20120396 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_20121211

MITIGATION PLAN — DRAFT FINAL
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project
Surry County, North Carolina
EEP Project No. 94709
Upper Yadkin River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03040101
Prepared for:
�.
o stem
ire is ement
PROGRAM
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
July 2012

MITIGATION PLAN — DRAFT FINAL
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project
Surry County, North Carolina
EEP Project No. 94709
Upper Yadkin River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03040101
Prepared for:
cow stem
E iatmwemeht
PROGRAM
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Prepared by:
LUE��rn
�
NEE�
Confluence Engineering, PC
16 Broad Street
Asheville, NC 28801
828.255.5530
July 2012

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) provides off -site compensatory wetland and
stream mitigation to private sector, state government agencies, municipalities, schools, military bases and
other applicants through its In Lieu Fee Programs. EEP is proposing the Moores Fork Stream
Restoration Project (project) to fulfill stream mitigation requirements accepted by this program for the
Upper Yadkin River Basin (CU 03040101). Through this project, EEP proposes to restore, enhance and
preserve approximately 19,915 linear feet (LF) of Moores Fork and fifteen previously unnamed tributaries
(UTs), provide livestock fencing and alternative water sources to keep livestock out of the streams,
remove invasive plant species across the project, and establish native riparian buffers. Based on
preliminary estimates from the design proposed in this Mitigation Plan, the Moores Fork Stream
Restoration Project will net 11,659 stream mitigation credits through a combination of restoration,
enhancement I and 11, and preservation.
This Mitigation Plan describes specific project goals and objectives as they relate to EEP's programmatic
goals (including watershed planning), provides baseline data on the existing conditions of Moores Fork
and its UTs at the project site, and describes the methodologies that were used develop the preliminary
design. The Mitigation Plan also outlines the performance standards and monitoring protocol that will be
used to evaluate the project's success, and it details long term management strategies for protecting and
maintaining the restoration site in perpetuity.
This Mitigation Plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal
Register Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8
paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14).
• EEP In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010
These documents govern EEP operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation.
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ....................................... ..............................1
2.0
SITE SELECTION .......................................................................................................... ..............................2
2.1
DIRECTIONS TO SITE .......................................................................................................... ..............................2
2.2
HISTORICAL CONDITIONS AND FUTURE LAND USE TRENDS .............................................. ..............................2
2.3
SITE MODIFICATIONS, STRESSORS AND ECOLOGICAL SERVICES ........................................ ..............................9
2.4
EVOLUTIONARY TRENDS .................................................................................................. .............................10
2.5
PROJECT SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ............................................................................................ .............................12
3.0
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT ........................................................................... .............................15
4.0
BASELINE INFORMATION ......................................................................................... .............................17
5.0
DETERMINATION OF CREDITS ............................................................................... .............................19
6.0
CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE ................................................................................ .............................22
6.1
INITIAL ALLOCATION OF RELEASED CREDITS ................................................................... .............................22
6.2
SUBSEQUENT CREDIT RELEASES ....................................................................................... .............................22
7.0
MITIGATION WORK PLAN ......................................................................................... .............................23
7.1
TARGET STREAMS ............................................................................................................. .............................23
7.2
TARGET PLANT COMMUNITIES ......................................................................................... .............................25
7.3
DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND DATA ANALYSES ............................................................... .............................26
7.3.1 Design Discharge .............................................................................................. .............................26
7.3.2 Sediment Transport ........................................................................................... .............................27
7.3.3 Cross Section ..................................................................................................... .............................28
7.3.4 Plan and Profile .................................................................................................. .............................29
7.3.5 In- Stream Structures ......................................................................................... .............................30
7.3.6 Farm Management Plan ................................................................................... .............................30
8.0
MAINTENANCE PLAN ................................................................................................ .............................31
9.0
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ................................................................................. .............................32
10.0
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................... .............................32
11.0
LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................................................ .............................33
12.0
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................................ .............................33
13.0
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ....................................................................................... .............................33
14.0
DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................. .............................34
15.0
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... .............................35
APPENDIX A: SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENTS
APPENDIX B: BASELINE INFORMATION
APPENDIX C: MITIGATION WORK PLAN DATA AND ANALYSES
APPENDIX D: PRELIMINARY PLANS
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012

1.0 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
EEP develops River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) to guide its restoration activities within each of
the state's 54 cataloging units. RBRPs delineate specific watersheds that exhibit both the need and
opportunity for wetland, stream and riparian buffer restoration. These watersheds are called Targeted
Local Watersheds (TLWs) and receive priority for EEP planning and restoration project funds.
The 2009 Upper Yadkin RBRP ( www .nceep.net/services /restplans /Upper Yadkin RBRP 2009.pdD
identified the Stewarts Creek 14 -digit HUC 03040101110010 as a TLW. Agriculture is the primary land
use in the watershed (36% agriculture land cover and only 3% impervious cover) and the RBRP identified
degraded riparian buffers as the major stressor to water quality. There are 12 permitted animal
operations and 37% of the Stewarts Creek watershed has non - forested riparian buffers. In addition to
being located within an EEP TLW, the Moores Fork drainage was identified as a priority subwatershed for
stream restoration and agricultural BMPs during the initial Upper Yadkin - Ararat River local watershed
planning (LWP) initiative conducted by EEP [EcoEngineering, 2008].
The site assessment phase of the project identified other stressors as well, including elevated water
temperatures, excessive nutrient inputs, channel incision, bank erosion and sediment deposition. The
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project was identified as an opportunity to improve water quality and
aquatic and terrestrial habitats within the TLW.
The project goals address stressors identified in the TLW and include the following:
• Improve water quality in Moores Fork and the UTs through reductions in sediment and nutrient
inputs from local stressors /sources;
• Create conditions for dynamic equilibrium of water and sediment movement between the supply
reaches and project reaches;
• Promote floodwater attenuation and secondary functions associated with more frequent and
extensive floodwater contact times;
• Improve in- stream habitat by increasing the diversity of bedform features;
• Enhance and protect native riparian vegetation communities; and
• Reduce fecal, nutrient, and sediment loads to project streams by promoting and implementing
livestock best management practices.
The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
• Restoration of the dimension, pattern, profile of approximately 1,828 LF of Moores Fork and 243
LF of one UT;
• Restoration of the dimension and profile (Enhancement 1) of the channel for approximately 2,832
LF of Moores Fork and 3,710 LF of three UTs;
• Limited channel work coupled with livestock exclusion, gully stabilization, invasive species control
and buffer planting (Enhancement 11) on approximately 761 LF of Moores Fork and 5,998 LF
along five UTs;
• Livestock exclusion fencing and other best management practice installations;
• Invasive plant species control measures across the entire project wherever necessary; and
• Preservation of approximately 4,543 LF relatively un- impacted forested streams in permanent
conservation easement.
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
1

2.0 SITE SELECTION
2.1 Directions to Site
The Moores Fork project site is located northwest of Mount Airy in Surry County, North Carolina. To
access the site from Asheville, take 1 -40 East towards Statesville to Exit 152B. Merge on 1 -77 North
toward Elkin and travel approximately 49 miles. Take Exit 100 (North Carolina 89) toward Mt. Airy and
Galax. Turn right onto North Carolina 89 (West Pine Street) and travel approximately 2 miles. Turn left
onto Pine Ridge Road and travel approximately 0.2 mile and turn right onto Horton Road. The project site
is located on both sides of Horton Road. A site vicinity map (Figure 1) and USGS topographic map
(Figure 2) are attached for review. Latitude and longitude for the site are 36.506671 N and 80.704115 W,
respectively.
2.2 Historical Conditions and Future Land Use Trends
Reference is made in the following discussions to project reaches and design stationing as shown on the
attached preliminary plans (Appendix D). The project site falls within five parcels encompassing 461
acres. One of the parcels (11.7 acres) is owned by William L. Horton, Jr. and the other four parcels are
owned by Maple Ridge Farm. Maple Ridge Farm is an operating dairy and a portion of the Horton parcel
is used as pasture for the dairy cows. An 18 -acre area comprised of two outparcels is located near the
center of the site. Dairy operations are focused at a cluster of barns, silage pits and small buildings in a
4 -acre area near the farm entrance along Horton Road. A few other barns and sheds are located
elsewhere on the property.
The majority of the stream length targeted for channel modifications lacks a robust vegetative buffer.
Enhancement and preservation are proposed for stream reaches in areas of the site that do contain
functional buffers, including much of the Barn Tributary drainage, UTs 6 and 7, portions of the Silage
Tributary drainage, and the right floodplain over the downstream half of Moores Fork. Vegetation in the
Barn Tributary drainage includes mature trees (greater than 18 inches dbh) and dense mountain laurel.
On the downstream Moores Fork floodplain, several trees in the 12 to 18 inches dbh size range are
present.
Based on a review of aerial photograph of the project site, land use and the extent of cleared land have
not changed significantly since at least 1982 (Figure 5). Between 1948 (Figure 6) and 1982, upland
areas in the Corn, Silage and Barn tributary drainages were cleared of trees and converted to pasture or
row crop fields. The permanent stream crossings on the project site include a clear -span bridge over
Moores Fork near the mid -point of the project reach and two culverts at the upstream and downstream
ends of the Corn Tributary. While it is difficult to be certain, the aerial photographs indicate the crossing
locations have remained consistent since at least 1982. Judging by the deck materials, the bridge over
Moores Fork appears to have been improved or replaced within the past 10 years. The landowners
indicated that they have reinforced the stream banks upstream of the abutments on multiple occasions
over the past several years.
In October 2006, Surry County issued Land Use Plan 2015 which describes growth, land use changes
and future development policies through 2015. The Moores Fork site is located at the divide between a
rural land use area and a rural growth area. A rural growth area is defined as being appropriate for
medium density residential development. Land to the west of the dividing line, leading to upland areas of
the Moores Fork watershed, is designated as rural land, with a best use of agriculture, low density
residential, forestry and other similar practices. Technical Memorandum Task 2, Upper Yadkin Basin
Local Watershed Plan identified the Moores Fork sub - watershed as a high priority for stream restoration,
presumably because of its low population density, agricultural land uses and potential for improvement.
Current and projected future land use for this watershed supports an ecosystem investment at this site.
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
2

tll: tNMNUtMtN 1 II
P: PRESERVATION
i.
0' 609 1200' 1800'
As Shown
Moores Fork Restoration
Surry County, NC
k � �
IMAGE DATE: 2010
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
3

Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
4
e
% it
S D DA Y
o S J {
Crooked Oak
rN r
� Noy cemaa.v �.
Hr 6
111 ORAL AR
PF16kC Al CELS
'RQRAL GR��nWTH AR
�
C�
Scale: 1" = 2,500'
Moores Fork Restoration
Surry County, NC
Figure 2: Watershed Map
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
4

W 111' 161
Sa' 29 447
Soil Map —Su rry County, North Carol ina
(Moores Fork Mitigation Site)
a i pSunn 113000 it enrol on A'ze I$S "x11 "i O..T n
a ry tnatrvs
$ 6 100 200 940 600
Fe e1
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000
USDA Natural Resources
10iiiii Conservation Service
Scale: As Shown
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
Moores Fork Restoration
Surry County, NC
10r312o11
Page 1 of 2
38.31' 15'
M' 29' 44'
Figure 3: Soils Map
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
5

Scale: As Shown Moores Fork Restoration Figure 4: Current Conditions
Surry County, NC (2010 Aerial)
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
6

Scale: As Shown Moores Fork Restoration Figure 5: Historical Conditions
Surry County, NC (1982 Aerial)
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
7

Scale: As Shown Moores Fork Restoration Figure 6: Historical Conditions
Surry County, NC (1948 Aerial)
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
8

2.3 Site Modifications, Stressors and Ecological Services
Throughout the project area site modifications have diminished the ecological services provided by
riparian buffers and adjacent floodplains. Dairy and farming operations over the past several decades
have deforested riparian buffers and allowed direct livestock access to stream, leading to elevated
temperatures and nutrients which are the primary stressors identified for this sub - watershed with the TLW
(EcoEngineering, 2008).
Moores Fork has also been impacted by channel straightening and dredging throughout much of the
project reach, and levee construction in the upstream 1,800 LF. The levee is located on the left bank, is
generally 1 to 2 feet high and has the effect of limiting floodplain access. Widespread bank erosion and
mid - channel sediment deposition are visible throughout Moores Fork. With the exception of the upstream
1,700 LF of Moores Fork, cattle currently have direct access to the project streams. The majority of the
cattle impacts are located along Moores Fork between stations 17 +50 and 36 +00, over the downstream
half of the Silage Tributary and along both of the Cow Tributaries.
Runoff from barns, fields and silage pits near the headwaters of the Silage Tributary, the Cow Tributaries
and UT1 has contributed to deep gullies forming. Bank heights of 6 feet or more are common in the
upstream 2,000 LF of the Silage Tributary and the upstream 200 LF of UT1, above the intermittent break;
bank heights on the Cow Tributaries are generally less than 3 feet. The silage pits will be relocated away
from surface waters and measures to manage runoff quantity and quality from upland areas will be
incorporated into a farm management plan that will be implemented in conjunction with the stream
enhancement efforts.
The Corn Tributary buffers have been impacted by past logging, by recent clearing for an overhead
electric line, and by farm road construction, but impacts are generally limited to upland areas well away
from the channel. The downstream 100 LF reach of the Corn Tributary is incised and the right bank has
been cleared of woody vegetation. The Pond Tributary is impacted by the dam upstream of the project
reach, by a culvert on a farm road downstream of the dam, and by cattle feeding area near its confluence
with Moores Fork. The primary impacts on the Barn Tributary are associated with a small dam that
previously impounded the upstream 150 LF; the dam was breached several years ago, but woody buffer
vegetation has yet to establish in the former impoundment and the short reach downstream. Some
recent logging has impacted the buffer on the right side of the Barn Tributary, and logging debris is
present in the channel in a few locations. The most significant impacts to UT1 are due to runoff from an
upland corn field, which has formed two deep gullies above the headwaters and contributed excess fine
sediment to the downstream reach.
Non - native plant species, particularly privet, multiflora rose and honeysuckle, are present in wooded
areas of the site. The most severely impacted areas are located in the Silage Tributary drainage. The
Corn Tributary drainage, and to a lesser extent the Barn Tributary drainage, are also impacted.
Table 1 summarizes stressors and ecological services needing enhancement in the project area.
Table 1. Stressors and Proposed Ecological Service Enhancements
Stressor
Ecological Services Needing Enhancement
Channel incision
Flood attenuation, fine sediment storage, maintenance of
stable channel bed and banks
Bank erosion and mid - channel
sediment deposition
Equilibrium sediment transport, maintenance of in- stream riffle
and pool habitats
Buffer deforestation
Filtration of runoff, thermal regulation, input of organic matter
Invasive, exotic vegetation
Riparian buffer habitat, species diversity
Direct livestock access to streams
Protection of water quality from nutrient inputs.
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
9

2.4 Evolutionary Trends
Appendix C includes a two -page inventory map showing areas of significant bank erosion, bar formation,
gully formation and debris jams. Moores Fork appears to have been straightened and shifted to the edge
of its valley between stations 19 +00 and 38 +00. There is also evidence of possible channelization or
lateral migration between stations 56 +00 and 62 +00. This assessment is supported by observations of
the floodplain topography, which shows low points in the floodplain and wetland areas indicative of relict
channel sections offset 100 feet or more from the current channel. Additional supporting data were
gathered from five of six hand auger borings in the floodplain that encountered gravel indicative of the
one -time creek bed at depths of 3.7 to 4.7 feet below existing grade. Based on a review of aerial
photographs, this straightening and /or lateral migration was completed to its current conditions prior to
1948. The shortened stream length and resulting steepening of the channel profile likely set an incision
process in motion. Bedrock is visible throughout much of Moores Fork and it appears that the bedrock
has limited the depth and extent of channel incision. Observations of a gravel layer in the bank near the
downstream end of the project indicate the channel has down -cut 1 to 2 feet.
The channel modifications, incision and subsequent widening have created bank stability and sediment
transport problems, particularly when combined with buffer vegetation removal and livestock trampling.
Moores Fork appears to be less than halfway on a trajectory from a C -type steam to an F -type stream, as
evidenced by the following (refer to project site photographs, section 2.5):
• Extensive, ongoing bank erosion;
• Leaning and fallen trees;
• Channel cross sectional areas up to nearly three times the estimated bankfull areas;
• Bank heights up to twice the bankfull depth; and
• Frequent, large mid - channel sediment bars.
The Soil Survey of Surry County indicates most of the rock in the area strikes northeast- southwest and
dips northwest. The dominant soils at the site are in the Fairview series, which are residual sandy clays,
the products of in -situ weathering of the parent bedrock. The residual soils are overlain by alluvial soils in
the Moores Fork floodplain.
Even the relatively modest incision observed throughout much of the project reach has confined large
flows to the channel, which in turn has led to bank erosion, widening and mid - channel sediment
deposition. While most obvious in Reach 2 through a pasture immediately upstream of the bridge, this
scenario is ongoing in the wooded reaches downstream of the bridge as well. Left unchecked, this
process of widening and mid - channel deposition will likely continue as leaning trees fall and expose
erodible soils. The evolutionary trend suggests that the stream will migrate laterally and form a new cross
section until the system eventually reaches equilibrium with its water and sediment supply.
Flow in the Pond Tributary is affected greatly by the upstream pond located about 200 feet upstream of
the project reach; there appears to be a moderate storage volume in the pond to mitigate flood flows to
the downstream reach. Downstream of the farm road, the Pond Tributary is badly trampled by cattle, and
while an evolutionary trend is difficult to define, this reach will not recover without intervention. The Corn
Tributary is generally stable despite being confined in a deep V- shaped valley and impacted by logging
debris. Bankfull bench construction and bank sloping are warranted in the short reach at the downstream
end to address vertical banks, but the majority of the reach should respond well to debris removal and
buffer restoration. The instability over the upstream reach of the Barn Tributary is attributed to the former
dam and impoundment. The dam breach is located at the upstream end of a highly incised reach that will
continue to erode laterally unless the unstable banks are addressed. At its downstream limit, the Barn
Tributary is highly sinuous and suffers from a lack of woody vegetation on the banks, but it is generally
stable.
The upstream 3,000 LF of the Silage Tributary and both Cow tributaries are actively incising through their
steep, V- shaped valleys, with numerous headcuts evident in the profiles. It appears that the incision was
set in motion by an increase in runoff from adjacent fields and pastures following initial clearing several
decades ago. Landowners indicated that an on -line pond was once present in the Silage Tributary
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
10

channel, but the precise location of the former pond is not known. Removal of the dam and rapid
drawdown of the impoundment may have also initiated some headcut erosion. Given the relatively small
size of the watersheds, it is likely that these streams were once shorter and the banks much lower than
they are now, with hydrology governed by groundwater rather than runoff. It appears that the changing
flow regime began the incision and degradation, and buffer deforestation and cattle trampling
exacerbated the problems. The upstream end of UT1 exhibits characteristics similar to the Cow
tributaries, but the degradation over its downstream reach is less severe.
With the exception of the downstream reach of the Silage Tributary, the streams in this drainage are
currently G type streams that are unlikely to recover absent intervention. Natural recovery could be
expected to hinge on the establishment of volunteer buffer vegetation, but the steam banks and upper
slopes appear to lack the geotechnical stability and nutrients necessary for this to happen in the
foreseeable future.
The downstream 850 LF of the Silage Tributary flows through a flatter and slightly wider valley; here the
evolutionary sequence (C to F) is similar to that observed in Moores Fork, with bank erosion and lateral
migration ongoing. As with Moores Fork, this lateral migration will likely continue without intervention.
The other project streams, UT's 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, are suitable for preservation by virtue of stable
morphology and intact buffers. The reaches of UT4 and UT11 on the property are short and
hydrologically disconnected from the remainder of the mitigation areas, and are therefore not included in
the project.
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
11

2.5 Project Site Photographs
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
12
-T: - -
Moores Fork, looking downstream from
Moores Fork; looking downstream from station
station 13 +00; mid - channel deposition; levee
18 +50; direct cattle access; bank erosion;
on left bank; April 20, 2011
February 8, 2011
Moores Fork; looking upstream from station
Moores Fork, looking downstream from station
24 +00; cattle impacts and buffer
28 +00; bank erosion and mid - channel
deforestation; February 8, 2011
deposition; April 20, 2011
1`
Moores Fork, looking downstream from
Moores Fork, looking downstream from station
station 34 +00; clear -span bridge, riprap
42 +00; mid - channel deposition, bank erosion;
armor; April 20, 2011
April 20, 2011
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
12

7r
a�
s�
Moores Fork, looking downstream from
r Moores Fork, near station 60 +00;
station 50 +00; mid - channel deposition, buffer
bank erosion; channel incision;
impacts; bank erosion; April 20, 2011
January 16, 2012
Barn Tributary at downstream end; bank
Barn Tributary at upstream end; former
erosion and buffer impacts
impounded area;
April 20, 2011
February 8, 2011
Pond Tributary, looking downstream from
Corn Tributary, looking downstream from
dam; cattle impacts;
upstream end; logging damage;
February 8, 2011
February 8, 2011
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
13

I'
r
Silage Tributary, looking upstream at
Silage Tributary, looking downstream near
headwaters; channel incision and bank
property line; bank erosion and cattle impacts;
erosion; February 8, 2011
April 19, 2011
�,`. • �:, � • • ;;tee: " -'.� Y y
= ; �.
• n•
3,
_ .. ,r•
'"s.. it �%��
Cow Tributary 1, looking downstream; bank
Cow Tributary 2, looking downstream; bank
erosion, incision and cattle impacts;
erosion and channel incision;
February 8, 2011
February 8, 2011
i
1 y
Barn Tributary, typical buffer impacts
UT1, looking upstream near downstream end;
and logging debris;
sediment impacts, privet;
January 16, 2012
January 16, 2012
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
14

3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
portions of the following parcels. A copy of the land protection instrument(s) will be included in Appendix
A upon completion of the documents.
Table 2: Summary of Project Land Parcels and Site Protection Instruments
Site
Deed Book
Acreage
Tract
Landowner
PIN
County
Protection
and Page
protected
Instrument
Number
Maple Ridge Farm &
4090 -57 -5440
Conservation
504;1127
A
Construction, Inc.
4090 -39 -0783
Surry
Easement
504,1134
126.46 ac
4090 -49 -7679
426;1017
B
Horton, William L Jr.
4090 -39 -0783
Surry
Conservation
325;461
7.87 ac
& Laura Horton
Easement
REF. 388;41
All site protection instruments require 60 -day advance notification to the Corps and the State prior to any
action to void, amend, or modify the document. No such action shall take place unless approved by the
State.
Figure 7 shows the current parcel boundaries and the proposed conservation easement boundaries.
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
1s

FORK
' POND
TRIB
e1° UT8
'Yy• �r __ _ - 1
it''
W R a COW TRIG 1
N TRI + .cA �¢51LAGE TRIB
x
z
o UT1
O
r.
4' A • e" IMAGE QATE:2410
As Shown Moores Fork Restoration Figure 7: Site Protection
Surry County, NC Instrument Boundaries
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
16
PARCELBOUNDARY
EASEMENT 80UNDARY
CORN TRIB
i MOORES FORK
v
—• 4T14
e1° UT8
'Yy• �r __ _ - 1
it''
W R a COW TRIG 1
N TRI + .cA �¢51LAGE TRIB
x
z
o UT1
O
r.
4' A • e" IMAGE QATE:2410
As Shown Moores Fork Restoration Figure 7: Site Protection
Surry County, NC Instrument Boundaries
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
16

4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION
Table 3: Project Baseline Information (p. 1 of 2)
Project Name
County
Project Area (acres)
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Moores Fork Restoration
Surry
-140 (conservation and temporary construction easements)
36.506671 N , 80.704115 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
River Basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
DWQ Sub -basin
Project Drainage Area (acres)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
CGIA Land Use Classification
Piedmont
Yadkin
03040101
03040101100010
Pee Dee River Subbasin 03 -07 -02
1,527 ac (2.39 sq. miles)
<5%
Cropland and Pasture, Confined Animal Operations
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reaches 1/2
Moores Fork
Reach 3
Moores Fork
Silage Trib
Cow Trib 1
Cow Trib 2
Existing length of reach (linear feet)
2,397
2,856
3,348
167
767
Valley classification (Rosgen)
VIII
VIII
II / IV
II
II
Drainage area (acres)
1,193
1,527
156
4
16
NCDWQ stream identification score
35
34.5
23.5
20
23.5
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
WS -IV
WS -IV
WS -IV
WS -IV
WS -IV
Morphological Description (Rosgen
stream type)
C4
C4
G4 /C4
G5
G5
Evolutionary trend
C -F
C -F
G -F
G
G
Underlying mapped soils
CsA, FsE
CsA, FsE
Fe D2
Fe D2
Fe D2
Drainage class
well drained
well drained
well drained
well drained
well drained
Soil Hydric status
not hydric
not hydric
not hydric
not hydric
not hydric
Slope
0.0078
0.0055
0.0297
0.0559
0.0384
FEMA classification
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Native vegetation community
Felsic Mesic
Forest
Felsic Mesic
Forest
Felsic Mesic
Forest
Felsic Mesic
Forest
Felsic Mesic
Forest
Percent composition of exotic
invasive vegetation
40
40
50
<10
<10
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland 1
Wetland 2
Wetland 3
Wetland 4
Size of Wetland (acres)
0.09 ac
0.02 ac
0.13 ac
0.1 ac
Wetland Type (non - riparian, riparian
riverine orriparian non - riverine)
riparian non - riverine
riparian non - riverine
riparian non - riverine
riparian non - riverine
Mapped Soil Series
FsE
FsE
CsA
FsE and CsA
Drainage class
well drained
well drained
well drained
well drained
Soil Hydric Status
not hydric
not hydric
not hydric
not hydric
Source of Hydrology
UT9 and UT10
UT8
Toe seep
Toe seep
Hydrologic Impairment
none
none
none
none
Native vegetation community
Dist. Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest
Dist. Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest
Dist. Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest
Dist. Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest
Percent composition of exotic
invasive vegetation
20
65
<10
<10
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Y
N
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Y
N
Endangered Species Act
Y
Y
CE Approved 12/21 /11
Historic Preservation Act
N
N/A
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA)
N
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
N
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N
N/A
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
17

Table 3: Project Baseline Information (p. 2 of 2)
Project Name Moores Fork Restoration
County Surry
Project Area (acres) -80 (conservation and temporary construction easements)
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 36.506671 N , 80.704115 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
River Basin Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit 03040101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit 03040101100010
DWQ Sub -basin Pee Dee River Subbasin 03 -07 -02
Project Drainage Area (acres) 1,527 ac (2.39 square miles)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <5%
CGIA Land
Use Classification Cropland and Pasture, Confined Animal Operations
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Pond Trib
Barn Trib
Corn Trib
UT1
Existing length of reach (linear feet)
194
3,498
2,464
466
Valley classification (Rosgen)
VIII
IV
IV
IV
Drainage area (acres)
27
184
30
6
NCDWQ stream identification score
20
36.5
21
23
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
WS -IV
WS -IV
WS -IV
WS -IV
Morphological Description (Rosgen
84/5
G4
G4
134
stream type)
Evolutionary trend
B -C -F
G -F
G -F
Underlying mapped soils
CsA
FeD2, FsE
CsA, FsE
FeD2
Drainage class
well drained
well drained
well drained
well drained
Soil Hydric status
not hydric
not hydric
not hydric
not hydric
Slope
0.0290
0.0250
0.0571
0,04+/-
FEMA classification
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Native vegetation community
Felsic Mesic
Felsic Mesic
Felsic Mesic
Felsic Mesic
Forest
Forest
Forest
Forest
Percent composition of exotic
<10
25
60
40
invasive vegetation
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland 6
Wetland 6
Size of Wetland (acres)
0.03 ac
0.06 ac
Wetland Type (non - riparian, riparian
riverine orriparian non - riverine)
riparian non - riverine
riparian non - riverine
Mapped Soil Series
FeD2
FsE and FeD2
Drainage class
well drained
well drained
Soil Hydric Status
not hydric
not hydric
Source of Hydrology
Toe Seep
Toe seep
Hydrologic Impairment
none
none
Native vegetation community
Dist. Small Stream/
Dist. Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest
Narrow FP Forest
Percent composition of exotic
<10
20
invasive vegetation
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
18

5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Mitigation credits presented in these tables are projections based on site design. Upon completion of site
construction, the project components and credits will be revised to be consistent with the as -built
conditions. The high end of the credit ratio spectrum for Enhancement Level I was assigned to Moores
Fork Reach 3 and Barn Tributary Reach 1, where extensive bank shaping, bankfull bench construction,
in- stream structure installation and buffer planting are proposed. Similarly, where gully repairs and
extensive farm conservation plan improvements are proposed upland of jurisdictional streams and no
credit is requested (Cow Tributaries and UT1), we have assigned the high end of the Enhancement Level
11 credit ratio spectrum. Descriptions of each reach with proposed treatments are presented Table 4a
below.
Table 4a. Reach Descriptions
Reach
Characteristics and Uplift Discussion
Relatively stable bed and banks; bedrock common; well vegetated right bank;
Moores Reach 1
levee, livestock fencing and narrow buffer on left bank.
Uplift gained through buffer planting on left bank and wide conservation easement
on forested right bank and upland areas.
Impacted by direct cattle access; widespread bank erosion and mid - channel
deposition; some matures trees on right bank and floodplain; small wetland and
Moores Reach 2
clear span bridge at downstream end.
Uplift gained by construction of new off -line channel with in- stream structures and
planted buffers. Livestock fencing will be installed. Existing wetland will be
protected during construction with fencing.
Impacted by buffer vegetation removal; widespread bank erosion and mid - channel
deposition; some matures trees on right bank and floodplain; clear span bridge at
upstream end; eroding gullies entering from left floodplain; small wetland on right
Moores Reach 3
floodplain near station 44 +00.
Uplift gained by mainly on -line enhancements including extensive bankfull
benching, bank sloping, in- stream structures, bioengineering bank treatments and
buffer planting. Short off -line reaches will be constructed where appropriate.
Existing wetland will be protected during construction with fencing.
Impacted by direct cattle access and vegetation removal; widespread gully incision
and bank erosion; some matures trees on both banks and upland areas; invasive
species common.
Silage Reach 1
Uplift gained by on -line enhancement including construction of new step -pool
profile, bank shaping, removal of invasive species, buffer planting and relocation of
silage pits away from the stream as part of a farm management plan. Livestock
fencing will be installed.
Impacted by direct cattle access and vegetation removal; widespread bank
erosion; some matures trees on both banks and upland areas; invasive species
Silage Reach 2
common.
Uplift gained by on -line enhancements including isolated bankfull benching, bank
sloping, in- stream structures, invasive species removal and buffer planting.
Livestock fencing will be installed.
Impacted by direct cattle access and vegetation removal; gully incision and bank
erosion; some matures trees on both banks and upland areas.
Cow Tributaries 1 and 2
Uplift gained by on -line enhancements including, bank sloping, in- stream
structures, buffer planting and upland gully stabilization /runoff management.
Livestock fencing will be installed.
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
19

With the descriptions of existing conditions and proposed uplifts presented in Table 4a as a basis, Table
4b below presents the proposed mitigation credits for each project reach.
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
20
Impacted by direct cattle access and vegetation removal; bank trampling and
Pond
erosion; no woody buffer vegetation.
Uplift gained by construction of off -line restored channel with in- stream structures,
buffer planting and livestock fencing.
Impacted by past dam /pond construction and vegetation removal; sparse woody
buffer vegetation.
Barn Reach 1
Uplift gained by mainly on -line enhancements including removal of the dam
remnants, extensive bankfull benching, bank sloping, in- stream structures, and
buffer planting.
Impacted by logging and associated debris stockpiling on right upland areas; some
large debris accumulations are present in the channel, causing isolated bank
Barn Reach 2
erosion; left bank and upland areas well vegetated; isolated invasive species.
Uplift gained by removal of debris, isolated bank stabilization, invasive species
removal and buffer planting. Buffer width on left upland are generally 200 feet or
greater.
Impacted by logging and associated debris stockpiling in upland areas; some
debris accumulations and pockets of invasive species are present near the channel
Corn Reach 1
and in the buffers.
Uplift gained by removal of debris, isolated invasive species removal and buffer
planting. Buffer widths are generally 70 feet or greater.
Impacted by vegetation removal and channel incision; no woody buffer vegetation
Corn Reach 2
on right bank.
Uplift gained by on -line enhancements including continuous bankfull benching,
bank sloping, in- stream structures and buffer planting.
Impacted by vegetation removal and encroachment of invasive species; gully
incision and bank erosion; some matures trees on both banks and upland areas.
UT1
Uplift gained by on -line enhancements including, invasive species removal, buffer
planting and upland gully stabilization /runoff management. Livestock fencing will
be installed.
Buffers generally intact and channel bed and banks in stable forms. Buffer
vegetation includes a mix of hardwoods and woody shrubs. Potential
encroachment from adjacent fields and pastures threatens to degrade the quality of
these streams.
Preservation Reaches
UTs 2,3,5,6,7,8,9, 10
Uplift gained by protection of intact buffers and streams with conservation
easements that extend well beyond the minimum 50 -foot top of bank offsets. In
several areas, buffer widths exceed 200 feet. Livestock fencing will be installed in
areas where pastures are adjacent to easement boundaries. The farm
management plan will improve water quality in upland areas by relocating feed lots
and silage pits away from surface waters.
With the descriptions of existing conditions and proposed uplifts presented in Table 4a as a basis, Table
4b below presents the proposed mitigation credits for each project reach.
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
20

Table 4b: Projected Mitigation Credits
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation
Surry County, North Carolina
EEP Project No. 94709
Stream Mitigation Credits
Type
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
Total
2,071
6,726
2,963
909
Project Components
Project Component
-or- Reach ID
Stationing /Location
Existing LF
Approach
Restoration -or-
Restoration
Equivalent
Proposed LF
Mitigation
Ratio
Moores Reach 1
STA 989 -1750
761
N/A
Ell
761
2.5:1
Moores Reach 2
STA 1750 -3578
1,636
P2
R
1,828
1:1
Moores Reach 3
STA 3578 -6410
2,856
P2/3
El
2,832
1:1
Silage Reach 1
STA 1000 -1900
900
P1
El
900
1:1
Silage Reach 2
STA 1900 -4348
2,448
P3
El
2,448
1.5:1
Cow 1
STA 1219 -1386
167
P4
Ell
167
1.5:1
Cow 2
STA 1331 -2098
767
P4
Ell
767
1.5:1
Pond
STA 1000 -1243
194
P2
R
243
1:1
Barn Reach 1
STA 1000 -1250
250
P3
El
250
1:1
Barn Reach 2
STA 1250 -4498
3,248
N/A
Ell
3,248
2.5:1
Corn Reach 1
STA 1000 -2350
1,350
N/A
Ell
1,350
2.5:1
Corn Reach 2
STA 2350 -2462
112
P3
El
112
1:1
UT1
STA 1000 -1466
466
N/A
Ell
466
2.5:1
Preservation
Reaches
UTs 2,3,5,6,7,8,9, 10
4,543
N/A
P
4,543
5:1
Component Summary
Restoration Level
Stream
(linear feet)
Restoration
2,071
Enhancement 1
6,542
Enhancement 11
6,759
Preservation
4,543

6.0 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built survey of the
mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary US
Department of the Army (DA) authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer
(DE) has otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is
required for construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the Interagency Review
Team (IRT), will determine if performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the
requirements of the release schedules below. In cases where some performance standards have not
been met, credits may still be released depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may be
required to restart or be extended, depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified
performance standard. The release of project credits will be subject to the criteria described as follows:
Table 5: Stream Credits Release Schedule
Monitoring
Year
Credit Release Activity
Interim
Release
Total
Released
0
Initial Allocation — see requirements above
30%
30%
1
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met
10%
40%
2
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met
10%
50% (60 %k )
3
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met
10%
60% (70 %k )
4
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met
5%
65% (75 %k )
5
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met
10%
75% (85 %k )
6
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met
5%
80% (90 %k )
7
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being
met and project has received closeout approval
10%
90% (100 %k )
A reserve of 10% of a site's total stream credits shall be released after two bankfull events have occurred, in separate years,
provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met.
6.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan, can be released by the EEP
without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a. Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
b. Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE
covering the property
c. Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the
mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; per the EEP Instrument, construction means that a
mitigation site has been constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an as -built report has
been produced. As -built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to project closeout, if
appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits.
d. Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA permit
issuance is not required.
6.2 Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a
determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream projects a reserve of
10% of a site's total stream credits shall be released after two bankfull events have occurred, in separate
years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. In the event that less
than two bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits shall be at
the discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, the EEP will
submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation substantiating achievement of
criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be included with the annual monitoring
reports.
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
22

7.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
7.1 Target Streams
The Moores Fork site affords the opportunity to address the major stressors described in the RBRP for
the Stewarts Creek watershed. The project design will enhance (and protect where appropriate) the
ecological services threatened by these stressors. The proposed conservation easement boundaries will
encompass the six wetlands at the site, but no work is proposed and no wetland mitigation credit is being
sought. Table 6 below summarizes the links between each design objective proposed for this project and
the ecological service improvements that can be achieved on a reach -by -reach basis. Specific site
constraints and design measures for each reach, along with the target Rosgen stream types, are
presented in Table 7.
Table 6: Design Objectives and Ecological Services
Project Reach
Design Objective
Enhanced Ecological Services
Moores
Moores
Moores
Silage
Cow
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Trib
Trib 1
Breach levee or create bankfull
a. Flood attenuation
benches; restore stream to
floodplain interaction.
b. Fine sediment storage
a. Maintenance of stable channel
bed and banks.
Create new channel dimension,
b. Equilibrium sediment transport
✓
✓
pattern and profile
C. Maintenance of in- stream riffle
and pool habitats
Use in- stream structures and
a. Maintenance of stable channel
bank grading to promote stability,
bed and banks.
riffle and pool formation and
b. Equilibrium sediment transport
✓
✓
✓
sediment transport continuity for
C. Maintenance of in- stream riffle
on -line reaches.
and pool habitats
Establish 50 -foot wide riparian
a. Filtration of runoff
buffers with diverse group of
b. Thermal regulation
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
native species.
C. Input of organic matter
Eradicate invasive exotic
vegetation and seed source;
a. Riparian buffer habitat
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
replant buffer areas with native
b. Robust species diversity
vegetation.
Install new or additional livestock
a. Protection of water quality from
fencing to restrict livestock
nutrient and pathogen inputs.
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
access to streams; provide
b. Protection of banks from
alternative water sources.
livestock trampling
a. Maintenance of stable channel
bed and banks.
Stabilize upland gullies using
b. Protection of water quality from
✓
✓
✓
bioengineering techniques.
excess sediment inputs.
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
23

Table 6: Design Objectives and Ecological Services, continued
Project Reach
Design Objective
Enhanced Ecological Services
Cow
Pond
Barn
Corn
Trib 2
Trib
Trib
Trib
UT1
Create bankfull benches; restore
a. Flood attenuation
✓
✓
stream to floodplain interaction.
b. Fine sediment storage
a. Maintenance of stable channel
bed and banks.
Create new channel dimension,
b. Equilibrium sediment transport
✓
pattern and profile
C. Maintenance of in- stream riffle
and pool habitats
Use in- stream structures and
a. Maintenance of stable channel
bank grading to promote stability,
bed and banks.
riffle and pool formation and
b. Equilibrium sediment transport
✓
✓
✓
sediment transport continuity for
C. Maintenance of in- stream riffle
on -line reaches.
and pool habitats
Establish 50 -foot wide riparian
a. Filtration of runoff
buffers with diverse group of
b. Thermal regulation
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
native species.
C. Input of organic matter
Eradicate invasive exotic
vegetation and seed source;
a. Riparian buffer habitat
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
replant buffer areas with native
b. Robust species diversity
vegetation.
Install new or additional livestock
a. Protection of water quality from
fencing to restrict livestock
nutrient and pathogen inputs.
✓
✓
✓
✓
access to streams; provide
b. Protection of banks from
alternative water sources.
livestock trampling
a. Maintenance of stable channel
bed and banks.
Stabilize upland gullies using
b. Protection of water quality from
✓
✓
bioengineering techniques.
excess sediment inputs.
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
24

Table 7. Target Streams, Constraints and Reach - Specific Measures
Reach
Target Stream
Type (Slope)
Constraints
Reach - Specific Measures
Livestock grazing on left bank;
Riparian buffer planting;
p p g; invasive species removal;
Moores R1
C4 (0.009)
bedrock in profile; steep upland
livestock fencing
slope on right; mature trees
Livestock grazing ; bedrock in profile;
New off -line channel; in- stream structures; bank grading;
Moores R2
C4 (0.007)
mature trees; bridge at downstream
bankfull benches; riparian buffers; invasive species
end
removal
Corn field on left bank; bedrock in
In- stream structures; bank grading; bankfull benches;
Moores R3
C4 (0.007)
profile; mature trees; property line at
riparian buffers; invasive species removal
downstream end
Silage
Steep, confined valley; mature trees;
Bioengineering stabilization of upland gullies; new on-
Tributary
B4 (0.036)
pasture on both banks; stormwater
line strep -pool channel; in- stream structures; riparian
R1
inputs
buffers; invasive species removal; runoff controls
Silage
Livestock grazing; bedrock in profile;
In- stream structures; bank grading; bankfull benches;
Tributary
B4 -C4 (0.020)
steep upland slopes; mature trees;
riparian buffers; invasive species removal; livestock
R2
property line at downstream end
fencing
Cow
Steep, confined valley; mature trees;
Bioengineering stabilization of upland gullies; in- stream
Tributaries
B4 (0.038 - 0.055)
pasture on both banks
structures; riparian buffers; invasive species removal;
1 and 2
runoff controls
Pond
C4 (0.018)
Culvert at upstream end; Moores
New off -line channel; in- stream structures; bank grading;
Tributary
Fork confluence; adjacent pasture
bankfull benches; riparian buffers
Barn
Steep, confined valley; stormwater
In- stream structures; bank grading; bankfull benches;
Tributary
E4b (0.025)
inputs; connection to stable
riparian buffers; invasive species removal; runoff controls
R1
downstream reach
Barn
Tributary
E4b (0.025)
Steep, confined valley; mature trees
Logging debris and invasive species removal; isolated
R2
bank repairs; riparian buffers
Corn
Steep, confined valley; mature trees;
Logging debris and invasive species removal; riparian
Tributary
B4 (0.02 + / -)
corn field on both banks; farm roads
buffers
R1
at upstream and downstream ends
Corn
Mature trees on left bank; farm road
In- stream structures; bank grading; bankfull benches;
Tributary
B4 (0.04 + / -)
at upstream end; Moores Fork
riparian buffers; invasive species removal
R2
confluence
UT1
B4 (0.04 + / -)
Steep, confined valley; mature trees;
Bioengineering stabilization of upland gullies; invasive
upland corn field /pasture
species removal; runoff controls
7.2 Target Plant Communities
The target plant community is a more robust and diverse version of the existing Felsic Mesic Forest plant
community identified in the upland and relatively undisturbed reaches of the UTs. In upland areas where
stream and floodplain grading are not proposed but where invasive exotic plants have encroached, buffer
restoration design will include the following:
• Eradication of invasive exotic species;
• Preservation of desirable existing species; and
• Supplemental planting with selected native trees and shrubs to encourage a more diverse
version of the target community.
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
25

Most of the areas proposed for stream and floodplain grading are currently pasture. The target plant
community for these areas will be the same as the upland areas, but species within this community will be
selected for their adaptation to streambank and floodplain conditions. Appendix C includes a table with
several candidate species for buffer planting.
7.3 Design Methodology and Data Analyses
The design methodology incorporated both form -based and analytical approaches, using a combination
of statistical relationships and analyses to arrive at a design discharge for each reach. Other primary
design criteria, such as cross section dimensions, pattern and profile, are all linked to the design
discharge and to each other. The following sections summarize each phase of the methodology;
supporting calculations and data are included in Appendix C.
7.3.1 Design Discharge
In order to estimate a range of design discharges for each reach where dimension and pattern and /or
profile modifications are proposed, we evaluated regional regression equations, analyzed field bankfull
indicators using hydraulic models, and considered sediment transport competence using critical
discharge for initiation of bed material mobility (where sediment data could be obtained). In addition to
evaluating discharge at various surveyed riffle cross sections on the project reaches, we also evaluated
the predicted discharge for the Mill Creek reference reach as a check of the analysis methodology. As
indicated in Table 8, there is considerable spread in the predicted design discharge values. The USGS 2-
year estimate typically provides an upper bound on the bankfull discharge while the critical discharge
estimates typically provide a lower bound.
The critical discharge estimates based on competence are at the low end of the range for all project
reaches where suitable samples could be obtained. The regional curve and USGS estimates are also at
the low end of the discharge range. Our selected design values are based primarily on hydraulic models
that include surveyed cross sections with reliable bankfull indicators, in each case a well - defined bench
with evidence of relatively recent flow. The reach -wide model, which also accounts for floodplain and
channel roughness, allowed us to adjust discharge until the stage matched the stable bankfull indicators.
We also used the model to check for other possible geomorphic features (scour lines, changes in bank
angle, etc.) using the range of predicted discharges and were unable to identify any reliable indicators of
the bankfull stage in the surveyed cross sections other than those that were first identified in the field. We
are confident in the modeled discharges because they are based on site - specific measurements rather
than predictions based on average regional conditions or empirical formulae.
Also, as discussed in Section 7.3.2, the design attempts to create sediment transport continuity with
upstream supply reaches so as to address widespread mid - channel deposition as is evident throughout
Moores Fork. The reach of Moores Fork immediately upstream of the project limits has greater transport
capacity than the project reach, owing mainly to a 40 percent greater slope. The existing stable cross
sections (M1.1, M1.6, M1.7, M1.9 and M1.10) appear to have adjusted shape and dimension to be in
better balance with the supply reach than the unstable cross sections, likely because of more robust bank
vegetation and more frequent floodplain access. Our analysis of a design discharge based on regional
relationships or critical discharge estimates indicates that such a design would lead to even more
sediment transport imbalance than currently exists because the resulting smaller cross section would
have less competence and capacity.
We have considered contributing factors to explain the wide spread between predicted and "measured"
discharges. We also surveyed additional cross sections and profiles near the upstream limits of Moores
Fork and these surveys confirm our measurements and predictions in the supply reach and project
reaches. Our observations in the Moores Fork watershed indicate that the differences are likely
attributable to relatively low infiltration rates caused by soil compaction in pastures, shallow bedrock,
steep upland areas and impervious surfaces along the Interstate 77 corridor.
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
26

Table 8: Design Discharge Estimates (cfs)
Design Reach
NC Rural
Piedmont
Regional
Curve
USGS
2 -year
NC HR1
Hydraulic Model
using Field
Indicators
Critical
Discharge
(Pavement Ds4)
Critical
Discharge
(Bar D,00)
Selected
Design Value
Moores Rch 1
139
237
380 -400
185 -190
101
400
Moores Rch 2/3
166
278
380 -430
170 -185
56
400
Silage Trib. Rch 1
14
29
51
n/a
n/a
24
Silage Trib. Rch 2
32
63
n/a
n/a
n/a
60
Pond Trib.
9
20
n/a
n/a
n/a
19
Barn Trib.
3
8
18
n/a
n/a
11
Mill Creek R.R.
284
385
191 -196
173 -270
77 -87
N/A
On reaches of the Silage and Pond Tributaries, reliable bankfull indicators could not be located and
estimates based on field indicators could not be made. We did not perform hydraulic or sediment
transport analyses for reaches where pattern or profile are not proposed to be changed.
The smaller project reaches (Silage, Pond, Barn and Corn Tributaries) were either so heavily impacted by
cattle or small enough in cross section to make pebble counts infeasible. In order to gather some
sediment size data for these streams, representative bar samples were collected and analyzed; the Pond
Tributary is so heavily trampled that even bar sampling was not feasible.
7.3.2 Sediment Transport
As part of our sediment transport evaluations, we considered landscape position and the connections
between the various reaches, with a focus on Moores Fork. A qualitative assessment of Moores Fork at
the project site and the reach upstream reveals the following general conditions:
• The reach immediately upstream is a both a source of sediment to the project reaches (through
hillslope and bank erosion processes) and a transport reach. Sediment export appears to be
balanced with supply; the reach has a bedrock controlled profile, a steep, rocky hillside on the
right bank and exposed, unstable soils on the left bank.
• Reach 1 is primarily a transport reach, similar in profile to the upstream reach with somewhat
more prominent bars, some of which are influenced by in- stream woody debris.
• Reach 2 is primarily a storage reach, but extensive bank erosion provides a source of fine
sediment to the system. Lateral erosion has allowed large mid - channel and lateral bars to form.
• Reach 3 has storage, source and transport sub - reaches, with several large bars (storage),
widespread bank erosion and hillslope colluvium (source) and bedrock controlled bed and banks
(transport).
Given the presence of mid - channel sediment deposition and abundant bedrock in the bed, aggradation is
more of a concern that degradation for Moores Fork. Our Moores Fork sediment transport analyses were
targeted on developing design strategies to accommodate excess sediment supply
Table 8 above summarizes sediment transport competence analyses; supporting data are included in
Appendix C. Our analyses indicate the design streams (in terms of cross section and profile) will
transport the size of the large bed materials sampled at the site. We also evaluated sediment transport
capacity and continuity between the supply and design reaches, using unit stream power as the indicator
parameter. We compared stream power over a range of stages up to and above the bankfull stage to
check if continuity was achieved. Hydraulic models (HEC -RAS and RIVERMorph) of the existing and
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
27

design conditions were used to support the sediment transport analyses by providing hydraulic
parameters such as hydraulic radius, slope, shear stress, and power. Graphical output of these analyses
is included in Appendix C.
Slope and cross section size and shape are the factors that determine stream power. There is no
realistic opportunity to increase slope in the project reaches to match the supply reach slope, so cross
section shape and size become the design focus. As discussed in Section 7.3.3, there are geotechnical
stability considerations for cross section design; the design attempts to optimize sediment transport
continuity and bank stability.
Analyses indicate that the design unit stream power in the Moores Fork restoration and enhancement
reaches is somewhat lower than the supply reach, but greater than the existing conditions up to the
bankfull stage. The decrease in sediment transport capacity from the supply reach to the project reaches
suggests that excess sediment may continue to deposit in the project reaches. The design cross section
shape and size accounts for this potential by providing space for sediment deposition in advantageous
sections of the channel, such as in point bars. In- stream vane structures will also be used to reduce the
potential for mid - channel deposition in riffles and runs. We expect that sediment loads and the potential
for excessive mid - channel deposition will be reduced once upstream banks on the site are stabilized, but
off -site reaches will likely continue to deliver a relatively large supply of sediment.
At the Silage Tributary, sediment supply is low and velocities are high, so the main concern in the steep
Reach 1 is down - cutting and the key parameter is boundary shear. Comparisons of existing versus
design boundary shear for Reach 1 indicate reductions in the design shear at the bankfull stage. At twice
the bankfull stage and beyond when valley morphology dictates hydraulic behavior, the design shear is
slightly higher than the existing shear, but not enough of a difference to warrant design adjustments. The
flatter Silage Tributary Reach 2 and the Pond Tributary are similar to Moores Fork in terms of
morphology, and bank erosion and deposition are the main concerns. For both of these reaches, the
estimated shear and unit stream power values are similar to the existing cases up to the bankfull stage.
Above the bankfull stage, the design values are less than the existing up to about 2.5 times the bankfull
stage, at which valley morphology governs the hydraulics.
The primary design goal for proposed enhancement reach of the Barn Tributary is to provide floodplain
access in order to reduce shear on the badly incised banks. Analyses indicate an abrupt decrease in
shear at the bankfull stage. The estimated shear increases approaches the reference case at stages of
about 2 times bankfull, where valley morphology comes into play.
7.3.3 Cross Section
Design discharge and sediment transport analyses inform the design of cross section dimensions and
shapes; cross section dimensions and shapes along with slope govern hydraulic parameters that are
relevant to design. Past experience also informs the cross section design. For example, project
monitoring over the past several years has indicated that a newly constructed E or C -type channel with a
width -depth ratio less than about 10 can lead to stability problems. We evaluated reference cross
sections (on Moores Fork and the Corn and Barn Tributaries) as indications of bankfull area and general
shape, but the design bank slopes are also governed by geotechnical stability needs during the
monitoring period in areas where little or no deep- rooted vegetation will be present for the first few
growing seasons. Ratios of pool -to- riffle depth and top width are based in part on reference reach data
and in part on past experience.
As noted in the previous section, the design cross sections will accommodate sediment storage within the
channel on point bars and /or in lateral bars upstream of vane structures. This stored sediment is
available for transport during large flow events, which promotes long -term stability and sediment transport
equilibrium. Mobilized sediment in the project reaches will be replaced by sediment from upstream.
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
28

7.3.4 Plan and Profile
Plan geometry design is based on multiple factors, chiefly the selected design slope and lateral
constraints such as easement boundaries and topography. At a particular plan feature such as a
meander bend, geometry is based on a range of dimensionless ratios that have proven to be effective in
meeting design objectives while promoting stability. The prime example for plan geometry is radius of
curvature ratio; well- vegetated reference reaches (Mill Creek for example) suggest a radius of curvature
ratio of 1.0 or less would be desirable, but experience indicates that a ratio less than about 1.8 places
undue stresses on newly constructed banks that lack deep rooted vegetation. Reference cross
section /reach data are summarized in Appendix C.
We considered reference reaches when developing plan geometry. Our search for a Moores Fork
reference reach included upstream reaches of Moores itself and several other streams in relatively
undisturbed watersheds, primarily in Surry County. We identified a reach of Mill Creek with a stable
meander bend in a valley and with bed materials similar to those found in Moores Fork. As with
reference cross sections, reference plan form is useful as a general guide for parameters such as belt
width, radius of curvature and pool -pool spacing. However, as with low width -depth ratios in reference
cross sections, tight radii and pool spacing in reference reaches often cannot be assigned to a design
reach without risk of stability problems in the time while vegetation is becoming established. The selected
pattern and profile take into account aquatic habitat needs, stability throughout the monitoring period and
space constraints. With pattern being directly linked to profile, we considered profile constraints such as
existing bedrock outcrops as well as sediment transport equilibrium when assigning profile grades.
The target stream type for Moores Fork is a moderately sinuous, moderate width -depth ratio C4, which is
appropriate for the relatively flat and wide alluvial valley through which it will flow. Reaches 1 and 3 will
be constructed largely within the existing channel, with modest pattern shifts where existing pattern is
unstable. In- stream structures will be incorporated in both of these reaches to promote sediment
transport equilibrium, riffle and pool formation, and enhanced bank stability. Reach 2 will be constructed
mainly off -line to position the channel in the low point of the valley and provide better floodplain access on
both banks. The overall approach can be described as a hybrid Rosgen Priority 2/3 restoration.
Given its slope and confined valley, the stable morphology for Reach 1 of the Silage Tributary is a step -
pool, B4 stream type. For key profile design parameters such as step height, pool width and depth and
pool spacing, we consulted the research of Chin and Abrahams, Li and Atkinson. We established the
design profile based on the ratio of step height to step length, which was found in stable natural step pool
systems to vary from 1 to 2. In order to limit the potential for excess shear stress on the structures and
surrounding bed and banks, the step height was capped at 12 inches. Where fish passage is a
consideration (not the case for the Silage Tributary because there does not appear to be a fish population
present), step heights will be limited to 6 inches, Because of the highly confined nature of the Silage
Tributary and the desire to preserve mature upland trees, addressing eroding banks and incised
conditions through bank sloping is not practical. The design solution is to partially fill the channel (3 to 4
feet deep) with clayey soil (compacted in horizontal lifts not exceeding 9 inches in thickness) and create a
new channel cross section and step pool profile at a higher elevation. Vegetated upland areas will be
protected. The new bed will be reinforced with stone riffles, sized to resist mobilization at flows beyond
bankfull. For the purposes of this mitigation plan we are assuming no loss of stream length.
Reach 2 of the Silage Tributary, the Corn Tributary and the Barn Tributary are similar in terms of
morphology; each is a relatively steep alluvial channel with significant incision and bank erosion problems
with little length to transition to a stable profile end point. The design approaches for these streams are
also similar. The channels will be left in their current alignments, banks will be graded to stable slopes,
bankfull benches will be constructed and in- stream structures will be used to promote bed and bank
stability. Reference cross sections on stable reaches of the Corn and Barn Tributaries were used to size
the design cross sections for these streams.
The target stream type for the Pond Tributary is a moderately sinuous, moderate width -depth ratio C4.
The project reach begins at the outlet of the culvert where flow drops about 2 feet to a small plunge pool
at the existing thalweg. The design profile will start at this existing thalweg elevation, taking advantage of
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
29

the energy dissipating effects of the pool, and then abandon the badly trampled channel for a new
alignment across the floodplain to the east. The downstream end of the profile includes a 1.5 -foot high
transition to the Moores Fork thalweg, which will be constructed using a grade control structure.
Both of the Cow Tributaries will be stabilized in their current channels, using grade control structures in
select locations to address headcut erosion. These reaches are badly trampled by cattle and should
respond well to livestock exclusion, both in terms of morphology and buffer vegetation.
The design includes filling and stabilizing gullies at the headwaters of the Silage Tributary, the Cow 1 and
Cow 2 Tributaries, UT1 and two runoff conveyances entering Moores Fork Reach 3. The proposed gully
stabilization will include upland measures such as level spreaders, swales and vegetation to divert and /or
redirect concentrated runoff away from gullies. Check dams made from riprap, woody brush, crushed
concrete, decay resistant logs and other on -site materials will be used to reduce erosive stresses in the
gullies and promote long -term healing. Stabilized areas will be planted with species and densities as
specified for buffer areas.
7.3.5 In- Stream Structures
In- stream structure types and locations were selected based on design stability, habitat enhancement and
sediment transport objectives within each reach. Table 9 below provides a summary of specific
objectives for the proposed structures. Data and analyses supporting the sizing of stone for in- stream
structures are provided in Appendix C.
7.3.6 Farm Management Plan
The Surry Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) s developed a Conservation Plan that will be
implemented as part of the project. EEP and the SWCD will install a water well that will supply four
separate watering stations around the farm. The plan also includes two heavy use areas installed so that
livestock can be fed away from all streams during the winter months and a stock trail so the livestock can
be moved from pasture to pasture without crossing inside the conservation easement areas. The
Conservation Plan Map is included in Appendix D.
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
30
Table 9. In- Stream Structures
Structure
Objectives
Geolifts
a.
Bank stability at channel plugs
b.
Quickly establish deep rooted bank vegetation
a.
Direct flow toward center of channel
Rock Vane or Log Vane
b.
Promote sediment storage upstream and pool formation downstream
a.
Center flow
Cross Vane
b.
Mitigate over -wide conditions and lessen potential for mid - channel bar
formation
c.
Promote sediment storage upstream and pool formation downstream
a.
Set grade in profile
Constructed Riffle or Step
b.
Provide roughness in bed
Structure
c.
Initiate riffle habitat and sediment transport equilibrium
a.
Enhance bank stability
Root Wad Cluster
b.
Provide bank roughness
c.
Establish near -bank cover and pool habitat
7.3.6 Farm Management Plan
The Surry Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) s developed a Conservation Plan that will be
implemented as part of the project. EEP and the SWCD will install a water well that will supply four
separate watering stations around the farm. The plan also includes two heavy use areas installed so that
livestock can be fed away from all streams during the winter months and a stock trail so the livestock can
be moved from pasture to pasture without crossing inside the conservation easement areas. The
Conservation Plan Map is included in Appendix D.
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
30

8.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN
EEP shall monitor the site on a regular basis and shall conduct a physical inspection of the site a
minimum of once per year throughout the post- construction monitoring period until performance
standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine
maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site
construction and may include the following:
Table 10. Maintenance Provisions
Component /Feature
Maintenance through project close -out
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in- stream
structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and supplemental installations of
Stream
live stakes and other target vegetation along the channel. Areas where stormwater and
floodplain flows intercept the channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures
and head - cutting.
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental
Vegetation
planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species shall be controlled
by mechanical and /or chemical methods. Any vegetation control requiring herbicide
application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA)
rules and regulations.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker,
Site Boundary
bollard, post, tree - blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and /or conservation
easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and /or
replaced on an as needed basis.
Ford Crossing
Ford crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by Conservation
Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor agreements.
Road Crossing
Road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by Conservation
Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor agreements.
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
31

9.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
In accordance with the provisions in CFR Title 33, "performance standards that will be used to assess
whether the project is achieving its objectives... and should relate to the objectives ... so that the project
can be objectively evaluated to determine if it is developing into the desired resource type, providing the
expected functions, and attaining any other applicable metrics ".
Table 11 below lists proposed success criteria for channel stability and riparian buffer vegetation. Year to
year comparisons for the various parameters will allow adaptive management to be implemented early on
in the monitoring period if necessary in order to reduce the risk of widespread problems.
Table 11. Performance Standards
Parameter
Metrics /Success Criteria
Frequency
a. Bank height ratio for reaches where BHR is corrected through design and
construction shall not exceed 1.2.
b. Entrenchment ratio for reaches where ER is corrected through design and
Channel Stability
construction shall be no less than 2.2.
As -Built
c. The stream project shall remain stable and all other performance standards
shall be met through two separate bankfull events, occurring in separate
years, during the monitoring years 1 through 7.
a. Density of 320 live, planted stems /ac at year 3; 260 live, planted stems /acre
Riparian Buffer Vegetation
at year 5; 210 live, planted stems /acre at year 7;
b. Planted vegetation must average 8 feet in height at year 7.
10.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the EEP monitoring template. The monitoring report shall
provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends,
population of EEP databases for analysis, research purposes, and assist in decision making regarding
project close -out.
Table 12. Monitoring Requirements
Required Parameter
Quantity
Frequency
Notes
As per April 2003 USACE
Pattern /profile survey will extend for at least
Pattern and Profile
Wilmington District Stream
As -Built
20 bankfull widths per reach. Annual
Mitigation Guidelines
profile surveys only required if channel
instability is observed.
A minimum of one representative riffle and
As per April 2003 USACE
As- Built,
pool cross section will be surveyed per
Dimension
Wilmington District Stream
Years 1, 2,
reach. Bank pin arrays shall be installed at
Mitigation Guidelines
3, 5 and 7
pool cross sections in restored reaches
where bankfull width exceeds 3 feet.
A crest gauge and /or pressure transducer
Surface Water
As per April 2003 USACE
will be installed on site; the device will be
Hydrology
Wilmington District Stream
annual
inspected on a quarterly /semi - annual basis
Mitigation Guidelines
to document the occurrence of bankfull
events on the project
Quantity and location of
Vegetation will be monitored using the
Vegetation
vegetation p lots will be
determined l consultation
annual
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS)
with EEP
protocols
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
32

Exotic and nuisance
vegetation
annual
Locations of exotic and nuisance
vegetation will be mapped
Locations of fence damage, vegetation
Project boundary
semi - annual
damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will
be mapped
Reference photographs will be made at
Photographs
semi - annual
selected overviews and near - stream
locations.
11.0 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT) the site will be transferred to the
NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program. This party
shall be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the
conservation easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to
uphold easement and deed restrictions shall be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
The NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program currently
houses EEP stewardship endowments within the non - reverting, interest - bearing Conservation Lands
Stewardship Endowment Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account is governed by North
Carolina General Statute GS 113A- 232(d) (3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used only
for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if
applicable. The NCDENR Stewardship Program intends to manage the account as a non - wasting
endowment. Only interest generated from the endowment funds will be used to steward the
compensatory mitigation sites. Interest funds not used for those purposes will be re- invested in the
Endowment Account to offset losses due to inflation.
12.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of site construction EEP will implement the post- construction monitoring protocols
previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described previously in
this document. If, during the course of annual monitoring it is determined the site's ability to achieve site
performance standards are jeopardized, EEP will notify the USACE of the need to develop a Plan of
Corrective Action. The Plan of Corrective Action may be prepared using in -house technical staff or may
require engineering and consulting services. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized
EEP will:
1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and /or required by the USACE.
3. Obtain other permits as necessary.
4. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
5. Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the
extent and nature of the work performed.
13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program's In -Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
has provided the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund
projects to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by EEP. This commitment provides financial
assurance for all mitigation projects implemented by the program.
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
33

14.0 DEFINITIONS
DX— with respect to sediment grain size distribution, the grain mean diameter which is larger than x% of
the sample distribution
Morphological description — the stream type; stream type is determined by quantifying channel
entrenchment, dimension, pattern, profile, and boundary materials; as described in Rosgen, D. (1996),
Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition
Native vegetation community — a distinct and reoccurring assemblage of populations of plants, animals,
bacteria and fungi naturally associated with each other and their population; as described in Schafale,
M.P. and Weakley, A. S. (1990), Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third
Approximation
Project Area - includes all protected lands associated with the mitigation project
Priority Levels of Restoration — 1: convert incised stream to new stream at original floodplain elevation; 2:
establish new stream and floodplain at existing stream elevation; 3: convert incised stream to new stream
type without establishing an active floodplain but providing flood -prone area; 4: stabilize incised stream in
place.
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
34

15.0 REFERENCES
Abrahams, A. D., G. Li, and J. F. Atkinson (1995), Step -Pool Streams: Adjustment to Maximum Flow
Resistance, Water Resources Research, 31(10), 2593 -2602.
Andrews, E.D. (1984), Bed - material Entrainment and Hydraulic Geometry of Gravel -Bed Rivers in
Colorado. Geol. Soc. of Am. Bull., 95, 371 -378.
Andrews, E.D. and James M. Nankervis. (1995). Effective Discharge and the Design of Channel
Maintenance Flows for Gravel -Bed Rivers. Geophysical Monograph Series, Vol. 89,151 -164.
Bathurst, James C., (2007). Effect of Coarse Surface Layer on Bed -Load Transport. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, 33(11), 1192 -1205.
Chin, A. (2002), The Periodic Nature of Step -Pool Mountain Streams. American Journal of Science, Vol.
302, 144 -167.
EcoEngineering (2008), Technical Memorandum Task 2, Upper Yadkin Basin Local Watershed Plan.
Harman, et al. (1999). Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams, AWRA
WiIdland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, AWRA Summer
Symposium, Bozeman, MT, 401 -408.
Leopold, L.B., Wolman, M.G. and Miller, J.P. (1964). Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology, Dover
Publications, Inc., New York, NY.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (2009), Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Priorities.
Rosgen, D. L. (1994). A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169 -199.
_. (1996). Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
_. (1997). A geomorphological approach to restoration of incised rivers. Proceedings of the
Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Wang, S.S.Y, E.J.
Langendoen, and F.D. Shields, Jr., eds. 12 -22.
_. (1998). The reference reach - A blueprint for natural channel design (draft). ASCE Conference on
River Restoration. Denver CO. March, 1998. ASCE. Reston, VA.
(2001 a). A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the Federal
Interagency Sediment Conference. Reno, NV. March, 2001.
(2001 b). The cross -vane, w -weir and j -hook vane structures... their description, design and
application for stream stabilization and river restoration. ASCE conference. Reno, NV. August,
2001.
Schafale, M.P. and Weakley, A. S. (1990). Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
Third Approximation, NC Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
Surry County Planning and Development Department (2006). Land Use Plan 2015; A Ten -Year Vision
for Surry County, North Carolina.
US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District (2003). Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
Weaver, J.C., Toby D. Feaster and Anthony J. Gotvald, (2009). "Magnitude and Frequency of Rural
Floods in the Southeastern United States, through 2006: Volume 2, North Carolina" Scientific
Investigations Report 2009 -5158, USGS, Nashville, TN.
Young, T.F. and Sanzone, S. (editors). (2002), A framework for assessing and reporting on ecological
condition. Ecological Reporting Panel, Ecological Processes and Effects Committee. EPA Science
Advisory Board. Washington, DC.
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
35

APPENDIX A
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENTS

/_1 „:1101Qpyll 3
BASELINE INFORMATION

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4 -11
Date: , _ „
ProjectlSite � i
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County: 4
Longitude:
Total Points: 2q,5
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other t �°
Stream is at least intermittent
if?
Ephemeral Intermittent erennt I
.4
e.g. Quad Name:
19 or perennial if? 30"
2
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= I (L
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a-Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
No = 0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
01
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
(I.)
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
Q
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
41
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No 0')
Yes = 3
aruriciai ancnes are not raiea; see aiscussions in manual
B_ Hvriminnv fSuhtntal = '-'t M, 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
Z
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0`
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
4P
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
3
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
€I
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes3g
U. t:SIOIOQV (Z tL]Dtotal = (n 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
4P
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0)
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 Other =�
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: 'fat.
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Vercinn 4.11
Date: a ,. �, 'fit (
Project/Site: e p (�C'
Latitude:
Evaluator: my
County:�
Longitude:
Total Points: �J1
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle a
Other
if? 19 or perennial if? 30*
Ephemeral Intermittent Wrenn'
P
e. Quad Name:
g
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal= i- )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
a
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
0
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
¢
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
: 5
11. Second or greater order channel
No =
Yes = 3
anmaai uuuics ale uLI ialeu, see uiscusslons in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 9) 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1,
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1
17. Soikbased evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes 3
U. OIUIUUV IJUDIDIHI = Irk 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW =
0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: ��q
Sketch:

NC DWn Stream Tdentifientinn Farm Verainn d I
Date: p �, E � . $ k
- �e
Project/Site � 7
Latitude:
Evaluator: f`
County:
Longitude:
Total Points: 92
Stream Determination (cirejp -one)
Other Cayl-
is least intermittent
2!
Ephemeral Intermittent erennial
� y
e. g. Quad Name:
if 19
if _ 79 or erennial if? 30'
perennial if3
2
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= (0x4_5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
12
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
0.5
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
. �
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
,'ij
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
0
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
11^
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No 4p'�
Yes = 3
aiunuiai uacnes are not ratea; see discussions in manual
B_ Hvdrolnnv tSuhtntal = (r. F_; 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
V
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
d
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
. �
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? I
No = 0
Yes - 3 0
t, nininnv (.­unrnrai = I
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
d
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
(00
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
p
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other =t'`0
p
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: !fits
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
03 . -2- 2-Ok
Pro'ect/Site: EEPt tT
°
Latitude:
Evaluator: V 0 oki-1
County: S
Longitude:
Total Points: 261 "
Stream Determination (circle one)
Othera�1t�
Steam is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent ere nnia
e.g. Quad Name:
if _ 19 or perennial if ? 30
0
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a_ Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
M
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
y�q
�✓
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
1.5
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
J
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
01
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
eRl
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No 4n
Yes = 3
" artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrologv (Subtotal= 4 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No 0
Yes = 3
G. Biology (Subtotal = '1,5 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
CO)
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0,
1
1.5
25. Algae
eRl
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other =0?
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: t,t-r
cad tS' Cs
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: DJ ''2 2 , 2 of k
Project/Site:
Latitude:
Evaluator: R , KY cll . e%
County: ' ° ]
Longitude:
Total Points: Z`i
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (cir 1 e)
Other C _nn s ;,
if ? 19 or perennial if ? 30"
Ephemeral Intermittent erennia
P
e. Quad Name:
g
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = I lP )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
(D
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
Q
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
1.5
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
)
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
CD
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
0
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
24. Amphibians
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
01
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
105
11. Second or greater order channel
No 0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 4- )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1)
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
3
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
2
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No ')
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal =i )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3.
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
00
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
)
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other =
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
Project/Site: ? s
Latitude:
Evaluator:ce
County:
Longitude:
Total Points: '✓
Stream is at feast intermittent
Stream Determination (cir�l���,e)
Other#
if? 19 or perennial if? 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent ere�n.n il
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 2 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
12, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
.3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
0
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
1.5
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
1.5
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
Yes = 3
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
1.5
8. Headcuts
0
1
C2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
)
11. Second or greater order channel
No -0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = _ W- e)
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
( )
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
15
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 1
0.5
(1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No -0'aa
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = hn )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
0)
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
CIS
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
06)
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other
"'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
(not-66 if"s
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
Project/Site'. ` t'"
Latitude:
Evaluator: ,teaa" s
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Deter circle one)
Other nhSF�
Stream is at least intermittent
if? 19 or perennial if >_ 30"
Ephemeral ntermittent Perennial
P
e. Quad Name:
9
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = _ic5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0.5
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
3
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
Yes = 3
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
G
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1'
2
3
9. Grade control
0
1.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No 0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
20
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
3
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
3
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No 90
Yes = 3
U Biology (Subtotal = Icy )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
(9
1
2
3
22. Fish
(D
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
1 0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
Ct
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 Other =r0
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Vercinn 4 -11
Date: . „ 2 0�
Project/Site: � _ t
Latitude.
Evaluator: p
County: p
Longitude:
Total Points: 7 ,
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other CYbl
Stream is at least intermittent
if >_ 19 or perennial if? 30"
Ephemeral Intermittent
-�
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = i )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1C
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
C�
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0.
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
Q
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
Oa
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
24. Amphibians
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
j
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
)
11. Second or greater order channel
No 001)
Yes = 3
arunciai ancnes are not ratea; see aiscussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal= 4-,-, i
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
00
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1C
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
Q
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0'
0.
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No
Yes = 3
t_ moioav t5untotai = in t
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
-1
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
Oa
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBI = 1.5
Other 25
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: (A-T
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 0 ^s�
Project/Site: ,E
Latitude:
Evaluator: �Z
County: .
Longitude:
Total Points: 9�
Stream Determination (circle.Qne)
Other Q-o" ex �
Stream is at least intermittent
if? 19 or perennial if >_ 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent erenn al
P
e. Quad Name:
9'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =__2, C )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
1.5
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
Yes = 3
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
(2 )
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
y,
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
10
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
CY '31
11. Second or greater order channel
No ?
Yes = 3
artlilcial altcneS are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 4-,5 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3�
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
05
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No =00
Yes = 3
u. bioigav (subtotal = )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
)
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 l
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
04
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
n 1
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0 1
0
i 1 1
1.5
25. Algae
; "00
0.5 1
1 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other =
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Z -2-
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4 -11
Date:
Project/Site:
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County:7.
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
>_
Ephemeral ntermitten Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if 79 or perennial if >_ 30'
�.
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 1 as 5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0.5
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
0.5
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
0.5
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
arunciai micnes are not rates; see aiscussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = �5,15
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
0
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
f1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
0
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
Nov)
Yes = 3
u. rsioioav i5uocot21 = UP I
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
P
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
(9)
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other =,,,0)
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: vA t
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: ?
Pro'ectlSite
Latitude:
Evaluator:rwr�
County: ���
Longitude:
Total Points:, +
Stream Deter�!i (circle one)
Other cG•,°s�°'l' ��
Steam is at feast intermittent
if _ 19 or perennial if ? 30"
Ephemeral nt termittent Perennial
.
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= �, )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1}
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
Q
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
(D
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
Q0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
22?
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
Q
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
2
3
9. Grade control
9
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
C-D,
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No --`0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = kD,6 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
C
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
T
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
D
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = (''y )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
09
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
t`Q
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: ; a tgv L
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: ° ,. ?'2_, .°- \\
Project/Site ED ° av:"
' Ari<n "rye Poele-
Latitude:
Evaluator: : �t� >i
County: ��p��° (
Longitude:
Total Points: 2.0
Stream Determinat' (circle one)
Other has
Stream is at least intermittent
if? 19 or perennial if? 30*
Ephemeral termltten Perennial
e.g. Quad /Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =__k_)_)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
,a, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
(5
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
((D5
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
'0
1
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
CO-)
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
'0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other
2
3
9. Grade control
0
Notes: For,
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No -
Yes = 3
artlticial ditches are not rated; see discussions In manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal= Lo 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
S
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
((D5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes T
U. tiloloav (Subtotal = to 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
CIO
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
j
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
(Ell
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: For,
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: • �� , ��
Proect/Site: '7411
oore� �R
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County: °•_j
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circl e)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
if? 19 or perennial if >_ 30°
Ephemeral Intermittent erennia
P
e. Quad Name:
9
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
(25
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
i`2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
15
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
Q
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
T
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
0.5
3
8. Headcuts
0
(2)
2
3
9. Grade control
0
To
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = t )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
�3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
®
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
+
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5j1
15
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No =126D
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 1p )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
(
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
(b)`
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
15
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
{
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians]
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW =-0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
i
rM %t°mE
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 0 ?, 2_'2,'2.o\\
Project/Site: elegy ;S%tc
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County: r-
Longitude:
Total Points: 5
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other CrMra -, a. u
Steam is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent rennia
e.g. Quad Name:
if _ 19 or perennial if 2:30*
LLw
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= '2_2L. G )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
(2)
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
1.5
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
Q
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
(
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
0
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
t
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5t
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes
aruuciar uncnes are riot rateu; see oiscussrons in manuar
B_ Hvdroloov (Suhtntal = In 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
203
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
ffl)
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
t1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No 4D
Yes = 3
u. biology (Subtotai = In, 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
93
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
Q
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
00
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: I ACAt� c
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 0'5 �� . 2x)%k
Project/Site: � �.
Mc
Latitude:
Evaluator: V_
Coun ty:
tude:
Longitude:
g'
Total Points: ��,�
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other CCv7C� ts,�`
Stream
eam is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Irmitte Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if _ 19 or if ? 30'
(2)
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =�_)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
®
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
(2)
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
0.5
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
(2)
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
S
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1'
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No 00
es = 3
"artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = ( jo - )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
@)
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
®
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes 3'
G. Biology (Subtotal = () )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
00
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
j
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWn Stream Tdentifientinn Farm Vercinn d_11
Date: O�
s? s v�
ProjectlSite: E� e rr�
Latitude:
Evaluator: p b
County: �
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other s= i_,
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral ntermitten Perennial
P
e. Quad Name:
g
if? 19 or perennial if? 30*
2
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 1 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
T
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
0.5
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
t
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
Q)
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
24. Amphibians
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
Q
3
9. Grade control
0
1.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
di uncial wicnes are nut ratea, see oiscussons in manual
B_ Hvdrnlnav (Suhtntal = 4- 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
(1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
QD
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
T
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
(D
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
C)
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No <D
Yes = 3
L. biongv (subtotal = UD )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
(;�0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
(D
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
(
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
(
0.5
1 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: Ga sss Tv- c12 -rl
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identificafinn Fnrm Vercinn d_11
Date: (D3 a -o
ProjectlSite:
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County: -
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other Coqa, C? � �
if _ 19 or perennial if? 30*
Ephemera Intermitten Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = G )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0 )
.5
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
03
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
0.5
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
a
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
Notes: C06) ,
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No 4 0
Yes = 3
d]uncldi UILUICb d I C HUI IdLUU, sue uisuusslons In manual
B. Wdroloov (Subtotal = In
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
2
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
(D
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.51
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes 3
U_ MIU1uuv (auororai = i
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5 1
1 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: C06) ,
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Versinn 4.11
Date: p3, 2? C74�
Project/Site:EIF F 5%
Vir_by-C 3
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County: e, ,
Longitude:
Total Points: 3(0 �
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other t
if? 19 or perennial if? 30*
Ephemeral Intermittent erennia
P
e. Quad Name:
9'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 2 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
'53
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
(5
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
23
1.5
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
Yes = 3
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.
11. Second or greater order channel
No Q 0
Yes = 3
anmaw awnes are not ratea; see aiscussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = to 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
0
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
3
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No 0
Yes = 3
t_ mininav t5untotai= --I 1c, I
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
C. �
1 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
_L
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: . t t te,,S
Sketch:

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: M00/'CS i r– – \�Je i°04d -t City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: EE P State: WC– Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): P–, M-P-0,rtDtj , C, . e- t .Er !. e'e– Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc.): 'roe– io-P –,\npe Local relief (concave, convex, none): C.6r1 Lle Slope ( %): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): 1i '? Let: 4'5 4 Long: , - 1 r5 I I to Datum: B 1A
Soil Map Unit Name: 'F-Se – FQk sd6IAN ~ ¢ , C,. 0 (f_-gr NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes , No (Ifni), explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes )r, No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
4 Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1374)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
{ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Drainage Patterns (Bio)
X Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
X Water Marks (131)
— Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (CS)
Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
— Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
X Water - Stained Leaves (Bg)
_ Microtopographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): D
Water Table Present? Yes X Np
Depth (inches): (y® (0
Saturation Present? Yes )_ No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _)K_ No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1. sawy, nu-I m
% Cover
to
Species? Status
Z>
2.
ACev- V- L)6rk)
(Z)
"bt �fVC
3.
&--A-0Vt.,. i "I V-a-
® �
x4-
4.
Gar�7 tv1 �Ccc9l4nt rA/
2
1', F
5.
6.
7.
8.
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 'Earn k: ,,) A): l"o"ft a ad tL
'ate
1 s
=Total Cover
- rpvco
2.
1 _tfa >,r Y 'U 01 c.,E r°'1 Ctiffs
3.
4.
5.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 1 ry) grXhr -'n °.&..Oo ! s t
1®
= Total Cover
3.
j UeNC ?tea
4.
T-1,0yr
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
Sampling Point: V14 L-#
Dominance Test worksheet
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 9 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply by:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x4-
UPL species
x5=
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.01
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height,
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 it (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
13 = Total Cover Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
1, 1��111C�'ct. t��1e t�
2. QQ Q , nf'd 3 i'1 i ') 8'f s 0 i®
3.
4.
5.
6.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
=Total Cover
�(In{ /cll.ude photo numbers @here or on a separate sheet.) �t g p p@ y5¢
C) 4i. M n ii "F �, s.,� t✓ �`'*14'...,c.$' i,._ U �«�.m ^8 4 #, r*. 1f� 3 v �-4.:tFi�C..��l
vp` ,"Ct
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: VVt-14 k
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % TvDe Lee Texture Remarks
ncentration, D =De letion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location• PL =Pore Lininrf M= Matrix
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soil s 3.
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (89) (MLRA 147,148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
�C Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
3< Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
— Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S7) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: �ADQ r'C5 / — City /County: : ` Sampling Date: 3,2 -N\
Applicant/Owner. E—FP State: WC— Sampling Point: \A,
Investigator(s): '� >s .BC` rj @C. Section, Township, Range:
410a,*� Slope
Landform (hiiisiope, terrace, etc.): �s°?, a£.[I�°t Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): WL9 FN Via Let: 3(0.- sr)nc) Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: F ` t k-;, OD CO—Cr,, D �C NWI classification: /$t='Dt° C
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes_ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes . X. No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
Z_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Drainage Patterns (B 10)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (B5)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): w
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes i No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: Vj W
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
0et-
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
2. U f-� r
3.
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: .. (A/B)
5'
6,
7.
Prevalence index worksheet:
8.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
FACW species x2=
1. LA (I i) ,, U&I c--,lnL V C %4 7
FAC species x3=
FACU species x4=
2. txJCl- ('[Yn-C1­ f` �
3.
UPL species x5=
4.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
7.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
B.
- 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
- 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.01
- 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
- Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation) (Explain)
9
10.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1 1. $ $ X t a t
2.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
3
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
G.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
7
8.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
9•
10.
Herb -All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
11.
12.
10 =Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
5
6.
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
co ct
fI
f
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: - Lf1`_
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) . Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type' Loc
Texture Remarks
0 -10 t0d 2_ 1 1Q0
10° 1' 1(IA 2 412. "ICI
I. r2l t_ 41 Ce G L--
it E
'Type: C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM=
Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soile3:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (57)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (Al 6)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_._. Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (31) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
— Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: MiDbi City/County: -1-7, E° c Sampling Date: > o
Applicant/Owner: State: MC- Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): g F) E°sf C» Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): e< Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope ( %): r)--2-
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): ML .A 4 ?� Lat: 3t€a e �C ( Long: 3 = -12- k 4 Datum: RA D
Soil Map Unit Name: i -Syr-° t" %%rbr A NWI classification: "iVIP-
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes—,X - No
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Y— No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes . Y, No
within a Wetland? Yes Y\ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
A Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Drainage Patterns (BID)
?� Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
?� Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
,Y Drift Deposits (B3)
^ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_, Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (B5)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (133)
-X Water- Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographlc Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes )k No
Depth (inches): ° 2-
Water Table Present? Yes Y, No
Depth (inches): -
Saturation Present? Yes Y, No
Depth (inches): D
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: 'V I- -
US Army corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1. A C•ey- y u �U r l n FAC.,
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Oin (A/B)
_�
2. Lwt V d e_n n va t't n i Q t l "'o '
4.
5•
6.
7
Prevalence Index worksheet:
8.
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
=Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
FACW species x2=
1.
FAC species X3=
2.
FACU species x4=
3.
UPL species x 5 =
4.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6
7.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
- 3 - Prevalence Index Is 53.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data In Remarks or on a separate sheet)
- Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
8.
9.
10.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
3.
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
6.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
7.
7.
8.
SaplingIShrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
g
1 Q.
11
Herb -All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
12
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
1
2.
i
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
f
US Army corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: P G—
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) . Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks
0 -(D CNa;�I% %Do
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. `Location: PL =Pare Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosoi (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
— 2 cm Muck (Al 0) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
X Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
— Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A71)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
— Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umb6c; Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
— Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Tvoe:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
ProjectlSite:OCJrC 5'(t- City /County: sr Sampling Date: .
Applicant/Owner. =P State: LIC- Sampling Point: \1--k
Investigator(s): 1: . 1 4 C- 14t M t-e, Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hiilslope, terrace, etc.): -'- Cx w Local relief (concave, convex, none): c unc m�,ie Slope ( %): 0 -2-
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): ML-V- A \a 4n Lat: Long: a °i (1 Datum: "P%D
Soil Map Unit Name: T-S E Corm& ( <: �A - C-01"01 NWI classification: \A
4
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation . Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes £ No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes " No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes y° No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
Surface Soil Cracks (136)
X Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1374)
A Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (68)
_ High Water Table (A2)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
? Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
A Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (131)
_ Iron Deposits (65)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water- Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes ie No
Depth (inches): "4'
Saturation Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes ca ilia fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: �f-! -�CL
5.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
6
7
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
9.
10.
I. $ c-er % ] n, Pn-
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
(A)
(B)
2 I ty tf f r ` ( ""i °k tit v X, A-0 -1 E
_
3.
2.
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
5
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
( c-:)
(A/B)
6
6,
7•
height.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of. Multiply by
OBL species x 1 =
g•
8.
= Total Cover
Saplino /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
FACW species x2=
12.
1.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.2B ft in
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x4=
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A)
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
(B)
2.
3.
4.
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6
7
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is X50%
— 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.01
— 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
B
9.
10.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1.
— Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'indicators of hydric soil and wetiand hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
3'
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (0131-1), regardless of
6
7•
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
g•
10.
Herb — All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
11.
12.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.2B ft in
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
height.
1.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
2.
3.
4.
5
6.
Present? Yes Y, No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo here or on a separate
sheet.)
(n'gu�mtbbers
i-i $ �J V i.� "Y
$� g � �1�y d
�... Ym> G„!�a.- n Q.- a 23 r. :£ x no( 3�5'���.:'? tA' I,
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

SOIL Sampling Point: id�3
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tyoe Loc Texture Remarks
00 q k 41 U)F) a
m
'Type: C= Concentration, D= Depletlon, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL =Pore Lininq, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
— Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (84)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 14B)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X. No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: C—�, R: W E 1 3%& s City /County: a. ' Sampling Date: 3 , 1(
Applicant/Owner: E E P State: Ij C, Sampling Point: N !`
Investigator(s): , i`k le– 21 _ C. p %Mrl W Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hiiislope, terrace, etc.): °°fit s, Local relief (concave, convex, none): r ;Isf, Slope ( %): r > °2-
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): V&Lo Let: 3b, 5-02J4 Long: a °I2 t � f� Datum:
Soil Map unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes --y No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydrtc Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes °�� No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (86)
`. Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
— Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (B5)
— Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water- Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes Y. No
Depth (inches): %b
Saturation Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): '2–
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont– Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: LA
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) . Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tyne Loc Texture Remarks
�D-IQAJ 2 00 1(
RM= Reduced Matrix. MS= Masked Sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators tot Problematic Hydric Soils':
Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (173)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
— Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrx (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes_ No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate
eight.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
% Cover . Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1 • L, �t �l ��+"D t1 � � "(' � (t� ® v
' 4
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: S (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
2. Arfe y t S1f ? 2D EAC,
3.
4,
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
5'
6.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
8.
"JCS =Total Cover
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
FACW species x2=
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x4-
UPL species x5=
Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. a! ---tVt )e14 Sfelrf�� _C�
3.
4.
S.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6
7.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
X 2 - Dominance Test is X50%
— 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
— 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
10.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
data in Remarks or an a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
3'
4.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
5.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
6
7
height.
8.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
9•
10.
Herb - All herbaceous (non - woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
11.
12.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
h'
(�) =Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate
eight.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site: M(x)fe. i � \f4f- i 6(- (0 City/County: �4 Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: 1> State: %Ac Sampling Point: Vj G t9VO
Investigator(s): C,, �1 r(d iC— Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc.): -h)-. 00,� r arm Local relief (concave, convex, none): c° r-nCrAkJ e-' Slope ( %): 0- 2
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): MLR—) € Lat: 3(".5d5 IC& Long: Datum: N &r
Soil Map Unit Name: _ n F-0&k '1f le - 1Fc4k1/Vk'vvJ t NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes K No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes --- )( No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al) _
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2) (
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
X Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3) X
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (131) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132) _
Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
X Drift Deposits (133) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (65)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water - Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): -
Saturation Present? Yes
Depth (inches): ®°
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: N J(
7.
Absolute
Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
8.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
�� VOIL-
% Cover
Species? Status
'4
Number of Dominant Species
FACW species x2=
1. r- - ) -1,V' =,
1 • J+-L)f a
A
_C-
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A)
2. s & r� 6, td%,40 � � t s� . �
FACU species x 4 =
3.
3.
UPL species x5=
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
Total Number of Dominant
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
4.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
8.
9
5.
10.
Percent of Dominant Species
-
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A/B)
6.
7.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
8.
= Total Cover
Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
FACW species x2=
1. r- - ) -1,V' =,
A
FAC species x 3 =
2. a to me A4 s
c7)
1
FACU species x 4 =
3.
UPL species x5=
Column Totals: (A) (B)
4.
5.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
6.
7.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
8.
9
10.
-
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: }
2
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
- 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling[Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 31n. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tail.
Herb -All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 It in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point: V LA9 G0
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) . Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Type Loc
Texture Remarks
k ON V. 412- 0101
gAl
'Type: C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL =Pare Lining, M= Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
— 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,
14B) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ 2 cm Muck (Al 0) (LRR IV)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
— Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
— Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
_ Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
MLRA 136)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes — No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Interim Version

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Part
1: General Project Information
Project Name:
Moores Fork Mitigation Project
Count Name:
surry
EEP Number:
94709
Project s onsor:
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Project Contact Name:
Julie Cahill
Project Contact Address:
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Asheville, NC 28801
Project Contact E -mail:
julie.cahill @ncdenr.gov
EEP Project Mana er:
Julie Cahill
Project Description
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
�2—
\ .
Date
P Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date
For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are
outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
1, 2.-
U U L
Date
For Division Administrator
FHWA
6 Version 1.4, 8118105

EXISTING CONDITIONS DATA

Existing, Design and Reference Morphology Parameters
Parameter
Existing Stream
Design Stream
Reference Stream
Min
Median
Max
I Min
I Median
Max
Min
I Median
Max
Stream name
Moores Fork R 1 and 2
Moores Fork R 1 and 2
Mill Branch
Stream type
C4
C4
C4
Drainage area, DA (sq mi)
1.89
1.89
5
Mean riffle depth, dbkf (ft)
1.7
2.2
2.6
2.4
1.9
2.0
2.2
Riffle width, Wbkf (ft)
27.3
29.0
30.6
29.0
27.2
30.4
33.6
Width -to -depth ratio, [Wbkf/dbkfl
12.0
13.4
15.9
12.1
14.5
15.0
15.6
Riffle cross - section area, Abkf (sq ft)
46.9
62.6
78.2
69.7
50.8
61.6
72.4
Max riffle depth, dmbkf (ft)
3.0
3.2
3.4
0.0
3.4
0.0
2.4
2.5
2.7
/ 1
Max riffle depth ratio, [dmbkf'dbkfl
1.7
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.4
Pool width, Wbkfp (ft)
32.7
40.8
48.8
0.0
40.0
0.0
20.1
22.3
24.4
Pool width ratio, [Wbkf^kfl
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.4
0.7
0.8
0.9
Pool cross - section area, Abkfp (sq ft)
147.3
153.7
160.1
0.0
124.8
0.0
51.5
53.4
55.4
Pool area ratio, [Abkf^kf]
3.1
2.5
2.0
1.8
1.0
1.1
1.1
Max pool depth, dmbkfp (ft)
5.6
5.6
5.6
0.0
5.0
0.0
3.4
3.5
3.5
Max pool depth ratio, [dmbkfp/dbkfl
3.2
2.6
2.2
2.1
1.8
1.8
1.9
Low bank height, LBH (ft)
3.7
4.3
4.9
0.0
3.4
0.0
2.4
2.5
2.56
Low bank height ratio, [LBH /dmbkfl
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
Width flood -prone area, Wfpa (ft)
109
123.4
137.7
0
145
0
72.1
72.3
72.5
Entrenchment ratio, ER [Wfpa/Wbkf]
4.0
4.3
4.5
5.0
2.7
2.7
2.7
Radius of curvature, Rc (ft)
65.8
85.7
102.7
58
87
174
19.6
22.7
25.8
Radius of curvature ratio [Rc/Wbkf]
2.4
3.0
3.4
2.0
3.0
6.0
0.7
0.8
0.9
Belt width, Wbit (ft)
52
112.7
161
55
93
165
86
86
86
Meander width ratio [WbdWbkfl
1.9
3.9
5.3
1.9
3.2
5.7
3.2
3.2
3.2
Valley length, VL (ft)
2227
2227
4730
Stream length, SL (ft)
2393
2578
327
Valley Elevation Change, VE (ft)
20
20
60
Stream Elevation Change, SE (ft)
18.5
19.6
3.29
Valley slope, VS ( ft/ft)
0.0090
0.0090
0.0127
Average water surface slope, S (ft/ft)
0.0077
0.0076
0.0101
Sinuosity, k = SL/VL (ft/ft)
1.07
1.16
1.26
Mannings bankfull discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
193.9
297.3
411.4
349.3
251.9
323.1
396.6
Mannings bkf velocity, Ubkf = Q/A (ft/s)
4.13
1 4.75
1 5.26
5.01
4.96
5.24
5.48
D50 riffle (mm)
29
29
40
D50 bar (mm)
12
12
20
D100 bar (mm)
55
55
94

Existing, Design and Reference Morphology Parameters
Parameter
Existing Stream
Design Stream
Reference Stream
Min
Median
Max
I Min
I Median
I Max
Min
I Median
Max
Stream name
Moores Fork Reach 3
Moores Fork Reach 3
Mill Branch
Stream type
C4
C4
C4
Drainage area, DA (sq mi)
2.39
2.39
5
Mean riffle depth, dbkf (ft)
2.9
2.6
2.3
2.6
1.9
2.0
2.2
Riffle width, Wbkf (ft)
24.9
29.6
34.2
31.0
27.2
30.4
33.6
Width -to -depth ratio, [Wbkf/dbkfl
8.4
11.6
15.1
11.8
14.5
15.0
15.6
Riffle cross - section area, Abkf (sq ft)
73.3
75.5
77.6
81.7
50.8
61.6
72.4
Max riffle depth, dmbkf (ft)
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.8
2.4
2.5
2.7
/ 1
Max riffle depth ratio, [dmbkf'dbkfl
1.4
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.4
Pool width, Wbkfp (ft)
22.2
24.3
26.4
64.5
20.1
22.3
24.4
Pool width ratio, [Wbkf^kfl
0.8
0.8
0.9
2.1
0.7
0.8
0.9
Pool cross - section area, Abkfp (sq ft)
66.3
70.0
73.7
145.4
51.5
53.4
55.4
Pool area ratio, [Abkf^kf]
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.8
1.0
1.1
1.1
Max pool depth, dmbkfp (ft)
4.5
4.7
4.8
5.5
3.4
3.5
3.5
Max pool depth ratio, [dmbkfp/dbkfl
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.1
1.8
1.8
1.9
Low bank height, LBH (ft)
4.95
6.27
7.59
3.8
2.4
2.5
2.56
Low bank height ratio, [LBH /dmbkfl
1.2
1.6
1.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
Width flood -prone area, Wfpa (ft)
104
114.5
125
124
72.1
72.3
72.5
Entrenchment ratio, ER [Wfpa/Wbkf]
4.2
3.9
3.7
4.0
2.7
2.7
2.7
Radius of curvature, Rc (ft)
41
62
94
53
62
124
19.6
22.7
25.8
Radius of curvature ratio [Rc/Wbkf]
1.7
2.1
2.8
1.7
2.0
4.0
0.7
0.8
0.9
Belt width, Wbit (ft)
43
123
208
53
127
267
86
86
86
Meander width ratio [WbdWbkfl
1.7
4.1
6.1
1.7
4.1
8.6
3.2
3.2
3.2
Valley length, VL (ft)
2234
2234
4730
Stream length, SL (ft)
2847
2825
327
Valley Elevation Change, VE (ft)
16
16
60
Stream Elevation Change, SE (ft)
19.1
18
3.29
Valley slope, VS ( ft/ft)
0.0072
0.0072
0.0127
Average water surface slope, S (ft/ft)
0.0067
0.0064
0.0101
Sinuosity, k = SL/VL (ft/ft)
1.27
1.26
1.26
Mannings bankfull discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
380.1
370.2
358.4
397.7
251.9
323.1
396.6
Mannings bkf velocity, Ubkf = Q/A (ft/s)
5.19
1 4.91
1 4.62
4.87
4.96
5.24
5.48
D50 riffle (mm)
30
30
40
D50 bar (mm)
14
14
20
D100 bar (mm)
84
84
94

1170
1165
1160
1155
1150
a�
a�
1145
O
a�
1140
W
1135
1130
1125
1120
1115
Moores Fork Existing Thalweg Profile

supply
50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance along stream (ft)
LO
M
CH cB
Cn
WS
4C,
BKF �
U)
P1 E
CU
a)
P2 C
MELK
mo
1166
1165
1164
O
1163
N
1162
W
1161
1160
0
supply
50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance along stream (ft)
LO
M
CH cB
Cn
WS
4C,
BKF �
U)
P1 E
CU
a)
P2 C
MELK
mo

Moores Upstream Supply Riffle
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf - Dbkf = 3.25 Abkf =
Isw
117
O
_N
LLJ 116
116
0 20 40 60 80
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Moores Downstream Supply
Riffle
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 24.2 Dbkf = 3.33 Abkf = 80.4
117
116
0 116
N 116
W
116
ie
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Horizontal Distance (ft)

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Moores Fork
Reach Name: Supply
Sample Name: upstream supply riffle
Survey Date: 12/08/2011
Size (mm)
TOT # ITEM % CUM
0 - 0.062
0
0.00
0.00
0.062 - 0.125
0
0.00
0.00
0.125 - 0.25
0
0.00
0.00
0.25 - 0.50
1
0.96
0.96
0.50 - 1.0
0
0.00
0.96
1.0 - 2.0
0
0.00
0.96
2.0 - 4.0
0
0.00
0.96
4.0 - 5.7
1
0.96
1.92
5.7 - 8.0
1
0.96
2.88
8.0 - 11.3
5
4.81
7.69
11.3 - 16.0
11
10.58
18.27
16.0 - 22.6
17
16.35
34.62
22.6 - 32.0
24
23.08
57.69
32 - 45
20
19.23
76.92
45 - 64
15
14.42
91.35
64 - 90
7
6.73
98.08
90 - 128
1
0.96
99.04
128 - 180
0
0.00
99.04
180 - 256
0
0.00
99.04
256 - 362
0
0.00
99.04
362 - 512
0
0.00
99.04
512 - 1024
0
0.00
99.04
1024 - 2048
0
0.00
99.04
Bedrock
1
0.96
100.00
D16 (mm)
14.99
D35 (mm)
22.75
D50 (mm)
28.87
D84 (mm)
54.32
D95 (mm)
78.1
D100 (mm)
Bedrock
silt /Clay (%)
0
Sand ( %)
0.96
Gravel ( %)
90.39
cobble (%)
7.69
Boulder (%)
0
Bedrock (%)
0.96
Total Particles = 104.

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Moores Fork
Reach Name: Supply
sample Name: lateral bar ds of us riffle
Survey Date: 12/08/2011
SIEVE (mm) NET WT
31.5
1259.8
16
997
8
434.5
4
220.9
2
148.7
PAN
1076.9
X16 (mm)
0
X35 (mm)
11.13
X50 (mm)
22.66
X84 (mm)
43.3
X95 (mm)
49.28
X100 (mm)
52
silt /Clay (%)
0
Sand ( %)
23.31
Gravel ( %)
76.69
cobble (%)
0
Boulder (%)
0
Bedrock (%)
0
Total weight = 4619.2000.
Largest surface Particles:
Size(mm) weight
Particle 1: 52 244.5
Particle 2: 50 236.9

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Moores Fork
Reach Name: Supply
sample Name: downstream supply riffle
Survey Date: 12/08/2011
Size (mm)
TOT #
ITEM %
CUM
---------------------------------------------------
0 - 0.062
0
0.00
0.00
0.062 - 0.125
0
0.00
0.00
0.125 - 0.25
0
0.00
0.00
0.25 - 0.50
1
0.96
0.96
0.50 - 1.0
0
0.00
0.96
1.0 - 2.0
0
0.00
0.96
2.0 - 4.0
0
0.00
0.96
4.0 - 5.7
0
0.00
0.96
5.7 - 8.0
2
1.92
2.88
8.0 - 11.3
3
2.88
5.77
11.3 - 16.0
13
12.50
18.27
16.0 - 22.6
9
8.65
26.92
22.6 - 32.0
19
18.27
45.19
32 - 45
15
14.42
59.62
45 - 64
18
17.31
76.92
64 - 90
16
15.38
92.31
90 - 128
2
1.92
94.23
128 - 180
3
2.88
97.12
180 - 256
2
1.92
99.04
256 - 362
1
0.96
100.00
362 - 512
0
0.00
100.00
512 - 1024
0
0.00
100.00
1024 - 2048
0
0.00
100.00
Bedrock
0
0.00
100.00
X16 (mm)
15.15
X35 (mm)
26.76
X50 (mm)
36.33
X84 (mm)
75.96
X95 (mm)
141.85
X100 (mm)
361.99
silt /Clay (%)
0
Sand ( %)
0.96
Gravel ( %)
75.96
cobble (%)
22.12
Boulder (%)
0.96
Bedrock (%)
0
Total Particles = 104.

River Name:
Reach Name:
Sample Name:
Survey Date:
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
Moores Fork
Supply
point bar ds
12/08/2011
SIEVE (mm) NET WT
of ds riffle
31.5
1413.2
16
1009
8
704.5
4
500.7
2
306.2
PAN
0
D16 (mm)
7.32
D35 (mm)
17.04
D50 (mm)
27.44
D84 (mm)
61.14
D95 (mm)
72.73
D100 (mm)
78
silt /Clay (%)
0
Sand ( %)
0
Gravel ( %)
90.37
cobble (%)
9.63
Boulder (%)
0
Bedrock (%)
0
Total weight = 4511.6000.
Largest surface Particles:
Size(mm) weight
Particle 1: 78 416
Particle 2: 50 162

19
O
N
W
xs-m 1.1
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 30.6 Dbkf = 2.56 Abkf =
M
117
117
ie
116
115
OWN
0 50 100 150
Horizontal Distance (ft)

O
N
W
XS-M1.2
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 32.7 Dbkf = 3.24 Abkf = 106.1
MIN
116
116
ie
115
115
0 50 100 150 200
Horizontal Distance (ft)

19
O
_N
W
XS-M1.3
o Ground Points • Bankfull
Indicators
Wbkf = 27.3 Dbkf =
115
115
ifi[!
114
v Water Surface
Points
1.72 Abkf =
0 50 100 150
Horizontal Distance (ft)

O
N
W
XS-M1.4
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 48.8 Dbkf = 3.02 Abkf = 147.3
115
115
114
ifi[!
114
114
0 50 100 150
Horizontal Distance (ft)

O
N
W
XS-M1.5
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 51.3 Dbkf = 3.83 Abkf = 196.2
115
115
114
ifi[!
114
114
0 50 100 150 200
Horizontal Distance (ft)

19
O
_N
W
XS-M1.6
o Ground Points • Bankfull
Indicators
Wbkf = 34.2 Dbkf =
Ifl[!
114
113
113
v Water Surface
Points
2.27 Abkf =
77.6
0 50 100 150
Horizontal Distance (ft)

19
O
_N
W
XS-M1.7
o Ground Points • Bankfull
Indicators
Wbkf = 22.2 Dbkf =
Ifl[!
114
113
113
v Water Surface
Points
2.98 Abkf =
66.3
0 50 100 150
Horizontal Distance (ft)

19
O
_N
W
XS-M1.9
o Ground Points • Bankfull
Indicators
Wbkf = 26. 4 Dbkf =
1135-
1130-
1125-
1120
v Water Surface
Points
2.79 Abkf = 73.7
0 50 100 150
Horizontal Distance (ft)

XS -M1.10
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 24.9 Dbkf = 2.94 Abkf = 73.3
113
113
C: 112
O
112
W
112
112
Ml
Horizontal Distance (ft)
104.5

River Name:
Reach Name:
Sample Name:
Survey Date:
Size (mm)
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
Moores Fork
Reach 1
zig -zag riffle
02/08/2011
pavement for MF subpave 1
TOT # ITEM % CUM
0 - 0.062
0
0.00
0.00
0.062 - 0.125
0
0.00
0.00
0.125 - 0.25
0
0.00
0.00
0.25 - 0.50
3
2.91
2.91
0.50 - 1.0
1
0.97
3.88
1.0 - 2.0
0
0.00
3.88
2.0 - 4.0
0
0.00
3.88
4.0 - 5.7
3
2.91
6.80
5.7 - 8.0
3
2.91
9.71
8.0 - 11.3
7
6.80
16.50
11.3 - 16.0
5
4.85
21.36
16.0 - 22.6
16
15.53
36.89
22.6 - 32.0
21
20.39
57.28
32 - 45
15
14.56
71.84
45 - 64
11
10.68
82.52
64 - 90
13
12.62
95.15
90 - 128
5
4.85
100.00
128 - 180
0
0.00
100.00
180 - 256
0
0.00
100.00
256 - 362
0
0.00
100.00
362 - 512
0
0.00
100.00
512 - 1024
0
0.00
100.00
1024 - 2048
0
0.00
100.00
Bedrock
0
0.00
100.00
D16 (mm)
11.06
D35 (mm)
21.8
D50 (mm)
28.64
D84 (mm)
67.05
D95 (mm)
89.69
D100 (mm)
128
silt /Clay (%)
0
Sand ( %)
3.88
Gravel ( %)
78.64
cobble (%)
17.48
Boulder (%)
0
Bedrock (%)
0
Total Particles = 103.

River Name:
Reach Name:
Sample Name:
Survey Date:
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
Moores Fork
Reach 1
Bar sample D/S XS-M1.1
04/20/2011
SIEVE (mm) NET WT
31.5
38
16
1322.4
8
967.4
4
482.8
2
222.7
PAN
767.8
D16 (mm)
0
D35 (mm)
7.15
D50 (mm)
12.02
D84 (mm)
25.97
D95 (mm)
31.02
D100 (mm)
55
silt /Clay (%)
0
Sand ( %)
19.6
Gravel ( %)
80.4
cobble (%)
0
Boulder (%)
0
Bedrock (%)
0
Total weight = 3918.0000.
Largest surface Particles:
Size(mm) weight
Particle 1: 55 57.7
Particle 2: 53 59.2

River Name:
Reach Name:
Sample Name:
Survey Date:
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
Moores Fork
Reach 1
Subpavement 1
02/08/2011
SIEVE (mm) NET WT
31.5
143.6
16
812.6
8
506.9
4
166.3
2
85.5
PAN
366.6
D16 (mm)
4.61
D35 (mm)
14.73
D50 (mm)
23
D84 (mm)
81.25
D95 (mm)
109.95
D100 (mm)
123
silt /Clay (%)
0
Sand ( %)
12.28
Gravel ( %)
70.9
cobble (%)
16.82
Boulder (%)
0
Bedrock (%)
0
Total weight = 2984.4000.
Largest surface Particles:
Size(mm) weight
Particle 1: 123 673.8
Particle 2: 110 229.1

River Name:
Reach Name:
Sample Name:
Survey Date:
Size (mm)
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
Moores Fork
Reach 2
zig -zag riffle
02/08/2011
pavement for MF subpave 2
TOT # ITEM % CUM
0 - 0.062
0
0.00
0.00
0.062 - 0.125
0
0.00
0.00
0.125 - 0.25
0
0.00
0.00
0.25 - 0.50
0
0.00
0.00
0.50 - 1.0
0
0.00
0.00
1.0 - 2.0
1
1.00
1.00
2.0 - 4.0
0
0.00
1.00
4.0 - 5.7
0
0.00
1.00
5.7 - 8.0
1
1.00
2.00
8.0 - 11.3
5
5.00
7.00
11.3 - 16.0
8
8.00
15.00
16.0 - 22.6
19
19.00
34.00
22.6 - 32.0
21
21.00
55.00
32 - 45
34
34.00
89.00
45 - 64
10
10.00
99.00
64 - 90
1
1.00
100.00
90 - 128
0
0.00
100.00
128 - 180
0
0.00
100.00
180 - 256
0
0.00
100.00
256 - 362
0
0.00
100.00
362 - 512
0
0.00
100.00
512 - 1024
0
0.00
100.00
1024 - 2048
0
0.00
100.00
Bedrock
0
0.00
100.00
D16 (mm)
16.35
D35 (mm)
23.05
D50 (mm)
29.76
D84 (mm)
43.09
D95 (mm)
56.4
D100 (mm)
90
silt /Clay (%)
0
Sand ( %)
1
Gravel ( %)
98
cobble (%)
1
Boulder (%)
0
Bedrock (%)
0
Total Particles = 100.

River Name:
Reach Name:
Sample Name:
Survey Date:
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
Moores Fork
Reach 2
Subpavement 2
02/08/2011
SIEVE (mm) NET WT
31.5
470.7
16
775.3
8
496.4
4
298.1
2
148.4
PAN
845.2
D16 (mm)
0
D35 (mm)
6.51
D50 (mm)
14.37
D84 (mm)
49.02
D95 (mm)
73.07
D100 (mm)
84
silt /Clay (%)
0
Sand ( %)
25.05
Gravel ( %)
68.29
cobble (%)
6.66
Boulder (%)
0
Bedrock (%)
0
Total weight = 3373.6000.
Largest surface Particles:
Size(mm) weight
Particle 1: 84 214.1
Particle 2: 52 125.4

Existing and Design Morphology Parameters
Parameter
Existing Stream
Design Stream
Min
I Median
I Max
Design Values
Stream name
Silage Trib U/S (10 +00- 34 +80)
Silage Trib R1
Stream type
G4/134
B4
Drainage area, DA (sq mi)
0.07
0.07
Mean riffle depth, dbkf (ft)
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.6
Riffle width, Wbkf (ft)
6.7
6.8
6.9
8.8
Width -to -depth ratio, [Wbkf /dbkf) 1
5.7
6.6
8.0
15.1
Riffle cross - section area, Abkf (sq ft)
5.6
7.0
8.4
5.1
Max riffle depth, dmbkf (ft)
1.2
1.4
1.7
0.8
Max riffle depth ratio, [dmbkf /dbkf) 1
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Pool width, Wbkfp (ft)
7.6
7.9
8.1
12.4
Pool width ratio, [Wbkfp /Wbkf) 1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.4
Pool cross - section area, Abkfp (sq ft)
6.8
7.4
8.0
11.2
Pool area ratio, [Abkfp /Abkf) A
1.2
1.1
1.0
2.2
Max pool depth, dmbkfp (ft)
1.2
1.5
1.7
1.4
Max pool depth ratio, [dmbkfp /dbkf) 1
1.4
1.4
1.4
2.4
Low bank height, LBH (ft)
1.4
1.7
1.9
0.8
Low bank height ratio, [LBH /dmbkf]
1.0
1.1
1.6
1.0
Width flood -prone area, Wfpa (ft)
11
13.5
16
19
Entrenchment ratio, ER [Wfpa /Wbkf) 1
1.6
2.0
2.3
2.2
Valley length, VL (ft)
2233
2233
Stream length, SL (ft)
2480
2480
Valley Elevation Change, VE (ft)
82.7
82.7
Stream Elevation Change, SE (ft)
88.5
88.5
Valley slope, VS (ft/ft)
0.0370
0.0370
Average water surface slope, S (ft/ft)
0.0357
0.0357
Sinuosity, k = SL/VL (ft/ft)
1.11
1.11
Mannings bankfull discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
30.2
42.1
55.1
23.0
Mannings bkf velocity, ubkf = Q/A (ft/s)
5.39
6.02
6.56
4.50
D50 bar (mm)
4
4
D100 bar (mm)
63
63

Existing and Design Morphology Parameters
Parameter
Existing Stream
Design Stream
Min
I Median
I Max
Design Values
Stream name
Silage Trib R2 (34 +80- 43 +48)
Silage Trib R2
Stream type
E4
E4
Drainage area, DA (sq mi)
0.24
0.24
Mean riffle depth, dbkf (ft)
1.7
1.0
Riffle width, Wbkf (ft)
18.2
12.5
Width -to -depth ratio, [Wbkf /dbkf) 1
10.5
11.9
Riffle cross - section area, Abkf (sq ft)
31.6
13.1
Max riffle depth, dmbkf (ft)
2.3
1.5
Max riffle depth ratio, [dmbkf /dbkf) 1
1.3
1.4
Pool width, Wbkfp (ft)
28.6
20.0
Pool width ratio, [Wbkfp /Wbkf) 1
1.6
1.6
Pool cross - section area, Abkfp (sq ft)
44.5
31.2
Pool area ratio, [Abkfp /Abkf) A
1.4
2.4
Max pool depth, dmbkfp (ft)
3.5
2.5
Max pool depth ratio, [dmbkfp /dbkf) 1
2.0
2.4
Low bank height, LBH (ft)
3.1
1.5
Low bank height ratio, [LBH /dmbkf]
1.4
1.0
Width flood -prone area, Wfpa (ft)
100.0
28
Entrenchment ratio, ER [Wfpa /Wbkf) 1
5.5
2.2
Valley length, VL (ft)
722
722
Stream length, SL (ft)
868
868
Valley Elevation Change, VE (ft)
15.3
15.3
Stream Elevation Change, SE (ft)
14.78
14.78
Valley slope, VS (ft/ft)
0.0212
0.0212
Average water surface slope, S (ft/ft)
0.0170
0.0170
Sinuosity, k = SL/VL (ft/ft)
1.20
1.20
Mannings bankfull discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
197.5
59.2
Mannings bkf velocity, ubkf = Q/A (ft/s)
6.25
4.52
D50 bar (mm)
23
23
D100 bar (mm)
105
105

1280
1260
1240
1220
C
0
1200
W
1180
1160
1140
Silage Trib Thalweg Profile
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Station (ft)
Tha Iweg
Water Surface
XS1.1
XS1.2
XS1.3
XS1.4
XS1.5
XS1.6

Sillage XS 1.1
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 5.49 Dbkf = 1.03 Abkf =
124
123
19
O
CU 123
_N
W
122
122
5.64
0 10 20 30 40
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Silage XS 1.2
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 7.58 Dbkf = .89 Abkf =
124
123
19
O
CU 123
_N
W
122
122
6.75
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Silage XS 1.3
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 6.72 Dbkf = .84 Abkf =
1223.
iw"JOA
1222.
O
CU 1221.
_N
LLJ 1221.
1220.
1220.
5.61
0 5 10 15
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Silage XS 1.4
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 8.1 Dbkf = .99 Abkf =
M4
122
19
O
CU 122
_N
W
122
122
0 5 10 15
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Silage XS 1.5
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 18.2 Dbkf = 1.74 Abkf =
117
116
C: 116
O
116
W
116
116
31.6
0 50 100 150
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Silage XS 1.6
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 28.6 Dbkf = 1.55 Abkf =
1175-
1170 -
O
_N
LLJ 1165-
1160
44.5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Horizontal Distance (ft)

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Moores Fork
Reach Name: silage Trib
Sample Name: Silage Trib - bar sample NR pool xs1.2
Survey Date: 04/19/2011
SIEVE (mm) NET WT
31.5
52.7
16
582.8
8
889.2
4
526.1
2
383.2
PAN
1872.6
X16 (mm)
0
X35 (mm)
0
X50 (mm)
3.81
X84 (mm)
17.55
X95 (mm)
30.54
X100 (mm)
63
silt /Clay (%)
0
Sand ( %)
42.18
Gravel ( %)
57.82
cobble (%)
0
Boulder (%)
0
Bedrock (%)
0
Total weight = 4439.8000.
Largest surface Particles:
Size(mm) weight
Particle 1: 63 75
Particle 2: 56 58.2

River Name:
Reach Name:
Sample Name:
Survey Date:
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
Moores Fork
silage Trib
silage Trib
04/19/2011
SIEVE (mm) NET WT
Bar D/S xs1.6
31.5
1517.6
16
1329.4
8
643.8
4
264.8
2
155.9
PAN
1132.2
D16 (mm)
0
D35 (mm)
12.72
D50 (mm)
22.58
D84 (mm)
72.47
D95 (mm)
94.83
D100 (mm)
105
silt /Clay (%)
0
Sand ( %)
20.5
Gravel ( %)
64.63
cobble (%)
14.86
Boulder (%)
0
Bedrock (%)
0
Total weight = 5522.4000.
Largest surface Particles:
Size(mm) weight
Particle 1: 105 286.7
Particle 2: 87 192

Existing, Design and Reference Morphology Parameters
Parameter
Existing Stream
Design Stream
Reference Stream
Min
Median
Max
Min
Median
Max
Min
I Median
Max
Stream name
Barn Trib
Barn Trib
Barn Trib Preservation Rch
Stream type
G4
E4b
B4
Drainage area, DA (sq mi)
0.01
0.01
0.08
Mean riffle depth, dbkf (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.7
Riffle width, Wbkf (ft)
1.6
6.0
7.0
Width -to -depth ratio, [Wbkf/dbkfl
2.9
11.3
10.6
Riffle cross - section area, Abkf (sq ft)
0.9
3.2
4.6
Max riffle depth, dmbkf (ft)
0.8
0.8
1.1
/ 1
Max riffle depth ratio, [dmbkf'dbkfl
1.4
1.5
1.6
Mean pool depth, dbkp (ft)
0.6
0.76
Mean pool depth ratio, [dbkf /dbkf]
1.2
1.2
Pool width, Wbkfp (ft)
9.0
6.37
Pool width ratio, [Wbkf^kf1
1.5
0.9
Pool cross - section area, Abkfp (sq ft)
5.5
4.85
Pool area ratio, [Abkf^kf]
1.7
1.1
Max pool depth, dmbkfp (ft)
1.0
1.15
Max pool depth ratio, [dmbkfp/dbkfl
1.9
1.7
Low bank height, LBH (ft)
6.17
0.8
1.66
Low bank height ratio, [LBH /dmbkfl
7.6
1.0
1.6
Width flood -prone area, Wfpa (ft)
4
19
9.9
Entrenchment ratio, ER [Wfpa/Wbkf]
2.5
3.2
1.4
Valley length, VL (ft)
622
622
622
Stream length, SL (ft)
250
250
84
Valley Elevation Change, VE (ft)
20
20
20
Stream Elevation Change, SE (ft)
5.14
5.14
1.77
Valley slope, VS ( ft/ft)
0.0322
0.0322
0.0322
Average water surface slope, S (ft/ft)
0.0206
0.0206
0.0211
Sinuosity, k = VS /S
1.56
1.56
1.53
Mannings bankfull discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
2.5
10.6
17.7
Mannings bkf velocity, Ubkf = Q/A (ft/s)
2.70
3.31
3.84
D50 bar (mm)
sampling not feasible
46
D100 bar (mm)
66

Barn Trib Riffle D/S End
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 13.5 Dbkf = .66 Abkf = 8.88
115
115
O
_N
LLJ 114
114
0 10 20 30 40
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Barn Trib. Pool D/S End
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 10.8 Dbkf = 1.1 Abkf = 12
115
115
O
_N
LLJ 114
114
0 10 20 30 40
Horizontal Distance (ft)

1
19
O
N
W
Barn Trib. near u/s end
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 1. 62 Dbkf = .56 Abkf = .92
0 10 20 30 40
Horizontal Distance (ft)

1
1
O
N
W
Barn Trib. Ref Riffle
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 6.98 Dbkf = .66 Abkf = 4.6
0 5 10 15 20
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Barn Trib. Ref pool
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 6.37 Dbkf = .76 Abkf = 4.85
1
1
19
O
N
W
2 4 6 8 10 12
Horizontal Distance (ft)

H
O
N
W
Barn Trib. Ref Reach
0
20
w
We
Distance along stream (ft)
:E
CH
WS
BKF
P1
P2
P3
100 X P4

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Moores Fork
Reach Name: Barn Trib
sample Name: bar sample ref reach
Survey Date: 01/16/2012
SIEVE (mm) NET WT
45
192
16
92.5
8
233.6
4
193.9
2
91.4
PAN
255.8
X16 (mm)
0
X35 (mm)
6.12
X50 (mm)
11.48
X84 (mm)
55.16
X95 (mm)
61.93
X100 (mm)
65
silt /Clay (%)
0
Sand ( %)
19.9
Gravel ( %)
78.73
cobble (%)
1.37
Boulder (%)
0
Bedrock (%)
0
Total weight = 1285.2000.
Largest surface Particles:
Size(mm) weight
Particle 1: 65 192
Particle 2: 24 34

Existing, Design and Reference Morphology Parameters
Parameter
Existing Stream
Design Stream
Reference Stream
Min
Median
Max
Min
Median
LMax
Min
I Median
I Max
Stream name
Corn Trib
Corn Trib
Corn Trib Preservation Rch
Stream type
G4
B4
E4b
Drainage area, DA (sq mi)
0.05
0.05
0.05
Mean riffle depth, dbkf (ft)
0.5
0.4
0.4
Riffle width, Wbkf (ft)
4.6
6.6
4.1
Width -to -depth ratio, [Wbkf/dbkfl
8.9
15.1
11.2
Riffle cross - section area, Abkf (sq ft)
2.4
2.9
1.5
Max riffle depth, dmbkf (ft)
0.7
0.6
0.5
/ 1
Max riffle depth ratio, [dmbkf'dbkfl
1.4
1.4
1.3
Mean pool depth, dbkp (ft)
0.7
0.7
Mean pool depth ratio, [dbkf /dbkf]
1.5
Pool cross - section area, Abkfp (sq ft)
1.8
6.0
Pool area ratio, [Abkf^kf]
2.1
Max pool depth, dmbkfp (ft)
0.8
1.0
Max pool depth ratio, [dmbkfp/dbkfl
2.3
Low bank height, LBH (ft)
2.82
0.6
0.82
Low bank height ratio, [LBH /dmbkfl
3.8
1.0
1.7
Width flood -prone area, Wfpa (ft)
7.8
20
13.7
Entrenchment ratio, ER [Wfpa/Wbkf]
1.7
3.0
3.3
Valley length, VL (ft)
84
84
Stream length, SL (ft)
97
97
28
Valley Elevation Change, VE (ft)
3.3
3.3
Stream Elevation Change, SE (ft)
5.5
5.5
0.68
Valley slope, VS ( ft/ft)
0.0393
0.0393
Average water surface slope, S (ft/ft)
0.0567
0.0567
0.0243
Sinuosity
1.15
1.15
Mannings bankfull discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
12.0
13.5
4.0
Mannings bkf velocity, Ubkf = Q/A (ft/s)
5.01
4.70
2.67
D50 bar (mm)
sampling not feasible
46
D100 bar (mm)
66

xS C1.1
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 4.61 Dbkf = .52 Abkf =
Ifl[!
114
19
O
CU 114
_N
W
114
114
2.4
0 10 20 30 40 50
Horizontal Distance (ft)

XS C1.2
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 2.68 Dbkf = .65 Abkf =
Ifl[!
114
19
O
CU 114
_N
W
114
114
1.75
0 10 20 30 40 50
Horizontal Distance (ft)

10
19
O
CU 9
_N
W
0
corn trib. ref riffle
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 4.11 Dbkf = .37 Abkf = 1.51
0 5 10 15 20 25
Horizontal Distance (ft)

River Name:
Reach Name:
Sample Name:
Survey Date:
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
Moores Fork
Corn Tri b
bar sample us farm road
01/20/2012
SIEVE (mm) NET WT
63
182.4
45
893.2
31.5
48
16
729
8
307
4
173.9
2
110.9
PAN
311.9
D16 (mm)
7.01
D35 (mm)
22.54
D50 (mm)
46
D84 (mm)
62.62
D95 (mm)
62.2
D100 (mm)
66
silt /Clay (%)
0
Sand ( %)
9.01
Gravel ( %)
90.99
cobble (%)
0
Boulder (%)
0
Bedrock (%)
0
Total weight = 3460.2000.
Largest surface Particles:
Size(mm) weight
Particle 1: 62 521.5
Particle 2: 66 182.4

51
50
19
O
CU 50
_N
W
Cow Trib 2 Riffle
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 7.89 Dbkf = .69 Abkf = 5.45
0 20 40 60 80
Horizontal Distance (ft)

River Name:
Reach Name:
Sample Name:
Survey Date:
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
Moores Fork
COW Tri b 2
Bar sample D/S riffle XS-COW Tribl.1
04/19/2011
SIEVE (mm) NET WT
16
296
8
391.3
4
281.1
2
206.2
PAN
886.8
D16 (mm)
0
D35 (mm)
0
D50 (mm)
4.54
D84 (mm)
33.34
D95 (mm)
65.42
D100 (mm)
80
silt /Clay (%)
0
Sand ( %)
39.21
Gravel ( %)
57.75
cobble (%)
3.04
Boulder (%)
0
Bedrock (%)
0
Total weight = 2261.7000.
Largest surface Particles:
Size(mm) weight
Particle 1: 80 154.5
Particle 2: 55 45.8

Existing , Design and Reference Morphology Parameters
Parameter
Existing Stream
Design Stream
Reference Stream
Min
Median
Max
Min
Median
Max
Min
I Median
Max
Stream name
Pond Trib
Pond Trib
Barn Trib Preservation Rch
Stream type
C4b (trampled)
C4b
E4b
Drainage area, DA (sq mi)
0.04
0.04
0.08
Mean riffle depth, dbkf (ft)
1.5
0.7
0.7
Riffle width, Wbkf (ft)
16.3
8.0
7.0
Width -to -depth ratio, [Wbkf/dbkfl
10.9
11.6
10.6
Riffle cross - section area, Abkf (sq ft)
24.4
5.5
4.6
Max riffle depth, dmbkf (ft)
2.6
1.0
1.1
/ 1
Max riffle depth ratio, [dmbkf'dbkfl
1.8
1.5
1.6
Mean pool depth, dbkp (ft)
0.9
0.76
Mean pool depth ratio, [dbkf /dbkf]
1.4
1.2
Pool width, Wbkfp (ft)
12.0
6.37
Pool width ratio, [Wbkf^kf1
1.5
0.9
Pool cross - section area, Abkfp (sq ft)
11.3
4.85
Pool area ratio, [Abkf^kf]
2.1
1.1
Max pool depth, dmbkfp (ft)
1.5
1.15
Max pool depth ratio, [dmbkfp/dbkfl
2.2
1.7
Low bank height, LBH (ft)
2.95
1.0
1.66
Low bank height ratio, [LBH /dmbkfl
1.1
1.0
1.6
Width flood -prone area, Wfpa (ft)
50
25
9.9
Entrenchment ratio, ER [Wfpa/Wbkf]
3.1
3.1
1.4
Valley length, VL (ft)
187
187
622
Stream length, SL (ft)
194
243
84
Valley Elevation Change, VE (ft)
7
7
20
Stream Elevation Change, SE (ft)
5.63
5.5
1.77
Valley slope, VS ( ft/ft)
0.0374
0.0374
0.0322
Average water surface slope, S (ft/ft)
0.0290
0.0226
0.0211
Sinuosity, k = VS /S
1.29
1.65
1.53
Mannings bankfull discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
181.4
21.6
16.8
Mannings bkf velocity, Ubkf = Q/A (ft/s)
7.43
3.93
3.65
D50 bar (mm)
sampling not feasible
D100 bar (mm)

Pond xs1 extracted from TIN
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 19.6 Dbkf = 1.44 Abkf = 28.3
115
115
115
O
CU 115
_N
LLJ 115
115
115
0 20 40 60 80
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Pond xs2 extracted from TIN
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 16.3 Dbkf = 1.5 Abkf = 24.4
115
115
19
O
CU 115
_N
W
115
115
0 10 20 30 40
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Hand Auger Boring Summary
Moores Fork Mitigation
HA -1
left floodplain Moores Fork
0 -0.3'
Topsoil
0.3'- 4.0'
Tan silty sand, moist to wet
4.0' - 4.7'
Gray silty sand, gw at 4.05'
4.7'
Refusal on gravel
N:
1008973.98
E:
1493995.67
Z:
1147.229
HA -2 left floodplain Moores Fork
0 -0.4' Topsoil
0.4'- 2.0' Tan and gray clayey sand, moist
2.0' - 3.9' Mottled gray and tan sandy clay, wood debris and gw at 2.5'
3.9' Refusal on gravel
N: 1008815.35
E: 1493810.43
Z: 1148.637
HA -3 left floodplain Moores Fork
0 -0.3' Topsoil
0.4' - 2.2' Red -brown silty sand, moist
2.2' - 3.0' Red -brown and gray silt sandy, moist
3.0' - 3.7' Red -brown and gray coarse sand and gravel, wet
3.7' Refusal on gravel
N: 1008678.56
E: 1493574.92
Z: 1152.159
HA -4 right floodplain Moores Fork near 59 +00
0 -3.5' Brown to tan, silty fine sand, moist
3.5' - 4.4' Tan and light gray silty fine sand, wet
4.4' Refusal on gravel or rock
Max depth at adjacent channel - 6.8'
HA -5 right floodplain Moores Fork near 60 +80
0-0.11 topsoil
0.1'-3.8' Brown to tan, silty fine sand, moist
3.8' - 5.0' Tan and light gray silty fine sand, moist
5.0' HA terminated
HA -6 right floodplain Moores Fork near 61 +50
0 -2.6' Tan, silty fine sand /sandy silt, moist
2.6' - 3.7' Tan and light gray silty fine sand /sandy silt, moist
3.7' - 4.1' Gray sandy medium gravel, rounded, wet
4.1' Refusal on gravel
Max depth at adjacent channel - 6.5'

50
50
O
_N
LLJ 49
Mill Creek XS1 (riffle)
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 33.6 Dbkf = 2.15 Abkf = 72.4
0 20 40 60 80 100
Horizontal Distance (ft)

19
O
N
W
Mill Creek XS2 (pool)
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 20.1 Dbkf = 2.56 Abkf = 51.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Horizontal Distance (ft)

50
50
O
_N
LLJ 49
Mill Creek XS3 (riffle)
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 27.2 Dbkf = 1.87 Abkf = 50.8
0 20 40 60 80
Horizontal Distance (ft)

50
50
O
_N
LLJ 49
Mill Creek XS4 (pool)
o Ground Points • Bankfull v Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 24.4 Dbkf = 2.27 Abkf = 55.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Horizontal Distance (ft)

O
N
W
Mill Creek
C
100
200
300
Distance along stream (ft)
CH
WS
BKF
LB
RB
LEW
400 X REW

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Mill Creek
Reach Name: Reach 1
Sample Name: subpavement - riffle 1
Survey Date: 04/19/2011
SIEVE (mm) NET WT
31.5
1581
16
1714.4
8
839.1
4
424.7
2
331.6
PAN
1120.2
D16 (mm)
0
D35 (mm)
11.37
D50 (mm)
20.25
D84 (mm)
61.19
D95 (mm)
83.75
D100 (mm)
94
Silt/Clay ( %)
0
Sand ( %)
17.58
Gravel ( %)
71.7
Cobble ( %)
10.72
Boulder ( %)
0
Bedrock ( %)
0
Total Weight = 6372.1000.
Largest Surface Particles:
Size(mm) Weight
Particle 1: 94 220.1
Particle 2: 80 141
file : / //WI/Projects/Hogan %20Creek/ Assessment / Geomorphic% 20Summary% 20Data /mill %20creek %20bar.txt[10 /4/2011 2:47:57 PM]

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name:
Mill Creek
Reach Name:
Reach 1
Sample Name:
Zigzag riffle at bar sample 1
Survey Date:
04/19/2011
Size (mm) TOT # ITEM % CUM %
0-0.062
0 0.00
0.00
0.062 - 0.125
0 0.00
0.00
0.125-0.25
6 5.45
5.45
0.25-0.50
1 0.91
6.36
0.50 - 1.0
0 0.00
6.36
1.0-2.0
1 0.91
7.27
2.0-4.0
0 0.00
7.27
4.0 - 5.7
0 0.00
7.27
5.7- 8.0
3 2.73
10.00
8.0 - 11.3
3 2.73
12.73
11.3 -16.0
6 5.45
18.18
16.0-22.6
11 10.00
28.18
22.6-32.0
16 14.55
42.73
32-45
13 11.82
54.55
45-64
16 14.55
69.09
64-90
17 15.45
84.55
90-128
11 10.00
94.55
128-180
5 4.55
99.09
180-256
1 0.91
100.00
256-362
0 0.00
100.00
362-512
0 0.00
100.00
512- 1024
0 0.00
100.00
1024-2048
0 0.00
100.00
Bedrock
0 0.00
100.00
D16 (mm)
14.12
D35 (mm)
27.01
D50 (mm)
40
D84 (mm)
89.08
D95 (mm)
133.15
D100 (mm)
255.99
Silt/Clay ( %)
0
Sand ( %)
7.27
Gravel ( %)
61.82
Cobble ( %)
30.91
Boulder ( %)
0
Bedrock ( %)
0
Total Particles = 110.
file : / //WI/Projects/Hogan %20Creek/ Assessment / Geomorphic% 20Summary% 20Data /mill %20creek %20zigzag.txt[10 /4/2011 2:47:57 PM]

f
MOORES
BARN TRI
60® 20
POND TRIBUTARY
CORN TRIBUTAR)
I
I
MOORESFORK
EL
m
Q
w
o O
O
O
o un
m w
u
v cr�
W
0
Q m u
lco
0`�`_
0
W °D
U u N
Z °m E
v C L
Lq
UJ Z_ b 2L-,, c
SUN W
Co QJ
LL
LU 2 O OD W
Z zmZU 3.
O z 90 z
LV d u
U r
Q
z
O
�z
�z
O
OU
�
��D
O�
O
DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: 1" = 240'
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
INVENTORY
SHEET 1 OF 2
LEGEND
SIGNIFICANT BANK EROSION
DEBRIS JAM OR TREE FALL
Q
MID - CHANNEL OR LATERAL BAR
GULLY EROSION
EL
m
Q
w
o O
O
O
o un
m w
u
v cr�
W
0
Q m u
lco
0`�`_
0
W °D
U u N
Z °m E
v C L
Lq
UJ Z_ b 2L-,, c
SUN W
Co QJ
LL
LU 2 O OD W
Z zmZU 3.
O z 90 z
LV d u
U r
Q
z
O
�z
�z
O
OU
�
��D
O�
O
DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: 1" = 240'
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
INVENTORY
SHEET 1 OF 2

Q
LLI
j LEGEND o n
I /
�e SIGNIFICANT BANK EROSION Z
I; � 0
j DEBRIS JAM OR TREE FALL \ u�
4', I' MID- CHANNEL OR LATERAL BAR -- m LW
GULLY EROSION = ' ; u
II / LLI
! Q m u
1 -Q
oil-v`
\I
COW TRIBUTARY 1 LL! a°po
U � °m E
L1J Z 2 R Ln
j SILAGE TRIBUTARY COW TRIBUTARY 2 W t N
BARN TRIBUTARY i" ' ;;' ' - -__ - -- LL Z m 0 0)
o ..
0
z
I
z = t O
/ • __ M•
/ I
I
SILAGE TRIBUTARY
i
-�_--
` UT'l1
• �D
. °
L - - -� - O
��D
O cn
- ' DATE: MARCH 2012
---------------
--- - - - - -- ------------------------
------------------------------------------ ;
SCALE: 1" = 240'
----------- - - - - -- " EXISTING
CONDITIONS
INVENTORY
SHEET 2 OF 2

HYDRAULIC ANALYSES

Moores Fork Plan: existing conditions 3/13/2012
Legend
� 6100.000
�
6010
WS bankfull
D
5900.000
WS 2 Qbkf
600.000
Ground
•
5800.000
Bank Sta
5500.000
1
Ineff
5400.000
5300.000
5200.000
5000.000
4900.000
4600.000
4200.000
4100.000
4000.000
3800.000
3700.000
3600.000
3500.000
3300.000
m)
3100.000
2900.000
2763
0.000
219U.880
0.000
k
2 0.000
1 0 .000
900.000
400.000
1300.000
1200.000
1179
1103
1100.000

Moores Fork Plan: design bankfull 3/13/2012
Legend
6100.000
WS bankfull
6000.000
D
5900.000
WS 2 Qbkf
5800.000
Ground
5700.000
Bank Sta
600.000
1
Ineff
5500.000
5400.000
5300.000
5200.000
/ 5100.000
5000.000
4900.000
4700.000
4600.000
4500.000
4400.000
4100.000
4 0.000
3800.000
3700.000
3600.000
3500.000
3400.000
3200.000
3100.000
3000.000
2900.000
c 2800.000
2700.000
2600.000
2400.000
ice\
2300.000
2200.000
2100.000
2000.000
1900.0 ?9900.000
1 0.0 01 400.000
1300.000
1200.000
1100.000

Moores Fork Plan: existing conditions 3/13/2012
RS = 2400.000 Design Station 39 +80
.08 .042 .08
1150
Legend
-------- - - - - -# ------ - - - - --
EG 2 Qbkf
------------- . -------------
EG USGS 5 yr
1148
WS 2 Qbkf
....................... .... .X..........................
Crit 2 Qbkf
1146
WS USGS 5 yr
.......................... T..........................
Crit USGS 5 yr
EG bankfull
1144
----------A-------------
EG USGS 2yr
...................... ...............................
Crit bankfull
WS bankfull
1142
Crit USGS 2yr
o
+
WS USGS 2yr
a�
■
w
1140
Ground
Ineff
•
#
Bank Sta
1138
------ --------------------r---------- ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------v
1136
------ - - - - -+
1134
1132
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
400
Station (ft)

Moores Fork Plan: design bankfull 3/13/2012
RS = 2400.000 Design Station 39 +80
.08 ' .042 ;J, .08
1150
Legend
-------- - - - - -x ------ - - - - --
EG 2 Qbkf
------ - - - - -- . ------------
EG USGS 5yr
1148A
WS 2 Qbkf
WS USGS 5yr
1146
EG bankfull
x..............
Crit 2 Qbkf
WS bankfull
1144
Crit USGS 5yr
-------------&------------
EG USGS 2yr
WS USGS 2yr
1142
t
Ground
o
•
Bank Sta
a�
w
1140
1138
------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -X
1136
...............
1134
1132
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
400
Station (ft)

Moores Fork Plan: existing conditions 3/13/2012
RS = 4300.000 Design Station 18 +80
.08 .042 .08
1158
Legend
-------------#-------------
EG 2 Qbkf
WS 2 Qbkf
1156
------------- . -------------
EG USGS 5 yr
WS USGS 5 yr
EG bankfull
WS bankfull
1154
-------------+-------------
EG USGS 2yr
WS USGS 2yr
■
Ground
•
1152
Bank Sta
0
a�
w
1150
- -- k ---------------------------------------
-- f--------------------------------------
1148
1146
1144
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Station (ft)

Moores Fork Plan: design bankfull 3/13/2012
RS = 4300.000 Design Station 18 +80
.08 .042 � .08
1158
Legend
-------- - - - - -x ------ - - - - --
EG 2 Qbkf
WS 2 Qbkf
1156
------ - - - - -- . ------ - - - - --
EG USGS 5yr
WS USGS 5yr
EG bankfull
WS bankfull
1154
------ - - - - -- 4------ - - - - --
EG USGS 2yr
WS USGS 2yr
■
Ground
•
1152
Bank Sta
0
m---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a�
w
1150
1148
1146
1144
0 50 100 150 200 250
300
Station (ft)

Moores Fork Plan: existing conditions 3/13/2012
RS = 5000.000 Design Station 11 +70
.08 .042 � .08
1175
Legend
-------------#-------------
EG 2 Qbkf
WS 2 Qbkf
------------- . -------------
EG USGS 5 yr
WS USGS 5 yr
1170
EG bankfull
WS bankfull
------------- A -------------
EG USGS 2yr
WS USGS 2yr
■
Ground
1165
•
Bank Sta
0
a�
w
1160
1155
•---------------------------
1150
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
400
Station (ft)

Moores Fork Plan: design bankfull 3/13/2012
RS = 5000.000 Design Station 11 +70
.08 ' .042 °J' .08
1175
Legend
-------- - - - - -x ------ - - - - --
EG 2 Qbkf
------ - - - - -- . ------ - - - - --
EG USGS 5yr
k
WS 2 Qbkf
1170
�
WS USGS 5yr
EG bankfull
WS bankfull
------ - - - - -- 4---- - - - - -- -
EG USGS 2yr
1165
WS USGS 2yr
■
Ground
•
Bank Sta
0
°
1160
a�
w
1155
X-----------------------------------------------
---------------------- - - - - -.
1150
1145
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
400
Station (ft)

SECTION DESIGN AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT

2.5
2
CL 1.5
L
M
w
t
M 1
C
0
CO
0.5
s
25
20
U
N
15
3 10
0
0
a
E
L 5
41
E
0
0
Moores Fork - Stage vs. Shear
R1 BKF
//
/
I/
/
do ���i
i
i
s s so so
1 2 3
Stage (feet)
do
to R2 BKF
%
4 5 6
Moores Fork - Stage vs. Unit Stream Power
1 2 3 4 5 6
Stage (feet)
Supply
Reach 1 Design
Reach 2 Design
Existing XS1.1
Existing XS1.5
Supply
Reach 1 Design
Reach 2 Design
Existing XS1.1
Existing XS1.5

Q.
a
s
R
C
C
3
O
CO
U
a
i
3
O
O
a
E
a
.E
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Moores Fork - Discharge vs. Shear
-do V.V V`
do V ,
/' -OP --
OF IV
00
--
i'
dW
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Discharge (cfs)
supply 63
- -- Supply 375
Reach 1 Design
R1 RC Design
Reach 2 Design
- -- Existing XS1.1 (stable)
- -- Existing XS1.3 (impacted)
- -- Existing XS1.5 (overwide)
Existing XS1.10 (stable)
Moores Fork - Discharge vs. Unit Stream Power
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Discharge (cfs)
supply 63
- -- Supply 375
Reach 1 Design
R1 RC Design
Reach 2 Design
Existing XS1.1 (stable)
- -- Existing XS1.3 (impacted)
- -- Existing XS1.5 (overwide)
- -- Existing XS1.10 (stable)
/
y'
• dodo
•
—OP do ••• do do
do
AS
V
♦ ��
dodo
��•••�.
-
� dodo
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Discharge (cfs)
supply 63
- -- Supply 375
Reach 1 Design
R1 RC Design
Reach 2 Design
Existing XS1.1 (stable)
- -- Existing XS1.3 (impacted)
- -- Existing XS1.5 (overwide)
- -- Existing XS1.10 (stable)

Andrews (1984) and Andrews and Nankervis (1995)
tci* = 0.0834(di /d'50) -0.872 applies if di /d'50 ranges from 3 to 7
tci* = 0.0384(di /d'50) -0.887 if di /d'50 is 1.3 to 3.0
di = d50 of riffle pavement (from zigzag), mm
d'50 = d50 of sub - pavement (bar sample), mm
d = tci *((rsand- rh20) /rh20) *Di) /s
d = mean bankfull depth of water (ft) needed to move largest particle
rsand =
2.65g/cc specific gravity of sand
rh20 =
1.00 g /cc specific gravity of water
Di =
largest particle found in bar or subpavement sample (ft)
s =
average ( bankfull) water surface slope
MOORES FORK REACHES 1 AND 2
For supply
reach samples loc. 1 (bar)
For sample near 30 +00 (bar)
di
29 mm
di
29 mm
d'50
23 mm
d'50
12 mm
di /d'50
1.26087
di /d'50
2.416667
tci* =
0.031263
tci* =
0.017556
Di
52 mm = 0.17 ft
Di
55 mm = 0.18 ft
s
0.0113 ft /ft
s
0.0064 ft /ft
d =
0.78 ft
d =
0.82 ft
For supply reach samples loc. 2 (bar) For sample near 30 +00 ( subpavement)
di 36 mm di 29 mm
d'50 27 mm d'50 23 mm
di /d'50 1.333333 di /d'50 1.26087
tci* = 0.029752 tci* = 0.031263
Di 78 mm = 0.26 ft Di 123 mm = 0.40 ft
s 0.0113 ft /ft s 0.0064 ft /ft
d = 1.11 ft d = 3.25 ft
from stage report in RM w/ dbkf = d, q�j — 101 cfs from stage report in RM w/ dbkf = d, qc; —
us xs
732 cfs xs1.1

Bathurst et al (1987)
gcD50 = (0.15g05D501.5)/(51.12) Din ft
gci — gcD50( D i /D 50) b
b = 1.5(D84/D16)_1
MOORES FORK REACHES 1 AND 2
Moores 1 Pebble Count
D50 =
0.029 m 0.09512 ft
D84 =
0.067 m 0.21976 ft
D16 =
0.011 m 0.03608 ft
S =
0.0064
gcD50 =
7.153283 cfs
b =
0.246269
qci =
8.791593 cfs /ft
Active
Channel
Section Width (ft) qci (cfs) _
M1.1 21.63 190
M1.3 21 185
Moores Supply Pebble Count 1
Moores Supply Pebble Count 2
D50 =
0.029 m 0.09512 ft
D50 =
0.036 m 0.11808 ft
D84 =
0.054 m 0.17712 ft
D84 =
0.076 m 0.24928 ft
D16 =
0.015 m 0.0492 ft
D16 =
0.015 m 0.0492 ft
S =
0.0113
s =
0.0113
gcD50 =
3.784244 cfs
gcD50 =
5.234026 cfs
b =
0.416667
b =
0.296053
qci =
4.903174 cfs /ft
qci =
6.529925 cfs /ft
Active
Active
Channel
Channel
Section
Width (ft) qci (cfs) =
Section
Width (ft) qci (cfs) _
us xs
17.3 152
ds xs
17.2 151

Check discharge for initiation of Phase 2 transport using Bathurst (2007) equations:
qc2 = 0.0513 g .5 D501.5 5 -1.2 units of cros; D (m) of the surface material from pebble count
qc2 = 0.0133 g .5 D841.5 5 -1.23 g = 9.81 m /s`
MOORES FORK REACHES 1 AND 2
From Moores Supply Reach loc. 1:
D50 = 0.029 m
D84 = 0.054 m
S = 0.0113
Bottom Width (active channel) = 17.3 ft
qc2, D50 = 0.172 m3 /s /m 0.052 cros /ft = 1.852 cfs /ft 32 cfs
qc2, D84 = 0.130 m3 /s /m 0.040 cros /ft = 1.396 cfs /ft 24 cfs
From Moores Supply Reach loc. 2:
D50 = 0.036 m
D84 = 0.076 m
S = 0.0113
Bottom Width (active channel) = 17.2 ft
qc2, D50 = 0.238073736 m3 /s /m 0.0725835 cros /ft = 2.561292 cfs /ft 44 cfs
qc2, D84 = 0.216580847 m3 /s /m 0.0660307 cros /ft = 2.330063 cfs /ft 40 cfs
From Moores M1.1
D50 = 0.029 m
D84 = 0.067 m
S = 0.00640
Bottom Width (active channel) = 21.63 ft
qc2, D50 = 0.340512373 m3 /s /m 0.1038147 cros /ft = 3.663368 cfs /ft 79 cfs
qc2, D84 = 0.360742226 m3 /s /m 0.1099824 cros /ft = 3.881009 cfs /ft 84 cfs
From Moores M1.3
D50 = 0.029 m
D84 = 0.067 m
S = 0.00640
Bottom Width (active channel) = 21 ft
qc2, D50 = 0.340512373 m3 /s /m 0.1038147 cros /ft = 3.663368 cfs /ft 77 cfs
qc2, D84 = 0.360742226 m3 /s /m 0.1099824 cros /ft = 3.881009 cfs /ft 82 cfs

Andrews (1984) and Andrews and Nankervis (1995)
tci* = 0.0834(di /d'50) -0.872
tci* = 0.0384(di /d'50) -0.887
applies if di /d'50 ranges from 3 to 7
if di /d'50 is 1.3 to 3.0
di = d50 of riffle pavement (from zigzag), mm
d'50 = d50 of sub - pavement (bar sample), mm
MOORES FORK REACH 3
d = tci *((rsand- rh20) /rh20) *Di) /s
d = mean bankfull depth of water (ft) needed to move largest particle
rsand = 2.65 g /cc specific gravity of sand
rh20 = 1.00 g /cc specific gravity of water
Di = largest particle found in bar or subpavement sample (ft)
S = average (bankfull) water surface slope
For sample location near 48 +00
di 29.8 mm
d'50 14.4 mm
di /d'50 2.069444
tci* = 0.020145
Di 84 mm = 0.275591 ft
s 0.0064 ft /ft
d = 1.431322 ft
from stage report in RM w/ dbkf = d, q,; — 56 cfs xs 1.6
56 xs1.10

Bathurst et al (1987)
gcD50 = (0.15g05D501.5)/(51.12) Din ft
gci — gcD50( D i /D 50) b
b = 1.5(D84/D16)_1
MOORES FORK REACH 3
Moores Pebble Count near 48 +00
D50 =
0.03 m 0.0984 ft
D84 =
0.043 m 0.14104 ft
D16 =
0.016 m 0.05248 ft
S =
0.0064
gcD50 =
7.526452 cfs
b =
0.55814
qci =
9.201398 cfs /ft
Active
Channel
Section Width (ft) qci (cfs) _
M1.6 20.1 185
M1.10 18.5 170
Sample near 48 +00
Moores Supply Pebble Count 2
D50 =
0.029 m 0.09512 ft
D50 =
0.036 m 0.11808 ft
D84 =
0.054 m 0.17712 ft
D84 =
0.076 m 0.24928 ft
D16 =
0.015 m 0.0492 ft
D16 =
0.015 m 0.0492 ft
S =
0.0113
s =
0.0113
gcD50 =
3.784244 cfs
gcD50 =
5.234026 cfs
b =
0.416667
b =
0.296053
qci =
4.903174 cfs /ft
qci =
6.529925 cfs /ft
Active
Active
Channel
Channel
Section
Width (ft) qci (cfs) =
Section
Width (ft) qci (cfs) _
us xs
17.3 159
ds xs
17.2 158

6
5
N 4
a
m
w
3
M
C 2
0
CO
1
0
0
Silage Trib - Stage vs. Shear
60
50
40
30
3
0 20
0.
E
M
w
10
E
0
0
1 2 3 4 5
Stage (feet)
Silage Trib - Stage vs. Unit Stream Power
1 2 3 4
Stage (feet)
5
Existing XS1.2
Reach 1 Design
Existing XS1.5
Reach 2 Design 1
Existing XS1.2
Reach 1 Design
Existing XS1.5
Reach 2 Design

SILAGE TRIBUTARY -REACH 1
Area Calculation
9.059644
R (ft)
0.565144
design slope
0.035
Channel n
point
x coord
y coord
x (m)
y (m)
Right Bank Slope, x:1
3 LTER
0
100
0
30.4878
Left Bank Slope, x:1
3 LTOETER
0
100
0
30.4878
Max Depth (ft)
0.8 LTOB
0
100
0
30.4878
Bottom Width (ft)
4 LTOE
2.4
99.2
0.731707
30.2439
Area
5.12 TW
4.4
99.2
1.341463
30.2439
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.8 RTOE
6.4
99.2
1.95122
30.2439
Bankfull Depth (ft)
0.581818 RTOB
8.8
100
2.682927
30.4878
W/D ratio
15.125 RTOETER
8.8
100
2.682927
30.4878
Ave Width (ft) =
RTER
8.8
100
2.682927
30.4878
Discharge Calculation overall reach
Q = 1.49/n R2/3 s1/2 A
WP (ft)
9.059644
R (ft)
0.565144
design slope
0.035
Channel n
0.04
Q (cfs)
24.34314
W (power)
6.041526
gRs = 1.234274 psf
largest particle from Shields 180 mm Rosgen Data
7 inches
pool
Right Bank Slope, x:1
3
Left Bank Slope, x:1
3
width ratio = 1.409091
Max Depth (ft)
1.4
depth ratio = 2.40625
Bottom Width (ft)
4
area ratio = 2.242188
Area
11.48
14
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.4
10
pt bar tob o/s
6.2
outside bank tob o/s
6.2
Regional Curve Estimate Silage Trib Rch 1
DA (sq. mi.) 0.07
NC Mountains (area) 3.651426
NC Mountains (discharge) 13.79533
NC rural Piedmont (area) 3.621011
NC rural Piedmont (discharge) 13.55095
USGS 2 year discharge
NC Hydro Area 1 28.95127
SW Appalachian (area) 5.194893
SW Appalachian (discharge) 21.11035
bar sample 1
d84= 18 mm
d100= 63 mm
d50= 4 mm

Area Calculation
Right Bank Slope, x:1
Left Bank Slope, x:1
Max Depth (ft)
Bottom Width (ft)
Area
Bankfull Width (ft)
Bankfull Depth (ft)
W/D ratio
Ave Width (ft) _
SILAGE TRIBUTARY - REACH 2
point
2.5 LTER
2.5 LTOETER
1.5 JOB
5 JOE
13.125 TW
12.5 RTOE
1.05 RTOB
11.90476 RTOETER
RTER
Discharge Calculation overall reach
Q = 1.49/n R2/3 s1/2 A
W P (ft)
13.07775
R (ft)
1.003613
design slope
0.016
Channel n
0.04
Q (cfs)
61.99191
W (power)
4.951418
xcoord ycoord x(m) y(m)
0 100 0 30.4878
0 100 0 30.4878
0 100 0 30.4878
3.75 98.5 1.143293 30.03049
6.25 98.5 1.905488 30.03049
8.75 98.5 2.667683 30.03049
12.5 100 3.810976 30.4878
12.5 100 3.810976 30.4878
12.5 100 3.810976 30.4878
design tw slope =
gRs = 1.002007 psf
largest particle from Shields - 150 mm Rosgen Data
on -line pool
Right Bank Slope, x:1
3.5
NC Mountains (area)
Left Bank Slope, x:1
2.5
width ratio = 1.6
Max Depth (ft)
2.5
depth ratio = 2.380952
Bottom Width (ft)
5
area ratio = 2.380952
Area
31.25
14
Bankfull Width (ft)
20
10
pt bar tab o/s
11.25
outside bank tab o/s
8.75
Regional Curve Estimate silage trib reach 2
DA (sq. mi.)
0.24
NC Mountains (area)
8.291025
NC Mountains (discharge)
34.49669
NC rural Piedmont (area)
8.221966
NC rural Piedmont (discharge)
32.2898
USGS 2 year discharge
NC Hydra Area 1
63.32532
SW Appalachian (area) 12.09821
SW Appalachian (discharge) 52.15588
0.016
bar sample 2
d84 = 72 mm
d100= 105 mm
d50 = 23 mm

SILAGE TRIBUTARY - REACH 1
Rock Sizing Formulae
Corps(1994)for
555 67
D30 = 1.955 0 . q' /g .33
q = Qbkf /b
Qbkf =
24 cfs
b =
4 ft
q =
6 cfs /ft
flow
concentration
factor
1.25
g =
32.2 ft /s'
S =
0.035
D30 = 0.372 ft
4.466 inches Class B - min. = 5 inches
D85/D15 <= 2
Robinson et al (1998)
q = 0.521D501.89so -1.5 for SO <0.10
q = highest stable unit discharge
angular riprap with t = 21D50
try D50 = 0.67 ft Class B d50 = 8 inches
SO = 0.035
q = 37.25484 cfs /ft q = 149 cfs
So, while formulae do not produce same stable discharge, Class B
riprap works for both. Boulder and log steps considerably larger.

2.5
2
CL 1.5
L
M
t
M 1
C
0
m
U
w
w
3
0
0
a
E
M
w
L
C
MR
0
0
Pond Trib - Stage vs. Shear
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
1 2 3 4
Stage (feet)
Pond Trib - Stage vs. Unit Stream Power
1 2 3
Stage (feet)
4
Existing
Design
Existing
Design

2.5
2
CL 1.5
L
M
t
M 1
C
0
CO
0.5
0
0
Barn Trib - Stage vs. Shear
14
12
10
U
N
V1
g
3 6
0
0
a 4
E
M
w
L
Vf 2
0
0
0.5 1 1.5 2
Stage (feet)
2.5 3
Barn Trib - Stage vs. Unit Stream Power
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Stage (feet)
3
Reference Riffle
Existing
Design
Reference Riffle

Moores Fork Riparian Tree & Shrub Planting
Common Name
Scientific Name
Stratum
Indicator
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Overstory
Status
ZONE 1 - Upper Streambank
Cercis candaensis
Sub-
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis
Understory
FACW -
Silky Dogwood
Cornus amomum
Understory
FACW+
Black Willow
Salix nigra
Midstory
OBL
Silky Willow
Salix sericea
Understory
OBL
ZONE 2 - Floodplain
Tulip Poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
Canopy
FAC
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Overstory
FACW -
Eastern Redbud
Cercis candaensis
Sub-
FACU
Winged Elm
Ulm us alata
Canopy
FACU+
Silky Dogwood
Cornus amomum
Understory
FACW+
Hophornbeam
Ostrya virginiana
Sub-
FACU-
Witch Hazel
Hamamelis virginiana
Canopy
FACU
Pawpaw
Asimina triloba
Sub-
FAC
Black Haw
Viburnum prunifolium
Canopy
FACU
American
Callicarpa americana
Tall Shrub
FACU-
Beautyberry
ZONE 3 - Floodplain & Terrace
White Oak
Quercus alba
Canopy
FACU
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus michauxii
Canopy
FACW+
Blackgum
Nyssa sylvatica Marsh.
Canopy
FAC
Winged Elm
Ulm us alata
Sub-
FACU+
Canopy
Persimmon
Diosypros virginana
Tall Shrub
FAC
Witch Hazel
Hamamelis virginiana
Understory
FACU
Ironwood
Carpinus caroliniana
Midstory
FAC
Black Haw
Viburnum prunifolium
Understory
FACU

Check of in- stream structure particle mobility
3/27/2012
Reach
Discharge
Shear
(psf) *
Particle Diam.
Shield's Curve,
Rosgen data (mm)
Particle Diam.
Shield's Curve,
Rosgen data (in)
Constructed
Riffle D50 (in)
Rock Vane /Step
Median Boulder
Size (in)
Moores
bankfull
0.87
160
6.3
8
R 1 &2
2xbankfull
0.89
160
6.3
Moores
bankfull
0.85
150
5.9
R 3
2xbankfull
0.93
160
6.3
N/A
24
Silage R1
bankfull
1.22
180
7.1
2xbankfull
1.65
220
8.7
Silage R2
bankfull
0.87
160
6.3
2xbankfull
1.25
180
7.1
8
Pond
bankfull
0.85
150
5.9
2xbankfull
0.81
140
5.5
* From stage shear calcs (RAS and RIVERMorph)
1000
100
E
E
`m
w
E
A
Q 10
C
E2
0
1
0.1
0.001
a Rosgen's Data - Colorado, USA,
gravel -bed streams
❑ Shields Data - misc. labarotory and
feltl sources
■ Shields Curve for Threshold of Motion
J �
a
o
m
o
❑
❑
0
r
0.01
Critical
Shear
Stress
0.1
(lbs
/sq
ft)
1
10

o�
0
a
o,
h
V
w
0
w
w
� n
VICINITYMAP � �-- SITE
NOT TO SCALE
INDEX OF SHEETS
T1: TITLE
T2: NOTES AND SYMBOLS
T3: SHEET INDEX
PI -P11: STREAMPLANS
P12: EASEMENT MARKING PLAN
P13: CONSTRUCTIONACCESS PLAN
TSI -TS2: TYPICAL SECTIONS
DI -D7: DETAILS
GRAPHIC SCALES
80 40 0 80 160
PLAN (EXCEPT AS NOTED)
80 40 0 80 160
PROFILE (HORZ.)
8 4 0 8 16
PROFILE (VERT.)
PRELIMINARY PLANS
MOORES FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
STREAM NAMES: MOORES FORK AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARIES
LOCATION: SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ORN TRIB (Ell)
POND TRIB
(EIIR) MOORES 3 (EI)
MOORES 1 (Ell
MOORES ) UTB (P) UT10 (P)
UT6 (P)
UT9 (P)
T7 (P)
L
TRIB 2 (Ell) UT5 (P) UT3 (P)
BARN TRIB 2 (El
W TRIB 1 (Ell)
U (P)
1 (Ell) SILAGE TRIB (RIEI)
BARN TRIB 1 (R)
Prepared By:
CONFLUENCE
ENGINEERING, PC
16 Broad Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Phone: [phone]
confluence-eng.com
PROJECTED START DATE:
COMPLETION DATE:
0' 600' 1200' 1800'
DESIGN
APPROVAL
PROJECT ENGINEER
SIGNATURE
EEP PROJECT NO.
SHEET
TOTAL
94709
TI
25
A CONCEPT PLANS 5/2011
B PRELRNIINARY PLANS 1/2012
C DRAFT FINAL MP 3/2012
E
REVISIONS
PRELIMINARY PLANS
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
Prepared for:
Ei'&w0W1c11t
f.'em
F'R4GR14A1

CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
Phase 1: Mobilization and General Site Preparation
1. Mobilize equipment and materials to the site. Locate limits of disturbance.
2. Establish construction entrances /exits and staging areas as shown on the plans. Access to the site
will be via Horton Road and existing farm paths. Existing stream crossings (culverts and bridge) shall be
used during construction. Install additional temporary stream crossings on Moores Fork as needed
to access work areas.
3. Establish construction haul routes using existing farm paths to the extent feasible. Minimize
disturbance beyond immediate haul routes and grading limits. Stabilize haul route surfaces with
stone and filter fabric as necessary.
4. Hardwood trees 12 inches dbh and larger that require removal per the plans shall be salvaged for
on-site use as in- stream structures. Attention shall be paid to the specified trunk lengths of log and
root wad structures shown on the plans.
5. The stems and root masses of exotic invasive species (multi flora rose, Chinese privet, etc.)
generated during grading operations shall be bufned on site or disposed in approved off site
locations.
6. Any stockpiled materials not used for backfill within 30 days of excavation shall be stabilized with
temporary seed and straw mulch
Phase 2: Off -Line Channel Construction
1. Perform sod mat cutting within grading limits and stockpile separate from backfill soil for later use
on stream banks and planting areas. Limit stripping to those areas that will be graded within 3 days
to minimize softening and degradation of subgrade soils under construction traffic.
2. When excavating new offline channel, lea%eplugs of existing bank material in place atupstream
and downstream ends. Base flow shall be maintained in the existing channel until new channel is
fully stabilized with sod mats, seeding and structures riffles
3. Complete in- stream structure installation and bank stabilization on the new channel. Transplant sod
mats. Seed and mat banks where sod mat transplanting is not feasible. Stockpile excavated soils
between new channel and existing channel for later backfilling. Silt fence shall be installed on the
creek side of all stockpiles.
4. Working from the top of the existing stream banks, excavate gravel and cobble bar sediment and
stockpile separately for use in constructed riffles and otherstructures
5. Once the new channel is stabilized, complete tie ins from existing to new channel, taking
precautions to limit introduction of soil to live stream. Diverting water into the new channel shall
proceed according to the following steps
a. Remove plug at downstream end of new off -line channel
b. Setup pump- around operation above upstream tie -in.
c. Grade online stream channel to proper dimensions and profile and tie -in to new offline
channel.
d. Backfill abandoned channel upstream to downstream, using stockpiled soil, compacted in
lifts not to exceed 12 inches in thickness. Stabilize with straw mulch, temporary and
permanent seed.
Phase 3: On -Line Channel Construction
1. Base flow shall be diverted per the plans using a single diversion setup if feasible. Install temporary
sandbag cofferdams upstream and downstream of work area. Install pump, suction and discharge
lines, and divert flow around tie -in area. Install dewatering pump as necessary and discharge
through silt bag.
2. Perform earthwork, in- stream structure installation, geo- lifts, seeding, mulching and matting per the
plans. Salvage gravel and cobble sediment for use in constructed riffles and other structures.
2. Permanently dispose of excavated material in approved upland or off- site area. Silt fence shall be
installed on the creek side of all temporary stockpiles.
3. Temporarily dismantle flow diversion prior to flood event that exceeds capacity of diversion,
ensuring that work areas are fully stabilized.
4. Once restored channel is fully stabilized, dismantle pumps, discharge lines and coffer dams and
return flow to restored channel.
Phase 4: Demobilization
1. Upon completion of stream and floodplain grading operations, silt fences shall be removed,
construction entrances /exits shall be removed, and the construction haul routes shall be graded,
seeded and mulched as needed to restore them to their pre - project conditions.
2. Upon demobilization of equipment and materials, the staging areas shall be restored to their pre
project conditions.
Phase 4a: Planting
1. Site planting, including live stakes and bare root trees and shrubs shall be completed after grading
and in- stream structure operations are complete and during the dormant season (November to
April).
LEGEND
EXISTING PROPOSED
STREAM ALIGNMENT
MAJOR CONTOUR (10') � --�- --
MINOR CONTOUR (2') TOP OF BANK
PARCEL BANKFULL BENCH
FENCE - CONS. EASEMENT
BEDROCK GEOLIFT
MATURE TREE CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
J -HOOK VANE
CROSS VANE
LOG VANE
STEP STRUCTURE
ROOT WAD CLUSTER
LEVEL SPREADER
SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING
O
O
Q
w
O
o Z
Z
Z
Z
O U)
O >
W
U
O Z
O
w
O
J
_`Ova _J
V =� N
0
LL! Go
U
Co
Z Ln E
LL Zv C Ln
2 2 L6
SUN Ln
W
Co U
LL w °o°Dw
Z z m Z v
OZ O O
W d u
U r
Q
O
�z
�z
O
0 U
�
C
O
DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: NTS
NOTES AND
SYMBOLS

♦
CORN TRIB \
♦ s'S�♦ r — — MOORES FORK
POND TRIB
— — �� `� ,o♦ � �, _ SHE — — Xr—"
- - - i — —(151
M )ORES FO— RD — I_' ♦ \_
UT6 O
—z
1
UT8
i
UT7
UT5
i
BARN TRIB
u
R
ml
I m
UT9
UT10
c �
COW IB 2 ,
COW /B 1
UT3 1
UT2
loe
UT1
V
SILAGE TRIB
Q
w
o O
O
z
O
o O
w
u
v cr�
W
0
LL! o Go
U IN
z 1 _ °m E
UJ Zv C uul Y
«'2
m ^ U- N
uj
LL W ° o °D W
z (5 c �
O z ui 0
W � d u
U r
O
�U
�z
�z
o
OU
�
O�
DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: 1" = 500'
SHEET INDEX
SHEET T3 OF 25
-U=�
LL! o Go
U IN
z 1 _ °m E
UJ Zv C uul Y
«'2
m ^ U- N
uj
LL W ° o °D W
z (5 c �
O z ui 0
W � d u
U r
O
�U
�z
�z
o
OU
�
O�
DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: 1" = 500'
SHEET INDEX
SHEET T3 OF 25

1165
EXISTING GROUND AT
DESIGN CENTERLINE
1160
1155
1150
PROPOSED THALWEG
1145
10 +00 10 +50 11 +00 11 +50 12 +00 12 +50 13 +00 13 +50 14 +00 14 +50 15 +00 15 +50 16 +00 16 +50 17 +00 17 +50 18 +00 18 +50 19 +00 19 +50 20 +00 20 +50 21 +00
MOORES FORK PROFILE 1:80
m
Q
0
0
F-4U
m
Q
+
�z
N
F--1
7
O
O O
00
U*.,
+
U*)
�
C)
0
0
DATE: JULY 2012
o
u�
z
MOORES FORK
PLAN & PROFILE
SHEET P1 OF 25
O
Q
z
W
o
n,
m
>
w
N
m
�
�
w
�
o
=� N =�
W
ao
U
Z C Ln
y . n u
LJJ Z N - N Z
Zj ao
LL W 0 N
z zmZ°''
0 Z O �
W Pu
U
z
0
0
F-4U
o
+
�z
N
F--1
7
O
O O
00
U*.,
+
U*)
�
C)
0
DATE: JULY 2012
SCALE: 1" = 80'
MOORES FORK
PLAN & PROFILE
SHEET P1 OF 25

�5«.,
1160
1155
1150
1145
1140 21 +00 21 +50 22 +00 22 +50
MOORES FORK PROFILE 1:80
EXISTING GROUND AT
DESIGN CENTERLINE
i
\
PROPOSED THALWEG —
23 +00 23 +50 24 +00 24 +50 25+00 25 +50 26+00 26 +50 27+00 27 +50 28+00 28 +50 29+00 29 +50 30 +00 30 +50 31 +00
m
Q
0
m
Q
N
CN
w
o
W
0
CD
U
N,
C �M E
z
,r �n o
u
ch
Lu
Z.0uNt
� � 11 N
0
LL
O v
DD Z U
Z
l7 'O a; 0 C
00
0
u�
z
U
W
r
Q
\
DATE: JULY 2012
;
-J
SCALE: 1" = 80'
O
Q
31 +50 32 +00
PLAN & PROFILE
z
LLI
o
un
m
m
>
°
N
m
o
cr�
w
�
o
0
O
HU
�z
CN
o
W
0
CD
U
N,
C �M E
z
,r �n o
u
ch
Lu
Z.0uNt
� � 11 N
Lu 2 CO
LL
O v
DD Z U
Z
l7 'O a; 0 C
00
Oz
a u
U
W
r
Q
0
O
HU
�z
CN
o
0
O
0
°
+
u
O U-)
Q
\
DATE: JULY 2012
;
-J
SCALE: 1" = 80'
MOORES FORK
31 +50 32 +00
PLAN & PROFILE
SHEET P2 OF 25

1160
1155 EXISTING GROUND AT
DESIGN CENTERLINE
1150
1145
1
-J
1140
1135
1130 32 +00 32 +50 33 +00 33 +50 34 +00 34 +50
MOORES FORK PROFILE 1:80
w
Q
w
o u�
z
z
O
o u�
w w
u
w
w
0
0 Y- 4 0
�z
I I
O
I I
I �
I I
F�
I I O
o I I
II U o
I I
NI
� I
PROPOSED THALWEG DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: 1" = 80'
35 +00 35 +50 36 +00 36 +50 37 +00 37 +50 38 +00 38 +50 39 +00 39 +50 40 +00 40 +50 41 +00 41 +50 42 +00 42 +50 43 +00 MOORES FORK
PLAN & PROFILE
SHEET P3 OF 25
W
0
CD
U
N,
c °m E
z
��L,o
� y. Ln u
Lu
Z�
11 N t N
Lu 2 m
LL
o v
DD Z U
Z
l7'O v 0 C
�0
Oz
a u
U
W
r
Q
0 Y- 4 0
�z
I I
O
I I
I �
I I
F�
I I O
o I I
II U o
I I
NI
� I
PROPOSED THALWEG DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: 1" = 80'
35 +00 35 +50 36 +00 36 +50 37 +00 37 +50 38 +00 38 +50 39 +00 39 +50 40 +00 40 +50 41 +00 41 +50 42 +00 42 +50 43 +00 MOORES FORK
PLAN & PROFILE
SHEET P3 OF 25

tl \ 1
0
1
1
1 W
u�
Z
j - 0
z
W
w
w Q m v
D P i 1
D i `4k •
J • �+ w i D Q P
�D D
W
U U ,m E
UT8 (PRESERVATION) z +j v c Ln °
t7 •o �^ orn
D O LJJ Z_ : 1`^n c
rx1^uN�
i J W m Mt N C'
LL W OapN
�D z m Z Gj 7
z �'�y0
Ow 0-
U
1145
0
------------ EXISTING GROUND AT O O
1140 j � DESIGN CENTERLINE F-4 UZ
Ln
H O
1135 -'�- -tom
- ----- - - - - --
U +
- - -- --------- - - - - -- ------ -
1130 - - - -- - -� �j
PROPOSED THALWEG C) Q
O un
1125
DATE: MARCH 2012
1120
SCALE: ill _
43 +00 43 +50 44 +00 44 +50 45 +00 45 +50 46 +00 46 +50 47 +00 47 +50 48 +00 48 +50 49 +00 49 +50 50 +00 50 +50 51 +00 51 +50 52 +00 52 +50 53 +00 53 +50 54 +00
MOORES FORK
PLAN & PROFILE
MOORES FORK PROFILE 1:80
SHEET P4 OF 25

1145
1140
1135
1130
1125
EXISTING GROUND AT
DESIGN CENTERLINE
1120
54 +00 54 +50 55 +00 55 +50 56 +00 56 +50 57 +00 57 +50 58 +00 58 +50 59 +00 59 +50 60 +00 60 +50 61 +00 61 +50 62 +00 62 +50 63 +00 63 +50 64 +00
MOORES FORK PROFILE 1:80
I
o
F-4U
�
�z
�
Q
o
= L)
=
_
c
w
�
+
w
Ln
W
U
mo
Z
y . � u
Ljj
Z
N N6 Z
W 2tODC
LL
z.oZ=�
Z
o
0
Z
U
W
0
z
O
o
W
z
�
W
C)
o
F-4U
�
�z
o
o
= L)
=
_
c
-
�
+
w
Ln
W
U
mo
Z
y . � u
Ljj
Z
N N6 Z
W 2tODC
LL
z.oZ=�
Z
0
�
La u
z 0-
U
W
o
F-4U
�
�z
o
o
�D
O
o
o
c
+
w
Ln
o
O
O
o
DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: 1" = 80'
MOORES FORK
PLAN & PROFILE
SHEET P5 OF 25

Q
REMOVE
REMAINS
Q
� ---
OF DAM /
°
z
>
W
o�
o
>
2
_
>
N
LLI
-.___ 12 +00 13 +00
P ND TRIB
o
�'•
_ _
SUPPLEMENTAL BUFFER PLANTI
_
RIGHT BANK
=-cn
'
•
=Vi N -�
MOORES FK.
•
_ - —1
0
•
_ _
1
W
N' co
�'
•
_
1
U
L Mcm 1
///
• •
i�
- — �
W
y C � u
Z N a-, c
•
J
LL
W N t N u
W O o?p N
/
L O
O
Z
W Lau
z
EXISTING GROUND AT
0
DESIGN CENTERLINE
F-' U
EXISTING GROUND AT
< z
DESIGN CENTERLINE
12ss ,2ss
};
1160
1160
�z
,
1250 i 1250
O
_
\
U
_ -- -
\
w
1155 `�
1155
\J
1245 1245
O U1
\---
O
1150
1150
PROPOSED THALWEG
10 +00 10 +50 11 +00 11 +50
12 +00
12 +50
1240 1240
PROPOSED THALWEG
10 +00 10 +50 11+00 11 +50 12 +00 12 +50
DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: 1" = 80'
POND AND BARN
POND TRIB PROFILE 1:80
BARN TRIB PROFILE 1:80
TRIBS PLAN &
PROFILE
SHEET P6 OF 25

\x X00
BARN TRIB.
16 +00 17 +00
INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL p0
BOTH BANKS �pX x
22 +00
18 +00 Xpp
O
----------,
SUPPLEMENTAL BUFFER PLANTI
RIGHT BANK G
N
�dx
` \ fix ' � --
k oo - - - -- --
\ - - CORN TRIB.
\ x0 - BANKFULL BENCHES;
–TH LALWEG FOLLOWS EXISTING
\ 16 +00 17 +00 CORN TRIB. -
\ -
18."00 19 +00 '
INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL - -- ---
BOTH BANKS 22 +00
\110"00 2� +00 / - — - — -ice _ � L Z
2SX
00
/
20 0 20 40
if
1
H
a
.I
W
Q
Z
O
W
O
W
0
Z
O
i
W
W 00
U U N'
Z � LP o
y . � u
Ljj Z N IQ N Z
W �0°Dv
LL
Z z.oZ=�
OZ
W 0- u
U
O
�U
�z
~z
O
U
C
DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: 1" = 80'
BARN AND
CORN TRIBS.
PLAN
ISHEET P7 OF 25

/I ,
J
1245
1240
w
Q
w
o un
z
z
O
o u)
w w
w
0
h'I' UrUOCU
I N/ALVVr-U
x
c
W
�
P
'
W
O
Ln
U
U N'
mo
Z
�____
Ljj
Z IQ
N
N Z
�'!
W 0
v
LL
?D
z.oZ=�
Z
��
OZ
0- u
U
W
�
h'I' UrUOCU
I N/ALVVr-U
x
W
1
HO
O
Ln
1235 Z
�____
�'!
+
v
\
�
O
'�
Z
1230
EXISTING GROUND AT
DESIGN CENTERLINE
1`
1255
_�^
O
00
Lu
O
�'
o
PROPOSED THALWEG
U
1225
\\�\�
1250 \
Q
^��
1--�
Q
-
O Cif
\
��
O
\
ti
1220
1245
\
DATE: MARCH 2012
\ ­`—^\1
1215
SCALE: 1" = 80'
EXISTING GROUND AT
1240
DESIGN CENTERLINE
_v
SILAGE TRIB
10 +00 10 +50 11 +00 11 +50 12 +00
12 +50
1210
PLAN & PROFILE
12 +00 12 +50 13 +00 13 +50 14 +00
14 +50 15 +00 15 +50 16 +00 16 +50 17 +00 17 +50 18 +00 18 +50 19 +00 19 +50
SILAGE TRIB PROFILE 1:80
SHEET P8 OF 25

1210 - —
i
w
Q
w
o O
O
z
O
o U)
w w
w
0
1205
xj
L
- —
c
_
�
P
'
LU
U
U N'
mo
Z
Z
rx u y i
W o0°Dv
LL
z�ZC�
Z
^ O
O
Z 0- u
U
W
-
1205
xj
- —
0
LLB
o
PROPOSED THALWEG
- — -
Z
rrF-4rr��
1200
-
V
O
-
H
�z
O
O
1195
-�
O
+
1190
EXISTING GROUND AT
�D
Q
DESIGN CENTERLINE
Q U)
-
C)
O
1185
DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: 1" = 80'
11so
SILAGE TRIB
PLAN & PROFILE
19 +50 20 +00 20 +50 21 +00
21 +50 22 +00 22 +50
23 +00 23 +50 24 +00 24 +50 25 +00
25 +50 26 +00 26 +50 27 +00 27 +50 28 +00 28 +50 29 +00 29 +50 30 +00 30 +50
SHEET P9 OF 25
SILAGE TRIB PROFILE 1:80

'NwAkkK\�:,�N\
O
I ��ANKR�\
4000100 �wm�',
i
O � I
1180
i
;, •
N
,mom
n�
Q
w
o un
O
O
o O
�>
�cr�
w
1175
_ PROPOSED THALWEG
I
1170
_
1165
EXISTING GROUND AT -
DESIGN CENTERLINE -
1160
1155
1150
30 +50 31 +00 31 +50 32 +00 32 +50 33 +00 33 +50 34 +00 34 +50 35 +00 35 +50 36 +00 36 +50 37
SILAGE TRIB PROFILE 1:80
Qm�
_
DESIGN FOLLOWS
EXISTING THALWEG
D/S OF 35 +00
--- -
-- - - -__
38 +00 38 +50 39 +00 39 +50 40 +00 40 +50 41 +00 41 +50
z
0
1-4 u
ya
C�
o
c
w
W
0 u)
0
O
O
+
O
O
> Ln
+
0
O
=UW �-
DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: 1" = 80'
W
°
co
N'
+00 37 +50
Z
y . � u
Bu LP
Ljj
Z
N N6 Z
ao
W 2tCDC
LL
z.oZ=�
Z
0
U
z 0- �
W La u
1175
_ PROPOSED THALWEG
I
1170
_
1165
EXISTING GROUND AT -
DESIGN CENTERLINE -
1160
1155
1150
30 +50 31 +00 31 +50 32 +00 32 +50 33 +00 33 +50 34 +00 34 +50 35 +00 35 +50 36 +00 36 +50 37
SILAGE TRIB PROFILE 1:80
_
DESIGN FOLLOWS
EXISTING THALWEG
D/S OF 35 +00
--- -
-- - - -__
38 +00 38 +50 39 +00 39 +50 40 +00 40 +50 41 +00 41 +50
z
0
1-4 u
ya
C�
o
c
w
W
0 u)
0
O
O
+
O
O
> Ln
+
0
O
DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: 1" = 80'
SILAGE TRIB
PLAN & PROFILE
+00 37 +50
SHEET P10 OF 25

%
m
Q
m
Q
COW TRIB 1
GULLY STAB. U/S OF STA.12 +19 /
O
%
DIVERSION
z
O
- - - -
o
u)
-- --------- - - - - -- -
°
- - - -
-
w
INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL
>
LLI
AND SUPPLEMENTAL BUFFER PLANTING
°
°
Q
m
o
-
BOTH BANKS
S10 ,
-- •�
7p' �- 3x0 0
11+00 Kgti z
Q
INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL
=_� -
N `
AND SUPPLEMENTAL BUFFER PLANTING
BOTH BANKS
GULLY STABILIZATION
- - - - - -
- -
- - - - �,
- - • _
U/S OF STA. 10 +00
AR� P
DIVERSION /
W
U � °m
i
E
Z V v= 111 U
Ln
W D N u
Zm`Zu=
/
Q Z 2 � 0
W va
U t
GULLY STABILIZATION ---------- -
- -
TRIB 2
_COW
- -- W&ZF- �TA.13+31 - - - - - - -
- --
�
Z
\ \�
O
INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL
- -_
U
AND SUPPLEMENTAL BUFFER PLANTING
_
Z
'
BOTH BANKS
1
O
-
/
P4 �D
/
C) cn
•
DIVERSION
°w
DATE: JULY 2012
SCALE: 1" = 80'
°w
COW TRIBS 1& 2;
!
UT1
�� ————-------- - -
- - --
PLAN
SHEET P11 OF 25

Q
LEGEND
LLI
o u�
PROPERTY BOUNDARY __ CONSERVATION EASEMENT z
- - - - -- - --
- ------------------------------------------ - - - - -, -- (117.6 ACRES) O
—
- — -- o n
w
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION u
un
EASEMENT (65.0 ACRES) w
_ o
\ NOTE: CE AND TCE LINES ARE m u
COINCIDENT IN SEVERAL
LOCATIONS
MOORES FORK
==W 04
i
MOORES FORK
_ ..... PROPERTY BOUNDARY
I,
- ._._.- ._._, -. - - -- W co
O
CL mm E
V vs Gf1 u
�\ - - - -- \. W z v O Lf1 O1
\ \..\ _ N "m Ln
/ rx C
\ \ -o U N
W
\ / \ N L O u
\ / \. \
I
J W O N C
00 ---------------------------------------
1
� v�
i ---------------------- -
- - - - - \ O = u
O C
-- - - � U W t La
I;
JI \\
II O
y
OQ� SILAGE TRIB. \ > 4 z
O.r0�
BARN TRIB. 0
\ O cn
O
DATE: MARCH 2012
e oQ��� SCALE: 1" = 600'
EASEMENT
/ - - - - BOUNDARY
MARKING PLAN
\ `' SHEET P12 OF 25

w
Q
w
----------------------
o
__ f PROPERTY BOUNDARY W
I w
w
I EXIST. CULVERT \ m w
MOORES FORK _ cl) &— = Q
==W 04
' EXIST. CULVERT — =,
i MOORES FORK ! `
\\ -_STAGING
PROPERTY BOUNDARY �
co
TAGING U m m
vcLn8
LLl v 2 ,ri rn
\ % Z�mLn
Wm L u
O N C
00 \ \
\ �� -- ------------------- - - - - -- - --
ACCESS 3
Z
Qj
zmz
Oz
O C
O
- STAGING u t
II 0
y
pQ� SILAGE TRIB. \ 4 'z
ACCESS 2 ! O
BARN TRIB. 0 U
J10 _ DATE: MARCH 2012
ACCESS 1 pQ�� _ SCALE: 1" = 600'
Q�
CONSTRUCTION
- ACCESS PLAN
MAIN ACCESS TO SITE - _
HORTON ROAD OFF PINE RIDGE ROAD _
_ \`' SHEET P13 OF 25

10:1 (TYP.)
ri__
TYPICAL SECTION
�si MOORES FORK REACH 1
3:1
(TYP.)
2.5:1 (TYP.)
12.0'
PARTIALLY BACKFILL
ABANDONED CHANNEL
2 TYPICAL RIFFLE SECTION
TS1 MOORES FORK REACH 2
31.0'
10:1 (TYP.) ct
2.5:1 (TYP.)
12.0'
3.8'
------ - - - - --
4 TYPICAL RIFFLE SECTION
TS1 MOORES FORK REACH 3
m
o
-� X
=a_
PARTIALLY BACKFILL
P
m
NO DISTURBANCE
10:1 (TYP.) (TYP.)
- -- - - - - -- — - - - - - -- - -- r—
2 4
EXCAVATE BANKFULL RIGHT BANK NOTES:
ao co
�1 1
W
Z c
5.0'
w
~
12 2Lii
w u
BENCH 3 LOCATIONS 3.4' L 1. BANKS OF ON -LINE REACHES SHALL BE ROUGHENED
LL
mtN
10.0'
ZmoZc�
z
y O
3 TYPICAL POOL SECTION
O
W L a V
\ PERPENDICULAR TO SLOPE, COVERED WITH 2" LAYER OF TOPSOIL,
Y
TS1 MOORES FORK REACH 2
O
SEEDED, MULCHED AND MATTED WITH 780 G /SM COIR FIBER MATTING.
o
z
2. BANKS OF OFF -LINE REACHES SHALL BE ROUGHENED
>
—� — - - -- PERPENDICULAR TO SLOPE AND COVERED WITH SOD MATS.
�
w
z
��—
3. TERRACE SLOPES TO BE ROUGHENED PERPENDICULAR TO SLOPE,
SEEDED AND MULCHED.
W
Q
m
u
DEBRIS REMOVAL, SEE PLANS
10:1 (TYP.)
ri__
TYPICAL SECTION
�si MOORES FORK REACH 1
3:1
(TYP.)
2.5:1 (TYP.)
12.0'
PARTIALLY BACKFILL
ABANDONED CHANNEL
2 TYPICAL RIFFLE SECTION
TS1 MOORES FORK REACH 2
31.0'
10:1 (TYP.) ct
2.5:1 (TYP.)
12.0'
3.8'
------ - - - - --
4 TYPICAL RIFFLE SECTION
TS1 MOORES FORK REACH 3
43.0'
10:1 (TYP.) CE 3:1
(TYP.)
-- -- - - - - --
2 4 - - - --
5.5'
10.0'
r5__
TYPICAL POOL SECTION
TS1 MOORES FORK REACH 3
LEGEND
EXISTING - - --
PROPOSED
Z
O
F_4z
L7 `\
~z
O
o u
Our)
O
DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: 1" = 20'
TYPICAL
SECTIONS
SHEET TS1 OF 25
o
-� X
=a_
PARTIALLY BACKFILL
P
ABANDONED CHANNEL
40.0' 3:1
10:1 (TYP.) (TYP.)
- -- - - - - -- — - - - - - -- - -- r—
2 4
LJJ
za�cuMio
ao co
�1 1
W
Z c
5.0'
J
12 2Lii
w u
LL
mtN
10.0'
ZmoZc�
Z
y O
3 TYPICAL POOL SECTION
O
W L a V
TS1 MOORES FORK REACH 2
43.0'
10:1 (TYP.) CE 3:1
(TYP.)
-- -- - - - - --
2 4 - - - --
5.5'
10.0'
r5__
TYPICAL POOL SECTION
TS1 MOORES FORK REACH 3
LEGEND
EXISTING - - --
PROPOSED
Z
O
F_4z
L7 `\
~z
O
o u
Our)
O
DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: 1" = 20'
TYPICAL
SECTIONS
SHEET TS1 OF 25

8.8'
3:1 (TYP.)
VARIES 2' -6'
PROTECT EXISTING
UPLAND VEGETATION
BOTH BANKS
5:1 (TYP.)
0.8' ,
i
COMPACTED CLAY FILL
ri__
TYPICAL RIFFLE SECTION
TS2 SILAGE TRIB REACH 1
8.0'
2.5:1 (TYP.)
3.0'
1.0'
10:1 (TYP.) BACKFILL
(T
ABANDONED
3:1 YP.) CHANNEL
10:1 (TYP.)
3 TYPICAL RIFFLE SECTION
TS2 POND TRIB
LEGEND
EXISTING ' --
PROPOSED
6.0'
2.5:1 (TYP_)
2.0'
F- 5:1 (TYP.)
m
m
Q
PROTECT EXISTING LL]
UPLAND VEGETATION o
BOTH BANKS z
12.4' 5:1 (TYP.) z O
o 0
1.4' - ' ~ >
3:1 (TYP.) m w
can
W
0
VARIES 1'-4' Q m u
COMPACTED CLAY FILL
2 TYPICAL POOL SECTION
TS2 SILAGE TRIB REACH 1
rt BACKFILL
12.0' ABANDONED
3:1 CHANNEL
-3.5:1 2.5:1
(TYP.)
3. 0' X55
4 TYPICAL POOL SECTION
TS2 POND TRIB
2 :1 6.6'
(TYP.) 3:1 (TYP.)
0.8' J
5 TYPICAL SECTION
TS2 BARN TRIB
q
10:1 (TYP.)
3 :1
-- �TYP -) - --
BENCH L. BANK
AS SPACE ALLOWS 3.0' 0.6'
6 TYPICAL SECTION
TS2 CORN TRIB
1. BANKS OF ON -LINE REACHES SHALL BE ROUGHENED PERPENDICULAR TO SLOPE,
COVERED WITH 2" LAYER OF TOPSOIL, SEEDED, MULCHED AND MATTED WITH 780 G /SM
COIR FIBER MATTING.
2. BANKS OF OFF -LINE REACHES SHALL BE ROUGHENED PERPENDICULAR TO SLOPE
AND COVERED WITH SOD MATS.
3. TERRACE SLOPES TO BE ROUGHENED PERPENDICULAR TO SLOPE, SEEDED AND
MULCHED.
VI-
c
W
c
U
z .-' Ln No 2 E
o� of
Lu Z
zLL
Z mZ c¢
Oz
W �a
U
z
OU
�z
~z
O
OU
�
��D
Our)
O
DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: 1" = 20'
TYPICAL
SECTIONS
SHEET TS2 OF 25

TOP MATTING LAYER
ANCHORED IN 6" TRENCH
LEVELSPREADER
SEE DETAIL
COMPACTED SOIL
WITH 3 -5% ORGANICS
- FORM GEOLIFTS WITH COIR MATTING
LIVE BRUSH CUTTINGS @ 12" O.C.,
F SEE VEG. DETAILS FOR SPECIES
MATTING EXTENDS 2' INTO BANK
1.0'
1- (TYP)
DESIGN BED
1' MIN.
L CLASS 1 RIPRAP MIXED WITH
NOTES: ON -SITE GRAVEL AND COBBLE
1. GEOLIFTS TO BE INSTALLED WITH PLYWOOD FORMS
AND STEEL BRACES, OR APPROVED ALTERNATE METHOD.
2. COIR MATTING SHALL BE 980 GRAMS /SQ. METER.
rl_
GEOLIFT DETAIL
D1 NTS
01 A AI
FINISHED GRADE
PER PROFILE
12" MIN.
SECTION A -A'
AIXTURE OF ON -SITE GRAVEL
kND CLASS B RIPRAP
3 CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
D1 NTS
m
Q
w
o u�
z
z
O
o u�
n213 OF ARC LENGTH TO MAX. POOL w
u
04, W
0
Q m
2 T OFOFB
o OA_
44/ V
O P'�" p
4.
O
�4 =V N
00`
sec.
P „ P
O �MAX. POOL DEPTH \`
w ° Co
� SMOOTH TRANSITION FROM 11 a a M E
FS�cc O POOL TO RIFFLE SECTIONS Z v o Ln o,
v _u, u
Z 0m
Oz Z_4)
W �a
U
2 RIFFLE -POOL TRANSITIONS
D1 NTS
MOORES FORK STRUCTURES
MOORES FORK STRUCTURES
STRUCTURE
STATION
ELEVATION
STRUCTURE
U/S STATION
ELEVATION
J -HOOK
18 +40
1153.9
CROSS VANE
47 +25
1134.8
CROSS VANE
21 +90
1150.0
J -HOOK
49 +50
1133.2
RIFFLE
24 +90
1148.0
J -HOOK
53 +55
1129.9
RIFFLE
26 +15
1147.2
CROSS VANE
61 +20
1125.2
RIFFLE
28 +66
1146.0
SILAGE TRIBUTARY STRUCTURES
RIFFLE
31 +14
1144.5
STEP
10 +00 - 34 +50
SEE PROFILE
RIFFLE
33 +80
1142.9
POND TRIBUTARY STRUCTURES
CROSS VANE
35 +36
1141.5
RIFFLES
10 +30 - 11 +70
SEE PROFILE
CROSS VANE
38 +30
1139.6
STEPS
12 +00 - 12 +30
SEE PROFILE
CROSS VANE
39 +50
1139.0
BARN AND COW TRIBUTARIES STRUCTURES
RIFFLE
42 +40
1137.8
STEPS
SEE PROFILES
RIFFLE
44 +05
1136.9
Z
0
F_4z
~z
5
0 U
�
C) ur)
O
DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: NTS
STRUCTURE
DETAILS
SHEET D1 OF 25

\ O
O� \ A O
\ O� �
O-c� y
23 °' \ �
\ �Z
BACKFILL UPSTREAM SIDE WITH ON -SITE
COBBLE; NAIL FILTER FABRIC ON
UPSTREAM FACE OF LOG AND LAY
BENEATH BACKFILL.
18" MIN. DIAM.
HARDWOOD LOG
LEAVE ROOT WAD ON LOG
IF AVAILABLE
�-7� F- EXISTING BED
PLAN (AT HEAD OF POOL
MATTING AND LIVE STAKES
TOP OF BANK
10' EMBEDMENT
EMBED 10' MIN.
TOP OF BANK ROOT WAD M
70/o SLOPE PLACED FLUSH WITf
PROFILE A -A'
rl__
LOG VANE
D2 NTS
8' MIN. U/S & D/S
FILTER FABRIC
NAILED TO UPSTREAM :lN. �
FACE OF HEADERS
4'
STEP STRUCTURE NOTES:
1. TRENCH LOGS MINIMUM 2' INTO SECTION
BANK ON BOTH SIDES AND
BACKFILL WITH COMPACTED
ON -SITE SOIL. MINIMIZE
DISTURBANCE TO BANKS
BEYOND STRUCTURE LIMITS.
2. BOULDERS MUST HAVE MINIMUM
DIMENSIONS OF 1.5'X2'X3'.
HEADER LOG
12" MIN. DIAM. COVER LOC
NO GAPS BETWEEN
ROOT WAD MASSES
1' MIN. - CREEK BED, SEE PROFILE
16" MAX.
w.,i�L�i�i `Mi& 2" THICK LAYER
BOULDER
FOOTER LOGS, 18" MIN.
DIAM. HARDWOOD
3 LOG STEP
D2 NTS
12" MIN. HARDWOOD TRUNK
WITH INTACT ROOT MASS
BASEFLOW W.S
V MIN �
lRFrTI0KJ
m►
FLOW
2' MIN. �-
- - -- --
�j
KFILL TRENCH W/
IPACTED ON -SITE
. (TYP)
ROOT WAD INSTALLATION NOTES:
Q
w
o u�
z
O
o u�
u
w
W
0
1. DRIVEN ROOT WADS
A
ATTEMPT TO PUSH SHARPENED
LJJ
u
co
U N o
TRUNK INTO BANK WITHOUT
z
a
m m o
DAMAGE TO ROOT MASS.
LU
a, o ' m
Z 12 2 Lii c
2. TRENCHED ROOT WADS
1. DRIVEN ROOT WADS
ATTEMPT TO PUSH SHARPENED
LJJ
u
co
U N o
TRUNK INTO BANK WITHOUT
z
a
m m o
DAMAGE TO ROOT MASS.
LU
a, o ' m
Z 12 2 Lii c
2. TRENCHED ROOT WADS
5:.0 u N �
IF THE ROOTWAD CANNOT BE
J
w 2 t co c
DRIVEN INTO THE BANK,
Qj
Z z U
EXCAVATE NARROW TRENCH,
O
Z a o
PLACE ROOT WAD AND TRUNK,
l.1
AND BACKFILL WITH COMPACTED
ON -SITE SOIL.
2 ROOT WADS
D2 NTS
HEADER LOG
MIN. 2' MEDIAN AXIS
BOULDER BUTTRESS
PLAN
(RIPRAP NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY)
ELEVATION POINT IN STRUCTURE TABLE
Z
0
�U
�z
~z
5
OU
�
C) cn
O
DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: NTS
STRUCTURE
DETAILS
SHEET D2 OF 25

BACKFILL WITH ON -SITE
GRAVEL AND COBBLE
3' MEDIAN AXIS
BOULDER (TYP)
21'
PLAN
rl_
BOULDER J -HOOK VANE
D3 NTS
a
7
FOOTER 21'
BOULDER
T MEDIAN AXIS
BOULDER (TYP)
A.i
2 BOULDER CROSS VANE
D3 NTS
8' MIN. U/S & D/S HEADER BOULDER
CREEK BED, SEE PROFILE
"
. 16 MAX
FILTER FABRIC
ANCHORED UPSTREAM
OF HEADERS
4' MIN.
SECTION
12" THICK LAYER
CLASS B RIPRAP
FOOTER BOUDLERS
3 BOULDER STEP
D3 NTS
2' MIN. - --
HEADER BOULDER
FILTER FABRIC -
BACKFILL W/ ON -SITE
GRAVEL AND COBBLE
4' MIN.
TOE OF BANK (TYP)
FLOW TOP OF BANK (TYP)
'MEDIAN AXIS COBBLE
IINKING BETWEEN BOULDERS
=...
HEADER BOULDER
IIN. 2' MEDIAN AXIS
OOTER BOULDER
( RIPRAP NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY)
V MIN.
1' MIN.
CREEK B
FOOTER BOULDER
SECTION B -B'
ELEVATION POINT IN STRUCTURE TABLE
0
0
w
0
o uo
z
O
z
o u�
o >
u
w
0
W
0
A
oo
O
_ =W
cq 0_
FLOW
O
-�
di
�
FLOW
O
EXISTING BED
2�
��
0
-n
TOP OF BANK
n
0
03
z
7% SLOPE
-3 GAP
HOOK BOULDERS FLUSH O
,
INVERT BOULDERS FLUSH
_
WITH BASEFLOW W.S.
WITH BASEFLOW W.S. -�
8'
FOOTER BOULDER
FOOTER
PROFILE A -A'
BOULDER
BACKFILL WITH ON -SITE
GRAVEL AND COBBLE
3' MEDIAN AXIS
BOULDER (TYP)
21'
PLAN
rl_
BOULDER J -HOOK VANE
D3 NTS
a
7
FOOTER 21'
BOULDER
T MEDIAN AXIS
BOULDER (TYP)
A.i
2 BOULDER CROSS VANE
D3 NTS
8' MIN. U/S & D/S HEADER BOULDER
CREEK BED, SEE PROFILE
"
. 16 MAX
FILTER FABRIC
ANCHORED UPSTREAM
OF HEADERS
4' MIN.
SECTION
12" THICK LAYER
CLASS B RIPRAP
FOOTER BOUDLERS
3 BOULDER STEP
D3 NTS
2' MIN. - --
HEADER BOULDER
FILTER FABRIC -
BACKFILL W/ ON -SITE
GRAVEL AND COBBLE
4' MIN.
TOE OF BANK (TYP)
FLOW TOP OF BANK (TYP)
'MEDIAN AXIS COBBLE
IINKING BETWEEN BOULDERS
=...
HEADER BOULDER
IIN. 2' MEDIAN AXIS
OOTER BOULDER
( RIPRAP NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY)
V MIN.
1' MIN.
CREEK B
FOOTER BOULDER
SECTION B -B'
ELEVATION POINT IN STRUCTURE TABLE
0
0
w
0
o uo
z
O
z
o u�
o >
u
w
0
W
0
W c co
U N,
Z L �, Ln o
LU o� of
Z
ZLL
zmZ4)
Oz °°
W �a
U
Z
O
�U
�z
5
o U
Our)
O
DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: NTS
STRUCTURE
DETAILS
SHEET D3 OF 25
_ =W
cq 0_
W c co
U N,
Z L �, Ln o
LU o� of
Z
ZLL
zmZ4)
Oz °°
W �a
U
Z
O
�U
�z
5
o U
Our)
O
DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: NTS
STRUCTURE
DETAILS
SHEET D3 OF 25

ROAD /DRIVEWAY
ROAD /DRIVEWAY
6" MIN. THICKNESS
2" TO 3" STONE
FILTER FABRIC (SOIL
SUBGRADE ONLY)
rl--
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE /EXIT
D4 NTS
STEEL T -POST
SILT FENCE FABRIC
6' MAX. COMPACTED FILL
STEEL T -POST FLOW — 1 CREEK SIDE
� =1 I I— III —I I —III I
18" MIN. - III =III 1101
24" M I
8°
4"
FILTER FABRIC
PROFILF
NOTES:
1. SILT FENCE SHALL BE PLACED ON STREAM
SIDE OF ALL STOCKPILES.
2. SILT FENCE SHALL BE REMOVED UPON
COMPLETION OF EARTHWORK.
r3-� SILT FENCE
D4 NTS
R(/ 2' M I N
SAND BAG COFFER
DAM W/ PLASTIC
SHEETING (TYP.)
� I m r m
SETT
GRADED FLAT; SEED /PLANT
PER BUFFER PLANTING SPECS.
2' MIN.
2 DIVERSION
D4 NTS
LING POOL
(�
N
m
m
Q
WORK AREA
TOE OF BANK (TYP)
N
SECTION TOP OF BANK (TYP)
x
J
DIVERSION PUMP MIN. VARIES
250 GPM CAPACITY
4 FLOW DIVERSION
D4 NTS
DEWATERING PUMP AS
NEEDED
SILT BAG ON CLASS B
RIPRAP PAD
X
CLASS B RIPRAP
SPLASH PAD
m
Q
(�
N
m
m
Q
N
w
o
0
O
O
O
o
O
z
>
o
w
m
w
un
>
W
o
C)
W ° co
U u N,
Z v=Ln y
LU Z o � of
Z
LL o Z mZ c¢
OZ O O
W 0
U
F-4U
�z
~z
OU
�
C) cn
O
DATE: JULY 2012
SCALE: NTS
E &S
DETAILS
SHEET D4 OF 25
(�
N
"A:,
W ° co
U u N,
Z v=Ln y
LU Z o � of
Z
LL o Z mZ c¢
OZ O O
W 0
U
F-4U
�z
~z
OU
�
C) cn
O
DATE: JULY 2012
SCALE: NTS
E &S
DETAILS
SHEET D4 OF 25

FINISHED GRADE
CONFORM TO ADJACENT AT THALWEG
TERRACE SLOPE (TYP) SEE PROFILE
15 (TYP) BOTTOM WIDTH
1 5 (TYP)
1
V DEEP
STILLING BASIN
24" CLASS 1 RIPRAP
Dmax
NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
rl_, FORD CROSSING
D5 NTS
VARIES
1' MAX. A
- -- - - - - - --
A'
----i Wbkf F F- 1'
TOP OF BANK
EXIST. BANK
MATERIAL
Wbfk -2'
SECTION A -A'
12" CLASS B RIPRAP
B RIPRAP
CLASS B RIPRAP
SPLASH PAD
DIAM. PVC ORIFICE
NEW CHANNEL
EXCAVATION
3 DRAWDOWN STRUCTURE
D5 NTS
FYI ki IVAI=kgrl
SEE TYP. SECTIONS
FOR SLOPE AND DIMENSIONS
NEW CHANNEL BED
SELECT BACKFILL
ACKFILL
ki
ABANDONED CHANNEL <
Q
w
o O
O
z
O
o O
A >
A
w
W
0
BACKFILL
0
15' MIN. U U N co
o
Z ��o
o L6 of
J W mtN u
LL z 0o 9 u
ZzmZ°''
�7OCi0C
5' KEYWAY 2' u w L a
SECTION A -A'
2 CHANNEL PLUG
D5 NTS
TIMBER MAT(S) SHALL
5 (TYP) FULLY SPAN CHANNEL
1 _
.gF=rTION
4 TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
D5 NTS
Z
F_4z
~z
0
OU
�
C) cn
O
DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: NTS
E &S
DETAILS
SHEET D5 OF 25
-a=
BACKFILL
0
15' MIN. U U N co
o
Z ��o
o L6 of
J W mtN u
LL z 0o 9 u
ZzmZ°''
�7OCi0C
5' KEYWAY 2' u w L a
SECTION A -A'
2 CHANNEL PLUG
D5 NTS
TIMBER MAT(S) SHALL
5 (TYP) FULLY SPAN CHANNEL
1 _
.gF=rTION
4 TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
D5 NTS
Z
F_4z
~z
0
OU
�
C) cn
O
DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: NTS
E &S
DETAILS
SHEET D5 OF 25

TOP OF BANK
V MIN
SMOOTH SURFACE, REMOVE
ALL DEBRIS AND SEED /MULCH
BEFORE PLACING MATTING
MATTING PLACED FLUSH WITH BANK SURFACE, LAP
OVER DOWN STREAM / DOWN SLOPE SEAMS
12" WOOD STAKE PLACED IN
3'0.C. DIAMOND PATTERN
SECTION
MATTING ANCHORED 1'
BELOW STREAM BED
NOTE:
1. MATTING SHALL BE COIR FIBER, 780 GRAMS /SQ.
METER WITH NOMINAL 0.50 INCH OPENING SIZE.
ri__
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
D6 NTS
PERMANENT SEED MIX *
* APPLIED AT 0.5 LB /1,000 SF TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percentage
Switchgrass
Panicum virgatum
30
Virginia Wild Rye
Elymus virginicus
30
Deer Tongue
Panicum clandestinum
15
Golden Tickseed
Coreopsis tinctoria
5
Showy Tickseed
Bidens aristosa
5
Ironweed
Vernonia gigantea
5
Fox Sedge
Carex vulpinoidea
10
TOTAL
100
TEMPORARY SEED MIX
APPLIED WITH PERMANENT M
Application Dates
Common Name
Rate (lb /1,000 sD
August 15 to May 1
Rye Grain
1.0
May 1 to August 15
Browntop Millet
0.3
IN. 2 NODES ABOVE GRADE
LIVE STAKE
I0150111X`l
4' IN DIAMOND PATTERN
HARD SOIL OR STONE MAY
BE PRESENT SEE NOTE 1
2' MIN.
2' TO FIRST ROW
BASEFLOW W.S.
SECTION
1. FORM PILOT HOLE THROUGH HARD SOIL OR STONE TO
PREVENT DAMAGE TO STAKE.
2. LIVE STAKE MIX TO INCLUDE AT LEAST TWO OF THE
FOLLOWING SPECIES: SILKY DOGWOOD, SILKY WILLOW,
ELDERBERRY,BUTTONBUSH.
i
MIN. 1/2 7�w
2 LIVE STAKING
D6 NTS
3' TO 4'
TOP CUT AT 150
BUDS POINTED
UPWARD
1/2" TO 2"
BASE CUT
AT 45 DEG.
LIVE STAKE DETAIL
MIN. BASE WIDTH = 4'
SECTION CHECK DAM: CLASS 1 RIPRAP,
CRUSHED CONCRETE OR
COMPACTED BRUSH PILE
TOP OF LOWER CHECK
NO LOWER THAN BASE OF
UPSTREAM CHECK
PROFILE
3 GULLY STABILIZATION
D6 NTS
NOTES:
1. BRUSH MAY NOT BE FROM
NON - NATIVE SPECIES.
2. AT LEAST EVERY THIRD
CHECK DAM SHALL BE RIPRAP.
U
w
o U�
z
O
o U�
w
U El­
W
0
W c
U N,
d g L" o
z
LU o Li of
Z .0 M N qj
LL o Z Z mZ c¢
O z ^" o
W �a
U
Z
O
H
L7
O
w
O
O
me
z
z
0
9
cn
DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: NTS
E &S
DETAILS
SHEET D6 OF 25
V
0_
4
W c
U N,
d g L" o
z
LU o Li of
Z .0 M N qj
LL o Z Z mZ c¢
O z ^" o
W �a
U
Z
O
H
L7
O
w
O
O
me
z
z
0
9
cn
DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: NTS
E &S
DETAILS
SHEET D6 OF 25

Q
TOP OF BANK —EROSION CONTROL
MATTING W/ MATTING STAKES o z
z
3" TOPSOIL z O
o z
IVE CUTTINGS >
W
o
NATUI
TOP OF BANK
TOE OF BANK
ST
SECTION
TWIN
EDGE OF TRENCH
PLAN
BRUSH MATTRESS
D7 NTS
ON -SITE COBBLE AND /OR
CLASS 1 RIPRAP
\ ` STREAM BED
Q
m
411
12" MIN. NOTCH FACES
UPHILL
18"
LIVE STAKE AT
4' O.C., SEE DETAIL
= U W N 0
y "',\
TOP OF BANK
`�
3' TYP
18" WOODEN STAKE PLACED IN T O.C.
DIAMOND PATTERN; LEAVE 3"
_
=1 1 =1 1 =1 1= PROJECTING ABOVE SURFACE
STAKE DETAIL
zlII= 1II =1II_ —_
= 1I1= 1I1 —II III—
I =1 I —III I I —I � I � I—
W
U
o
co
�
� N O
—I
—III— =1I I— III —III = OVER- EXCAVATE 6"
a mm , , o
12 2L6 c
—LIVE CUTTINGS, SLIGHT CRISS -CROSS
_ _
1 =1 I— III — III —I
—III =1 —III III— BASEFLOW W.S.
Z
5= Im z
PATTERN, MIN. 20 STEMS PER SQUARE YARD
=111= — III —III —_ _ <
J
c6
W 2 t N c
wo��c
REMOVE DEBRIS, SCARIFY = III =III = —III =
=1 1 =1 1 =1 1 =1
z m` z a;
AND SATURATE SURFACE — — — —
O
z °_' r o
BEFORE PLACING SOD
u
W L a V
SECTION
NOTES:
1. EXCAVATE 12" DEEP TRENCH AT TOE OF BANK.
2. LAY LIVE CUTTINGS OVER SUBGRADE AS SHOWN.
3. DRIVE STAKES HALFWAY INTO BANK BETWEEN CUTTINGS.
WRAP TWINE AROUND STAKES AND OVER CUTTINGS TIGHTLY.
DRIVE STAKES FURTHER TO TIGHTEN TWINE AND SECURE
CUTTINGS TO SLOPE.
4. FILL VOIDS BETWEEN CUTTINGS WITH LOOSE TOPSOIL.
5. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING OVER TOPSOIL,
USING 18" LONG MATTING STAKES.
6. PLACE STONE TOE OVER END OF MATTRESS AND MATTING.
2 SOD MAT TRANSPLANT Z
O
D7 NTS F_4 Z
~z
o
OU
�
C) cn
0
DATE: MARCH 2012
SCALE: NTS
DETAILS
SHEET D7 OF 25

Conservation Plan Map
Date: 2/15/2012
Field Office: DOBSON SERVICE CENTER
Customer(s): MAPLE RIDGE FARMS
Agency: NRCS
District: SLIRRY SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Assisted By: Tony Davis
Approximate Acres: 96.2
State and County: NC, ALLEGHANY
sa:
I�
w� i
,f a.
1
. 7
4
Fe:d c"
i
X
r -r x
c ;d ._
F;sd 4 .
fs.
f •.
F`&d
rV .
14 „ .-r, .... .. ..
.. .
S{' Fieid
X 13.2 ac.
_ - Legend
Animal Trails and Walkways
X Fence
Pipeline
Stream Crossing
Water Well
N
tj Watering Facility
360 0 360
Area Protection
720 1,080 1,440
Heavy Use
Feet
EEP