °( xe -Bt;B - BOOZ 'fl Am
O -?
CU D
W
Y
Z
Q m
Q ?
ti
LL] 2i
e°P'SNOLL335

w
w °
N
00
V ?s
OC
w
O
J
a
Q 0
z0
pa Z Cl)
?z O
02 LLJ
QU
oa U?
zx 0- U)
LL w I:fn
O 01
aN U
Cl) N
O
U
W
F
U
fi
_N
C-- RS
O OU
= U)
N Q
E70
S-2- =
CIO d
m ?
g ?o
B?
11'
2°
t?
es
ag`?
as
spa g
80? ?
Fa
gf2 2
IIIIIrr-lirgl
uoNc?°p=°a f\OM(3\H°-O -•-l OOOLZV9tO\:d

(U
CLJ
m

W
a
J LO
I I,-
-j o

00 0 +
o?,D
W OJ

Y I
W
LLJ

Z ry +
W o
3 -,
0
J Q

ED

I-

.? O J
Q LL- m
Q W
)\aVaNn?s
1N3A3Sd3
f-1HS 335 N011VtINILN0,7 Zl03
00+6 V1S 3NnK)ivM1
rn
0

0

ID

, r
O
0

0
0
k
.t

f
f
J
O I
0

r,
rf

O 1
O
+
N
}
t

'
o r ,

o ,

Y
1n.
j

k

} o
U
Q S
z f5
H Z
J w
W°
0- ~
0-z
Z
W0
H LPL
Cf)
w Y
wQ
UN
?O
w~
O?
J Z
Q
0
NI
b
OO
001

Q
40 O
Z
0 ?-
aW
Ea
= w z fn

w oa O O
0,.. Z o
w2 O

O Cl) N
w
H
W Cl)
O o
H L)
S w
W
74 F
U
C
C6
CD
L -?
O C-)
= O C
N 6d
N Q
Y co d
P„ C

m
Sd
=c

51
?;?f5o
E
..Ip.-..f :KS ?++?eY•8 - SOOZ ." AI^P
Bxp•SNOILIONOO ONLLSI%3-Ol-f\BO-ZO-Y\UDId wil-l"hi C\SMG\*-13 AAOI "LZCalo\
9
0
N
O
U

Z
H z
? O
H U
J
LL J
U
r
F
O
z
n
C7
Y b
LwL 0?
L
V /
cl)
Y
Y 0
M
w
U N
/w/? Q co
li
?p
U N
0
GC ?
w
O?
J C
Z
Q
a
k
l? at p
m q ?
l
0
0
hie
0 W
0 w
+ a:
U
O
J
0
0
0`
0
r-
0
o
\\ t
1
MATCHUNE STA 9+00
FOR CONTINUATION SEE SHT-3
roIP'-co( KB w^6v;6 - Boot 'fl
6MP5NOLLION00
C
/Q
li O
J Z op
o ? O ,-
I=z P Q
xw Z rj)
oa O O
Z o Z 0
I-- Lu
ai X Q
W o w c j
U
W
F
U
vi
a?
CK5
0 0
g 70 LL
Y _-
co
m ea
?o
a
ss
M
B.16

of
8
uopon?catl f?OMO\?Wo?'J m.o?
0 0
•

a
s:
P0',
x
a
o
? U
z V)
H z
o
J
W°
a- O
E z
Y
W F- LL
W Y
w QU
UN
?O
w~
O?
J Z
Q
001
0
n
a
a LO
GC N
?? Z u) 0
O O co
<Z E N
xw Z H
CCz 0 U3
0= 00
W2 °o
a ? C a+o
c~n ? X ,-
U W
W CD
W
U F
U
vi
N
cz
O OU
2 (n
(1) Q
E NHL
Y co IL
&
s
s
E
«g
6$
1.2
$1
t?
S€
S
s
a
rims 335 NotivnN11NOO 21pj
00+81 V1S 3Nf1 mim
•DIP'woa :fie wDBI:a - 9009 'fl AIM
ONILSIX3-01-f\80-ZO-Y\Uold wll ? N
geaa
S??Fo
b
fib:
E
?au ¢k
---I OWLZVOLO\ :a

?n 3N" -v -, \w-cu-.\--ia -14-1=2a c\mM(I\)acq A.oi DDOLZ 0\ a
f
r

t
/i
`
r

f
1
i
t
J
J?
00
x
U
5
3
0 00
x
.4 ?
t
>- o
F
Y
z
o LU
I 1 U L
W 0
?z
W

Y
Z
V
W Q
V N

a Q
N
W

?
O

J D
Z

m
U ?b
_ LL)

N
BB
k

U
m
x
U'
O I
0
OD
0
Q O
O
<0 CD +
Z N
p?-
Z E
= W z cn
CC Z
Zz O O~
oW Z 0O
Q w U) 00
v~i } X Q
o W ci
U
W
Z
W
F
U
c
vi
m
i -?
O U
O
CLI)
2 U3
cl)
Y co d
U

?o
€S
E«
fi
s?
'Jb
25 E;
?S
egg
P Y
ZDJP'Wac( 149 WQS+:B - BOOS 'til Amr
64PSNOILION00
uoNn»)cay
o m
gKO ?
is
on??
b s°. §
S E
x
e`a4?
-Mel OOOLZC9l0\ :d

o
Cy U
z V)
?z
o
H U
W O0
r O
?Z
'I
Y
W cc
LL
V / N
W Y
W Q
UN
?O
W ~
O?
J Z
Q
n
0
0 I
0
0
Q
jcc Z 4-0 F5
aW F Q
=w Z
oa 0U O
Ow Z (-I L C)
z N
co
F- LLI
c~n W Q
F-
0
w
F
U
C
ui
O
i CZ
O O
= O
N
N
Q
E
Y7C d
6

m?
°a
b g
2 S15
A's 6
egg
x
`§e
$pE

I

U
d
LZ
C.h
? ? $ N
bE{6
s
F??x
--Ot:8 - ¦OOL 'IL Am
6MP'SNOILIONOO
1 1 1 I I I "1 ¦
uoNwoicay f\OMO\INOO N?ol OOOCZfBIO\:d
0 0
?o
U ?
U
b

0)
Y
U
Q
N
H
s
o
rV U
Z
?z
o
I-I U
L 0
D/- ?-
0-U
z
i
W ?
U.
/H
CA f A
w Y
W Q
UN
oC 0
W ~
O?
J Z
a
U
w
0
CL
CL
0
I s
0
LO
Q
Q0
i CO N
< W E?
2
PZ Z O
O F--
z= 00
o W C? +
W2 Z O
fn O
x N
wQ
W ?
F
U
C
vi
ca
00
_C/)
E ? L
Y co d

?a
TSB
?r
6S
6a
s@
r-
E?
$1
's6
fo
'E
.Y
p? N
S? O
g?6I
r ? F
=DIr-W i4e M 6*:8 - e00Z 1*1 AInC
X16
E
4
e6??
0NI1517(3-OI-f\90-ZO-f\UOld will-ISON C\0M0\W-J3 MMOI "/ZPGIO\:d
0 0 0

?o
P4
0 )
? O
U
zIn
H z
o
H U
LLJ O
11?- F
Z
Y b
CC go
F- p ?
LL
V/
Y °
W "
U M
w co
°
N
Up ?
GC ?
w
O?
D
J Z
a ?
N
a N
OC I<
z 0 Z
?a o
vw p
Z
?z O
z= ?
pw z Lo
Q W U1 p
v~i W N
w
J
? F
U
C
N
i -?
O U
= O
N
Q
E
Y CZ A.
gill
V
b

9c
if
So
b?
iE
ZDIP•uawf AB wn8Y:8 - BOOZ 'Yl AInf
B-P'SNOLLIONOO 9NLLSIX3-OL-f\BO-ZO-4\--Id ?RopiaoN
era
6?=b
f! E
E„?x
9L E??R
co46
-.o, MW7.-m\
1* 0 0
• • •
0
0
£L'9ZOl 13
ti9+9t1 :V1S
3NVA SS080
6Z'LZOt 13
*B+SIt :V1S
3NVA SS080
96'LZOI l3
b9+0ll :V1S
3NVn SSOaO
L9'BZO t 11
tiS+£ll :V1S
3NVn SS080 6L'6ZOL 13_
SS08 ?
1113NVA '
1
"IP""'I AB "09:6 - 900Z 'Yl RIM'
Adlik
00
Tco
0
0
0
0
so
0
0
N
0
0
0
M
0
+
N
O
+
0
0
+
O
O N
H z rte.
0 W CV
fl-as 335 NOIIVnNI1NOO a03 H p
~ LL
09+901 V1S Amin J w
-- -- 0 w0 o
r ?F Y S
°- Z LU M
x w V
0
?
V N
p ?
+ ? W H
0 0?
Z
U
o a
z? 0w? o
w
Vl O? m07m0?
+ 1a01 a I
cD
0 Q O
o LO
-1-
40 W 000
?a J r
ol.- LL
aW O F
cc z o ?
7p Z O
0w Z O+
o. w2 QO
aLU ?r
c~n ( Q
o C0
w
0 w
u
N
U ± C3
LLJ
Q
N
o pw U ? a?i -CZ
O
U O
?
O =0,
OC U CL) Q
O Oz+ Yco J U W 0p
?O woo
U
S m C)
O ?-
o U)
N oU
z
o
yn
5
O m R?
O g $8
r? '' S5
! a
d
I 55
db
'odd
?J 25?
>w ??8
rco0 bwa
z 0... ?, °05€
?zo +
P= J?
1, 'o O =60
H NU E®E
N \ Z aR
sv, gg
< V) Jjapa?F Ee
OEM . ?pq
WF ` I
rE7" WC W c?$ry
Bw Uwj 8 °
X50 p z 1A
1il ri O b??b
/?pp?? Wpb
954
B+P39dOUd-NVld-9l-IL\90-ZO-f\uold uopoioleoy Q\OMd\M-D --I OOOLZf910\:d

• • •
N
o
s
0' LZO L
Z•OZOL +
0 lZo L
O'IZOL +
O LZO L
Z'OZot +
o•LZOL
o LzoL +
LO
Vozo L
o'IZOL +
0' LZO l
O'OZoL +
WLZOL
o'OZO L +
O'ZZO L
ti' LZO L +
B' LZO l
o
0 O'ZZOL o+
vNN O
Z gd
O �
�U01 QOQ
IJ> H
N ? ® W
mD W��
Wok L
moa �LL�
o
ry U
zV)
H to
�o
I --I U
J x
W o
0_Z
Q
p
W)
0~LLa
aw O�
�L ��
oa z O
a
oW zow a
J
�
O
V
w
F
s
a
s
E«�
d gx'
Pcy
•-1P'-ool As --os:6 - BOOL 'Yl Am 6-P31UONd-NVld-81-11\80-ZO-4\--Id O\*'a 3 -Mol WOCLMA'd
0 0 0
i

O O
O
?aaJ
K
?a z
N=O j u
oa
0K?
vo T, 0:
U F?
Vl WJ
O
N? W W 0 (ym
OD w
?z z
?z N?a
OuO xcx
ZUZ N U O
W O K 1 O
O
N
I
U
02
d
a
o
U
Z?
f1 N
O
I--i U
J o
W 0
r O
Z
U
-? w
0
a
? u
M?
8/ 1KS
9L+ Alp, nN
Y
w °C
H LL
W Y
wa
UN
?O
w ~
O=
J Z
Q
of
0
n
O
o a LO
C%j
Zl= J
G? f 0 a L T
/ Z
f w
a OTC
xo° / = w 1 L Co
5 f
oa Z?
/ Z= Q O
w0 Z Z LO
+
w 2 Q OD
F- uj
W a
N ( Q
f NCl)
oc 1 c0.?
0 Ar / w

U
C
O
_
i -?
O U
= O
N
N Q
E
' I
Y
210 d

?e
s°
m
? $8
5-
's6
5
5
a
wotg:o - good 'fl Arr
1 1 1 1 1
uollo?olaaa f\1NO??Wop ?oxo?
brp
5 4
? =?6E
= obi k
`0Eg

O p
N
O O
0 0
o
xolP'u°c°f .(g wolS:B - OOOZ 'Yl
0 N
Q= Y b
z? Ir g
0 wO m
H F-
J 0 V/
W0 N o
Y o
z
Z LU Y N
LLJ W
s
V N
° ?O
N W
O?
J Z
0
a <
a 00
N
O 06 o
^ry? Y, +
0
M
W
00
z0 J
\
-J a N
O \1 Z O Q
QW N
S $ 0- fA
N l C z 00
m OQ z
z=
Z Q04
OW z+
W Q t0
m H W J ,-
f r
ELL
W
X' O
f-
{ z
/ J W
U F
U
C
m CD
cz
U
= N
o ?? N Q
O + LL
Y ca
w
m
O
o i
n
m
U
a
?m/ g
?, ?%' 11VLLNLL? ? o
3NnFg1V% € o
5?'1+y1 as
ba
s?
ri
g
ri
2E
J Ell
E
S
R
voice
Z ?
U sqS;
L
U o
Z
7
, < 8?E
0
m0
N Fw?
aoa
c
n`
o? OR °
e?

<
h
DWW a0
<W K
<
z $°d8
??Vl
0Ua ?
NJ <
UO?
pmv
.9 5
o!w° zao
V $??
t J fi

E
E

e o E
OY
B-P'311d08d-NVld-9l-11\90-ZO-Y\uold uogonlcay f\OMO \,P 3 ,a w.ol OO OLZE910\!d
0 9 0
0 0
O O
?o

0
N
0
to
OL1OL 13
ti£+90Z :V1S
3NVA SS080
/
i
Lo+eoZ -vas
3NVA „V„
00
X00'Oll l3
69+£OZ :V1S /
3NVA „V„ 0
J
L6'Oll 13
L£+*OZ :V1S t
3NVA „V„ r
r..
r
r' t
r
o/
o/
4?
QW /
/
_ o/
/
Jr /
/
/
0
M
LL U(. L `3
9Z+LOZ NIS
3NVA SS080
/_ L£' lZ l 13
99+OOZ -v-2
3NVA SS060
00'ZZ l 13
99+OOZ --Vls
3NVn SS080
l l•£Z l 13
9Z+OOZ :Vis
3NVA ryV,,
cZ'tiZ l 13
OL+ooZ :V1S
3NVA „V,,
0 0
N
96'£lL 13
99+£OZ N_LS
3NVA „V„
'16`111 l3
9£+£oZ ViS
3NVn SSONO
90'9ll l3
66+ZOZ ViS
3NVA „V„
LO'L l l 13
59+ZOZ :Vis
3NVA „V„
"+LLL 13
9£+ZOZ :V1S
3NVA ,V„
9L'9l l
-lOZ Y
3NVA „
3NVA
LL'OZL 13
LO+LOZ :V1S
..IP'-..( :(e w•lS°e - eooZ Yl A',
0
O
U 'o
V1
L)
M
C4
U
91 1N
1
} p n
o
U
z
H In
O
H U
J o
?Z
Y
W CC 3
U
w
W Y
V
W
V N
o
w
=
O J Z
Q
01
a
O

o J
} w 2 b
8rt
S" 0 6
)
Z Z
U $
e oF0
c?

O oa a 5o
D ,i
U
gg 7E
oo
?aw Z
U 0'-
<6<
E_
vi Q m o
??z aw ? o
m¢m ? o

O
W yw
?
O lv
?

o

di
Q
O
? w
F,
Z

B c

o%s

l?
1l
>ZN
oso NJ?
YCL 6 i pp°$?
3 [
2 U
wZ8
0_wo v o
o0:w
o:a0
g
=od
N s =x?

x
E FF
?a

OY
BMP'31UONd-NVId-el-ll\80-ZO-Y\..Id ••N•?•lootl C\oMO \MW.lo - --I 00 00ZM D\:d
0 -- --- 0 -- - - 0
F N
° Q= Y
N Z V)
LLI
OZ O
H U L
J ?
W ° y (n
no Y Y
Z N
0 W U 'o
cc N?
° U O
?M W
O=
° ?Z
M U
W 8
O b
a <
m'
o
I .
G£
19
0
? o
co
° z 0 W +
N Ja 10
m 0H LL N
v n- CO
7 ZQ ZO
LL Z Q
w
N waw W Q 4-
J
v~i } 0-N
w fA
X U F
C
N
p U
N
? 1 ? O Q
0
CA Y ca d
41/
O°
x
t3'r ,?p6k
silk
FVAACpN11NNA?tltr
m s
•oIP'uooo( :!8 woE9:8 - 800E 'YI Flof
J
K
rW
?o
En a z
ZZ3
z zo U
z3U S V<
° U
w
Z Zw
acO0 aLda
?? ?Waw
N?f woo
?Ao w
J
O W I OW
to r<Z
O80 y!?5
a0
rcwo ?a
cIE V
F
s6
?E
?o
'B E

=
8vE
uoRwo?cay f\OMn\)por? ,oxol nnn/?Caln\:a

IO O O
O O)
?- o N
U
rnd Z cn
N
0 3 Z 2: O
c N N ?+o Lwo J
c UU
° ° na« O Ew W
a a °
W °
?o n
N N C CO °+ c0 O'
d 0'[ O ° Z M OD
] C N p
d?? N N C V O
a a m m N
T O
U c O
R R
Ro In ° ° v a N y a N
?a ?Oy °° w
O C ?
y d a a
f rn« v
0
V C a' ° 0 °. O
R OLOOaO
y E 0.E OYN 0 a oo 4Xio J
z z
c
@ c °m o 3 ?r rn v
°a o E °_
E E 'o c o '3 T a y Y o'N
d E c m
L) m E 3 .. a v a a0 v o _TOO o
c o N aE - o
0 c o d
d E O m a U° L C O
t W ?W
o O j O O O omL J ° O rnOCn ONN Z r,
N y V OE E o 0 o0 O E d:c Tv v c < I 3 9
^ F T O
N N O O C =a i^ OO ° 'w C Y 11
to u E ft-I °o o °
y 6-0 'm N c° N° "o EDGE OF 3 a
U° U E T° N L T 0 .°% "' m 'o ; _ EASEMENT
u ° o - au y? -5<, y cE o uN
vlr? ? c°na0"°° y ?wEw ?c
ot
w'
z 3
w w
Oda
N >
G
N a
W W
OM; QO
Z
0 VJ
aZ W
?? O
ON N> ?U Z
- - - - OZ
- 1-----
V) Z
ON -a O ?W
\ ----------> v
_ fn N
W
C O z Li N> ~ W
Q w
L C
C >
W W
c oZ
L = O
' N U
$i Q
z - -- Ila
CdC Y CZ d
dr w W
m y y y
N >
+ + d 030 30033
1 E? iK
W
w o
oNw LL'
N Z
ri
"
? ° ? a ? 'd aai ° ? m
c u u c a a? a 8
o 3 C o °' C." .a°J •? ?L •E b N a
g
?? ou u a yo N c a°i o a o tl b
"'s g
to 4) Id
°'woo "v „ q y a 6y?? cd„ u „ ?a ° as
a u w a ° u u a° v w °' u o Y a °a° Cy o y ro. C o
o a?i N --s F v p y E ° Y ti o N'? c . 5 x
n €S
o E. u a
ro 'o u b F A ° o° a>i u 3 a o a aai y u
aai w d L b 3 N o > D o u° o u c? d o " s
yea "v o.5 ° c ° ° H °3 Y ?'N °' n u p4° sg
a o e
$> u v o N ?^y u w o a 3° a w p 0. a a q° Z >
o N av o c eoo Y h ?' E." ° a°i a E w G E
ro a ?'= Fj C
E u o y aq.
a° E q E o v ?a? „ p E
As - o ? Y., o° orb
y o° > aroi s C v A °° 3 Y b a y w o '0)
MUR
?- d
a 6 0
E
O c0 c>d Q O" p cC N ?" > u y a vi i0 N O' a E
u u a y, n fl o y -°' a vE E? 'Er ° o w o o " ro EL C E $
y y. N E ro" o.E o C ro N a a o u u tl p°
E ro a s a u a u u o > y 0 0 u 50 ?:
Z (a ° IN
a ° •? y c u° > a o o N o y ou u o
> oun o v p u a E Ea a o° F. N ^? y 3 fl x• G d a
?A q.° ro b e p a a 4° o °, a o ro o p c o° o u 5
v ro u v a s y c°'n u V° ° a°'i b y > a ° °' N o y u s a E 8 0€
0 y u N n a w y b a ° b U b o~ " U c
-0 11"
N .u u ayi E '9 q y° o a ° o u as . .y ° °r
oo n u
" a a a 3 eo u C$ + o o y °?w 9'3 a 4 c" b °b v ?? E? o E2
aLy• aoa Yu y 1+ 4 a" ?u"Eoa ro"o y• ?°' 8ou o w
Z
G
U I.,
o"au aai a ? > a Ed o Ii+ +Ff w 3 +' ?b o y aai adi U =o ?
a?i o aEi -
3 n
b N t O a w ,m q F y P w EO
as > „3• a mao, c Nb ° °yo u u u nc?? ?
30 ro?E.S y C eN?o ?gpa?n?v? aa?u ago v "o>,?
0o n ° ° b a? O y b0 C a0 .., b y 0 v a'?-q, ?, U-. O'er.. catl = i0, Z W iy F? s $
Eau ?? a u u m ;, E c'? c w E o R u ?°
> C y ?y ¢, ?, y O N w u y 0 O N a a y 3 ? y L? c $ o i a
pyo HNc °db u o?? d
a ° as U• ?a
c as 0° o M -5 T
c i y aw' aa?vy a o awb i s
z - S
s
u , ara.? y U'u oo ? o sa a ? a ° o G
o ? ? u ".E yy a o a ? u•: 4u c ? o ?rBFF
td p a .-. O .b y ,? i C y C N y rn p u w CL ° W Y «! Y ?' ~ N 0 0 p (6 O U N N ?- b
" ro u a b u v N t7 o x b" c? p w £n " m 5
y y p, C p O eqa id tqd O O V y o u a`?i U a p O N a) a q u u Q a q .? O ?" ? E
C7 [- 0.? 0. a v co 4 y a Nwb o N? a °v CIO i -41.
•ofPwocc( s9 woZS:O - 9o0Z 'Yl Am B-P-lVN3N30-S3LON-03A-61\90-ZO-Y\Uold WNo?lc-H £\0M0\W-0 --I OOOLZNIO\:d
ffi
Y 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
?
? N
M N
V N
CO V
? a

8 N N N
N O O 0 C', O N
N N N
N N N
N N N
N N
N O N
O O N N
O N N O O N
0 0 0
N
N O r N O N ?
?
V
O
? ? O
N N
N p
N

C
p
C Lm
11 i V
A
b
c
22
N i?

? ?

?` co y
io
w

~

F-

FB

I-

I- co

h

I-

F?

F-

I-

I-

I-

F- co to

l-

co

co

-

co

-

-

-

-

-
0 Y
?
u
~ V t0 ? U
M

I v
L
W
V
?
8 C

? u,
m
3 a m ?
w ? U V 10
M
.2
ry
q U N
C ? C 'N M ? ? C
?
'E A
,
v?i
m

?
?

v

??
h
m
?

?
?
;a
°

m

?

E

S
,

c

.a
?o y E m m 'c o
? c
C ? A E c c .? A m
c
N E ,0 :? 3 m ?
N

y ,

t
e p

? °

` N

u V A

a

? Oi
N O

E N

a C C

m

m ?

o

c

.c

¢ J

.c

y
C ?

2

o

m

`
O

=

o
C

$'
N
c

c

`
O
.

E

°?
S
c
N

n
W
? ?
O? O
?
N G RI y
C y y O
? ? 'C C
N y y y y y y
N ~ O N 'C ? o
7 y a v
O ?
d
o .C

m

o X

m X

m

m

o N

o ?

m

m

? N

? ?

?

o ? d ? •C y cC0 ? ? ? d co
N
LO
L
n

E
C
?
N
a

?
N
?
?
al
?
a?
?
?

N

U

U

?

h

o

F

N

m

U

L

Z

,

U

-

N

m

7

.

Z

a

'

f

'

?

N

0

0

0

U

U

L

J

?

2

'

'

! 1 ----- Z = Z
U)
U
N - F
M> O U
oz a w

F
0 0 0
N O N ? N N N
N N ;
A O ° ?
K
f 2
o
L
? N
o C N
3
o W !n
n°1 o U
O LY 'a U y
3
E N
a
c U N _ °?
10
= U O d 3 0 3 0

a 0_ N ? N N

N N
c ? E

E
E
? o ?

o
q
z N
d N
m E
r
° N
]
c o ] c ° ° c w
p ? O ? ? O
`m ? > c m E
y '
° y
]
] C
O
]
U 0 C
0 0
N C E
O C
O
N O ]

J

?

_

O

_

>

x o W o

)
ay ayi rn_ o
E o `o" c
O f0 t0 N
°? a c
v O m° d m
F 4>° ; a a a O p O U
o O
«Eo° d Z ''o mt ymv 0o
DJ
W

O O ° a0 N [n
N DD
N

N
p
o
co
o
,.?
? n

O

C

Q M
m c c ?
U
N N? ? N
e
m ?
?O ? N M ?t N

lL-1NS 33s No1LanNUND3 N03
00+601 als 3NnHaLvm
ry
w
Z ?
D N
? U +
LLJ
I- N
U fy
f
DZUO
U _
Z [-- O
O z +
U W 00
W elf O
m ry OUQ
V)
f-
O
Z
:48 --*G:a - ONZ 'Yl AIMf
rn
0

I

i
I
co
v
Fl. ?
v
© o
-
07
O v
0 0 v
0
v
C) O °
0
v 0

v 0 0 °

v O O v
v 0 0 v
v 0 °

v v
O
v 0 O v
O 0
° O ; 0 v
710 O °

r O
O °

v o

v 0

° 0.
v
0 O` v
v
v
OO v Q
v
v00v
W
v 0
w; v
U
ir
17
0 0 O
v ? v J

v °
v S
v I
v 0 7
v 0 0 v
a 0
YY
° O r ? v ; fi
vb

??
d v
'

v
r ° 0 0 v

v v
v 0 `?

0 v
,b

0 S,
b
D

v V o

0
°
V
0 °

v 0
° 0 °
0 °
v 0

.
W
0 Q
° ?
U
O

I J O
o° v00
v??i v
0
0
v
? ?00
v O•
U
a
U
z(n
H z
O
H U
O
W 0
a- ~
a- 0
zz
a
i hl
Y
W
W
N
c r.
00
00
U s
W
O
J
b
U I I
O
a
O
Q O
Z
Ja Z r
<<
Oo F-
Z _j
LLJ IL )
OM
LLI (50
?z Z
Q
ow Q O
J
aW 0- O
Cl) N F-
O CO
U
J W
L F
C)
C
U)
(t)
C) U
0
U
CD -<
7 LL
Y co
d
X11 ?
9le
?
"s
Sitg
a
€o
o?
sa
A
2E
?S€
8MP'NVId ONLLNVId-LZ-OZ\BO-ZO-$'\Wld WNo=
@a:..
-`
smg<
bs_ ?
$z?
? ?,p e E
E«?x
BVEd
aY
---I OOOLZCB l0\ :d

L
rV-i
x ?
?R
a
u,
o
U
Z En
H z
o
H U
J a
??
2
W
M
U
W
O
J
a
a0
z0
_ cc
CL
Ool.-
vw
=w
OQ
zx
LL z
ow
?w
N?
N
O
U
W
S
n
N
co
0
O
O
co
+Z
a-
0
O
a+
r
F
Y
W
W
5
J
5
U
-Si
vi
a>
i CO
O U
= O
U3
(3) Q
E
Y CZ d
9
p 10H ?t'20
CA
fog COO
MP-0:48 ww9!6 - BOOZ 'Yl
6MP'NVId
uopo,aycaa £\9Ma\?w»'J mMOI
?e
m ?
& a?
t
Eg
5u
?E
'e E
e ?-
q-A
:oE
grx?
ONE
QoE

W
Z ?
? N
0 U +
LLJ Q N
U r
z O
ILI
O
(J-) U
Z O
Oz+
U W o0
W O
m
O U F--
U)
F-
O
Z
Y
W
000
O?UMM+11
S 0 VI
\
i`
U \:
0?X I
v
? CAF •` . \ c? 'i ?
\ / O ?•
<7 0p °v0 Q" Ox ?
O OO p0 D
Q °.. p
p° O.O s\
v
?p Q00 °O v
v° Q0000'co \ \`\
i'd 0 0 00 6,OC, Op ° t ,
000`p0 o0oo•
O o m; o of t
b a 00 00000000 0000o c a
v pOo Oo o
% O °O =
%
t ?. V i
0 00 °00 °0° 0 0 t i
v. 7 O °pO °0O 00
O O
CIO O O
Op0p00po0op 1
000 0000000o00Q
l pp o Oo 00 00
0 0 00
0 00 0 00 00
5?,a00 % 000000 p.01Opp "
10
O O Op 00 ., _0. Oo .
I w, 000 p 00 0 00 000 000 0
v 00 000oo.. 00o O
v 00 00O0o oo0oQ 00000 0
0 `;, '
.
0, 0
v' d 00 00 00o0 0000;0000 0000
\ a „" 000000000000O000oop.:
4 00 00 0o b0 00 00
0 v v v v v 0 v0v 00 o00 0
Cfj o? 0000(
4d o Oc
v 0o v v 00
v d o v vv
Q ;i O O \ v
o N
cy
v
_
Q =
Zf-1
o N
?N
I I U
Jry
Y
°
0 W°
-
W
W
0
IL Z r
?O U 0

O W
O
0

O
.?
bi
b

U j
?q
0
o'
a
0
I
0
I

mm

mo?

8

L
Q
DC
Zz O

N a
0 Z co
ar
LW?
W Z
U VM CQ
*r LLI
?
3W ?z Z
O
?CO z°= ?
O

LL. W
O
J 0

w 0
0
a - 4-
N

U CA
w

?
U F
Ne °
p
w 17
v © O O0O v Cl
o v ! CL)
0 0 0° v O V
i O o O 0 v = vii
cl) <c
v 0 Op v E CU LL
O ? ,y " '9 00
00 ?
O
,r
f
f ' ?t
?I
IC
W
0
}. m es
Z^
ti r C) ~ ?- 6
j I, U E
\ r WQ? ?s
i '
I` U ? N ws
i 'l ?ZO Ra.
E>i-
2Ex
O \
\ O z + 6e'
Ss6
\ W C)o
m e
?t i y i \ Eay
+.?i: P 4 } t
j ,
\ 0
O $rca `
0 k b;6
?i+' jt?i: ? gfi$ x
1i-1HS 33S raurnNUra? ao? Jt
OOMI r1S 3NI1 mvyl E? x
9?1.s
,lip'---[ %Ae w ts:9 - 9002 'al AI^r
6MP'NVId ONONVIId-LZ-OZ\9O-ZO-Y\--1d c\DMaVwoj3 --1 00 ocae9yo\:d
0 0 0
O
tb-1HS 335 NouvnNUN07 2l03 Q j
05+8 V1S NnHolvm
--- --
Z?
0
-
0 V)
00
0
d 000
r ?o
Q
0
\ t
° 0
i
t
0 0 p LLJ
°0
0
g
'
0
o
?z
o
?ff
ao
0
p
0
1
000
d 0
f
0
d O 0
0
0000
d°d o 00 Q ;
00 0
obo o I
d O0
/ d p
0 1 0
/ d 0a
!
OO
i / dd 0000 0
d 000
d O,.0 0
000
d 0 ()
0
d
Q
Q0 0 0 f °d o 0
O
0,0000
d 0000 .:
A 00 O
° 0000
11 0000
d 0000
0
d po
. L
t
Q ,
it t
?- t I i t
j
J,
/ t
r n t(j
lm ? "
t ,
t t-
11
?? f f /
1 /
t ff ?

O
d 00000
d 0000 j
d 00
i
Oob C?
,
;
Q O O 0
d O&0p t
0000
o 0 0i 0
d0°b
d OO6Q 4
ob
° 'o.Q
O
d 0 0,
d' 0 O
dopO,Q
d 0o p
d p 0\d0
d OQ
O 0.,t
° 0 0 ,.
° o?
d00
00,
d 000
° 00O
° 000,
0 O
00
0
400 0
0000
d 00 p
d 0000
d 0 O0b i
° p0 pC
000 0 0
d... 00006
d o 0 d'i
0y;O 001C
0000G
4 00
boob.
0 00
!
09 0?
a 00'
060 0
O' 0 0O
Off. Oj
00
\ 0 OOq
Q _

l I
r

j ? rTni 1

? f
f

t?
'r f i
I

AIII,

i i

•
i
\ t, I f k
? O
?p

l
l

\ I?
l
i i?
f r
i
( I
? ?' ; n t k ? I

i
Ip

i

J
C? ? •t i? i ,;

.i n
m
(t
1
t t.
1
f 1

p
?'t
t r+` J
t
?? It
-1p. -f Ae ..*G:a - BOOZ ."
t
ri
r
jr
:l
U
0
a
Y
W 0
W
N
M
V ?0
W
O
J
Q
O
QO
z
+
p a Z /D
Qw J Q
02 EL
,rill
V Cl)
z= FZ OO
oW Q O
HW J O
Q H n- O
NN H
O U)
w
z
N U G
U
C
N
C 03
i U
O g
= N C
!?e co IL
1^Qy' 1'
a ?
0" pp
R
-AAA" I
ho
E
6$
J?
c l<
5f
9E

5r g
w ?f6o
E
ait
_ "l023
0vE Q
04
6MP'NVId 5NILNVId-LZ-OZ\90-ZO-4\-old uoliow?¢aN C\OMO\M-o -01 OOOLZCBIO\:d
0 0
C
o
U
z1?
H M
O
H U
LLJ J O
n- z
- t
,

1
l
f

f
. 1
?J
1
f
1
i`
r
l
t
i
4
4
4
4
4 Q
4 ? ?f
O
4 HOC?
400bt
\ O
4 G
4 -
o?
4
.?i
a p..00vo r 1
rf ,
440000
4 O00 E
4 0000
OOQO +
4
00°0
rj U
' p? qt 1 V1
U
4 O O OO b :.st?9? s ???1 &0? x
4 00000 Jj n a
W
W
V
W
O
J

4 b 4440
0O 0 l' OO i f;f
4p?0?O L
G
cz-1Hs 33s NOuVnNUNOO WJ - -
O9+B VIS MnHavm
L
a
40
0a
cc ~
Z
a
UW
LLI
Oa
z2
LL W
O
LLJ
NN
(1) >-
N
O
C.)
w
U
C
N
i -?
O 0
?C/3
Q
g -0
Y cz
V
g
°o
N
OD
O
(J) U')
Z N
0 4-
r T
Z H
0 to
00
f-
P
fA
X 00
WF-
fA
F
11
a
?a
m
a
65
?ta
s'€
a?
aE
Y
ng
R
€s 6
J R
>:°1P'-.j >48 ..*G;a - OWZ 'YI ZI^f
8°P'NYld ONILNYld-ZZ-OZ\80-ZO-f\U°Id W14-16-N C\0MO\r °oJO wM°l On0[ZC910\:d
M
N
9 0 0
o
U
Z
1--1 z
O
H U
J o
z
?a
U ?
w
6
Q
J
O
s

+
A
D
`

T r
:r
ti f
t i
r r• i ii
E
00
000
t
3000
1
`
O,p p
p g
'o 0 0'0.. ° ., o

O? p d

0 o o )
i
00
/
)O
00
oo
0

??, ` m
pOpO
0000000
X000000000
OOOOOO J
D00000 0 0 0 0 .?
0 0 0 p
0000 /
g
O`O°O,O p+
O 0
OO '000 ?? l+ t l
000000
OO
)Op_._.
0p? OOOO;`' [ + 1
?Ir'? 1 •` j t t
?OpQOOp
O
OrO 0
D n(flnn

`
j

y '!, i r` It W
f ? .l.tl i w

t r ?(?

,i
1 ?• t

!
}
W
MOP
N V
VT 33S Is;
a
5b+9L
_U
M'
a
le
s
m ?
? sa
6 ha
cd
z`
if
So
S?
o d
d8
c?
.6
q
Vi
c°cE
•-IV'---i 149 -19:6 -BOOB 'Il Amr
OWNtlld
WAOJOI6-N C\W\>Pai3 A•ol OOOLZ£8l0\:.
U
^ w
O
a
? u
w o
w
(I
N
MU O
I.V
W $
O
J
a
a?
zo
-J a r
Z
v w J CV
= w CL
CC Z
o< Z co
O
z=
O W Q U-)
LLI 2 _j CM
F- W +
? Q
O ?-
U CI)
W
J
F
L
U
C
vi
CD
O CU
= N
N Q
E -
?
Y o
0 0 0
F N
? U
o Q ? ?
N
zZ G
H 0 ?
J
0
W Q
W o
O W 0
n
O Z N
? OMO
rn ° U
?o W a
a M
O
J
0
0 U
W
sz?? rMOUr?ti? a
so .
a O 3!y bbd
a 0 0 0
a
a O O d
000
a fr
a Q00 al
Opp
< 0,00
0066
a ? ?r 1. t
a 0, O' Q O` O `' f
,t
O.O O, a
a 000 ;? a - !,' g
a QOO x0t? 0 ?Q
0,00 ° at
' t
a 00,00 U)
a 0 d;, O X 0-< J; Z O 4-
0 0 bd ! 1 ??
a 000 O? z O
a 0'0 0 0 a% aZ
0\0 Q N
,J
x000: a =w C?
a 00 0 Q ' %` t HV Cl)
a O © Q cc Z
a 0 (a 0 J1! r °Z Z z 0
4 `, r
OO LL
W
°0Q °Q ; w W 2 aS
00 `l t' Q iW- I
o
0 O a ?L V) N
i
0'
00 a O
4 w
a O
0 U
a O 0 p`ti? / J 1 t` ? c5
00
j ca
00
0 C-)
a 0 ? ? d ?? 1 Z N
a 0Q 0 a t, lrf ," ci)a
a 0 0 a , ,' ELL
a 0 0 Q a 1'° Y ca d
Q 00 a A- ??11 z ?
a co
'a
a O O a` ?
a 0 m ' ?
a 000 a 000 1 as
x0000 r
a 0,0 a
A O Q 0 0 i a ? ? ?tNC11i
7MI
00a.Op r
Op
00'06Q6 0
0 0 t) C)O?O \ . Od a.f ' e
? a
d, a ff
0
O ? -
Q
f t
a p 0 0,000
58
aaOp0p_0 ffpa
a 000 ' €s
44444 C$
Bid
fi-'1
25-
12$8
BS€
c5'6?
o?
e -o E
o?? c
8:fs
tpt<
°ao
b° 6
z
Fq? ?? y
B Eh?x
`i..
°??
H
solP'?eel :ke wwe:e - OOOZ 'Yl LI^r B°P'NVId ONLLNVId-LZ-0C\90-ZO-t\eeld uoReu7eeN f\OMa\,we4'] •a°oi nnni>'r°in\:a

F N
U
N z
H
O
H U
-?
Li o Y LLI
?o w 0
z
00
o
u? U E5
W
we)
0
us
J
0
W g
0
EL <
m'
0
0
e
I
I
9c'. O? O
0 0
00 a
O p a
°3- O O \ (7
:,d O a zo ci
Ja +
o
\ 0o a
•
oc Z 0
aw
11 N
V? CL
w
Q
o ?-
,o Cn
a 00 oa z
op LLz ?O
o o a- ?'. o u, I-
a oo°? ! i uiw J^
025 a a? +
x'00000 a ( F-N LO
pOb0 c?>
OOgp a, O N
! a OO i
OQO i V
i? i a Oppd w I"
?? qpQ p QO 3 CO
ji.
rill I ! ! a ci
O
Q a?
0'
a p' O 0 a o -o
p
0o"O a la
<
0? . Y as IL
N 4 ?
O 1 a p d? ,P', ,a
F- o
d? pi' 6
s ° X11
10
v b' 0
a a a?M
c ko
;o b
a o; p a
a o00
00
a-
91 Afoo
s 3Nn?1Yw p P.
cJ
E l
2fi$Mg$
6$`
Ash
egg
?sE
..,P.-.f :98 woee:e - ODOZ '*, Amr
eo??
9R
Ada g
,R
E 's ? 6
sr:g
$?? 2
q$ J g 6 ?,
F, E"
g?
O Y V
6MP'NVId ONUNVId-LZ-OZ\BO-ZO-Y\UOId WRO"IBOM C\OMO\"DAO MIOI OOOLZMA:d
0 0 is
•

C]
S . t ? •A, C' S??? K ? At r
?r(

N
,!!

r

4? - y

AVG-
j r

r _
Photograph l : Lower Creek. Notice highly erosive banks with little or no riparian vegetation.

Irlfp. f r ter - ° yFyD"?. M ? r.

* ?r
'
A,
q r
4
r .'1
f- °rab

15
1fti
4

y
W+ b ??+ Jp ??t -
? r

Photograph 2: Lower Creek. Notice debris in the channel and vertical banks.
Title Existing Conditions
Prepared For:
Project
Lower Creek and Zack's Fork Sites
r-?I Caldwell County, North Carolina
hACOSVSI Date Project Number Photo Page
6/7/07 018327000 1
P:\018327000 Lower Creek\Restoration Plan'Ulwer Creek Photo Pagesl doe Prepared by Chris Tinklenberg
k
c
zx - ii .

v

rt
h'47K -
K

1¢ t 1r?
46

Npy'
'.? JAY"/` ! ^'S:?S$4 !n i4° ?AL LY..•.-
Photograph 3: Lo?wr Creek. Notice the highlN eroded thank, lack of riparian buffer, and incised conditions.

. ?` ]t?y rN g„{
-
IS

Photograph 4: LokNer Creek. Notice highly eroded bank and fallen debris.
Title Existing Conditions
Prepared Fnr

Project
Lover Creek and Lack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County. North Carolina
1'
C(1S
Ste111 Date Project Number Photo Page
_
y 67 07 018327000 2
•
•
•
P`01&i?7000 Lower CreekRestomtion PIwi L,-Creek Photo Pagesl doc Prepared by Chris TmUmberg
•
•
•
iAl

•
1

i;
f?'a ? SY aa? ft •Y ?? K a 2:

>` tr4 ° Y 1'r1 mj? b, 9 al r? t l a
o
fi
a
f

..
k ar'•;
?J? 31d
5} . € # ` i
M
"' t' } t ??
a
'
t
,
? ..I
a }•...r t t! { Ica q,?? ymyGn , ? y .. } ? .P t .., t ,
' a 1 T P`jy Z ,rP •'ra x,r:l' I• h t Ni y
11, , N. -"^ t i ?, Rf?a ;? k N afi ? j ?? •1. 1
? A
I<-'
`s #
/
'
+
7 '?
5
y
ti
r
I f" e J t ?f'40
r ` r P YI
Y . d V} yen...
r7r rti .;;a a ? t ? ? Y ? ?f ? r ? d

Photograph 5: bower Creek. Notice the failing bank and lack of riparian butter.
b
t
d
?y
Y
42??,t
l
5 Y'
? Q
1. ,> ^' ?° ?('st ? ?Ar td? `* '? j i Ra ^xm'? @ tt'-? 4y[ a'°` J y Kv?
7 . ( ¦! w •x`3°4 mb'bYi" -'>'a'
N.

'Va

M1
'
''
:!
-
?
??y ?.?
?a
•f ` r
zr ?.::
?s?.-R,'
a?yr ,v ? x
zit y R. w
k '. ids.. 3•••`gfC.. . ?p y as.+s'+14 A ??. ? .1.
.6 ?f[ ? a+C? a
q ? ? ?
Photograph 6: UT to Lower Creek. Notice the vertical bank, lack of riparian buffer, and debris in the channel.
Title Existing Conditions
Prepared For
`-
Project
Lower Creek and "Lack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
l{Mystenl Date Project Number Photo Page
6!7/07 018327000 3
P.`018127000 Cower Creek`Restoration Plan\Lower Creek Photo Pagesl.doe Prepared by Chris Tinklenbetg
t.,`vo
;yt r
Y ? .

TT' ti

° s
TKil
V
-
,
`f i it
_
r .?p'?3
?
Asa ? ?
? .
?

'+y:, ?
.y'
?- a ? I,i!
J f 1t
?'C?'^`
,?•?
•
Fil
:-? ?s+?ry
)
r3 ?C »tr ,-x
<
? +ti
i M J? ...r i?
, ??'
i,?6':
?
.
'<.
?
?
Ry{?
1
-A It

?w?

'Wit
rip+
?# ti
x?
.
?
L :rr Ytti

Photograph 7: M 'to Lower Creek. Notice highly eroded Yanks and the lack of riparian butter.
F
` X

r
t ' M F ? d'i 7'L?t?B " pr e
vIO
43 . r1L7 F ?ii? ? 1f i? r ?. 1vG 1 I t! ?•i _f

-
I -
S
1

? 4F?' • LM 1' \\ •
Y
y..
",
_.y

'- ,?. •'?`.: . l-C ? ? „ It S r/.' 9? "`? }
W* 5
'
'gA FF
41
M ?
y
Sly
?? O.•r 7jk A' ^? k ,A'?',!?'`1?
y
((
Photograph 8: UT to Lower Creek. Notice highly erosive banks and incised conditions.
Title Existing Conditions
Prepared For

Project
Lower Creek and Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell Count. North Carolina
I' MS
stem Date Project Number Photo Page
y 6/7, 07 018327000 a
•
is
•
P:'0183-000 Lower Creek Restoration Plan Lower Creek Photo Pages Ldoe Prepared by Chas Tinklenberg
•
•
•
4;
?
a
R r
1
,. !P
u
'
,
rv, to
gwRl
V 1Fd?r a jk?7?"? r - AA?4 / ?y
34
?'Ca 4 3 rF AG t e?A

h Y r -
'n?? ?,. '? q? ?? Y? Y °??,.•."Y v ?:?13W1!44 QL?i.:? ? ?ti
0tb Irk ?.i ?'
r A,
a 1y? - 'Lr r, L' rt F ?,
'
t 1
t
°
'1F
•Y
r
"
i?}
? e 1 ,-? ? /
:.
?'Rd
?
))
?
,fi
1
N?? ? ? ? ?'Ai 1 t?? t 8?`?•aag.?t??'-, - ? •? r ?
_
?? -

Photograph 9: UT to Lower Creek. Notice the vertical eroding bank.
? t + t.. ? ?s .r
011
? \ tom. 1

?
~
r f? I?
i
? ?
?', ?? ? T? ???r' 'J3 9 i
l'?
??i x1?
?` ?`t??'?
•
f
t
t
`? p^ ? N? ?
?A
C
p f A l
l'/ ? +
„11 '??! f e ! t
$.'`tliM ?y,?' i?j raj ` ; t? N!'p"q"`J`Et
(' , I
4
? per.
zi
a?
l
a?
?
a+?R.VAp ti't t{la a ?i H r .y rF i
?• ?q e'? + ?YI!6 r 31'j?
,y

- ilk t di u ? e. y`
-AA it
?1
r?1 FA r
4r?J< r i
V!, p.u*pA?7?to, 1.„
r*.. ?? AJ' -a a.?.
q t +y'tA1C.?t,
:Y+!Y' ?Z Gr.r?
1
l ?
rr >`
U `
"fir
r
` nl
fa
tln `.' v,Z-t HIV t1S r p -
6a `? ,? ?? ?i ??ti4 t?rt^ ? • r? ,?r 4 ? ? Yr. 'rt _ ? .7
+. rr
yc nip-
.- - _
.y`Ly_1 r??/;y?C
ilk
ll'

Photograph 10: OF to Lack's Fork. Notice the incised bank.
Title Existing Conditions
Prepared For:
r-?l
Project
Lower Creek and Lacks Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
1' USYSMII Date Project Number Photo Page
617/07 018327000 j
P:':0183?7000 Lower Creek, Restoration Platt\Lower Creek Photo Pages l.doe Prepared by Chris Tinklenberg
a ? - , t.o y!??'?At ?? ,•° „fi???t, .
7 %4v tea '-` `"`:,...,? j
?

?
1111 I t' °
! j -
+ d r y
1 G ? ?, 1'?
. h.
,
1
Vil .

f

r , r;,.3. r
(Y err ,V +,': •.'?-+
Photograph 11: UI to Lacks Fork. Notice trash in channel
?Jj (0

t y \ Y
Q

*f? ?...r yr
; t *` ?\ ? Y i I ,! ? N
- }_ .V ,.y
??I it '?•? 4 (4i?' ? _-..-'41'[?`•Yl'
???
•
?
_
X' w' ^4 3
r
7 If AA
?r_ ?P r y KA r A^4r?
?i
? rs? '' ?. ?> ? i ? ?"? r . y
• Y %'
?
, '
,,,iii
-

ci`
a I n; r
, ?
_i
4
r
„?? t -? ,? y'tY$ { rat r'`af
LN 1*
' ,
a? • ??

q!
:''? yf` ? ??'?"• ?/'? yry
?-.. F awe. ?t
?? ' ?,a i?
?j? ?•
? ? 'i??r
?1 ` t - t ! ? ??
~
? ?

Photograph 12: UT to Zack's Fork.
Title Existing Conditions
Prepared For
Lower Creek and Zack•s Fork Sites
Project Caldwell County. North Carolina
St?lll
1'
COS Date Project Number Photo Page
I
y 67 07 018327000 6
0
•
•
P:`.0183?7000 Lower Creek`: Restoration PLa i Lower Creek Photo Pagesl doe Prepared by Chris Tuddenberg
•
•
•
x3.,' '' f i
r
d
• ° s

5 k' 4 r > a l t? rr3tt! r

ti

•.R? it ', /I iG,,Ai!?i? - ??':, '" '(
•!?? N47

Photograph 1: Cross Section 1 looking downstream.
,r ., $

15

JN"

t4
*Mv
t 7:

+!??
i{??} 1 IR ?t ft _416A
APIA

40
1
1
Is'
1 , .s_?La
Photograph 2: Cross section 2 looking downstream.
Title Reference Site Photo Pages
Prepared For
Project
Lower Creek and Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina
?'_COS S1
y Date Project Number Photo Page
12/19/07 018327000 1
P,0183270001ower Creek`'.Restoration PlanWppendixWppendix 2-Ref. Photos\LowerCmk Prepared by Chris Tinklenberg
Ref Photo Pages.doc

?. ' i'.c y?
R.?,'lx 79,
.,J;?
+ r

+ '? ? `??.' ??'$ s :i `?' - ?' ? spy ?? i
? ?' + ?`
d? - 1
-
1
?
?,
sl
1M
(
s?
Zj DID

a r

•c•s-e ? ?
? t
? ?
F N?
jt'2?
???
s
5 ? 4 ? A? Jrti? ?_ ?,
} '?z _ .?;' era. ? 'S?? +• Ir ? !??'
w

1
`
41

l
L
Photograph 3: Bed material.

\??.- '.'s ? .' .
.

"Ir Z,

f
Arll
w 3? v
f 9?
{ a.. e:r?, Yy :,
? ?'j_C 4q/'. s >
'
'??•?
o
y
.
+
k l.gti t€ -b .v?!iR u 4 d yc? ? 3 d R
?"T *-? .+ / - .°'1' .Vl '? ww h? v?,j4c r ! r v'tf t- ' £u/•? s,r®
4Y!
v?9
`
F
`fi
?
3 ?
s
/i°
t?AM/?
Z
J
r tt?
?r4s-
ii? i?c ?v Y a y^?g? f' Yr s ?F
t - r ? i t{
{ '
?...a. ??t ..M ?.• y?. v..f"r?•S;..a ?1:` - .:'S1 :.$?=?.?'R7 a)•i.,?tp
Photograph 4: Profile looking doNNnstream.
Title Reference Site Photo Pages
Prepaed For
Project
Lo« er Creek and Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell Count. North Carolina
'
L.COSySteI11 Date Project Number Photo Page
12 19,07 018327000 2
•
•
•
P:'.01832?000 Lower Creek`'Restoralion Plan`Appendix?Appendiz '_-Ref Photos'Lower Creek Prepared by Chris Tr AJ-berg
Ref Photo Pages.doc
•
•
L1
71

q >rjr'.,,. Znk ?,. k ,ysi• I
-Yc tF' nY' n X 4

r
y
( li - •\,5 t FI „' l •? t }{ t%. { •"? v A ?? 9'. MT1Rwi'' ?.
J
It, 1
a ,'p o

%.? 7 s.? ,? S x i ',i r ?vkri ! i .f° -' 6,t•??y'i t _ `?? ?. r`
i,
?9 f ?tR ?3 4 4 !?s' yr ?a??i`?. a .i ?}7at.7a'
.77
3
?rs.(
MA
3 4 e- X
r•
`
t
fi
_
' s..t
, •? _ _r-`!i . .?11. ?? . s? '? ?F i?f~
? • tw ?i .
r.
. PjAi
Photograph 5: Profile continued looking downstream.

i Y-? Ak r w M
b{?`"
.,
+,y' ysj e r s?a 'ra

•' rs kw Nv '4 i ` ' ?Ck t, j
• 'It V? i ; 6*
j
?
4 r .. ' 11-M
_ r
.
,y ,aaR,a
- .-
1
--
-
s ?{fit C. ? ?*• ..y M +?"'-7'J
,`.
T,x'
,? , r!6
?? _ u t. ?.t?y.'? -
"?5'?r .?e?
fit
' - °
?
?
k?
- A?°!
i ?f ? .?' y '..Fr t ? .?? fi'6 ? Y? is ?'
k
T
?
TM ;e 's: -ERG 'Illt Y
?. \? .. y
G k 4:? R .:-a? , f $t w.i yD 4 S are' -

a` a'iie m
,gyp ? '?: S k ? '? ? ? ? ?? ? '?? ? ?rY R.k y.4
y
j
lr? Ask ?
'1` k ?
( X
?I ?0
?0? ? ?t Q
x
1
_
? ;
?
.i N
' ?, rf ': ?i,_ .?(}
?
Photograph 6: Profile continued looking downstream.
Title Reference Site Photo Pages
Prepared For
Project Lower Creek and Zack's Fork Sites
Caldwell County, North Carolina

F,cosystem Date Project Number
? Photo Page
?.... ?M 12/19/07 018327000 3
P018327000 Lower Creek`R2 stomdon PlanWppendixWppendix 2-Ref Photos\Lower Creek Prepared by Chris Tmklenberg
Ref Photo Pages.doc
0
•
•
P.`018327000 Cower Creek Restoration Plan'Appendmr Appendix 2-Ref Photos` Lower Creek Prepared by Chris Tin}denber¢
Ref Photo Pages.doc
•
•
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 8/812006 Project: UT Zack's Fork Latitude: 35.951869
Evaluator: TC Site: Data Form 1 Longitude: -81.488897
Total Points: 22.5 Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: Caldwell e.g. Quad Name: Kings Creek Quad
if a 19 or perennial if 2:30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 15.5
1a. Continuous bed and bank
0 %gc
1
2
3 vow
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 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3 :::1::::::::`
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainage way 0 0.5 1 1.5 ::: k::::::::::
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B. Hydrology Subtotal = 3
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season
0
1
2
3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles rack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Biology Subtotal = 4
20b. 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 0
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAG = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; sAV = 2.0; other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
0
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 818!2006 Project: UT Zack's Fork Latitude: 35.952491
Evaluator: TC Site: Data Form 2 Longitude: -81.488398
Total Points: 15.5 Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: Caldwell e.g. Quad Name: Kings Creek Quad
if Z 19 or perennial if a 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 10
1a. Continuous bed and bank ?seTtfw-
0 l11
1 ..d
2 wy ??.
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 3 :::#:::::::::
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainage way 0 0.5 1
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
B H drolo Subtotal =
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or growing season 0 1 2 3 ............
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles rack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximo hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C Q; to Subtotal = 2 5
to
20b. Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
0
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Cra Ish 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 :::0;:::::::::
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteriatfun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b Wetland !ants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACw = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; SAV = 2.0; Other= 0 [:-',
:;:;jJ;S
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
•

0
•
F_.?
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 8/8/2006 Project: UT ZacWs Fork Latitude: 35.953026
Evaluator: TC Site: Data Form 3 Longitude: -81.487716
Total Points: 21 Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: Caldwell e.g. Quad Name: Kings Creek Quad
if 219 or perennial if 2 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 13.5
1 a. Continuous bed and bank ' 's
0 x?
1 i lt?le;
2 ?trang
3 Sc?o
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sortie 0 1 2 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
B. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainage way 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or MRCS ma or other documented evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
R Hvrlrnlnnv Suhtntal = 3 5
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- d or growing season
0
1
2
3 =
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles rack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximor hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
r Rinlnnv Suhtntal = 4
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21b. 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 diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; SAV = 2.0; Other
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
•
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 8/812006 Project: U7 Zack's Fork Latitude: 35.95309
Evaluator: TC Site: Data Form 4 Longitude: -81.488017
Total Points: 11.75 Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: Caldwell e.g. Quad Name: Kings Creek Quad
if 2:19 or perennial if a 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 9 bsn ? oerae ?? EASE,
1a. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2. Sinuosi 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 3 ::< .....
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
T Braided channel 0 1 2 3 :::0::::;
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 ::
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainage way 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing No = 0 Yes = 3
USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence.
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
D. r-iyU1V1Vjq4y ouvwia+-
14. Groundwater flow/discharge
0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or p 1 2 3
Water in channel - d or growing season
Leaflitter
16 1.5 1 0.5 0
.
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles rack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximo hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
lr. DIUIVt4y JUMUiai - ?•20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0 > 0
Rooted plants in channel
21b 3 2 1 0
.
Crayfish
22 0 0.5 1 1.5
.
23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3
Fish
24 0 0.5 1 1.5
.
Amphibians
25 0 0.5 1 1.5
.
Macrobenthos note divers' and abundance
26 0 0.5 1 1.5
.
Filamentous algae; eri h on
27 0 1 2 3
.
28. Iron oxidizing bacteriatfun us 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland !ants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5; SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, item za tocuses on me presence u. mi-t , - t,
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
•
•
E
•
•
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 8/812006 Project: LT Zack's Fork Latitude: 35.951682
Evaluator: TC Site: Data Form 5 Longitude: -81.489025
Total Points: 21.5 Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: Caldwell e.g. Quad Name: Kings Creek Quad
if 2:19 or perennial if z 30
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 15.5
1a. Continuous bed and bank Cbs 1r
0 Wak-
1 =Msaiel
2
3 i?
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 3
5. Activelrelic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel ' 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainage way 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
IUSGS or NRCS ma or other documented evidence.
No = 0
Yes = 3
p::;:::::::
B. Hvdroloav Subtotal = 3.5
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season
0
1
2
3
16. Leaflitter 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 lines 0 0.5 1 1.5
19. H dric soils redoximo hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
20°. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0
21 b. Rooted cants 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 diversity and abundance 0 0.5 1 1.5 tl
27. Filamentous algae; eri h on 0 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus 0 0.5 1 1.5
29b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; 0131= 1.5; SAV = 2.0; other = 0 ....:.:.
C. Biology Subtotal = 2.5
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
0
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form, Version 3.1
Date: 8/8/2006 Project: UT Zack's Fork Latitude: 35.951428
Evaluator: TC Site: Data Form 6 Longitude: -81.489143
Total Points: 32 Other
Stream is at least intermittent County: Caldwell e.g. Quad Name: Kings Creek Quad
if >_ 19 or perennial if ? 30
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = 15.5
1a. 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 3
5. Active/relic flood lain 0 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3
9a. Natural levees 0 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
11. Grade Control 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainage way 0 0.5 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. No = 0 Yes = 3 '
a Man-made ditches are not rated; see discussion in manual
g H drolo Subtotal =
Y &Y
14. Groundwater flow/discharge
0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1 2 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles rack lines 0 0.5 1 1.5 ::::::0:5:.:-.
19. H dric soils redoximo hic features resent? No = 0 Yes = 1.5

V. viva vu--, -
20b. Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
0
21b. Rooted cants in channel 3 2 1 0
22. Crayfish
23. Bivalves 0
0 0.5
1 1
2 1.5
3
24. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos note diversity and abundance
27. Filamentous algae; erih on
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fun us 0
0
0 0.5
1
0.5 1
2
1 1.5
3
1.5
29b. Wetland !ants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBIL = 1.5; sAV = 2.0; Other = 0
b Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland prams.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:
E
•
•
LENOIR, NORTH CAROLINA
0 Period of Record General Climate Summary - Temperature
From Year=1871 To Year=2008
Station:(314938) LENOIR
Averages Daily Extremes

- ---
Monthly Averages-
F-
- Daily Extremes Monthly Extremes Max. Temp. Min. Temp.
_
Highest Lowest >_ F
[ [
Max. Min. ;Mean Hi h Date ;Low
Date [Year Year
I
Mean (Mean 90 F [32 F F32 F 0 F
(
dd/YYYY ! dd/YYYY

Days
# Days # Days # Days'
F F F IFF or F or F - F F #
YYYYmmdd YYYYmmdd
I January 51.3 27.7 39.5 80 17/1974-721/1985 54.3 50 28.4 77 0.0 1.0
21.5 0.2,
.
February 1 54.1
1 2 41.7 83 25/1930 F_-2 F 05/1996 50.1 49 31.8 471 '-0.4F 18.4 0.0,
March 62.3 35.8 49.0 93 22/1907 F 5 08/1920 58.3 45 36.9 r 60F o.6 0.1 12.0 0.0
April 71.8 43.6 57.7 9524/1925 17 01/1923 62.5 54 50.7 4 0.4 0.0 3.1 0.0

r May 79.2 52.3 65.8 98 31/1918 29 08/1906 71.7 91r 59.7 17 2.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
_F _F
June 85.3 60.5 72.9 102 27/1954 37 02/1910 78.0 52 969.5 72 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
I July 88.0 64.4 6 106 21/1926 44 01/1931 80.5 93 69.1

47 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.0,
F
August 86.9 63.5 j 75.2 105 21/1983 45F F
26/1917 8 107 72.2 40 10.2 0.0 0.0 0
0
.
September 81.8 57.4 69.6 101 06/1954 32 27/1940 r--7597 6 64.5 67 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0`
l October 72.7 45.0 58.9 96 05/1954 19 30/1910 66.7
F 84 17 0.2 0.0 3
2 0
0
.
.
November 6 35.3
F 48.1 88 02/2003 8 25/1970 58.3 85 41.81 1 0.0 0.0 13.2F 6-6
December 52.8 28_.8 40.8 0 1/7/9924 -18 30/1917 50.7
F 56 29.4 17 0.0 0.5 20.8 0.1
I A1mua1 70.7 45.3 58.0 106 19260721 -18 19171230 6
F 90 54.4 47 38.2 2.1 92.5 0.3
.... _....
Winter 9 .8 28.6 40.7 83I 19300225 -18 19171230 49.4
F 50 34.1 18 0.0 2.0 60.8 0.3
Spring_ 71.1 43.9 57.5 98 19180531 5 19200308 62.0 91 527 47 2.7 0.1 15.3 0
FS ummer 76 6? 2 8 74.7 106 19260721 37 19100602
F 78.1 87 70 4 47 31.3 0.0 0.0 0
-- --
Fall _ 72.2 45.9 59.1 101 19540906 0 19701125 64.1 8.5 9 76 4.3 0.0 16-41 6-6
Table updated on Jul 16,
For monthly and annual means, thresholds, and sums:
Months with 5 or more missing days are not considered
Years with 1 or more missing months are not considered
Seasons are climatological not calendar seasons
Winter = Dec., Jan., and Feb. Spring = Mar., Apr., and May
Summer = Jun., Jul., and Aug. Fall = Sep., Oct., and Nov.
Southeast Regional Climate Center, SERCC staff
•
W
^/1
W
L
U
L
0
J

LL
v 3 co U) y C-4 cn
a a a a
• O ? ? O + +
0
0
0
0
c
0
N
M
CN
N
8
oN
7
N
N $'
N ?C
C
N
Zn
c
O
m
U
C
f?
cn
0
N
O
8
V
O
N
O
O to O to O to O Lq O O O to O O Lo O O
O Q> Gn co co ? h GD 0 m In M co N N O O
co co co 00 co co N co Go 00 O o co co co o7 N CO
(}I) uOi}eAO13
•
N
r
C II
.O
W
? x
U A
f0 ?
't
7
Cf)
b
cc
Do.
V J ?
X II
w
? o x
^` A
W ?
L ?
U=
Y
^L c
co
W o
J
4W
x
N A
c
.5
a
c
2
C7
O
0
0
M
O
O
N
O
O
N
O
V
N
O
N
N
O
O
N
O
O
O
r
U
c
O cc
,IT
((f
o ?
r
0
N
.L
O
O
O
W
0
v
0
N
O
CID
co O O O O co a (D IN 0) W W 000 W IN 0
r r r r r r
(}}) UOIJeAOJ?j
•
•
•
c
c
rn -
I
.OC
U A
L
N
io

CV N
• ? N
X II
^Y^' ? X
W U_ q
W ?
L ?
U=
Y
L m
co
?o
J
m
II
w
A4
c ?
C
7
O
0
L)
•
O
0
O
N
co
CO
N

CV

N
O
Q
N
N
co
CCJ
O
N

0
0
00
O
00
CO
Ch

r
V

O fn
CO
r Q
cu
O
CV ?
O
N

O
Cl)
m 2
m

v

O

LO
Cl?

co

00
O
O
O co CO Q N O 00 CD N O co CO N O
O O O O O M 0) CA CA 00 co 00 co

(4) uOIJeAGG
W
O
L
Q)
L
U
L
O
J
O
L
Q)
LL
v m a a a a
• O ? ? O + X
0
0
N
O
O
O
O
O
r
7
c?
0
r
o
s ?
a?
C
cu
m
U
c
fII
D
0
0
N
O
O
O a0 U? Ch O CA C? M O CO U? M O CO Cn 0h q oq U? M O
In <T 7 a C7 M c') M N N CV N O O C) O
0) 6) CA 61 O CT CA 0) O 6) 6) O? CA 61 61 O? 6? O) O1
E
•

(11) U01}BABI-q
•
0
co
LO
LO
•
•
Ln
m
N
C I
O W
n. x
A
U ?
(0
7
co
pop.
?cle)
VJ
X
Y N
II
LH
L O V
U `°
O
? C
Y
c
Om
J
O
r
rn
II
W
x
w ?
c
a
v
c
c
0
0
LO
LO
Nr
O
'IT
to
Cl)
o U
M ?
0
N
N
0
N Z
to
0
to
0
to co N O O O N CO LO M N O O CO n O
O O O O O O O W O O O Q) p) W O W co 00 co O
(4) UOIIBA813
N
N II
c
o w
x
(L
A
U ?
(0
7
2
m
7
191-
U)
X N
II
? w
x
L o Q
U
L ?
Y
m
O?
? m
O
II
W
N x
c
0
a
a
c
0
C7
?I
•
0
m
LO
O
LO
47
V
to
co
O
Cl) U •
C
co
0
L
N a-
N
L
o O
N Z
O
LO
0
(o Cl) N O O N f- (D LO M N O O 00 r- (O (o
O O O O O O m W O 0 O a O) O O m O O O O O
(4) UOIJeAO13
•
CJ
•
•
W
I..L
i
U
L
O
J
O
L
O
J
LL
Cl)
m EL a a
• o ? ? o + x
O
O
Cl)

N
O
0
N
O
n
N

N
O
CN
N
0
a
N
p
(`14
N
O
N
N
o_
N
8
N

--- --- -- -- -- --- -- C)
0

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

O
V
p
M
O
N
0
g

0
0
0

0
v
O
Cl)
O
N
O

O
O Lq O U O U O U O to p U( p U( O UC

co
o
co
0
M O 47 O t O
i
O 00) cm 0
1 00) i
O 00) 00) 00) O p 00) 001 co W OOD OM0

ca
a)
C
O
cu
a)
U
C
ca
i5
(;I) uol;ena13
r
Ln
N
+N-II
C
O W
d x
A
(D
?
lC
7
U)
N
(0

V J
X
V N
W II
W
L O x
U A
U_ O
a
L ?
Y
C
O ?
J C°
c
rn
II
W
x
N A
c ?
0
a
c
7
0
C?
rl
0
0
LO
O
LO
LO
LO
co
M c i
N (u
N
O
N
0
N
to
0
0
L V co N O m co r- O Lo M N O W a0 O U7
O O O O O O m a) O) O) 0) rn O W rn co 0 o 00 00
r r r r r r
(4) U01jen813
i
•
•
m
m
rn II
C
.o w
CL x
U A
U ?
7
co
N
CO
pop-
RCN
(n
X m
II
? w
L o ?
L ?
Y
7
l0
Oal
co
0
m
II
W
x
rn A
c ?
n.
v
c
3
OO
O
Cn
00
a
cc
a
a
v
N
C
O
00
Cl)
M
Ch
N
Cl)
O
CO
CC)
N
N
v
N
N
N
N
00
V
N
O
00
V
N
O
O Lq O Cn O to O lA O CA O Lq O Lq O Lq O iA O Lq O
O CA 00 00 I- N CO CO LO CA ' Cl) Cl) N N O O
N O 0) O a) 0) rn O a) 0) O cm 0) 0) (n m 0) W O O
a- - - e- - - - - - c- - - - - - - - - .--

U
C
(B
O
N
L
2
0 (U) UOIJeAGG

m
00
II
C
O W
a X
N ?
U ?
f0
7
N
(6

m
II
V
4
''^^ U
V/
c
?
U
Co
Y
c
Nm
I
w
X
Cn A
O
IL
c
0
C7
(4) UOIJBAOJ?j
O
LO
00
14,
O
v
v
N
V
O
O
Cl)
CO
Cl)
M
N
M
O
m
CO
N
CD
N
It
N
N
N
a
00
CO
V
N
O
co
c
N
O

N
U
C
M
t0
C
O
N
.L
O
•
2
•
O to O UC O Cfi O Lq O UQ O to q to O In O UA O In q
O 0) 0) co co f- f- CO CO LO to *4:11 V M CO N N ; ; O O
O O 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) O 0) 0)
•
U) LL
v m co Cl)
a
• O ? ? O + X
0
v
8
0
N
O
8

N
44-
O
L
L
O
LL.
_cn
U
ca
N
O
4-0
Z)
8
8 $
E
ca
O n
n cn
0)
C
O
m
8 ?
U
C
cn
U9 q

8
0
N
O
•
O
O to O O U? O O to O O U? O O U? O to O
(31) u011enel=l

r
c w
o x
CL a
U
(II
7
O
m

T-
V)
X
II
L w
0 x
N C]
U
C
U Y
m
N
O
L r
M
I
V
x
U? 3
c
O
a
c
0
C7
l!
(4) Uoi}enaJ?j
O
LO
co
v
O
v
v
N
O
V
co
M
CD
M
M
N
co
O
co
co
N
N
V
N
N
N
O
N
CD
N
O
O
(D
IT
N
O

U
C
(0
0
N
L
0
•
2
•
O to q U7 O Lq O (n O ([) O to O (O O Lq O (() O Lr? O
00 r- r- co (0 LO In ? [t Cl) Cl) CN N ? ? O O (A O) OD QO
(P (A O CA Cn (A (P O CA (P (A W (P O (A (P (P O N N M
r r r ? r r ? r ? r .- ? r r ? r ? r ? r
•

V
O
N
d

? O
r

'd

vi
a

s81£
Nz??
"We

m

m
r
O
C

a

m

a
0
N

a

m

m

Q
N

m

r
N

oor

m

m

o
O
oo-.? r
N

-

?o

v

w P+

m 6
O
N
0
#
r
eN'
N
Q
K eo N OO
r
ILADM Ag taum luawad
e
N
N
C

V
_

1
?br
L
V/

W
N
U)
Z

? T K7
V ? 1.n

91
` v o co
o t" o
m
C
Q?
G Z
EA "i O

J
Q.
1
..I

R
x

a m
a
?
u
w
co i

a

z ,3 M ? o ?
m ? x CL x
T. 'q X r o
0 s W m

Z n

39
rn
a ? 9
o
X
z
`l
n
r
r
:a
r
T
0
? a O
z
o
cti ?
Im
'. o
O
~
.a m
W m
C ?a 0
z a D CL
r s
.? O
w
tp
ON ,
- D
z

N
. m
?v_
?
vi

C
0
Z
1 ?
1 a
3
m
Percent Finer By Weight
J
-
ao o a w
o a n?
a o M
o V
a CO o m o
0 0

0
m r

h
P

N
'
o

W
v
m

A "Oo .
-100
N

-Ar
m

m
?
a

N
0

m

w

A

N
C3
0

m

A

N
a
0
a

m

a
R
i
314"
112"
M.
c
t
7

•
c
in
C!3
n ?
? (n
m
cc
o
to
N
V
m
G
c?
C

•
o ; in
?r
o ?
E
E
a
N
y
r:
r? o
N O
C) O
Co O
Lo C?l
• _ O
O
COT O O
O O
C> Il_ O
O O CO
C> CO C.')
O - O3
O C) C7
O m O
O m CV
O -q-
O O M
C=? C7 O
CO ?
?- O
CV CV CV
CD co co

fl-C:)
CO
'C M U!
C
O

N 0
Y
to
tQ
til- U
t
C 0
U.
0
m F- 7,
U H
m

c _0 m
m
o
N
m O V t V
m
• 0 N w
J !!? Q V d J

r
i
i
i
i
r
•
A irclhlaeolloglL caill Suir vew of the
]Loweir Cir eelkc aurn(dl lU[T to Zat c]Lc s )F(o)jrlLt cr ee]k,
S stir eaunnt Restoration A ire,ai s,
Caldwell County,. Noirth Carolina
*f
,
4
4
4

F? lam, _GN ?k? -

• f
?,-` 'tea ' ?? ? ? i p? ? ` ,, [, -..?,? _ ,?? '? - -
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS OF TIH[]E CAROLINAS, IIN C.
,0,07
C
Archaeological Survey of the Lower Creek
and UT to Zacks Fork Creek Stream Restoration Areas
Caldwell County, North Carolina
ER 06-2067
Prepared for
Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Inc.
Raleigh, North Carolina
17?
Prepared by
Michael Keith O'Neal
Principal Investigator
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
2007
• Management Summary
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC), conducted an archaeological
survey of the Lower Creek and UT to Zacks Fork Creek stream restoration areas in Caldwell
County, North Carolina. This project was conducted as part of the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) on behalf of the Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Inc., and was
undertaken pursuant to state and federal regulations regarding the preservation and management
of cultural resources. The goals of EEP are to restore, enhance, preserve, and protect the
functions associated with wetlands, streams, and riparian areas. The goals of the project were to
identify all archaeological resources located within the stream restoration area, evaluate those
resources based upon National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria, and provide
management recommendations, as appropriate.
This investigation included two stream restoration areas. The first survey area contained
a portion of Lower Creek and one of its unnamed tributaries in Gamewell, North Carolina. The
Lower Creek segment consisted of a 680-meter long corridor along Lower Creek extending
south from Rocky Road to its convergence with the unnamed tributary. From the convergence,
the corridor extended northeast for 520 meters along the unnamed tributary. The corridor
extended 15 meters on either side of Lower Creek and 10 meters on either side of the unnamed
I tributary. The second survey area included a portion of an unnamed tributary of Zacks Fork
• Creek located northeast of Lenoir, North Carolina. This survey corridor had a length of
approximately 304 meters and a width that encompassed 10 meters on either side of the
drainage.
Background research was conducted at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology
(OSA) in Raleigh, North Carolina. No previously recorded archaeological sites are located
within the Lower Creek stream restoration area.
Archaeological survey consisted of systematic shovel testing at 30 meter intervals in
transects placed on both sides of the creeks within the project areas. All areas of exposed ground
surface were also inspected for the presence of cultural remains. No artifacts or cultural features
were identified within either of the stream restoration survey areas. As no significant
archaeological resources will be impacted by the proposed stream restoration, clearance to
proceed is recommended.
• ii
Table of Contents •
Page
Management Summary .............................................................................................................. ii
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ iv
Chapter 1. Introduction and Investigation Methods ................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................... I
Project Area ................................................................................................................... 1
Methods of Investigation ................................................................................................ 6
Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview ..................................................................... 9
Environmental Overview ................................................................................................ 9
Cultural Overview ........................................................................................................ 11
Chapter 3. Results of Field Investigations ............................................................................... 20
Background Research Results ...................................................................................... 20 •
Archaeological Survey Results ..................................................................................... 20
Summary and Recommendations .................................................................................. 22
References Cited ...................................................................................................................... 23
Appendix A. Resume of Principal Investigator
iii 0
• List of Figures
Page
Figure 1.

Figure 2.
Figure 3. Map showing the location of the Lower Creek stream restoration area
(1956 Lenoir, NC USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle) .................
View of the stream restoration corridor along Lower Creek ...............
View of the stream restoration corridor between the unnamed tributar
of Lower Creek and the tree farm. y
Figure 4. Map showing the location of the UT to Zacks Fork Creek stream restoration
area (1997 Kings Creek, NC USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle). ........... 4
Figure 5. View of the pasture portion of the UT to Zacks Fork Creek
survey corridor....... 5
Figure 6. View of the wooded portion of the UT to Zacks Fork Creek survey corridor...... 5
Figure 7.
• Physiographic map of North Carolina showing the location of the project
area ............................
...............................................
Figure 8. Map showing the location of the two stream restoration areas within
the Catawba River Basi
n .....................................
Figure 9. View of the eroded bank and low lying sandy area along Lower Creek . ............ 21
Figure 10. View of the bank profile along Lower Creek.........
List of Figures
Page
Table 1. Prehistoric Cultural Sequence for the Project Vicinity............
0 iv
Chapter 1. Introduction and Investigation Methods •
Introduction
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC), conducted an
archaeological survey of the Lower Creek and UT to Zacks Fork Creek stream restoration areas
in Caldwell County, North Carolina. This project was conducted as part of the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) on behalf of the Robert J. Goldstein and Associates,
Inc., and was undertaken pursuant to state and federal regulations regarding the preservation and
management of cultural resources. The EEP strives to restore, enhance, preserve, and protect the
functions associated with wetlands, streams, and riparian areas. The goals of the project were to
identify all archaeological resources located within the stream restoration area, evaluate those
resources based upon National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria, and provide
management recommendations, as appropriate.
Project Area
This investigation included two stream restoration areas in Caldwell County. The first
project area was located along Lower Creek and one of its unnamed tributaries in Gamewell,
North Carolina (Figure 1). The survey corridor began at Rocky Road and extended south for •
680 meters along Lower Creek to its convergence with an unnamed tributary. This portion of
the corridor extended 15 meters along both banks of Lower Creek. The unnamed tributary
portion of the corridor began at the tributary's convergence with Lower Creek and extended
northeast for 520 meters. The corridor width along the unnamed tributary encompassed 10
meters along both banks. The Lower Creek stream restoration area is characterized by pasture
east of Lower Creek and northwest of the unnamed tributary (Figure 2). The western bank of
Lower Creek is wooded. The southeastern bank of the unnamed tributary is characterized by a
thin strip of trees that border a tree farm (Figure 3).
The second project area is located along an unnamed tributary of Zacks Fork Creek,
northeast of Lenoir, North Carolina (Figure 4). The survey area begins along Spring Meadow
Road and extends northeast for approximately 304 meters. The corridor width extends 10 meters
from the banks of the drainage. The project area is characterized by pasture (Figure 5) along the
northern portion of the corridor and predominantly hardwood forest (Figure 6) along the
southern portion of the project area..
E
i

•
-IQ
{
FIN
I
ff
z-
i
`r ,. ? ('ll`?. - .tl ?. % ? ?? •,1? ' --?? 'moo. T .• .4? ?T ?_??
I 1 n >,
v? r ry (? ( .r !C
11
2
CC3
i
c
F64

Figure 2. View of stream restoration corridor along Lower Creek.

tributary of Lower Creek and the tree farm.
r?

3
i
•
•
4
?n
o?
v
a,
a,
U
0
0
ct
x
2
J
0
cn
x
U
O
O
bA
'r1
ca
a'
U_
C?
lr
bA
O
t3,
O
N

Figure 5. View of the pasture portion of the UT to Zacks Fork Creek
survey corridor.
7
n f ? ,
F e _ a ? r+
r
t + v < F' +
t
Figure 6. View of the wooded portion of the UT to Zacks Fork Creek
survey corridor.
•
•
5 0
Methods of Investigation
•
Archaeological investigations are generally comprised of four separate tasks:
Background Research, Field Investigations, Laboratory Analysis, and Report Production.
Laboratory analysis was not necessary for this project as no artifacts were recovered. However,
four tasks are described in detail below.
Background Research began with a review of archaeological site forms, maps, and
reports on file at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh, North Carolina. This review
serves to identify previously recorded resources in the project vicinity and provides data on the
prehistoric and historic context of the project tract. Historic maps of Caldwell County and the
project vicinity also were examined. Finally, the Caldwell County Soil Survey was consulted to
determine soil types within the project tract and environmental characteristics of the surrounding
area.
Field Investigations consisted of the excavation of shovel tests at 30 meter intervals
along two transects, one transect on either side of the creeks. Shovel tests measured
approximately 30 cm in diameter and were excavated into sterile subsoil. All fill was screened
through 1 /4 inch hardware cloth. The soil stratigraphy of each shovel test and artifact content
• was recorded in field notebooks.
An archaeological site is defined as an area containing three or more artifacts of a
possible single occupation in a 30 meter or less diameter of surface exposure; or where at least
two shovel tests within 30 meters contain one or more artifacts; or where surface or subsurface
cultural features are present. If an area does not contain features or ruins, artifacts recovered
must have some utility of meaning associated with their location (i.e., the area containing
artifacts is of interest to a research, educational, or other purpose). A relatively small number of
obviously redeposited artifacts, even if greater than three in number, would typically not be
defined as a site without a compelling research or other reason. Similarly, artifacts of recent age
(less than 50 years) would typically not define a site without a compelling research or
management reason.
Isolated finds are those locations with fewer than three artifacts, not containing features
or ruins. As noted above, an isolated find may also be represented by more than five artifacts if
the location has no utility of meaning for research or other purpose. Isolated finds are generally
assumed to be ineligible for the NRHP; however, recording of these finds includes location and
environmental data similar to that recorded for archaeological sites.
0 6
One of the goals of this project was to provide sufficient
ent data to the State Historic •
Preservation Office (SHPO) to determine whether any cultural resources identified were
significant. Cultural resources (i.e., districts, buildings, structures, sites, and objects) are
generally evaluated based on the criteria for eligibility to the NRHP, as specified in Department
of Interior Regulations 36 CFR Part 60: National Register of Historic Places. According to 36
CFR Part 60.4 (Criteria for evaluation), cultural resources (referred to as properties in the
regulations) can be defined as significant (i.e., eligible for the NRHP) if they "possess integrity
of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association," and if they:
(A) Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad pattern of history; or
(B) Are associated with the lives of persons significant in the past; or
(C) Embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or represents the work of a master, possesses high artistic
values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction; or
(D) Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in
prehistory or history.
Archaeological sites are usually evaluated relative to Criterion D. As locations of human
activities which include physical remains of those activities, archaeological sites are potential
sources of important information. However, some archaeological sites, particularly those •
representing historic period occupation or use, can be considered eligible under Criterion A (if
they are associated with specific important events or trends in American history), under Criterion
B (if they are associated with important people), or under Criterion C (if important structural
elements are preserved) (Savage and Pope 1998; Townsend et al. 1993). Architectural resources
can be recommended eligible for the NRHP under any of the criteria, and are frequently
recommended under several.
Laboratory Analysis was not necessary, as no artifacts were recovered. However, the
analysis would have begun with washing all recovered artifacts. A provenience number, based
on the context of the artifact (i.e., surface or subsurface), would have been assigned to each
positive shovel test location, unit level, or feature. Within each provenience, each individual
artifact or artifact class would have then been assigned a number. Artifacts would have been
cataloged based on specific morphological characteristics such as material in the case of lithics
and decoration and temper type in the case of ceramics. Historic ceramics would be compared to
published typed descriptions and cataloged by type when possible. Artifact descriptions, counts,
and weights would be recorded. All diagnostic and cross-mended artifacts would have been
labeled with a solution of Acryloid B-72 and acid-free permanent ink.
Report Preparation involved the compilation of all data gathered during the previous
•
tasks. This document presents the results of the background research and field investigations.
L The following chapters provide environmental and cultural overviews for the project area. Next,
the results of the field investigation are discussed. Finally, a summary of the overall project is
presented along with management recommendations, as appropriate.
•
0
Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview •
The most significant research value of cultural resources lies in their ability to address
questions about the lifeways of past inhabitants of the region. These lifeways were influenced
by the natural and cultural settings in which people lived. The following discussion presents an
overview of the environmental and cultural setting of this part of North Carolina. These data
provide a context for evaluating cultural resources identified during this investigation.
Environmental Overview
Caldwell County is situated between the Blue Ridge Mountains and the Catawba River.
The northern part of the county lies in the Blue Ridge physiographic province and the southern
part falls within the Piedmont province. The project area is within the Piedmont province
(Figure 7). The Piedmont portion of the county is characterized by broad uplands.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Physiogyr aphic Provinces
TIDEWATER
7 -7 BLUE RIDGE •i,. I.
PIEDMONT
MIDDLE AND UPPER
COASTAL PLAIN
NORTI I CAROLINA CENTER FOR
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ANALYSIS N
U ?_-n _IrwMd?S
Atiqua 1997 .'
r figure 7. Physiographic map of North Carolina showing the location of the project area.
is
9
•
The unnamed tributary to Zacks Fork Creek flows into Zacks Fork Creek before reaching
Lower Creek in Lenoir, North Carolina. Lower Creek is a tributary of the Catawba River, which
drains the southern portion of the county. Figure 8 shows the locations of the two stream
restoration areas within the Catawba River Basin. The Catawba River flows south into South
Carolina where it becomes the Wateree River. The Wateree and Congaree rivers converge to
form the Santee River, which ultimately drains into the Atlantic Ocean near the Georgetown and
Charleston county line in South Carolina.
of the Catawba
ARA
MrrncmD
r1:.n no ee.n?g
N. i.rr
- am il.r
UT to Zacks Fork Creek
•
•
11, r 11,
J egged
C-D
I_..I, nt, Pi. un Aar;
rir,o???uarer

I? F' rr a o ? r .
e- .. ? PI rr?u rro?ram r. .::
Lower Creel< r
,Im
, w 1 1..- Far<
•,_; ? sFl?? a, rF? ,Ir<
narnl ,
li [[r. Jrr
u; - ?r lla?n::n
1:.11-,.eu
C 1rrr;?n. ?:u. r,
.Fig llc, 1.
tirrga. c. It <ImI, ¢.
uolivu _,. ...
_7 11Irt
1.471
I,rl.? . TIaN
N ..i.,
r IgUI-C O. iviap snowing the location of the two stream restoration areas within the Catawba
River Basin.
Temperatures in Caldwell County average between 39 and 49 degrees Fahrenheit during
winter months, and between 58 and 75 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer. Annual precipitation
is approximately 50.2 inches. Snowfall averages 8.3 inches per year, primarily in the
mountainous portions of the county (Ortosky 1989).
According to the North Carolina Geologic Survey geologic map of North Carolina
(NCGS 1985), the geology in the southern portion of Caldwell County is formed from igneous
10
and metamorphic rocks, consisting largely of gneiss, schist, and granite. Chewacla loam •
characterizes Lower Creek and its unnamed tributary within the project area. This soil type is
nearly level, somewhat poorly drained, and occasionally floods. It forms on creek floodplains in
Caldwell County (Ortosky 1989). Wehadkee loam and Rion sandy loam characterize the UT to
Zacks Fork Creek survey area. Wehadkee loam is poorly drained and frequently flooded. It
forms on floodplains along streams. Rion sandy loam is well-drained and has slopes ranging
from 25 to 40 percent. This soil type is found on side slopes in Piedmont areas (Ortosky 1989).
The region provides habitats for a number of wild mammals, including black bear, deer,
raccoon, fox, rabbit, squirrel, opossum, bobcat, and chipmunk (Mathis 1995). Bird species in the
region include mourning dove, grouse, wood ducks, mallards, black ducks, and numerous non-
game bird species.
Cultural Overview
The cultural history of North America can be divided into three general eras: Pre-
Contact, Contact, and Post-Contact. The Pre-Contact era includes primarily the Native
American groups and cultures that were present for at least 12,000 years prior to the arrival of
Europeans. The Contact era is the time of exploration and initial European settlement on the
continent. The Post-Contact era is the time after the establishment of European settlements,
when Native American populations usually were in rapid decline. Within these eras, finer
temporal and cultural subdivisions have been defined to permit discussions of particular events •
and the lifeways of the peoples who inhabited North America at that time. The following
discussion first summarizes the various periods of Native American occupation in the western
half of North Carolina, emphasizing cultural change, settlement, and site function throughout
prehistory. Table 1 provides a summary of the chronological sequence of Native American
occupation of the region.
Pre-Contact Era
Paleoindian Period (12000 - 8000 BC). The actual dates applied to the Paleoindian
period are currently being debated. The accepted theory about the peopling of North America
dates the influx of migrant bands of hunter-gatherers to approximately 12,000 years ago. This
date corresponds with the exposure of a land bridge linking Siberia to the North American
continent (Driver 1998; Jackson et al. 1997). Recently, however, researchers have suggested
that this migration occurred as much as 15,000 to 20,000 years ago and was led by seagoing
travelers (see Green et al. 1998; Steele and Powell 1993, 1994). These recent theories are
supported by such discoveries as Kennewick Man, a skeleton recovered in Washington, and the
Gordon Creek Woman, who was recovered from a site in northern Colorado. The Kennewick
Man skeleton has been determined to be over 11,000 years old (Morell 1998; Preston 1997; and
Slayman 1997). The Gordon Creek Woman has been dated to 9,700 years BC or nearly 11,700
years old (Swedlund and Anderson 1999). Other discoveries, such as the Monte Verde site in
11
Table 1. Prehistoric Cultural Sequence for the Project Vicinity.
•
Period Characteristics
Paleoindian (12000-8000 BC) -Hunter-gatherers
-Fluted projectile points: Clovis, Dalton, Hardaway
Early Archaic (8000-6000 BC) -Hunter-gatherers, seasonal rounds
I Palmer Phase (8000-7000 BC) -Notched points: Palmer, Kirk
Kirk Phase (7000-6000 BC) -Production of textiles
I' Middle Archaic (6000-3000 BC) -I-lunter-gatherers, seasonal rounds
Stanly Phase (6000-500013C) -Temporary camps, no substantial dwellings
Morrow Mountain Phase (50004500 BC) -Stemmed points: Stanly, Morrow Mountain, Guilford
Halifax
Guilford Phase (4500-4000 BC) ,
Halifax Phase (4000-3000 BC)
Late Archaic (3000-1000 BC) -increased site size, more permanence as evidenced by burials

Savannah River Phase ,
hearths, and other cultural features
-Stemmed projectile points: Otarre Stemmed, Savannah River
-First incidence of ceramic production 2000BC: Stallings Island
Fiber Tempered (in coastal areas)
Early Woodland (1000-300 BC) -Regional differences more pronounced
Swannanoa Phase -Swannanoa ceramics, Fabric Impressed or Cord Marked
-Large triangular projectile points
-introduction of bow and arrow
Middle/Late Woodland (300 BC-1100 AD) -Yadkin Triangular projectile points
Pigeon Phase -Changes in ceramic temper from sand to crushed quartz
-Check Stamped pottery
Connestee Phase -llopewellian influence
• -Swift Creek Complicated Stamp ceramics
Mississippian (1100-1600 AD) -Palisaded villages and ceremonial centers
McDowell Phase -Mound construction
Burke Phase -Complicated stamped ceramics
-Small triangular projectile points
-Reliance on farming-
South America that has been dated to 12,500 years before present (BP) (Diflehay 1997; Meltzer
et al. 1997), continue to fuel this controversy.
The major artifact marker for this period is the Clovis lanceolate fluted spear point
(Gardner 1974, 1989; Griffin 1967). Smaller fluted and nonfluted lanceolate spear points, such
as Dalton and Hardaway point types, are characteristic of the later portion of the period
(Goodyear 1982). The Hardaway point, first described by Coe (1964), is seen as a regional
variant of Dalton (Oliver 1985; Ward 1983). Perkinson (1971, 1973) recorded Paleoindian
fluted points in North Carolina. Fluted Clovis points have been recovered from surface contexts,
but no intact Clovis sites have been reported in the Piedmont region of North Carolina (Hargrove
1998).
The Piedmont of North Carolina appears to have been more intensively occupied than the
Coastal Plain by Paleoindian peoples. This is in contrast to distribution studies in South
Carolina, which show more fluted points in the Coastal Plain than in the Piedmont (Goodyear et
0 12
al. 1989). Stoltman (1965) mapped the occurrence of fluted point finds in the eastern United •
States and noted that these had a high correlation with reports of extinct mastodon finds in the
region. They concluded that Paleoindian hunters were focusing on mastodon. Other researchers
(Anderson and Joseph 1988; Michie 1977; Steponaitis 1986) have noted that fluted points are
most common near major rivers at areas where river valleys are constricted providing ease in
fording the waterways, such as the Fall Line Zone (where mastodon and other Pleistocene game
animals would be concentrated).
Most Paleoindian materials occur as isolated surface finds in the eastern United States;
this indicates to many scholars that population density was extremely low during this period, and
that groups were small and highly mobile (Meltzer 1988). It has been noted that group
movements were probably well scheduled and that some semblance of territories was probably
maintained to ensure adequate arrangements for procuring mates and maintaining population
levels (Anderson and Hanson 1988). O'Steen et al. (1986) analyzed Paleoindian settlement
patterns in the Oconee River valley in northeastern Georgia. O'Steen et al. (1986) noted a
pattern of decreasing mobility throughout the Paleoindian period. Sites of the earliest portion of
the period seem to be restricted to the flood plains, while later sites were distributed widely in
the uplands, showing what O'Steen et al. (1986) interpreted as "settling in" and exploitation of a
wider range of environmental subsistence resources. If this pattern holds true for the Southeast
in general, it may be a result of changing environments trending toward increased deciduous
forest and small mammal resources, and decreasing availability of Pleistocene megafauna;
population growth could be another factor.
•
Archaic Period (8000 - 1000 BC). The Archaic period has been the focus of considerable
research in the Southeast. Two major areas of research have dominated: (1) the development of
chronological subdivisions for the period based on diagnostic artifacts, and (2) the understanding
of settlement/subsistence trends for successive cultures.
Coe's (1964) excavations at several sites in the North Carolina Piedmont provided a
chronological sequence for the period based on diagnostic projectile points. Coe's (1964)
sequence for the Archaic period has been divided into three subperiods: Early (8000-6000 BC),
Middle (6000-3500 BC), and Late (3500-1000 BC). Coe defined the Early Archaic subperiod
based on the presence in site assemblages of Palmer and Kirk Corner Notched projectile points.
More recent studies have defined other Early Archaic corner notched points, such as Taylor, Big
Sandy, and Bolen types. Generally similar projectile points (e.g., LeCroy points), but with
commonly serrated edges and characteristic bifurcated bases, have also been identified as being
representative of the Early Archaic subperiod (Broyles 1981; Chapman 1985). The Early
Archaic points of the North Carolina Piedmont are typically produced with metavolcanic
material, although occasional chert, quartz, or quartzite examples have been recovered.
Claggett and Cable (1982), using a settlement/subsistence typology developed by Binford
(1980), described late Paleoindian and Early Archaic populations as "logistical." Task groups
were sent out to collect and bring back resources to the residential base camp. Logistical task
13
groups, in this definition, are seen as specialized and focused on
• a particular resource or set of
resources.
Claggett and Cable (1982) have presented a model that describes an increase in
residential mobility beginning in the Early Archaic and extending into the Middle Archaic.
According to this model, the Early Archaic, and probably extending into the Middle Archaic,
human groups moved away from a logistical organization toward a "foraging" organization.
Foraging involved more generalized procurement of resources (e.g., animal and plant foods,
lithic resources) in closer proximity to a base camp. Sassaman (1983) hypothesizes that actual
group residential mobility increased during the Middle Archaic although it occurred within a
more restricted range. Range restriction is generally a result of increased population in the
Southeast and crowding with group territories (Sassaman 1983); this increase in population led
to increased social fluidity during the Middle Archaic and a lower need for scheduled
aggregation for mate exchange. In Sassaman's view, technology during the Middle Archaic is
highly expedient; this is reflected in an almost exclusive use of local resources (especially lithic
material).
The transition to the Middle Archaic subperiod is defined by the appearance/introduction
of Stanly points, a broad-bladed stemmed form. These were followed by Morrow Mountain
points, which are characteristically manufactured from quartz, and have been recovered from
numerous small sites throughout Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia. Guilford points, also
often made of quartz, follow Morrow Mountain in the Middle Archaic sequence. Coe dates
Halifax Side Notched points to between 4000 and 3000 B.C. In 1964, Coe saw Halifax points as
• occurring only in the northern North Carolina Piedmont and indicating relationships of this area
to the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. Halifax points are now seen to have a wider distribution in
the Southeast, and are thought to mark the transition between the Middle and Late Archaic
subperiods.
The hallmark of the Late Archaic subperiod is the Savannah River Stemmed point (Coe
1964). This large, broad-bladed and stemmed point is found widely over the eastern United
States. It is associated with Late Archaic occupations in the mountains and uplands as well as at
coastal midden sites of the period. Also, the earliest ceramics produced in North America are
associated with the Late Archaic subperiod and date to around 2000 BC. These ceramics are
Stallings Island Fiber Tempered and are primarily a coastal phenomena, stretching from northern
Florida to southern North Carolina.
Sites of the later phases of the Archaic are generally larger and more complex than earlier
sites (Caldwell 1952; Coe 1952; Griffin 1952; Lewis and Kneberg 1959). These sites are
generally in riverine settings within the Piedmont and are hypothesized to indicate greatly
increased sedentism during the Late Archaic, with a focus on fish, shellfish, and flood plain
resources. Small Late Archaic sites in the uplands of the Piedmont are interpreted as logistical
collection and hunting camps (Anderson and Joseph 1988).
• 14
Woodland Period (1000 BC - 1100 AD). The Woodland period of this area was a time of •
increasing cultural diversity stimulated by ideas from outside the region (Ward and Davis 1999).
The Woodland period is characterized by the Swannanoa phase. The pottery series from this
phase, as defined by Keel (1976) has crushed quartz or coarse sand temper, and relatively thick
walls. Small, stemmed projectile points called Swannanoa Stemmed, Plott Stemmed, and Gypsy
points are found in the mountains at this time. These point are stratigraphically associated with a
larger triangular point type called "Transylvania Triangular" that appears to be in connection
with the introduction of the bow and arrow during the Swannanoa phase. Available settlement
data also suggests a continuation of Archaic lifestyles (Ward and Davis 1999).
Two distinct phases of occupation are recognized for the Middle Woodland in the
mountains of North Carolina: the Pigeon phase (300 BC - 200 AD) and the Connestee phase
(200 AD - 800 AD). Pigeon phase pottery is identified by the use of fairly large amounts of
crushed quartz temper, surface treatments of check stamping (in addition to plain, simple
stamped, brushed, and complicated stamped treatments), the use of tetrapodal supports on the
vessel base, and an "iridescent sheen" on the interior surface (Ward and Davis 1999). Vessel
forms include simple bowls and necked jars. Small side-notched and triangular projectile points,
expanded-center bar gorgets, grooved axes, Celts, flake scrapers, ceramic popes, and a variety of
hammerstones are also probably associated with the Pigeon phase (Ward and Davis 1999).
There may have been an increasing reliance on horticulture resulting in a shift toward greater use
of fertile bottomlands (Purrington 1983). Connestee series pottery consists of thin-walled
vessels that are fine sand tempered with an occasional crushed quartz fragment. Vessel forms
include flat-bottomed jars that sometimes have small tetrapodal supports, and bowls and jars •
without supports. The surface of these pots is usually plain, brushed or simple stamped, but also
include cord marking, fabric marking, check stamping, and complicated stamping (Ward and
Davis 1999). Other artifacts from the Connestee phase include clay figurines, stone blades, and
copper sheets and beads.
Mississippian Period (1100 - 1600 AD). Overall, the Mississippian Period is
characterized by complicated stamped ceramics, small triangular projectile points, a reliance on
farming, and elaborate ceremonialism. Sites from this time frame include large village sites,
often with at least one earthen mound, and small, scattered farmsteads. Site locations tend to be
located on flood plains and rises overlooking river and stream valleys (Hargrove 1991; Keel
1976; May 1989; Oliver 1992; and Ward 1965).
In the Catawba Valley, the Mississippian Period is distinctly represented by regional
phases referred to as the McDowell and Burke phases (Moore 2003; Ward and Davis 1999).
Sites associated with the Burke phase are located in the upper reaches of the Catawba and
Yadkin rivers. The Berry site in Burke County is one of the key Mississippian sites in the
Catawba River Valley. The ceramics associated with the Burke phase are distinct because they
tend to be soapstone tempered. These soapstone tempered sherds occur almost exclusively in
Burke, Caldwell, and Catawba Counties. Exterior surface treatments are typical for the
Mississippian Period in other parts of the Southeast, with plain, burnished, and complicated
stamped surfaces. There is a contemporaneous pottery type called Cowans Ford series. This
15 0
pottery series has the same surface treatments as Burke pottery, but has sand and/or crushed
quartz as temper instead of soapstone (Moore 2003).
Contact Era
In the decades following the expedition of Christopher Columbus, the coast and interior
portions of what would become North Carolina were explored. Much of this activity was
initiated by Spain in the hope of preserving its hegemony over North America. Hernando de
Soto (1539-1543) and Juan Pardo (1566-1568) led military expeditions into the western
Piedmont and mountains of North Carolina during the mid-sixteenth century (Hudson 1990,
1994). One interpretation of Spanish records claims soldiers visited Indian villages near the
present-day towns of Charlotte, L ncolnton, Hickory, and Maiden (Hargrove 1998). The Spanish
are also reported to have built garrisons near Marion and Salisbury (Hargrove 1998). Recent
work at the Berry site in Burke County may have identified the remains of the Spanish garrison
of Xualla or Joara, visited by de Soto in the 1540s and Juan Pardo in the 1560s. Diseases
introduced by these explorers brought about dramatic changes in the population and culture of
the Native Americans, causing entire villages to disappear before 1700 (Fossett 1976).
Despite these military incursions and the establishment of minor outposts, the Spanish
presence in the Carolinas could not be sustained. Mounting pressure from hostile Native
Americans and English privateers resulted in the withdrawal of Spanish forces to St. Augustine
in 1587 (South 1980).
England's interest in the New World was heavily promoted by Walter Raleigh. A
courtier in the court of Queen Elizabeth I, Raleigh secured the financial and political support
necessary to attempt the first permanent settlement of the New World by English colonists in
1585 (Powell 1989). Although his efforts failed, Raleigh's single-minded ambition ultimately
led to the establishment of the Jamestown colony in 1607 (Noel Hume 1994).
The disastrous mismanagement and resulting loss of life in Virginia during the first two
decades of the colony's existence resulted in the revocation of the Virginia Company's charter in
1624 (Noel Hume 1994). Preoccupied with the civil war between Royalist and Parliamentarian
forces in the 1640s, the authorities in Virginia showed little interest in North Carolina until the
1650s. During this period the area around the Albemarle Sound in northeastern North Carolina
was inhabited by traders, hunters, trappers, rogues, and tax evaders (Powell 1989). Even then,
North Carolina was becoming notorious as a refuge for the independent and self-reliant.
Post-Contact Era
The restoration of Charles II to the throne in 1660 resulted in the distribution of rewards
to those who had supported the Royalist cause during the upheaval (Powell 1989). This initiated
the Proprietary colonial period in the Carolinas, which lasted from 1663 until 1729. Years of
turmoil brought about by an unstable system of government culminated in war with the
0 16
Tuscarora Indians. Severe fighting broke out in 1711, triggered by the death of the colony's •
Surveyor General (John Lawson) at the hands of the Tuscarora (Powell 1989). The war ended
in 1712, leaving the Carolina colonies in dire financial straits. These conditions persisted until
the Lords Proprietors were forced to sell their holdings in the Carolinas to the Crown in 1729
(Powell 1989).
The acquisition of North Carolina by the Crown initiated a period of relatively stable
government. During this time, immigration into North Carolina was along three major routes
(Powell 1989): western North Carolina was settled by German and Scots-Irish immigrants
arriving from Pennsylvania and Virginia via the Great Wagon Road; new arrivals at the
important towns of New Bern and Brunswick pushed west up the Cape Fear and Neuse river
valleys; and colonists from South Carolina advanced up the Pee Dee and Catawba rivers in
search of new land.
By the 1740s and 1750s, white settlers had begun moving into the Piedmont. Many of
these settlers came down the Great Wagon Road from the Mid-Atlantic states (Powell 1989).
Land in these areas had become infertile and expensive, and population densities were
increasing. The primarily Scots-Irish and Gennan emigrants were seeking rich, inexpensive
farmland in sparsely settled areas where land would be available for their sons when they came
of age. Others settlers came from England and coastal North and South Carolina, also looking
for farmland in sparsely settled areas (Powell 1989).
The Catawba Indians were still living in the area when the settlers began moving in.
These early settlers were harassed by the Catawba and Cherokee Indians, until the British army
defeated the Cherokees in 1761, driving them further west into the Blue Ridge Mountains. The
Catawbas finally made peace with the British in 1763 (Moore 2003).
At the time of the American Revolution, the residents of the area were divided in their
loyalties. Some supported the rebel Americans, and others, the British. British forces came into
the area in 1780 and were joined by many of the Tories in a fight against the Whig militia at
Ramsour's Mill (Powell 1989). The combatants, who were both neighbors and relatives,
engaged in a fierce battle for more than an hour, resulting in at least 200 casualties evenly
divided between the two factions (Powell 1989). The rebel Whigs finally prevailed, and Tories
in the area were never a threat after that time. At the Battle of Kings Mountain, a force of Tory
Loyalists, led by British Captain Patrick Ferguson, was defeated by rebel militia units
commanded by Frederick Hambright (Powell 1989).
After the Revolutionary War, many improvements were made in transportation, leading
to increased wealth as cash crops for shipment to other areas, along with manufactured items,
became important economically. In the early nineteenth century, cotton production increased in
the county, and the number of slaves increased dramatically. The number of slaveowners,
however, remained nearly the same (Crutchfield 1986).
Before 1800, most of the area's residents lived in log houses, but the wealthy merchants
and planters were able to build large brick houses, and contribute funds to upgrade the older log
17 0
• churches, and build new schools. The major markets for goods produced in the area were the
North Carolina towns of Salisbury, Hillsborough, Greensboro, and Wadesboro, and Camden,
Cheraw, and Charleston, in South Carolina. Merchants and traders from the west brought cloth,
leather and food to the area to trade for local products.
New roads were built connecting the project region to markets in Charlotte and the
northern Piedmont, and to cities in South Carolina. In the early 1800s, the old stage coach road
followed Mill Creek to the mouth of the Little Swannanoa River, into Swannanoa Gap. In 1849
work began on the Western Turnpike in the Catawba River Valley, including roads through Old
Fort and Ridgecrest. The new roads also made travel easier. With the new roads, goods could
be taken to Charleston by wagon. Cotton, skins, cattle, hanis, and butter were taken to market
and the wagons returned laden with goods which could not be produced on family farms, such as
coffee, tea, salt, sugar, cloth, and manufactured items.
Caldwell County was formed in 1841 from portions of Burke and Wilkes counties. It
was named for the first president of the University of North Carolina, Joseph Caldwell.
Numerous boundary changes took place over the years. The current county boundaries were
finally effected in 1925 (Corbitt 1987).
North Carolina separated from the Union on 20 May 1861, at approximately 5:30 in the
afternoon (Murray 1983). Minutes later, the Secession Convention ratified the provisional
constitution of the Confederate States of America. Within a few weeks, North Carolinians were
arriving at regimental training camps throughout the state (Barrett 1963). Despite the fact that
• North Carolina was a Confederate state, loyalties in western North Carolina were divided.
Generally, farms in the area were small, and the local economy depended less on slave labor
than other areas of the South. In addition, the loss of head of household to military service
placed a tremendous strain on local farms, families, and communities. Disloyalty to the
Confederacy grew in the area as the war progressed. According to Barrett (1987:74), by 1864:
Disaffection and disloyalty in the [Western North Carolina] area had multiplied by leaps
and bounds. The mountains were so full of deserters that very little social stigma was
attached to desertion, and the warm welcome accorded many a deserter caused the area to
fill up with the disloyal from all the southern States. Formed into bands and heavily
armed, these deserters plundered, murdered, and carried out every sort of outrage.
Modern Period
Throughout the South, plantations declined and the small tenant farm system became
prominent. Following Reconstruction, much of North Carolina went through a period of
dramatic industrialization and urbanization. Much of this process was driven by the expansion of
railroads. In the early 1900s, industrial expansion came to Caldwell County in the form of
tanneries, furniture and textile factories.
0 18
Today, the majority of business and industry is still with textiles, apparel, and furniture. •
Approximately 50 percent of the workforce in Caldwell County is employed in manufacturing.
The abundance of hardwood forests in the region allows central and western North Carolina to
be known as the Furniture Capital of the World. Bernhardt Furniture Company is one of the
county's largest employers. The city of Charlotte is also within commuting distance, which is a
contributing factor to the county's steady population growth (Caldwell County Economic
Development Commission 2007).
•
19 0
• Chapter 3. Results of Field Investigations
Background Research Results
Background research was conducted at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology
(OSA) located in Raleigh. No previously recorded archaeological sites are located within the
Lower Creek or the UT to Zacks Fork Creek stream restoration areas.
Archaeological Survey Results
Two stream restoration areas were surveyed for this project. The first area was along
Lower Creek and one of its unnamed tributaries in Gamewell, North Carolina (see Figure 1).
The second area was along an unnamed tributary of Zacks Fork Creek, northeast of Lenoir,
North Carolina (see Figure 4). Field methods were consistent for both stream restoration areas.
The survey corridor varied between 10 and 15 meters along the drainages, and shovel tests were
excavated at 30 meter intervals along transects on both banks of the drainages. All areas of
exposed ground surface were also inspected for the presence of archaeological remains. The
results of each survey are discussed in detail below.
• Lower Creek Stream Restoration Area
Eighty shovel tests were excavated within the approximately 1,200 meter survey corridor
along Lower Creek and its unnamed tributary. Within the pasture, soil generally consisted of 50
cm of brown compact silt overlaying reddish brown compact silty clay. In some areas brown
clayey silt was observed to a depth of 55 cm overlaying grayish brown silty clay. Soil in the
wooded area along Lower Creek consisted of 60 cm of brown sand overlaying light brown sand.
Modern garbage was also common throughout this area. Steep slope and a berm were located
adjacent to the unnamed tributary of Lower Creek next to the tree farm. Shovel tests in the area
typically consisted of brown compact silt with gravel associated with a gravel pathway extending
along the edge of the tree farm.
A few areas along the unnamed tributary were eroded, most likely caused by cattle. A
large portion of the eastern bank of Lower Creek was cut away exposing a large profile of the
bank (Figures 9 and 10). Across from the eroded bank was a low lying sandy area that allowed
for inspection of the surface adjacent to Lower Creek. No artifacts were identified in these
eroded areas.
•
20

Figure 9. View of the eroded bank and low lying sandy area along
Lower Creek.
gyn.
r.
77
All
Figure 10. View of the bank profile along Lower Creek.
L J
•
21 0
• UT to Zacks Fork Creek Stream Restoration Area
A total of 26 shovel tests was excavated within the 304-meter UT to Zacks Fork Creek
stream restoration area. Soil within the wooded portion (see Figure 6) of the survey corridor
consisted of 25 cm of brown sand overlaying dark gray clayey sand. The clayey sand gave way
to loamy sand as shovel tests were excavated closer to the pasture portion of the corridor. In the
pasture (see Figure 5), soil consisted of 40 cm of compact sand overlaying light yellowish red
clayey sand. Red sandy clay was present at the northern end of the corridor. There was very
little exposed ground surface within the corridor. Exposed surfaces were generally located along
the banks of the drainage and a few other eroded areas. No artifacts were identified during
surface inspection or in shovel tests.
Summary and Recommendations
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC), conducted an archaeological
survey of the Lower Creek and UT to Zacks Fork Creek stream restoration areas in Caldwell
County, North Carolina. Shovel tests were excavated at 30 meter intervals along both banks of
these drainages within the project corridors. No archaeological remains were identified. As no
significant archaeological resources will be impacted by the proposed stream restorations,
clearance to proceed is recommended.
•
0 22
0
References Cited •
Anderson, David G. and Glen T. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the
Savannah River Basin. American Antiquity 53(2):262-286.
' Anderson, David G. and J.W. Joseph
1988 Prehistory and History along the Upper Savannah River: Technical Synthesis of
I Cultural Resource Investigations, Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area. Atlanta
Interagency Archaeological Services Division, National Park Service, Russell Papers.
Barrett, John G.
1963 The Civil War in North Carolina. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
1987 North Carolina as a Civil War Battleground, 1861-1865. North Carolina Department
of Cultural Resources, Raleigh.
Binford, Lewis R.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dog's Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and
Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4-20.
Broyles, Bettye J. •
1981 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia.
West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey Report of Archaeological Investigations
3.
Caldwell, Joseph R.
1952 The Archaeology of Eastern Georgia and South Carolina. In Archaeology of Eastern
United States, edited by J.B. Griffin, pp. 312-321. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
IL.
Caldwell County Economic Development Commission
2007 Demographics. Electronic Document
http://www.caldwefledc.org/demographics.php. Accessed October 28, 2007.
Chapman, Jefferson
1985 Archaeology and the Archaic Period in the Southern Ridge-and-Valley Province. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by R.S. Dickens and H.
Trawick Ward, pp. 137-153. University of Alabama Press, University.
23
Claggett, Stephen R. and John S. Cable
• 1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Strati zed Sites in the
North Carolina Piedmont. Commonwealth Associates, Inc., Jackson, MI.
Coe, Joffre L.
1952 The Cultural Sequence of the Carolina Piedmont. In Archaeology of the Eastern
United States, edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 301-311. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society 54(5).
Corbitt, David Leroy
1987 The Formation of the North Carolina Counties, 1663-1943. North Carolina Division
of Archives and History, Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh.
Crutchfield, James A. (editor)
1986 The North Carolina Almanac and Book of Facts. Rutledge Hill Press, Nashville, TN.
Dillehay, T.D. (editor)
1997 Monte Verde - A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Volume 2, The Archaeological
Context and Interpretations. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Driver, J.C.
1998 Human Adaptation at the Pleistocene/Holocene Boundary in Western Canada, 11,000
to 9,000 FP. Quaternary International 49:141-150.
Fossett, Mildred B.
1976 History of McDowell County. McDowell County American Revolution Bicentennial
Commission, Marion, NC.
Gardner, William M.
1974 The Flint Run Paleouldian Complex: Preliminary Report, 1971-1973 Seasons.
Catholic University of America, Department of Anthropology, Archaeology Laboratory,
Occasional Publication 1, Washington, D.C.
1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (ca.
9200 to 6800 B.P.). In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. Mark
Wittkofski and Theodore R. Reinhart, pp. 5-52. Archaeological Society of Virginia.
Goodyear, Albert C.
1982 Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States.
American Antiquity 42(3):382-395.
0 24
1 Goodyear, Albert C. III, James L. Michie and Tommy Charles •
1989 The Earliest South Carolinians. In Studies in South Carolina Archaeology,
Anthropological Studies 9, Occasional Papers of the Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Green, T. J., B Cochran, T. W. Fenton, J. C. Woods, G. L. Titmus, L. Tieszen, M. A. Davis, and
S. J. Miller
1998 The Buhl Burial: A PaleoIndian Woman from Southern Idaho. American Antiquity
63 (3):437-546.
Griffin, James B.
1952 Archaeology of the Eastern United States. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
1967 Culture Periods in Eastern United States Archaeology. In Archaeology of Eastern
United States, edited by J.B. Griffin. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Hargrove, Thomas
1991 An Archaeological Survey of Proposed Improvements on the Gastonia Sewer System,
Gaston County, North Carolina. Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Inc., Raleigh, NC.
1998 An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Cold Water Creek and Back Creek
Interceptor Project, Concord, Cabarrus County, North Carolina. Robert J. Goldstein &
Associates, Inc., Raleigh, NC. •
Hudson, Charles
1990 The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Exploration of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 1566-
1568. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
1994 The Hernando De Soto Expedition, 1539-1543. In, The Forgotten Centuries: Indians
and Europeans in the American South 1521-1704, edited by Charles Hudson and Carmen
Chaves Tesser. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Jackson, L.E., F.M. Philips, K. Shimamura, and E.C. Little
1997 Cosmogenic 36C I Dating of the Foothills Erractics Train, Alberta, Canada. Geology
125:73-94.
Keel, Bennie
1976 Cherokee Archaeology. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Lewis, Thomas M.N. and Madeline Kneberg
1959 The Archaic Culture in the Middle South. American Antiquity 25(2):161-183.
Matlis, Roy L., Jr.
1995 Soil Survey of McDowell County, North Carolina. United States Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D. C.
25 •
May, J. Alan
1989 Archaeological Excavations at the Crowders Creek Site (31 GS55): a Late Woodland
Farmstead in the Catawba River Valley, Gaston County, North Carolina. Southern
Indian Studies 3 8.
Meltzer, David J.
1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Journal of World
Prehistory 2(1):1-52.
Meltzer, D.J., D.K. Grayson, G. Ardila, A.W. Barker, D.F. Dincause, C.V. Haynes, F. Mena, L.
Nunez, and D. Stanford
1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity
44(1):172-179.
Michie, James L.
1977 The Late Pleistocene Occupation of South Carolina. Research Manuscript Series
167, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South
Carolina, Columbia.
Moore, David G.
2003 Catawba Valley Mississippian: Ceramics, Chronology, and Catawba Indians.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Morell, V.
• 1998 Kennewick Man: More Bones to Pick. Science 279:25-26.
Murray, Elizabeth Reed
1983 Wake: Capitol County of North Carolina: Prehistory through Centennial, Vol I.
Capitol County Publishing Company, Raleigh
Noel Hume, Ivor
1994 The Virginia Adventure: Roanoke to Jamestown, An Archaeological Odyssey. Alfred
A. Knopf, New York.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS)
1985 Geologic Map of North Carolina.
Oliver, Billy L.
1985 Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point Sequence.
In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy Dickens and
Trawick Ward. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
1992 Settlements of the Pee Dee Culture. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
0 26
O'Steen, Lisa D., R. Jerald Ledbetter, Daniel T. Elliott, and William W. Barker
1986 Paleoindian Sites of the Inner Piedmont of Georgia: Observations of Settlement in
the Oconee Watershed. Early Georgia 13.
Ortosky, Michael, Jr.
1989 Soil Survey of Caldwell County, North Carolina. United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
Perkinson, Phil H.
1971 North Carolina Fluted Projectile Points - Survey Report Number One. Southern
Indian Studies 23:3-40.
1973 North Carolina Fluted Projectile Points - Survey Report Number Two. Southern
Indian Studies 25:3-60.
Powell, William S.
1989 North Carolina Through Four Centuries
Raleigh.
Preston, D.
1997 The Lost Man. New Yorker 16 June:70-81.
University of North Carolina Press,
Purrington, Burton L.
1983 Ancient Mountaineers: An Overview of the Prehistoric Archaeology of North
Carolina's Western Mountain Region. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An
Archaeological Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 83-160.
North Carolina Division of Archives and History.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1983 Middle and Late Archaic Settlement in South Carolina Piedmont. Unpublished M.A.
Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Savage, Beth L. and Sarah Dillard Pope
1998 National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation. US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
Slayman, A.L.
1997 A Battle Over Bones: Lawyers Contest the Fate of an 8400-Year-Old Skeleton from
Washington State. Archaeology 50(1):16.
South, Stanley
1980 The Discovery of Santa Elena. The South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology Manuscript Series, 165. University of South Carolina, Columbia.
1?
27
i
Steele, D.G. and J.F. Powell
1993 Paleobiology of the First Americans. Evolutionary Anthropology 2(4):] 38-146.
1994 Paleobiological Evidence of the Peopling of the Americas: A Morphometric View.
In Method and Theory for Investigating the Peopling of the Americas, edited by R.
Bonnichsen and D.G. Steele, pp. 141-163. Center for the Study of the First Americans,
Oregon State University, Eugene.
Steponaitis, Vincas
1986 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southeastern United States, 1970-1985. Annual
Review of Anthropology 15:363-404.
Stoltman, James B.
1965 Temporal Models in Prehistory: An Example From Eastern North America. Current
Anthropology 19(4):703-746.
Swedlund, A. and D. Anderson
1999 Gordon Creek Woman Meets Kennewick Man: New Interpretations and Protocols
Regarding the Peopling of the Americas. American Antiquity 64(4):569-576.
Townsend, Jan, John H. Sprinkle, Jr., and John Knoerl
1993 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical
Districts. National Register Bulletin 36. National Park
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
United States Geological Service (USGS)
1956 Lenoir, NC 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle.
1997 Kings Creek, NC 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle
Archaeological Sites and
Service. United States
Ward, Trawick
1965 Correlation of Mississippian Sites and Soil Types. Southeastern Archaeological
Conference Bulletin 3.
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In
The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by M.A. Mathis
and J.J. Crow, pp. 53-81. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.
Ward, Trawick and Stephen Davis
1999 Time Before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
0 28
•
Appendix A. Resume of Principal Investigator
E
• Michael Keith O'Neal
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
121 East First Street
Clayton, NC 27520
Voice [phone]; Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
EDUCATION
M.A. in Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, 2001.
B.A. in Anthropology, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, 1999.
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
Register of Professional Archaeologists
Society for American Archaeology
Southeastern Archaeological Conference
Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists
AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION
Ground Stone Technology
Lithic Technology
Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
•
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
April 2006-Present Senior Archaeologist/Principal Investigator. Archaeological
Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, NC.
August 2004-March 2006 Archaeologist/Project Manager. Archaeological Consultants ofth
e
Carolinas, Inc., Clayton, NC.
June 2002-August 2004 Archaeologist/Project Manager. Brockington and Associates
Inc
,
.,
Raleigh, NC.
July 200 I-May 2002 Archaeological Technician. Brockington and Associates
Inc
,
.,
Raleigh, NC.
August 2000-May 2001 Archaeological Research Assistant, Department of Anthropolog
y,
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
August2000-September 2000 Archaeological Technician, Department of Anthropology, Universityof
Arkansas, Fayetteville.
July 2000 Archaeological Field Technician, SPEARS Inc., West Fork, Arkansas.
EXPERIENCE
Project Manager - Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Aiken Combustion Turbine Plant Tract, Aiken County,
South Carolina. This project was a Phase I cultural resources survey of an 80 acre tract. This project was conducted
• for Duke Engineering and Services.
Project Manager - Cultural Resources Survey of Three Proposed Intersection Improvements, Spartanburg County, •
South Carolina. This was Phase I cultural resources survey of three proposed intersection improvements. This
project was conducted for the TranSystems Corporation.
Project Manager- Cultural Resources Survey of the Georgetown Industrial Park Tract, Georgetown County, South
Carolina. This project was a Phase I cultural resources survey of a 600 acre tract. This project was conducted for
Davis and Floyd.
Project Manager- Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Grace Chapel Substation and 115 kV Transmission Line,
Caldwell County, North Carolina. This project was a Phase I cultural resources survey of 4 acre substation tract and
an associated 4.5 mile transmission line corridor. The project was conducted for Framatome ANP.
Project Manager- Archaeological Survey of the Heavenly Mountain Resort Golf Course, Watauga County, North
Carolina. This project was a Phase I archaeological survey of 200 acres, divided between three tracts of land. This
project was conducted for E'nV Environmental Consulting.
Project Manager- Cultural Resources Survey of the Jones-Mainland Tract, Beaufort County, South Carolina. This
project was a Phase I cultural resources survey of a 3,655 acre tract. The project was conducted for Palmetto Bluff,
LLC.
Project Manager- Cultural Resources Investigation of the Central Carolina Tire Disposal Tract, Harnett County,
North Carolina. This project was a Phase 1 cultural resources survey of a 200 acre tract. This project was conducted
for Withers and Ravenel, Inc.
Project Manager- Cultural Resources Investigation of the Mill Branch Tract, Columbia County, Georgia. This
project was a Phase 1 archaeological survey of a 170 acre tract. This project was conducted for James G. Swift and
Associates.
Project Manager- Cultural Resources Survey of the Okatie Center Northern Tract, Beaufort County, South Carolina. •
This project was a Phase 1 archaeological survey of a 120 acre tract. This project was conducted for Horne
Properties, Inc.
Project Manager- Archaeological Survey of the Bay Tree Golf Plantation Tracts, Horry County, South Carolina..
This project was a Phase I archaeological survey of a golf plantation (3 golf courses and adjacent tracts). This
project was conducted for DDC, Engineers.
Principal Investigator-Testing and Data Recovery excavations at site 38BU 1957, Beaufort County, South Carolina.
Principal Investigator-Testing of site 38BU2081, Beaufort County, South Carolina.
Project Manager- Archaeological Survey of Phases 11 and III o f the Mills River Sewer Line, Henderson County,
North Carolina. This project was a Phase I archaeological survey of 4 mile sewer line. This project was conducted
for Horne Properties, Inc.
Project Manager- Archaeological Survey of the Hope Lodge Borrow Pit Tract, Edgecombe County, North Carolina.
This project was a Phase I archaeological survey of a 60 acre tract. The project was conducted for Robert J.
Goldstein and Associates, Inc.
Project Manager- Archaeological Survey of the Southern Harnett County Water Treatment Plant and Sewer Line,
Harnett County, North Carolina. This project was a Phase 1 archaeological survey of the a 50 acre water treatment
plant tract and 5.8 miles of sewer line corridor, conducted fro Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Inc.
Project Manager- Cultural Resources Survey Wetland Impact Areas in the Riversbend East Tract, Chesterfield
County, Virginia. This project was a Phase I archaeological survey conducted for Townes Site Engineering. Ad"d
. Project Manager- Cultural Resources Survey 6l%tland Impact Areas in the Castleton Tract and Sewer Line, Henrico
County, Virginia. This project was a Phase I archaeological survey conducted for Townes Site Engineering.
Project Manager- Cultural Resources Survey of the NRWASA Water Distribution System Corridors and
Aboveground Facility Tracts, Lenoir and Pitt Counties, North Carolina. This project was a Phase I cultural
resources survey conducted for the Wooten Company
Principal Investigator- Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Stonegate Substation Tract, Union County, North
Carolina. This project was a Phase I cultural resources survey conducted for Facilities Planning and Siting.
REPORTS AUTHORED
Cornelius, Mackensie, Dawn Reid, and Michael Keith O'Neal
2006 Cultural Resources Survey of Undeveloped Portions of the Rolling Hills Golf Course Tract, Horry
County, South Carolina.
Jenkins, David, Michael Keith O'Neal, and Bobby Southerlin
2002 Cultural Resources Survey of the Biltmore Technology Center Tract, Buncombe County, North
Carolina.
Kirkland, Alan and Michael Keith O'Neal
2007 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Embarq Uwharrie National Forest Fiber Optics Line,
Montgomery County, North Carolina.
O'Neal, Michael Keith
2001 Cultural Resources Survey of the CINCAP Martinsville Tracts, Henry County, Virginia.
• 2002 Phase II Testing of44CAi 16, Patriot Extension Natural
Gas Pipeline, Carroll County, Virginia.
2002 Cultural Resources Survey of the Aiken Combustion Turbine Plant Tract, Aiken County, South
Carolina.
2002 Cultural Resources Survey of the Georgetown Industrial Park Tract, Georgetown County, South
Carolina.
2003 Archaeological Survey of the Heavenly Mountain Resort Golf Course Trace, Watauga County,
North Carolina.
2003 Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Grace Chapel Substation and 115kV Transmission Line,
Caldwell County, North Carolina.
2004 Archaeological Survey of the Southern Harnett County Water Treatment Plant and Sewer Line,
Harnett County, North Carolina.
2004 Archaeological Survey of the Bay Tree Golf Plantation Tracts, Horry County, South Carolina.
2004 Archaeological Survey of the Hope Lodge Borrow Pit Tract, Edgecombe County, North Carolina.
2005 Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Stonegate Substation Tract, Union County, North Carolina.
2005 Cultural Resources Survey of the BREMCO Baldwin Substation Tract, Ashe County, North
Carolina.
0 2006 Cultural Resources Survey of the Villages at Waterside Tract, Horry County, South Carolina.
O'Neal, Michael Keith continued •
2006 Archaeological Survey of the Catawba Waste Water Treatment Plant Tract, Catawba County,
North Carolina.
2006 Archaeological Survey of the Shine Landing Tract, Pamlico County, North Carolina.
2006 Archaeological Evaluation of the Fairgrounds Cell Tower, Henrico County, Virginia.
2007 Archaeological Survey of the Watermark Landing Tract and Phase II Testing of Site 31NH133,
New Hanover County, North Carolina.
2007 Cultural Resources Survey of the Stevens Park Tract, Brunswick County, North Carolina.
2007 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Cusac Cell Tower Tract, Horry County, South Carolina.
2007 Archaeological Survey of the Brookshire Park Tract, Watauga County, North Carolina.
O'Neal, Michael Keith and Carrie E. Collins
2003 Cultural Resources Investigation of the Central Carolina Tire Disposal Tract, Harnett County,
North Carolina.
O'Neal, Michael Keith, Carrie Collins, and Sharon Penton
2002 Cultural Resources Evaluation of Hickory Regional Airport Improvements, Burke County, North
Carolina.
O'Neal, Michael Keith, Carrie E. Collins, Rachel Tibbets, and Pat Hendrix
2004 Cultural Resources Survey of the Jones-Mainland Tract, Beaufort County, South Carolina. •
O'Neal, Michael Keith and MacKensie Cornelius
2005 Archaeological Survey of Wetland Impact Areas in the Rivers Bend East Tract, Chesterfield
County, Virginia. Corps Project # 04-RI771.
2005 Archaeological Survey of Wetland Impact Areas in the Castleton Tract and Sewer Line, Henrico
County, Virginia. Corps Project # 05-0872.
2005 Cultural Resources Survey of the NRWASA Water Distribution System Corridors and
Aboveground Facility Tracts, Lenoir and Pitt Counties, North Carolina.
2006 Archaeological Survey of the Duke-Catawba ESSI Tract, Burke and McDowell Counties, North
Carolina.
2006 Archaeological Survey of the Lee Tract, Brunswick County, North Carolina.
O'Neal, Michael Keith, MacKensie Cornelius, and Dawn Reid
2005 Cultural Resources Survey of the NRWASA Water Distribution System Corridors and
Aboveground Facility Tracts, Lenoir and Pitt Counties, North Carolina
2005 Cultural Resources Survey and Archaeological Testing at the Heritage Downs Tract, Horry
County, South Carolina.
2006 Archaeological Survey of the White Oak Apartments Tract, Chesterfield County, Virginia.
O'Neal, Michael Keith and Sharon Penton
2002 38HA214 Mitigation for the Yemassee Transmission Line, Hampton County, South Carolina.
•
• O'Neal, Michael Keith and Dawn Reid
2002 Cultural Resources Survey of Proposed Reroutes, Access Roads, and Work Areas, Patriot
Extension Natural Gas Pipeline, Wythe, Carroll, Floyd, Patrick, and Henry Counties, Virginia.
Addendum I to Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Patriot Extension Natural Gas Pipeline
Corridor, Wythe, Carroll, Floyd, Patrick, and Henry Counties, Virginia (Reid et al. 2002).
2006 Cultural Resources Survey of the Macedonia Transmission Line and Substation Tract, Cherokee
and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina.
2006 The History of Fort Huger.
2007 Limited Excavation of 441W0204: The Fort Huger Encampment Site, Isle of Wiglit County,
Virginia.
O'Neal, Michael Keith, Dawn Reid, Rachel Tibbetts, Kim Villemez, and Gordon Watts
2006 Archaeological Survey and Testing at the Pennyroyal Tract, Georgetown County, South Carolina.
O'Neal, Michael Keith, Joseph Sanders, and Dawn Reid
2005 Archaeological Survey of Four Tracts in the Lawnes Point Development Area, Isle of Wight
County, Virginia.
O'Neal, Michael Keith and Bobby Southerlin
2005 Archaeological Evaluation of the Riverbend-Enterprise Tract, Horry County, South Carolina.
2005 Archaeological Survey of the 230 kV Steelberry Transmission Line Relocation Corridor, Gaston
and Mecklenburg Counties, North Carolina.
is 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Fentress Farm Tract, Currituck County, North Carolina.
O'Neal, Michael Keith, Bobby Southerlin, and MacKensie Cornelius
2005 Cultural Resources Survey and Archaeological Testing at the South Island Plantation Tract,
Georgetown County, South Carolina.
O'Neal, Michael Keith and Rachel Tibbets
2003 Cultural Resources Investigation of the Mill Branch Tract, Columbia County, Georgia.
2004 Archaeological Survey of the Southern Harnett County Water Treatment Plant and Sewer Line,
Harnett County, North Carolina.
O'Neal, Michael Keith and Kim Villemez
2006 Archaeological Investigation of the Good Luck Road Tract, Hoary County, South Carolina.
O'Neal, Michael Keith and Julie Wilburn Peeler
2002 Cultural Resources Investigation of the Lake Townsend Substation Tract, Guilford County, North
Carolina.
2002 Archaeological Evaluation of Stanly County Regional Airport Improvements, Stanly County,
North Carolina.
2003 Archaeological Mitigation at 38HA214, Hampton County, South Carolina.
11
O'Neal, Michael Keith, Julie Wilburn Peeler, and Dawn Reid •
2003 Cultural Resources Survey of Proposed Reroutes, Access Roads, and Work Areas, Patriot
Extension Natural Gas Pipeline, Wythe, Carroll, Floyd, Patrick, and Henry Counties, Virginia.
Addendum Il to Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed Patriot Extension Natural Gas Pipeline
Corridor, Wythe, Carroll, Floyd, Patrick, and Henry Counties, Virginia (Reid et al. 2002).
Reid, Dawn, Pat Hendrix, Michael Keith O'Neal, and Eric Poplin
2003 Archaeological Survey of the Palmetto Bluff Construction Road and Wastewater Effluent Plant
Tract, Beaufort County, South Carolina.
Reid, Dawn and Michael Keith O'Neal
2002 Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Concord Regional Airport Improvements, Cabarrus County,
North Carolina.
2005 Archaeological Survey of the Belle Park Tract, Horry County, South Carolina.
2005 Cultural Resources Siting Study of the South Sylva Tract, Jackson County, North Carolina.
2006 Archaeological Survey of the Aberdeen golf Course Conversion Areas, Horry County, South
Carolina.
2006 Archaeological Survey of 61 Acres at Kershaw Creek, Pamlico County, North Carolina.
2006 Archaeological Survey of the Main Street Connector, Horry County, South Carolina.
2006 Cultural Resources Survey of the New Stonegate Substation Tract, Union County, North Carolina.
2006 Archaeological Investigation of the Sherwood Plantation Tract, Jasper County, South Carolina. •
2007 Archaeological Survey of the Southport Crossing Tract, Brunswick County, North Carolina.
Reid, Dawn, Michael Keith O'Neal, and David Jenkins
2001 Cultural Resources Investigation of the Chickahominy Tract, Charles City County, Virginia.
Reid, Dawn, Michael Keith O'Neal, and Rachel Tibbetts
2005 Life on the Waccamaw River Bluff: Data Recovery at Site 38HR496, Cypress River Plantation,
Horry County, South Carolina.
Reid, Dawn, Rachel Tibbetts, Michael Keith O'Neal, and Gordon Watts
2006 Archaeological Investigation of the Select Areas in the Black Banks Plantation Tract, Georgetown
County, South Carolina.
Southerlin, Bobby, Michael Keith O'Neal, and MacKensie Cornelius
2006 Archaeological Survey of the Dugger Creek Tract, Watauga and Wilkes Counties, North Carolina.
Southerlin, Bobby, Michael Keith O'Neal, Sharon Penton, Joe Sanders, David Jenkins
2002 Intensive Archaeological Survey of the Duplin County Agricultural Business Center, Duplin
County, North Carolina.
Southerlin, Bobby, Rachel Tibbetts, Michael Keith O'Neal, Dawn Reid, Leslie E. Raymer, and MacKensie
Cornelius
2005 Woodland Adaptations in the Grand Strand: Native American Settlement along the Little River
Estuary, Horry County, South Carolina: Excavations at Glen Dornoch Golf Course.
• Southerlin, Bobby, Joseph L. Tippett, Michael Keith O'Neal, and Bruce Harvey
2002 Cultural Resources Investigation of the Brownfield Tract, Wake County, North Carolina.
Southerlin, Bobby, Dawn Reid, Joseph Sanders, Michael Keith O'Neal, and David Jenkins
2002 Cultural Resources Survey of the 230 kV Portion of the Columbia Energy Center Project, Calhoun
and Richland Counties, South Carolina.
Southerlin, Bobby, Joe Sanders, Michael Keith O'Neal, and David Jenkins
2002 Cultural Resources Survey of the 115 kV Portion of the Columbia Energy Center Project, Calhoun
and Lexington Counties, South. Carolina.
Tibbetts, Rachel and Michael Keith O'Neal
2006 Archaeological Survey of the Dawson Creek Tract, Pamlico County, North Carolina.
2006 Archaeological Survey of the Fulshire Plantation Tract, Craven County, North Carolina.
Tibbetts, Rachel, Michael Keith O'Neal, MacKensie Cornelius, Bobby Southerlin, and April Montgomery
2006 Cultural Resources Survey of the Mingo Analysis Area (Portions of Compartments 257, 259, 351,
343, and 355), Sumter National Forest, Long Cane Ranger District, Saluda and Greenwood Counties,
South Carolina.
Tibbetts, Rachel, Michael Keith O'Neal, and Kim Villemez
2006 Archaeological Survey of Three Stream Restoration Areas, Jackson, Polk, and Rutherford
Counties, North Carolina.
Tibbetts, Rachel, Bobby Southerlin, and Michael Keith O'Neal
2006 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Site for an Expansion of the Central Johnston County
. Regional Wastewater Treatmnt Facility, Johnston County, North Carolina.
Wilburn Peeler, Julie, Michael Keith O'Neal, and Dawn Reid
2002 Intensive Cultural Resources Survey of the Three Proposed Intersection Improvements,
Spartanburg County, South Carolina. Prepared for the South Carolina Department of Transportation.
PUBLICATIONS AND PAPERS PRESENTED
2005 Michael Keith O'Neal and Dawn Reid
Who Says There Aren't Rocks in the Coastal Plain: Local Lithic Resources and Bipolar Reduction Strategies in
Horry County, South Carolina. Paper presented at the 62"d annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference,
Columbia, South Carolina.
1999 Cheryl Claassen, Michael O'Neal, Tamara Wilson, Elizabeth Arnold, and Brent Lansdell
Hearing and Reading Southeastern Archaeology: A Review of the Annual Meetings
of SEAL from 1983 through
1995 and the Journal Southeastern Archaeology. Southeastern Archaeology 18(2): 85-97.
1998 Cheryl Claassen, Michael O'Neal, Tamara Wilson, Elizabeth Arnold, and Brent Lansdell
Hearing and Reading Southeastern Archaeology: A Review of the Annual Meetings of SEAC fi-om 1983 through
1995 and the Journal Southeastern Archaeology. Paper presented at the 56" annual Southeastern Archaeological
Conference, Greenville, South Carolina.
0
was stem
.1a nit
g ?
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
L?
•
Name of project: Lower Creek Site
Name if stream or feature: Lower Creek and UT to Lower Creek
County: Caldwell
Name of river basin: Catawba
Is project urban or rural? Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality/county: Town of Gamewell / Caldwell
DFIRM panel number for
entire site: 3710273700J Preliminary
Consultant name: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Phone number: [phone]
Address: 4651 Charlotte Park Drive
Suite 300
Charlotte, NC 28217
EEP FEMA Floodplain_Checklistdoc Page I of 3
Design Information
Provide a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a
reference orthophotograph at a scale of 1" = 500".
Summarize stream reaches or wetland areas according to their restoration priority.
Examnle
Reach Length Priority
Lower Creek 2238 feet Three (Restoration)
UT to Lower Creek 1625 feet One/Two (Restoration)
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
rv Yes C, No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
17 Redelineation
E-1 Detailed Study
U., Limited Detail Study
r Approximate Study
C Don't know
List flood zone designation: AE, X
Check if applies:
F AE Zone
,rv Fooodway
t' Non-Encroachment
0 None
f_- A Zone
t`, Local Setbacks Required
No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how man feet:
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway/non-
encroachment/setbacks?
1?
•
•
EEP FEMA Floodplain Checklist.doc Page 2 of 3
•
(7, Yes 0' No
Land Acquisition (Check)
1W" 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 Neily,
919) 807-4101)
Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
rv Yes r` No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP attn: Edward Curtis, (919 715-8000 069
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Randy Feierabend
Phone Number: 828-757-6857
Floodplain Requirements
• This section to be filled by designer/applicant following verification with the LFPA
1 No Action
r No Rise
Pei Letter of Map Revision
r Conditional Letter of Map Revision
Cr Other Requirements
List other requirements:
Comments:
A decrease in water surface elevation is expected, therefore, a CLOMR is not needed.
Name: 3ASov,J G1NA io "AiA2_E1.LFM Signature: C&J
• Title: An` sA Date: 9-2-1-09
EEP FEMA Floodplain Checklist.doc Page 3 of 3

r?
??