The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20070491 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20070319Ripshin Branch Stream & Wetland Restoration Ashe County, NC 0 7. 0 4 9 1 Prepared for: NCDENR-Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 ~~ 7~~;t~~~~III ~~,I ~~li ~.. k~ ; 9;,`I1~ Restoration Plan D~C~~[1~I~ p March 9, 2007 MAR ~ ~ ~~~~ ~, v . _ . ~~~ i r ~~+'~ta • Prepared by: Ecologic Associates, P.C. 4321-A S. Elm-Eugene St. Greensboro, NC 27406 (336) 335-1108 Faz 3141 Project Manager: Mark A. Taylor, PE, CPESC 07.049 1 • r~ ~~a ~•O~t~N CARp~~'•,, ~ •''~•• SS •~•'. ti ~'•. ~• ~ ~~~~~~ • r . _~~dn~ _ .~~IT+R~I~ + s,•~~ A j R~t~a • • • C7 • h -~ ~ ~:~ ~ ,, 1:~4 Project Site Identification and Location S; r_~ ~.~ Watershed Characterization Project Site Streams (Existing Conditions) Reference Streams Project Site Wetlands (Existing Conditions) . Reference Wetlands Project Site Restoration Plan References ~ Tables Appendices >~ ~. +~: Performance Criteria Design Sheets Restoration Plan - Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 3 I. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................... 3 II. EXISTING AMOUNTS OF STREAMS AND WETLANDS ....................................................................... . 3 III. AMOUNTS OF STREAMS AND WETLANDS DESIGNED ..................................................................... . 4 1.0 PROJECT SITE LOCATION .................................................................................................................. . 5 1.1 DIRECTIONS TO PROJECT SITE ..................................................................................................... . 5 1.2 USGS HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODES (8 AND 14 DIGIT) ................................................................ . 5 1.3 PROJECT VICINITY MAP .................................................................................................................. . 5 2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................................................. . 6 2.1 DRAINAGE AREA ................................................................................................................................ . 6 2.2 SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATION ............................................................................................ . 6 2.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS ..................................................................................... . 6 2.4 HISTORICAL LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT TREND ........................................................... . 7 2.5 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES .............................................................................. . 7 2.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................... . 8 2.7 POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS .............................................................................................................. 9 2.7.1 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND BOUNDARY ......................................................................... 9 2.7.2 SITE ACCESS ................................................................................................................................. 9 2.7.3 UTILITIES ...................................................................................................................................... 9 2.7.4 FEMA AND HYDROLOGIC TRESPASS ................................................................................... 9 2.7.5 TROUT WATERS .......................................................................................................................... 9 3.0 PROJECT SITE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS) ................................................................... 10 3.0.1 RIPSHIN BRANCH ...................................................................................................................... 10 3.0.2 UNNAMED TRIBUTARY ...............................................................................................:........... 10 3.1 CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................................................... 11 3.2 DISCHARGE .......................................................................................................................................... 11 3.2.1 RIPSHIN BRANCH ...................................................................................................................... 11 3.2.2 UNNAMED TRIBUTARY ........................................................................................................... i l 3.3 CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 12 3.3.1 RIPSHIN BRANCH ...................................................................................................................... 12 3.3.2 UNNAMED TRIBUTARY ........................................................................................................... 12 3.4 CHANNEL STABILITY ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................ 13 3.4.1 RIPSHIN BRANCH ...................................................................................................................... 13 3.4.2 UNNAMED TRIBUTARY ........................................................................................................... 13 3.5 BANKFULL VERIFICATION ............................................................................................................ 13 3.5.1 RIPSHIN BRANCH ...................................................................................................................... 13 3.5.2 UNNAMED TRIBUTARY ........................................................................................................... 13 3:6 VEGETATION ...................................................................................................................................... 14 3.6.1 RIPSHIN BRANCH ...................................................................................................................... 14 3.6.2 UNNAMED TRIBUTARY ........................................................................................................... 14 4.0 REFERENCE STREAMS ......................................................................................................................... 15 4.1 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................................ 15 4.2 CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION ..........................................................................:............................... 16 4.3 DISCHARGE ......................................................................................................................................... 16 4.4 CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY ...........................................:.................................................................. 16 4.5 CHANNEL STABILITY ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................ 16 4.6 BANKFULL VERIFICATION ............................................................................................................ 16 4.7 VEGETATION ...................................................................................................................................... 17 5.0 PROJECT SITE WETLANDS (EXISTING CONDITIONS) ........................................................... 18 5.1 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS ....................................................................................................... 18 5.2 HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERIZATION ......................................................................................... 18 5.2.1 GROUNDWATER MODELING ................................................................................................ 18 5.2.2 SURFACE WATER MODELING AT RESTORATION SITE ............................................... 19 • 5.3 SOIL CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................................................ 19 5.3.1 TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION ............................................................................................ 19 3/9/07 1 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan - Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC • 5.3.2 PROFILE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................... 19 5.4 PLANT COMMUNITY CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................. 20 6.0 REFERENCE WETLANDS ..................................................................................................................... 21 6.1 HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERIZATION ......................................................................................... 21 6.2 SOIL CHARACTERIZATION ................................................................... 21 ......................................... 6 3 PLANT COMMUNITY CHARACTERIZATION . ............................................................................. 21 6.3.1 COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS ...................................................... 21 ......................................... 7.0 PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN ............................................................................................... 7 1 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIV 23 . ES .............................................................. 23 7.1.1 DESIGN CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION AND WETLAND TYPE ...................................... 23 7.1.2 TARGET WETLAND COMMUNITIES AND BUFFER COMMUNITIES .......................... 24 , 7.2 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 24 7.2.1 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 24 7.2.2 CALCULATIONS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... 24 7.3 HEC-RAS ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 24 7.3.1 NO-RISE, LOMR, CLOMR ......................................................................................................... 24 7.3.2 HYDROLOGIC TRESPASS ........................................................................................................ 25 7.4 STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES .................................................................. 25 7.4.1 NARRATIVE OF SITE SPECIFIC STORMWATER CONCERNS ...................................... 25 7.4.2 DEVICE DESCRIPTION AND APPLICATION ...................................................................... 25 7.5 HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................................... 25 7.5.1 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................................ 25 7.5.2 SCALED SCHEMATIC OF MODIFICATIONS ...................................................................... 25 -7.6 SOIL RESTORATION ......................................................................................................................... 26 7.6.1 SOIL PREPARATION AND AMENDMENT ........................................................................... 26 7.7 NATURAL PLANT COMMUNITY RESTORATION ...................................................................... 26 7.7.1 PLANT COMMUNITY RESTORATION ............................................................. 26 . .................... 7.7.2 ON-SITE INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT ................................................................... 27 8.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ................................................................................................................. 28 8.1 STREAMS .............................................................................................................................................. 28 8.2 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DEVICES .................................................................................. 28 8.3 WETLANDS ........................................................................................................................................... 28 8.4 VEGETATION ...................................................................................................................................... 28 8.5 SCHEDULE AND REPORTING ......................................................................................................... 28 9.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 29 10.0 TABLES .................................................................................................................. 30 11.0 FIGURES ................................................................................................................ 31 12.0 DESIGN SHEETS ...................................................................................................... . 13.0 APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... . • 3/9/07 2 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan -Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC • Executive Summary 0 7 0 4 9 1 Michael and Virginia Tate contacted the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) with an interest in protecting the streams and wetlands on their farm in Ashe County. They have previously placed portions of this farm under conservation easements and have produced a forestry plan for the farm. The result of this contact was the development of the current stream and wetland restoration project. This is a proactive landowner-initiated project, so their goals and interests have strongly influenced the project goals and scope. In addition, Larry Miller, an intervening landowner with a small triangular parcel within the lower reaches, agreed to the inclusion of his parcel in the project. i. Project Goals The design goals of the Ripshin Branch restoration project are as follows: iG Improve stream water quality and ecological function by excluding livestock, restoring pool and riffle sequences, and restoring tree canopy and instream large woody debris; p Enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the stream corridor and adjacent wetlands; q Enhance and/or restore the ecological function of riparian wetlands; LC Restore the riparian corridor (forested buffer) for watershed and wildlife benefits; • ~ Enhance habitat for native brook trout ~Salvelinus fontinalis) and improve fishery potential; and LC Increase the biodiversity of the stream ecology, riparian buffers and wetlands. ii. Project Objectives The design objectives of the Ripshin Branch restoration project are as follows: ~ Improve channel geomorphology toward reference conditions by providing watershed- scaled and Rosgen-typed channel dimension, adding floodplain benches where floodplain access is not feasible, restoring sinuous pattern to straightened reaches where possible, and adjusting profile as needed to restore or maintain sediment transport equilibrium; ~ Restore streamside floodprone area where appropriate (increase floodwater access to the floodplain); LC Reduce sediment and nutrient loading by_reshaping and stabilizing banks, reducing bank scour, excluding livestock, and restoring riparian buffers; and q Enhance or restore wetland hydrology and vegetation in former pastures and filled wetlands. iii. Existing Amounts of Streams and Wetlands The existing streams within the project areas include a straightened section of an Unnamed Tributary to Ripshin Branch that is 920 feet long, and a section of Ripshin Branch that is 2,738 feet long. There are 1.24 acres of existing wetlands adjacent to the Unnamed Tributary and 3.25 acres of wetlands adjacent to Ripshin Branch. All the wetlands have been impacted 3/9/07 3 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan -Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC by ditching, filling, grazing, beaver activity and hay production. On February 21, 2007, Amanda Jones of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers visited and reconnoitered the site and confirmed the wetland identifications and boundaries established by Ecologic. iv. Amounts of Streams and Wetlands Designed The proposed design interventions for Ripshin Branch include 1,485 linear feet in Reach 1 (Type B4), comprised of 1,085 linear feet of enhancement (Level II) and 4001inear feet of restoration (Priority 2), and 815 linear feet in Reach 2 (Type C4), comprised of 815 linear feet of restoration (Priority 2). An additiona1518 linear feet of stream preservation is proposed in the lowest reach of Ripshin Branch. The proposed design interventions for the Unnamed Tributary (Reach 3) include 1321inear of enhancement (Level I, Type B4) and 780 linear feet of restoration (Priority 1, Type C4). Two and seven tenths (2.7) acres of existing wetlands alongside the Ripshin Branch restoration corridor are proposed to be enhanced by removing ditches and agricultural impacts, with an additiona10.93 acre to be restored by remediating agricultural and beaver impacts. About one-half acre (0.55) of existing wetlands will be impacted (removed) by the stream restoration (new channel construction). About one and one-half (1.49) acres of existing wetlands adjacent to the Unnamed Tributary are proposed to undergo enhancement by removing agricultural impacts and restoring wetland vegetation, including 0.25 acre of . new wetland created by filling the existing channel. An additional 1.63 acres of prior- converted wetlands are to be restored by removing ditches, underdrains and fill. 3/9/07 4 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan -Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC • 1.0 Project Site Location v ~ 7 0 4® j 1.1 Directions to Project Site The project is in the northwest corner of Ashe County, about one (1) mile south of the Virginia line and three (3) miles east of the Tennessee line in the Park USES Quadrangle. The site is accessed from Jefferson, NC by following NC 88 west to Warrensville, then NC 194 north to Lansing, NC. From Lansing, follow Big Horse Creek Road to Ripshin Road. The site is approximately 13 miles north of Lansing at the intersection of Ripshin Road and Buddy's Run. 1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Codes (8 and 14 digit) Ripshin Branch is located in USGS Hydrologic Unit 05050001, the Upper New Stream subbasin, which lies in the Kanawha Stream Basin. The 14-digit Hydrologic Unit Code is 05050001010050. NCDWQ's stream basin designation for the New Stream is OS-07 and the project site is located in subbasin OS-07-02. 1.3 Project Vicinity Map • See attached Figure 1. 3/9/07 5 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan -Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC 0 7 0 4 9 1 2.0 Watershed Characterization 2.1 Drainage area The drainage area measured at the upper end of the restoration reach on the main channel of Ripshin Branch is 1.6 square miles, and for the Unnamed Tributary is 0.56 square miles. See attached Figures 2A and 2B for watershed maps of the two drainages. 2.2 Surface Water Classification The site surface waters are classified as Class C waters, High Quality Waters (HQW) and Trout Waters. 2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils The Michael and Virginia Tate property including Ripshin Branch lies in the northernmost portion of Ashe County, NC near the Virginia border in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province. The surrounding area is characterized by mountains with steep forested slopes, with small inclusions of farm and pastureland in the floodplains. • The site lies within the Mount Rogers Formation of the Blue Ridge Belt. Mapped county rock types (sedimentary and metamorphic) include Metafelsite (symbol Zmf), a light- colored, porphyritic extrusive rock and Metagraywacke interlayered with metaconglomerate, laminated metasiltstone, and slate (symbol Zml), with minor inclusions of calcareous metasandstone, greenstone, and metarhyolite. A large portion of the floodplain along Ripshin Branch contains mapped units of Colvard soils (see Figure 3). Colvard soils are well drained and are not themselves hydric soils, but frequently contain hydric soils. On the Ashe County list of hydric soils Colvard fine sandy loam (map unit symbol Co) is listed, with "Toxaway, undrained" listed as the component within the map unit that is hydric. The hydric criteria that Toxaway meets is " 2B3", which means that it is in an Aquic suborder, is poorly drained, and has a seasonal high water table depth of one-foot or less. The soils observed in the proposed wetland restoration areas are typically inclusions of Iotla, which is a somewhat poorly drained soil, or Toxaway, which is a poorly drained or very poorly drained soil. Depths to a cobble layer were somewhat shallow for these series. Toxaway soils are typical of wetlands in the area. Iotla soils are not hydric, but have very good potential for wetland creation, and in some cases may be present in wetlands in this area. The extent of these soils was confirmed in the field and used as the basis of restoration strategies. A site-specific, preliminary soils investigation relative to wetlands was conducted by Foothills Soils Consulting, LLC under subcontract to Ecologic. The report of that investigation is attached (Appendix 5). The above discussion was also contributed by • Foothills Soils Consulting. 3/9/07 6 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan -Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC • 2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends The watershed that includes Ripshin Branch, its tributaries and adjacent wetlands is in a relatively remote and undeveloped portion of Ashe County. Historically, there were dairy and beef cattle and limited support agriculture in this area; however, most of the dairies are now gone. The watershed is now used mostly for cattle grazing, forestry and limited residential use. There is virtually no development underway in the vicinity, with Lansing being the closest town and located southeast of the project site. Between 1990 and 2000, Lansing suffered a decrease in population of about 11 percent. Rural residential properties and pasturelands are scattered throughout the watershed. The Tates have put most of the farm, including the project watershed, into conservation easements, in perpetuity, with the Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust. In a telecommunication with James Colman, Executive Director at Blue Ridge Rural Land Trust, he noted that the Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) easements contain specific language allowing stream restoration within their bounds. The CWMTF easements also contain requirements fora 50-foot buffer on all headwater streams and for cattle to be fenced out of stream corridors. Mr. Colman stated that the CWMTF easements are for the purpose of watershed and farmland protection and do not address mitigation of any kind. The CWMTF • easements do not prohibit the stream or wetland restoration outlined in this restoration plan 2.5 Endangered and Threatened Species The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists 32 species ranging from Federal Species of Concern to Endangered in Ashe County. Of the 32 listed species, four (4) species are listed as Threatened (T), three (3) are Endangered (E), and the remainder are listed as Federal Species of Concern (FSC). The threatened or endangered species are: Bog Turtle (Glyptemys (formerly Clemmys) muhlenbergii), Heller's Blazing Star (Liatris helleri), Roan Mountain Bluet (Houstonia montana), Spreading Avens (Geum radiatum), Swamp Pink (Helonias bullata), Virginia spiraea (Spriaea virginiana) and Rock Gnome Lichen (Gymnoderma lineare). These species are either rock outcrop or cliff-dwelling species, or occur in other habitats that are not found within the project limits; thus, detailed biological surveys are not warranted. Ecologic conducted a site reconnaissance on May 9-10, 2006 for the purpose of investigating and documenting the presence or absence of listed T or E species or suitable habitat for same. On the basis of that reconnaissance and the noted absence of said species and suitable habitat, we conclude that the proposed project will have no effect on the listed T or E species. The Asheville Field Office of the USFWS was notified of our findings and determination in a letter dated May 31, 2006 and asked for comment or concurrence by default. As of this writing, no response has been received. Refer to Appendix 7 for correspondence with this agency. ., 3/9/07 7 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan - Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) lists 145 rare species and uncommon natural communities as occurring in Ashe County. A closer examination of NCNHP listings in the Park Quadrangle where the project is located indicates one Significantly Rare stonefly (Bolotoperla rossi) occurrence several miles downstream in Big Horse Creek, one occurrence of the Significantly Rare Pigmy Salamander (Desmognathus wrightii) in the Sturgills area five (5) miles east, three (3) downstream occurrences of the Significantly Rare Kanawa darter (Etheostoma kanawahae) (one in Big Horse Creek and two in sections of Helton Creek), and one occurrence of the Significantly Rare American Speedwell (Veronica americana) about 5 miles east of the project site. Consultation with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission indicates that the Kanawha darter (Etheostoma kanawahae) and the Toungtied minnow (Exoglossum laurae), both Significantly Rare, and the Kanawha minnow (Phenacobius teretuus), listed as a NC Special Concern and a Federal Species of Concern, all occur in the greater watershed which includes the project site. All these species, however, are normally found in much larger streams further down the watershed. In a letter to Ecologic dated June 14, 2006, the NCWRC Regional Coordinator of the Habitat Conservation Program stated, "Based on our review, we believe that adequate measures can be taken to minimize impacts to listed species while improving aquatic habitats in the area." Refer to Appendix 7 for correspondence with this agency. • 2.6 Cultural Resources There are no known cultural resources within the project boundaries. There are no buildings or other structures within the proposed impact area. The current farm manager, who has lived in the immediate vicinity for more than 70 years, confirms that the project area has consistently been used as pasture for grazing livestock throughout his lifetime. A response dated July 12, 2006 was received from the NC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to an inquiry letter dated June 12, 2006. In their response, SHPO expressed concern for historic structures (>50 years old), if any are present on or adjacent to the project. After conferring with EEP, it was determined that no such structures exist within the project limits (aka "area of potential effect" or APE, defined for this project as the limits of the proposed conservation easement). Refer to Appendix 7 for correspondence with these agencies. Regarding archaeological resources, SHPO states, "There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries.... Based on the topographic and hydrological situation, there is a high probability for the presence of prehistoric or historic archaeological sites." Further, SHPO says, "We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities." A survey report is requested for review and comment "well in advance of any construction activities". We understand that EEP has contracted for such a survey and that it is pending. 3/9/07 8 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan -Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC • The Tribal Historic Preservation Office of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians was notified of the project and solicited for comments in a letter dated June 6, 2006. As of this writing, no response has been received. Refer to Appendix 7 for correspondence with this agency. 2.7 Potential Constraints 2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary The Unnamed Tributary project site is entirely owned by Tate. The restoration reach along Ripshin Branch starts at the Tate property line and continues for 1,485 feet. The stream then crosses a property line (Miller) and flows off site about 100 feet before returning to the Tate property. For the next 715 feet the channel is entirely on Tate land. The last 518 feet of channel is on a boundary between Tate and Lee, with the historic centerline of the channel apparently forming the property line. 2.7.2 Site Access The project site along the Unnamed Tributary has easy access from both sides of the channel and entirely within the Tate property. The main channel of Ripshin Branch is mostly adjacent to Ripshin Road, with some access at the upper end on Tate property and from the middle of the reach on Miller land. The lower portion of the project is in a steep, narrow valley on mostly Tate property where access will be difficult, but not impossible. Access to the lower end of the stream channel will be from one side only • (Tate property) due to topographic constraints (steep hillside). 2.7.3 Utilities The Unnamed Tributary is crossed by a power line right of way that overlaps a good portion of the existing channel. The proposed channel will be relocated to avoid this conflict. Ripshin Branch is crossed by one power line in the middle of the project reach: The power line traverses the valley from a ridge top to Ripshin Road, and is therefore about 100 feet above the ground. No other utilities are indicated on the project site. 2.7.4 FEMA and Hydrologic Trespass The project is not in a FEMA mapped waterway and is high in the headwaters of the Upper New Stream subbasin. Topography and property boundaries preclude hydrologic trespass beyond that which presently occurs on shared boundaries during high water. According to the landowner, who has owned the property since 1967, there have been no instances of overbank flooding on the property. This anecdotal finding is consistent with the first-order character of the stream and its relatively high degree of incision, presumably from upstream migration of head-cutting following channelization. This suggests very low potential for hydrological trespass onto adjacent property or outside the immediate riparian corridor. 2.7.5 Trout Waters The NCWRC designates this area of Ashe County, including Ripshin Branch, as home to native brook trout. The receiving waters of Big Horse Creek just downstream are also a • hatchery-supported, public access fishery. There is astate-mandated moratorium on disturbance in Trout Water stream corridors from October 15 to April 15 (spawn). 3/9/07 9 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan -Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC .. • 07.049 1 3.0 Project Site Streams (Existing Conditions) 3.0.1 Ripshin Branch The Ripshin Branch stream and wetland restoration project on the Michael and Virginia Tate and Larry Miller properties in Ashe County is composed of two separate stream segments that will be described in this document as Ripshin Branch (proper) and Unnamed Tributary (UT). These two reaches will be treated as separate restoration projects in the following discussion. Photos of the restoration sites are included in Appendix 1. The restoration reach of Ripshin Branch begins about 1,100 feet downstream from the confluence of the Unnamed Tributary described below. At this point, the branch closely follows Ripshin Road after crossing under the road three times in a little over 1,000 feet. Upon emerging from beneath the third bridge (flowing east), the branch remains on the north side of Ripshin Road and enters a steeper, narrower section of the valley (Reach 1). The valley widens about 600 feet downstream. The stream flows against a wooded hillside on stream left (north slope), with a wet meadow on stream right (south floodplain). More than half of the creek width is well shaded by the canopy trees on stream left. Only an area where beaver dams were recently removed (Reach 2) is fully exposed to the sun. Ripshin Branch encounters two more tributaries from the south about 1,000 feet and 1,500 feet below the start. At this point, the creek and the valley turn northeast and become less • steep (Reach 2) and pass through another narrowing of the valley followed by another widening. The proposed restoration ends at a fence line about 2,300 feet from the start. An additional 518 linear feet of stream preservation is proposed in the lowest reach of Ripshin Branch. In the first 1,500 feet (Reach 1), the creek is relatively steep and has well vegetated banks, with only a few indications of instability. Most notable in this section is a car embedded in the bank on stream right. A previous bank stabilization project occurs just below the bridge at the start of the reach, which was done by lining the outer bank (stream left) with large rocks (cribbing). There are some sections within the reach with well-formed bankfull and interberm benches and a few locations of bank instability. There are a few large colonies of Multiflora rose scattered throughout the reach, but few other occurrences of invasive plants. Reach 2 starts at a point of confluence with a tributary at a wide area in the lower valley floodplain. Reach 2 was inhabited by beavers until the start of the design phase of this project and they had built several ponds in this area. The largest pond spanned the valley width of 100 feet. Once the beaver dams were breached, the main channel and a tributary formed sinuous meandering channels. 3.0.2 Unnamed Tributary This restoration reach flows through a relatively flat pasture area (floodplain) bounded on the south and west sides by Ripshin Road. The north boundary of this floodplain is a steep hillside, and the eastern limit is the confluence of the tributary with Ripshin Branch. • 3/9/07 10 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan -Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC • Historically, Ripshin Branch meandered across its floodplain to merge with the tributary about 500 feet further west than currently. At that time, the existing pasture was most likely a wetland around the confluence. Remnants of the old channel, located roughly in the middle of the current pasture, can be seen in aerial photographs and detected in the topography of the existing surface. Hydric soils located below a shallow layer of fill dirt also provide evidence of the previous wetland condition and the subsequent land use changes at this location. When Ripshin Branch was relocated, likely to provide more usable agricultural bottomland, it necessitated a lengthening of the tributary, which now follows a straight line across the pasture. The impacted reach of the tributary starts at a roadway culvert at the west end of the pasture. The existing channel follows a straight route across the pasture to a point at which Ripshin Branch passes under Ripshin Road, where the confluence occurs. This straight reach lies beneath an overhead power line. As a result, the entire reach lies within the power line easement, which is subject to periodic maintenance in the form ofclear-cutting of all vegetation within the easement. This has contributed to channel instability where banks fail from lack of woody root reinforcement. Riparian woody plant removal, combined with unrestricted cattle grazing and access to the creek for watering, has resulted in a significant loss of riparian buffer and significant bank instability. 3.1 Channel Classification Ripshin Branch is a Rosgen B4c stream type in Reach 1 and varies between F4 and C4 in Reach 2. Morphological survey indicates a stretch of B4c (about 1,500 feet long) transitioning to predominantly F4 type for most of the remainder, including the beaver damaged areas, with a few short reaches of C4 in the lowest reaches. The Unnamed Tributary exhibits Rosgen channel classifications of B4c upstream and F4 for the majority of the reach. 3.2 Discharge 3.2.1 Ripshin Branch The bankfull cross-sectional area measured at th~.most stable riffle in the existing channel was near that indicated on the NC Mountain regional curve, which leads to a bankfull discharge (Qbkf) estimate using velocity from RIVERMorph classification of 158 cubic feet per second (cfs), slightly higher than the regional curve prediction of 144 cfs. 3.2.2 Unnamed Tributary The bankfull cross-sectional area measured at the most stable riffle in the existing channel was near that indicated on the NC Mountain regional curve, which leads to a bankfull discharge (Qbkf) estimate using velocity from RIVERMorph classification of 83 cubic feet per second (cfs), 30% higher than the regional curve prediction of 64 cubic cfs. This could result from the location of the measured riffle being just below a road culvert. We have not monitored the streams long enough to measure a bankfull discharge or note any discharge trends; however, it is expected that the land use in the watershed will not 3/9/07 11 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan -Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC change in the foreseeable future, so the current runoff response of the watershed should remain reasonably stable. 3.3 Channel Morphology 3.3.1 Ripshin Branch The existing Ripshin Branch geometry is a typical B type in the upper reach (Reach 1) and a disturbed C type in the lower reach (Reach 2). The upper reach is mostly straight, with only a few locations of lateral instability noted, apparently from limited woody riparian vegetation. Pattern in Reach 1 reflects the valley shape and not unrestricted channel fluvial geomorphology. Reach 2 is where most of the variability in the surveyed morphological data comes from. Here, the channel is in a less steep section of valley and the bed is bedrock-controlled, so the channel has a higher propensity to migrate laterally. As measured, belt width ranges from 7 to 80 feet, radius of curvature from 10 to 160 feet, and meander length from 30 to 240 feet, all indicating a channel with highly irregular geometry. Sinuosity is 1.2 and the meander width ratio ranges from 0.8 to 2.1. Bankfull width measurements ranged from 17 to 24 feet, with a typical riffle average of just over 20 feet. Mean bankfull depth (dbkr') was measured as 1.2 to 1.3 feet at riffles and pool depths were measured as 0.9 to 3.6 feet. The channel is slightly entrenched for most . of its length, resulting in entrenchment ratios (ER) of 1.6 to 2.6. The profile geometry indicates a valley slope and water surface slope of about 2 percent. There are a few locations of bedrock control, most notably just below the beaver impacted area. 3.3.2 Unnamed Tributary The Unnamed Tributary essentially has no pattern. The channel has been straightened to the shortest distance across the floodplain, presumably to maximize grazing area. There are a few places where the shear stress on the unvegetated banks has caused channel widening and a localized increase in belt width. This suggests the early stages of channel evolution to a C type from the existing B/F type, but these apparent adjustments are not typical of most of the channel. As measured, belt width ranges from 12 to 33 feet, radius of curvature from 2.5 to 25 feet, and meander length from 50 to 170 feet, again indicating a channel with highly irregular geometry. Sinuosity is calculated to be 1.2 and the meander width ratio is 1.4. Bankfull width is reported as 18 feet. Mean bankfull depth (dbkf) was measured as 0.9 feet at a riffle and pool depth was measured as 1.4 feet. The channel is entrenched for most of its length, with recent evidence of dredging and straightening, resulting in an entrenchment ratio (ER) of 1.6. The profile indicates a valley slope and water surface slope of about 2 percent. There are a few locations of bedrock control. 3/9/07 12 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan -Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC 3.4 Channel Stability Assessment 3.4.1 Ripshin Branch The distribution of bed features is irregular and dominated by long riffle and run complexes. Pools are short and infrequent throughout the reach. The Pfankuch rating is 91 for a condition rating of Poor, mostly due to the beaver impacted portion, which is about 1/3 to 1/2 the total length. The BEHI numerical rating is 39.2 indicating a high rate of bank erosion, again mostly driven by the beaver damaged portions. Sediment loss from the banks is estimated to be between 0.6 and 0.9 ton/year from a 25-foot long assessment section. The current length of the restoration reach is about 2,450 feet, with about 650 feet of exposed and failing banks. Extrapolating through the entire reach with similar bank conditions, we estimate 15 to 23 tons of sediment contribution to the stream annually from bank losses. This does not include the beaver impacted banks, temporary ponds or cattle access. 3.4.2 Unnamed Tributary The distribution of bed features is irregular and dominated by debris jams and bank • collapses. Pools are short and infrequent throughout the reach. The Pfankuch rating is 95 for a condition rating of Poor. The BEHI numerical rating is 41.5 indicating a very high rate of bank erosion. Sediment loss from the banks is estimated to be between 0.6 and 0.9 ton/year from a 25-foot long assessment section. The current length of the restoration reach is about 920 feet with about 250 feet of exposed, unstable bank. Extrapolating through the entire reach with similar bank conditions, we estimate 7.5 to 10.5 tons of sediment contribution to the stream annually from bank losses. This does not include the cattle-trampled banks and crossings. Entrainment calculations indicate the bed is stable, which is a further indication of the sediment load in the system coming from failing banks. 3.5 Bankfull Verification 3.5.1 Ripshin Branch Good bankfull indicators occur in the stable sections of Reach 1 and the non-beaver- impacted sections of Reach 2. Bankfull indicators associated with riffles are difficult to identify in some places (mostly in Reach 2) due to bank instability, beaver activity, heavy herbaceous vegetation and lack of good diagnostic riffles. Bankfull width measurements ranged from 17 to 24 feet, with a typical riffle average of just over 20 feet. 3.5.2 Unnamed Tributary • Bankfull indicators associated with riffles are difficult to identify throughout the reach due to bank instability. A bankfull width measurement of 18 feet was noted at a 3/9/07 13 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan -Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC • relatively stable riffle at the head of the reach, with a typical riffle cross-sectional area of slightly over 16 square feet, which compares favorably to the regional curve prediction of 15.3 square feet. 3.6 Vegetation 3.6.1 Ripshin Branch The vegetation along Ripshin Branch includes a mixture of wetland and pasture plants along stream right. The upper portion of Reach 1 is bounded by the Ripshin Road embankment on stream right and an active pasture on stream left with some isolated hawthorn and ironwood trees and a wet meadow, then the road and creek diverge. The stream crosses the floodplain, which has been used as a hay field recently and for growing corn in the days of horse-drawn agriculture. There are some large patches of multiflora rose along the creek banks. At station 6+00, the creek encounters a hillside on stream left, thence the creek abuts this steep, forested hillside. The forest is a mixture of oaks, hickories and red maple, with occasional white pine and Canadian hemlocks. On the north and east slopes, in areas with limited or no cattle grazing, there is a thick understory of rhododendron, mountain laurel and flame azalea. Included in the understory is a typical mix of other ericaceous plants. The floodplain on stream right also contains (or contained) yellow buckeye, cherry birch and isolated red maples. 3.6.2 Unnamed Tributary The vegetation along the entire length of the Unnamed Tributary is typical of cattle- impacted, grazed pastures with a thin strip of woody plants dominated by Silky willow, apple and tag alders. The herb layer is variable and includes typical pasture and wet meadow species along with a few interesting species like Trillium erectum. • 3/9/07 14 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan -Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC • ~ 0 0 4 9 1 4.0 Reference Streams The proposed stream restorations will involve work on both Ripshin Branch and an Unnamed Tributary to it. The valley slope is less than 2 percent along the Unnamed Tributary and the lower section of Ripshin Branch (Reach 2), with some notably steeper areas along the upper portion (Reach 1) of Ripshin Branch. Based on the stream profiles, valley type, and the existing condition surveys, it is apparent the restorations will need to include sections of both B4 and C4 stream types (Rosgen 1994). We have reference data from two C4 streams in the northwest mountain region, including Long Branch in Patrick County, Virginia (a tributary in the Dan River system) and Basin Creek in Wilkes County, North Carolina. Both of these reference reaches have been approved for use by EEP and NCDWQ in other stream restoration projects. We selected Long Branch to be our primary C4 reference for this project. After an extensive search, we were unable to locate a suitable B4 type reference reach in the northwest mountains in the vicinity of Ripshin Branch. The alternative B type stream reference that was ultimately selected (and approved by EEP in e-mail correspondence) is a short section of the upper end (Reach 1) of the Ripshin Branch restoration reach. It is not as pristine and undisturbed as might be desired; however, this reference has the advantage of being in the same valley and watershed, with the same bed and bank material, and it is stable after several decades • in the same location (personal communication from Tate Farm Manager Jim Farmer). In the literature on reference reaches from Wildland Hydrology's website and papers by Richard Hay (Hey 2006), one of the themes that come through is that reference reaches should be as close to the scale of the project reach as possible and also comparable with regard to valley type, geology, sediment load, climate, etc. We consider apparent stability to be a key characteristic of an acceptable reference as well. Therefore, the proposed on-site reference reach would seem to be the best option since it is in the same valley as the restoration reach and should give a good indication of what is attainable given the constrained nature of the valley and channel. The bottom line is it also appears better than the alternatives. Photos of the reference sites are included in Appendix 4. Additional data from the reference surveys can be found in the Morphological Data Summary Table (Table 4). 4.1 Watershed Characterization The Long Branch watershed is just north of the Virginia-North Carolina state line in Patrick County, Virginia. The watershed is a tributary to Peters Creek in the Dan River system, located in the Roanoke Basin. The Long Branch watershed is 1.7 square miles in size and comprised of about 75% forest lands, 15% agricultural fields (cattle pastures), 5% residential, and 5% road corridors. The elevation of the center of the restoration reach is about 1,290 feet above mean sea level. • The internal reference is at the head of Ripshin Branch (Reach 1) and has a drainage area of about 1.6 square miles. The watershed land use is about 50% forest, 40% cattle pasture, 5% 3/9/07 15 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan -Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC • residential, and 5% road corridors. The center of the reference reach is at about 3,300 feet above mean sea level. 4.2 Channel Classification Long Branch is a C4 stream type and the internal reference reach is a B4 stream type (Rosgen 1994). 4.3 Discharge Long Branch has good bankfull indicators and has been determined to have a bankfull discharge (Qbkf) of 60.4 cfs. The Ripshin internal reference is estimated to have a bankfull discharge (Qbkf) of 145 cfs. 4.4 Channel Morphology Long Branch has a bankfull width of 14.4 feet, a bankfull mean depth of 1.2 feet, and a bankfull cross-sectional area of 17.6 square feet. It has a meander length of 97.5 feet, a radius of curvature of 25.3 feet, and a belt width of 42 feet. The channel has a sinuosity of 1.2 and a slope of 0.012. • The Ripshin internal reference has a bankfull width of 17.1 feet, a bankfull mean depth of 0.85 feet, and a bankfull cross-sectional area of 14.5 square feet. It has a meander length of 136 feet, a radius of curvature of over 100 feet, and a belt width of about 22 feet. The water surface slope is 0.020 and its sinuosity is 1.07. 4.5 Channel Stability Assessment Long Branch scores a 53 which is Good on the Pfankuch channel stability assessment. The Long Branch BEHI rating is 16.9 which is a low score. This translates to a predicted erosion rate of 0.59 ton per year over the entire stream reach. The Ripshin internal reference section scores a 55 which is a Good rating. The internal reference scores a 10.9 on the BEHI which is a low score and translates to a predicted erosion rate of 0.57 ton per year for this stream reach. 4.6 Bankfull Verification The bankfull dimensions for Long Branch are within the range of the Piedmont Rural Regional Curve and also on the low end of the Mountain Regional Curve. The bankfull dimensions of the Ripshin internal reference are slightly below those indicated by the Mountain Regional Curve. We believe this is a result of the regional curves not being differentiated by stream type and the fact that none of the streams used to derive the regional curves are from the northwest mountains. • 3/9/07 16 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan -Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC • 4.7 Vegetation The vegetation in the riparian vicinity of Long Branch is typical of a Mountain/Piedmont Alluvial Forest, with species like Canadian hemlock and white pine being a significant component of the canopy. The forest has been significantly disturbed by logging and past agriculture and would not qualify as a natural community as defined by the NC Natural Heritage Program. The site is significant since this creek channel is home to a federally endangered plant, the Small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera),-and is one of the largest populations of this plant of the 31 occurrences known. This plant is rare because it grows in active channels on sand and gravel bars. The vegetation of this reference reach does not provide much guidance for Ripshin Branch, which occurs at an elevation almost 2000 feet higher than Long Branch. The vegetation of the Ripshin internal reference reach is basically a mixture of pasture grasses, wetland species and a large patch of multiflora rose, none of which provide guidance about what should be planted in the restoration and enhancement reaches. Because neither reference stream is surrounded by suitable natural communities of vegetation, reference vegetation types are taken from two sources, namely Shafale and Weakley (1990) and Somers, Bridle, et. al. (2000) (see References, Section 9.0). Two natural communities are specified for riparian buffer and wetland restoration, namely • Montane Alluvial Forest and Swamp Forest-Bog Complex. Plant materials will be required to come from transplant sites or Mountain region nurseries within 100 miles of the site and located above 2000 feet in elevation. CJ 3/9/07 17 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan -Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC 5.0 Project Site Wetlands (Existing Conditions) 07'•0491 There are areas of existing wetlands and drained wetlands on the Tate property along Ripshin Branch and its tributary. All of the wetlands have historically been impacted by livestock grazing. One of the proposed wetland restoration areas along the Unnamed Tributary is currently active livestock pasture and has been ditched and drained to increase the grazing utility of the pasture. The other wetland area along Ripshin Branch has not been so extensively altered by recent agriculture, but has been routinely mowed for hay and impacted by beaver dam building and feeding.. The proposed wetland restoration areas show signs of significant hydrology, in spite of having been drained and filled. The floodplain along the Unnamed Tributary has drain tiles installed about 18-24 inches below the surface, and water flowed briskly from the tiles during the stream surveys in April and July. The tiles occur beneath what appears to be soil fill, in which pasture grass was planted. In addition, there is a drainage ditch at the head of the valley that intercepts water from several seeps. This ditch merges with the UT restoration reach about halfway down its length. There are existing wetlands to the north of this ditch and a small area of wetland to the north of the Unnamed Tributary. Both of these locations are very wet and show indications of a saturated surface during most (if not all) of the growing season. 5.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands Along both the Unnamed Tributary and Ripshin Branch there are wetlands located in the floodplains adjacent to the streams. In all cases, these wetlands have been impacted by agriculture, ditching, draining and filling. There are at least two areas along the Unnamed Tributary and three locations along Ripshin Branch that have been delineated according to the 1987 USACE Wetland Manual. These areas were flagged and mapped using a mapping grade GPS unit. Refer to Figure 5. On February 21, 2007, Amanda Jones of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers visited and reconnoitered the site and confirmed the wetland identifications and boundaries established by Ecologic. 5.2 Hydrologic Characterization 5.2.1 Groundwater Modeling Groundwater modeling of the existing wetlands is ongoing. Eight (8) groundwater monitoring gages were supplied by EEP in October 2006 and installed by Ecologic in November 2006. Refer to Figure 4 for gage locations. Two (2) gages were relocated in January 2007 due to a revision in the project boundaries following landowner negotiations for a conservation easement. As of this writing, only about six (6) weeks of gage data is available and rainfall monitoring has been erratic. The data will be analyzed along with future data to confirm or refute the hydrology-supported groundwater surface . elevations indicated from soil surveys for wetland restoration design. 3/9/07 18 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan -Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC • 5.2.2 Surface Water Modeling at Restoration Site The existing wetlands do not appear to rely on overbank flooding from Ripshin Branch or the Unnamed Tributary for their shallow groundwater hydrology. The hydrology appears to be supported by groundwater and supplemented by small surface tributaries that feed the stream valley, with persistent groundwater indicated about 12 inches below the existing surface. Because overbank flooding is not believed to be critical to the site wetland hydrology, surface water modeling is not indicated at this time. 5.2.3 Hydrologic Budget for Restoration Site The development of a hydrologic budget for the proposed wetland restoration sites is incomplete at this time. 5.3 Soil Characterization 5.3.1 Taxonomic Classification A site-specific, preliminary soils investigation relative to wetlands was conducted by Foothills Soils Consulting, LLC under subcontract to Ecologic. The report of that investigation is attached (Appendix 5). A large portion of the floodplain along Ripshin Branch contains mapped units of Colvard soils (refer to Figure 3). Colvard soils are well drained and are not themselves hydric soils, but frequently contain hydric soils. The soils in the area of the former beaver activity appear to be near-hydric and hydric. The soil study indicates a floodplain wetland can be sustained, provided it receives sufficient groundwater saturation and periodic inundation from stormwater overflows and occasional flooding. The soils in the floodplain of the Unnamed Tributary include both hydric and near- hydric. This indicates a more complex soil association than indicated on the Ashe County soils map. Some of the soil test sites show indications of angular fill above native soils. The chroma 2 or less mottles throughout the pasture area indicate sufficient hydrology exists to maintain a wetland about one (1) foot below the original (natural) ground surface. The soils between Ripshin Road and Ripshin Branch in the upper end of the restoration reach were investigated to assess their potential to support wetland restoration. The particle size, color, and horizon development indicate anear-hydric soil, but not saturated enough to be completely hydric. Some auger probes indicated apparent fill. The soils in the area of the former beaver activity appear to be near-hydric as well. The soil study indicates a floodplain wetland can be sustained, provided it receives sufficient groundwater saturation and inundation from overflow from the confluence of the tributary and the main channel. The soils observed in the proposed wetland restoration areas are typically inclusions of • Iotla, which is a somewhat poorly drained soil, or Toxaway, which is a poorly drained or very poorly drained soil. Depths to a cobble layer were somewhat shallow for these 3/9/07 19 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan -Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC series. Toxaway soils are typical of wetlands in the area. Iotla soils are not hydric, but have very good potential for wetland creation, and in some cases may be present in wetlands in this area. The extent of these soils was confirmed in the field and used as the basis of restoration strategies. 5.3.2 Profile Description The soils in the wetland areas have a thick (1-3 inch) and dark A horizon indicative of the high organic contribution of the vegetation and occasional cattle contribution. The B horizon in most delineated areas shows a depleted matrix and mottles with hydric matrix. Other areas, like the former beaver dam area, are less obviously wet (after breaching of the beaver dams), but there are many low chroma mottles at a depth of about 15 inches and a reduced matrix at 22 inches.. In some locations, the redox features form at 6 inches below the soil surface. 5.4 Plant Community Characterization The two areas of existing wetlands are very similar in their vegetation component. One wetland occurs along the Unnamed Tributary and the others along the main channel of Ripshin Branch. In all cases, the landowners have used these remnant wetlands as wet pastures with heavy grazing by livestock. These wetlands do not correspond to any wetland natural community type as described in the Third Approximation (Shafale and Weakley, • 1990). The terms Wet Meadow or Meadow Bog are used to describe a Mountain or Piedmont wetland that has been altered by human use (Somers et. Al, 2000). Wet Meadows are frequently found on agricultural land, primarily in pastures and wet spots in hay fields. These bogs are swampy wet areas vegetated with sedges, herbs, shrubs and sparse trees. The vegetation is a mixture of one or more of the natural communities that occur in the area and in altered fields, forests and farms. Disturbance-sensitive natives are rare or missing, and introduced weedy species are common. Depending on the kind and type of disturbance, Wet Meadows' vegetation patterns can also be modified by increased fertilizer and chemical loading, grazing, pasture grass planting, herbicides, dumping and other alterations. The project site wetlands have strong components of wetland flora surviving in the areas that are wettest and least accessible to grazing livestock. The wetland vegetation remnants include sedges (Carex spp), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), seedbox (Ludwigia spp), touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), green-head coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata), hooked buttercup (Ranunculus recurvatus), turtleheads (Chelone glabra), and soft rushes (Juncus spp.). Shrubs such as tag alder (Alnus serrulata) and spicebush (Lindera benzoin) and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) also indicate significantly wet conditions. Wetlands in agricultural settings provide habitat for invasive weedy species like Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), all of which are present in these wetlands. 3/9/07 20 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan -Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC 6.0 Reference Wetlands 0?•044 ~ All wetlands are unique local adaptations of hydrology, soils and vegetation. They are also dynamic, changing to adjust to changing local conditions. There are several wetlands in the Ripshin Branch area that are not as heavily impacted as the floodplains that are the focus of the restoration and enhancement activity. These include several hillside seeps, a mountain bog and -some alluvial wetlands. None of these sites are in the locations of proposed work by EEP, but may be used as reference wetlands for some wetland characteristics. They are not seen as direct references due to the difference in slopes, scale and valley types. No other wetlands suitable for use as reference wetlands and that are accessible for study are known in the region. 6.1 Hydrologic Characterization Not applicable due to absence of reference wetlands. 6.2 Soil Characterization Not applicable due to absence of reference wetlands. 6.3 Plant Community Characterization Because reference wetlands are not available, reference vegetation types are taken from two • sources, namely Shafale and Weakley (1990) and Somers, Bridle, et. al. (2000) (refer to References, Section 9.0). Two natural communities are specified for riparian buffer and wetland restoration, namely Montane Alluvial Forest and Swamp Forest-Bog Complex. 6.3.1 Community Descriptions Montane Alluvial Forest. This community occurs on alluvial soils in floodplains at moderate to high elevations. It is a forest of mesophytic species including Canada hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), white pine (Pinus strobus) sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and yellow birch (Betula lutea), stream birch (B. nigra), red maple (Ater rubrum), northern red oak (Quercus rubra var. rubra) and tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera). Understory species include ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), and silky and black willow (Salix species). Typical shrubs are tag alder, (Alms serrulata), great rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum), doghobble (Leucothoe axillaris) and other ericaceous species like blueberries (Vaccinium sp.). The herb layer is variable and can include ragwort (Senicio aureus), manna grass (Glycera melicaria), knotweed (Polygonum punctatum), spring beauty (Claytonia virginica), trilliums (Trillium sp), goldenrods (Solidago sp.), Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum) and violets (Viola sp.). • 3/9/07 21 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan - Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC Swamp Forest-Bog Complex This community occurs in poorly drained bottomlands, generally with visible microtopography of ridges and sloughs or depressions. It is a forest with closed or open canopy and open or dense shrub layer interspersed with small boggy openings in depressions. The canopy consists of Canada hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) or red maple (Ater rubrum) depending on the location and elevation. Other trees include black willow (Salix nigra) and sweet birch (Betula lenta), white pine (Pinus strobus) and a few other alluvial species. The dominant shrubs are usually great laurel (Rhododendron maximum) and mountain laurel (Kalmea latifolia), with silky willow (Salix sericea), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), silky dogwood (Corpus amomum), southern wild raisin, (Viburnum nudum) and poison sumac (Toxicodendron vernex). The herbs in the boggy open areas include seepage goldenrod (Solidado patula), New York aster (Aster novae-angliae), robin runaway (Dalibarda repens), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), northern long sedge (Carex folliculata), mountain fringed sedge (Carex gynandra), little bog sedge (Carex leptalea), straight sedge (Carex stricta), purple pitcher plant (Sarracenia purpurea), broadleaf arrowhead (Saggittaria latifolia) and rice cutgrass (Leersia virginica). In the closed canopy forest areas, melic mannagrass (Glyceria melicaria), clubmoss (Lycopodium obscurum), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), Canada mayflower (Maianthemum canadense), New York fern (Thelypteris novoboracensis), and royal fern (Osmunda regalis) are common herbs. Scattered Sphagnum mats occur in the • boggy areas. 3/9/07 22 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan -Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC • 7.0 Project Site Restoration Plan 7.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives Project Goals .. 0~0~1~ 1 The design goals of the Ripshin Branch restoration project are as follows: ~ Improve stream water quality and ecological function by excluding livestock, restoring pool and riffle sequences, and restoring tree canopy and instream large woody debris; ~ Enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the stream corridor and adjacent wetlands; ~ Enhance and/or restore the. ecological function of riparian wetlands; q Restore the riparian corridor (forested buffer) for watershed and wildlife benefits; ~ Enhance habitat for native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis~ and improve fishery potential; and ~ Increase the biodiversity of the stream ecology, riparian buffers and wetlands. Project Objectives The design objectives of the Ripshin Branch restoration project are as follows: • ~ Improve channel geomorphology toward reference conditions by providing watershed- scaled and Rosgen-typed channel dimension, adding floodplain benches where floodplain access is not feasible, restoring sinuous pattern to straightened reaches where possible, and adjusting profile as needed to restore or maintain sediment transport equilibrium; LC Restore streamside floodprone area where appropriate (increase floodwater access to the floodplain); LC Reduce sediment and nutrient loading by_reshaping and stabilizing banks, reducing bank scour, excluding livestock, and restoring riparian buffers; and ~ Enhance or restore wetland hydrology and vegetation in former pastures and filled wetlands. 7.1.1 Design Channel Classification and Wetland Type The proposed channel classification for Reach 1 of Ripshin Branch (Stations 0+00 to 14+85) is Rosgen Stream Type B4. The proposed channel classification for Reach 2 of Ripshin Branch (Stations 14+85 to 28+00) is Type C4. The proposed channel classification for Reach 3A of the Unnamed Tributary (Reach 3) is Type B4, while the proposed channel classification for Reach 3B is Type C4. The existing channels were previously straightened, but have since responded by attempting to adjust laterally, creating zigzagging, erratic channels as evidenced by the existing thalwegs on the restoration plan sheets (Sheets 2-1 through 2-3). As a result, • it appears from the design sinuosity values that the proposed restoration is not 3/9/07 23 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan -Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC • dramatically improving channel pattern, but it is providing stable, structure-protected, well vegetated, and habitat-enhanced channels with improved meander pattern that happen to be similar in length to the existing channels. The proposed wetland restoration and enhancement activity will convert agricultural pasture and wet meadow to forested bottomland hardwood swamp types. 7.1.2 Target Wetland Communities and Buffer Communities The riparian buffers will be planted to emulate a Montane Alluvial Forest on the riparian margins transitioning to a Swamp Forest-Bog Complex on the floodplain wetlands (Shafale and Weakley, 1990). 7.2 Sediment Transport Analysis 7.2.1 Methodology Sediment transport capacity and competency was assessed using the sampling procedures specified by Rosgen (1994) and analyzed using Entrainment Calculation forms provided by Wildland Hydrology (Rosgen). Sediment transport validation numbers were generated using the Shields Entrainment Function in RIVERMorph since it provides the ability to generate a data range between Shields lab data and Rosgen field data. Pebble counts were conducted at riffle cross-sections on the UT and both reaches of • Ripshin Branch. In the existing impacted reaches there are few if any stable or diagnostic bars, so in all cases pavement and subpavement samples were collected and the DSO for the subpavement was used in the calculations of critical shear stress. 7.2.2 Calculations and Discussion Nine (9) Sediment Entrainment Calculation Forms are included in Appendix 6. They include existing and proposed conditions for Ripshin Branch (Reaches 1 and 2) and for the Unnamed Tributary (Reach 3). As evidenced by the calculations, there is very little change between the pre- and post- restoration conditions. This is because the principal forms of instability in Ripshin Branch (Reaches 1 and 2) and the UT (Reach 3) are planform irregularity and resulting bank instability. The channel slopes are being altered only slightly in the restoration reaches, and are essentially unchanged in the enhancement reaches. Inspections of the beds of the project reaches typically indicate stable channel beds. 7.3 HEC-RAS Analysis 7.3.1 No-Rise, LOMR, CLOMR The project is not in a FEMA mapped waterway, thus no HEC-RAS analysis or other flood modeling was required. • 3/9/07 24 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan -Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC • 7.3.2 Hydrologic Trespass Topography and property boundaries preclude hydrologic trespass beyond that which presently occurs on shared boundaries during high water. According to the landowner, who has owned the property since 1967, there have been no instances of overbank flooding on the property. This anecdotal finding is consistent with the first-order character of the stream and its relatively high degree of incision, presumably from upstream migration ofhead-cutting following channelization. This suggests very low potential for hydrological trespass onto adjacent property or outside the immediate riparian corridor. The only proposed Priority 1 restoration is in Reach 3, which is well confined in the valley by Ripshin Road and not on a shared boundary. 7.4 Stormwater Best Management Practices 7.4.1 Narrative of Site Specific Stormwater Concerns There are only a few locations where Stormwater is collected from impervious surfaces and enters the restoration boundary, all from Ripshin Road parallel to Ripshin Branch. In these cases, existing ditches direct the Stormwater from culverts beneath the road directly to the creek. In some cases, these ditches also appear to drain on-site wetland areas. 7.4.2 Device Description and Application • In order to supplement wetland hydrology in areas proposed for enhancement or restoration, the plan calls for filling the existing ditches and installing level spreaders below the culverts to disperse the stormwater across the floodplain. This will offer the added benefit of allowing stormwater pollutants to be attenuated by the wetlands. Recently promulgated design criteria and details for level spreaders from the NC Division of Water Quality will be used and modified as needed to adapt to site needs. 7.5 Hydrologic Modifications 7.5.1 Proposed Modifications Proposed modifications to site hydrology for wetland enhancement and restoration include filling drainage ditches, removing subsurface drain tiles, installing grade control in required ditches to raise the water level, building top-of--bank berms along channels adjacent to wetlands, installing level spreaders at culverts, and using small tributaries to wet the floodplain. In addition, it is proposed to raise the level of the stream bed and lower the terrace in some areas to promote overbank flooding as a supplemental contribution to wetland hydrology. 7.5.2. Scaled Schematic of Modifications Refer to Figures 4B. • 3/9/07 25 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan - Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC • 7.6 Soil Restoration 7.6.1 Soil Preparation and Amendment The soils in most of the wetland enhancement and restoration areas are intact and do not require modification beyond removal of some shallow dredge fill and ripping to loosen the soil compacted by years of cattle grazing and the proposed construction traffic. Construction specifications will include mandatory soil ripping as well as disking to promote a rough surface that retains water and supports microhabitats that enhance wetland plant and animal biodiversity. Riparian areas that are not in wetlands will be limed and fertilized with a low nitrogen fertilizer to promote the growth of planted woody species and temporary and permanent seed mixes, without encouraging excessive weedy vegetation. Soil testing will be required to determine optimum nutrient and amendment levels. 7.7 Natural Plant Community Restoration 7.7.1 Plant Community Restoration The planting plan calls for a patchy mixture of planting zones that maximizes riparian biodiversity and wildlife habitat (refer to Sheet 4). The planting plan is guided by the natural communities listed in Paragraph 6.3.1. The planting zones include large areas of • mixture planting and a few clumps and clusters. There are existing elderberry colonial patches and these will be reflected in other clustered plantings of trees, shrubs and wetland plants. Table 7 details the proposed planting zones. They include five (5) general zones that relate to different features and habitats along the riparian corridors being restored. There are also two (2) general zones that include the wetland enhancement and restoration areas. In addition to these general, base-condition planting zones, there are three (3) wildlife habitat planting zones, one (1) zone for overhead utility lines, and two (2) zones to add landscape interest to highly visible portions of the project. Each zone is treated as a theme and is used widely or in small patches as needed. Several of the habitat and landscape zones are also replicated a few times thoughout the project area. It is desired to specify some native sedges and rushes in the wetland restoration areas to get a head start on the seed mixes typically used and also to produce some immediate habitat structure and diversity. Plant materials will be required to come from transplant sites or Mountain region nurseries within 100 miles of the site and located above 2000 feet in elevation. It is expected that commercial supplies of some desired species will only be available as containerized or possibly balled and burlap specimens of a larger size than typically used for stream and wetland restorations. If larger woody plant materials with containerized roots are used, they should have better survival and be better able to compete with • existing herbaceous and invasive vegetation. 3/9/07 26 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan -Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC • 7.7.2 On-site Invasive Species Management There is only one significant invasive species currently present in the vicinity of the restoration project and that is multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). There are several large colonies along Ripshin Branch and a few smaller occurrences in the existing wetlands. It is envisioned that these will be mechanically removed with excavating equipment during construction. There are mixtures ofnon-native pasture grasses and forbs that make up a portion of the existing flora in the wet meadow areas, but they are commingled with a diverse and well established native wetland flora. It is anticipated that removal of these species will cause more harm than benefit and that increasing surface hydrology may eliminate them. • :. 3/9/07 27 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan - Ripshin Branch, Ashe Co., NC Q 7 ® ~ ~ i • 8.0 Performance Criteria 8.1 Streams Channel morphology retains the design stream type over the majority of the reach. Coarsening of riffle bed material in newly constructed reaches. Pool/riffle spacing should remain fairly constant. Maintenance of bankfull width at riffles within +/- 10% of the design. Maintenance of bank height ratios at 1-1.1. Bank stability over 90% of altered channel reaches. Dimension and profile stability over 90% of altered channel reaches. No significant channel aggradation or degradation. Minimal development of instream bars. Biological populations (invertebrate and fish) remain constant or increase and species composition indicates a positive trend. 8.2 Stormwater Management Devices Stable and effective over 80% of their cumulative length (level spreaders). 8.3 Wetlands Hydrologic monitoring indicates groundwater within 12 inches of the ground surface for 10% of the growing season. Increasing wetland vegetation. Development of hydric soils. Fulfill USACE criteria for jurisdictional wetlands. 8.4 Vegetation Survival of planted vegetation should exceed 80% after five (5) years following planting (minimum 260 stems/acre). Planted vegetation stabilizing at 20 years with distinct canopy, subcanopy and shrub layers. Establishment of herbaceous cover over 75% of the soil surface in restored wetlands and riparian areas. Plant biodiversity dominated by native species, with minimal ecological impact from invasive species. 8.5 Schedule and Reporting Monitoring and reporting in accordance with EEP guidelines annually for at least five (5) years. The site will be subject to additional monitoring and evaluation by NCSU through an EEP research grant. • 3/9/07 28 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Restoration Plan - Rips.hin Branch, Ashe Co., NC ,. 9.0 References ~} f (}Qq T Hey, R.D., 2006, Fluvial Geomorphological Methodology for Natural Stable Channel Design, JAWRA Vol. 42, No. 2, pp 357-374 Rosgen, D., 1994, Applied Stream Morphology, Wildland Hydrology Shafale, M.P and A.S Weakley, 1990, Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation. NC Natural Heritage Program Somers, A.B., K.A. Bridle, D.W. Herman and A.B. Nelson, 2000, The Restoration & Management of Small Wetlands of the Mountains & Piedmont in the Southeast, NRCS Watershed and Wetland Science Institutes Weakley, A.S., Working Draft Jan 2006, Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia and surrounding areas., University of North Carolina Herbarium, Chapel Hill, NC. .] • 3/9/07 29 Ecologic Associates, P.C. v o~•a4~~ • Table 1. Project Restoration Structure and Objectives Project Number 372 (Ripshin Branch) • Restoration Station Restoration Priority Existing Designed Comments Segment/ Range Type Approach size size Reach ID acres/lf acres/lf UT to 00+00- Stream L1 1321f 1321f Benches and Ripshin 1+32 Enhancement structures Reach 3A UT to 1+32- Stream P1 788 if 7801f New channel/ Ripshin 9+12 Restoration cattle Reach 3B exclusion UT to 0+00- Wetland NA 0.76 ac 0.88 ac* Grade work Ripshin 2+00 Enhancement and woody Wetland 1 plantings/cattle exclusion UT to 3+25- Wetland NA 0 0.60 ac Grade work Ripshin 9+40 Restoration and Wetland 2 stream planting/cattle left exclusion UT to 3+75- Wetland NA 0 1.03 ac Grade work Ripshin 9+40 Restoration and Wetland 3 stream planting/cattle ri ht exclusion UT to 6+00- Wetland NA 0.48 ac 0.61 ac* Woody Plants Ripshin 9+40 Enhancement added/cattle Wetland 4 stream exclusion left Ripshin 0+00- Stream LZ 6001f 6001f Benches, Branch 6+00 Enhancement structures, Reach 1 A invasive removal Ripshin 3+25- Wetland NA 0.14 ac 0.14 ac Woody Branch 4+50 Enhancement Plantings Wetland 5 Ripshin 6+00- Stream L2 200 if 2001f One bench and Branch 8+00 Enhancement structures Reach 1 A Ripshin 8+00- Wetland NA 2.56 ac 2.02 ac Hydrology Branch 15+25 Enhancement improvements Wetland 6 and woody lants Ripshin 8+00- Stream P2 3501f 400 if New channel Branch 12+00 Restoration to fix failure Reach 1 B area EEP Project #372 3/9/07 Ecologic • • r Restoration Station Restoration Priority Existing Designed Comments Segment/ Range Type Approach size size Reach ID acres/lf acres/lf Ripshin 12+00- Stream L2 285 if 2851f Benches and Branch 14+85 Enhancement structures Reach 1 C Ripshin 14+85- Stream P2 785 if 8151f New channel, Branch 23+00 Restoration structures and Reach 2A lantings Ripshin 15+40- Wetland NA 0 0.77 ac Repair beaver Branch 20+00 Restoration damaged Wetland 7 stream floodplain right Ripshin 21+15- Wetland - NA 0 0.16 ac Grading and Branch 22+15 Restoration new woody Wetland 8 both plantings sides Ripshin 21+15- Wetland NA 0.37 ac 0.40 ac Hydrology Branch 24+00 Enhancement improvements Wetland 9 stream and new right lantings Ripshin 23+00- Stream NA 5181f 5181f NA Branch 28+18 Preservation Reach 2B Ripshin 27+00- Wetland NA 0.18 ac 0.14 ac New woody Branch 28+18 Enhancement plantings Wetland 10 Existin Pro osed Total Stream Len the 3,658 3,730 Total Wetland Areas 4.49 6.75 * Slight increase in area from proposed filling of the existing channel after relocation. Key to Priority Approaches: L 1 Enhancement Level 1 L2 Enhancement Leve12 P 1 Restoration Priority 1 P2 Restoration Priority 2 EEP Project #372 3/9/07 Ecologic Table 2. Drainage Areas Project Number 372 (Ripshin Branch) • • Reach Draina a Area acres Unnamed Tributary to Ri shin Branch 358.4 Ri shin Branch 1024 (includes UT) Total 1024 Table 3. Land Use of the Watershed Project Number 372 (Ripshin Branch) Land Use Acrea a Percenta e Deciduous forest 378 37% Ever reen forest 102 10% Mixed forest 51 5% Cattle/ oat asture 409 40% Residential/ farm buildings 31 3% Road corridors 51 5% EEP Project #372 3/9/07 Ecologic • Table 4a. Morphological Table -Ripshin Branch Project Number 372 (Ripshin Branch) .] • Morphological Data, Ripshin Branch E>astin E>asitin Reference Reference Pro osed Pro osed Pro osed Pro osed LASSIFICAT~N DATA Ripshin - Branch Reach 1 Ripshin Branch Reach 2 Rlpshln Internal Reference Long Branch VA) psrn Branch Design Reach 1A parn Branch Design Reach 18 pare Brench Design Reach 1C pstn `Brandt .Design Reach 2A Ros en Stream T e B4GF4 F4/C4 84c/1 C4 84c 84c 84c C4 Drain a Area s mi 1.6 2 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 2 Bankfull Width (W~) (ft) 24 21 17.1 14.4 23 23 23 25 Bankfull Mean Depth (dam,) (ft) 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (Aen) (sf) 29 26 29.7 17.8 30 30 30 35 WidthlDepth ratio (Wb„r/dbu) 18.5 21.0 13.2 17.8 17 17 17 18 Ma>amum depth (d,,,,M) (ft) 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.9 Width of flood prone area (Wro,) (ft) 45 35-60 27 95 25-45 25-45 25-45 44 to 80 EnVenchment ratio ER 1.9 2.6 1.6 6.6 1.6 2 1.5 1.9-3.5 Water surface slo e S ft/ft 0.024 0.018 0.020 0.012 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.0187 Sinuosi stream ten th/valle ten th) K 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 12 1.1 1.3 DIMENSION. DATA Poal De th ft 3.6 3.6 0.93 2.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 Riffle De th ft 1.3 1.2 0.85 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 Pool Width ft 33 25 16.9 14.5 34 25 25 34 Riffle Width ft 24 21 17.1 14.4 22.6 23 23 25 Pool XS Area 41 30 15.7 18 39 33 33 39 Riffle XS areas 30 26 14.5 14.4 30 30 30 30 Pool de ttt/mean riffle de th 2.8 2.9 1.1 2.1 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 Pool width/riffle width 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.5 t.1 1.1 1.5 Pool area/riffle area 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.1 t.3 Max pool depttt/dyM 2.8 2.9 1.5 2.2 2.8 1.5 2.2 2.8 Low bankhei ht/max bankfull de th 1.8 1.8 1.20 1.2 t-1.2 1-1.2 1-1.2 1-1.2 Mean bankfull veloci f s 5.50 5.50 4.4 3.43 4.8 4.8 4.8 5 Bankfull discha e Q cfs 158 158 150 60.4 144 144 144 765 PATTERN`DATA Meander length (Lm) (ft) 30.240(125) 30.240(125) 20-140(136 97.5 85-184 85-184 85184 143-365 Radius of curvature Rc ft 10-160 70 70-160 22 45185 101 25.3 55-135 55-135 55135 38-107 Belt width (W~) (ft) 7-80(20) 20.65(45) 20.26(22) 41.7 29-67 29-67 29-67 66-150 Meander width ratio (WadWnkr) 0.8 2.1 1.29 2.9 6.6 6.6 6.8 4.4 Radius of curvature bankfull width 0.4 1.0 5.9 1.8 4.2 4.2 4.2 3 Meander ten th/bankfull width 5.2 2.1 8.0 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.7 12.1 PROFILE DATA Valle sloe 0.021 0.024 0.021 0.016 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Avera a water surface sloe 0.020 0.020 0.019 0.012 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Riffle sloe 0.04 0.04 0.042 0.017 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Pool sloe 0.004 0.004 0.008 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.005 Pool to ool s acin 33-253 99 33-253 99 25.7 69.25 90.102 90-102 90.102 80-130 Pool ten th 9-43 22 9-43 22 11 18.7 20 20 20 70 Riffle slo a/av water surface sloe 2.2 2.2 2.19 1.40 2 2 2 2.3 Pool slo a/av water surface sloe 0.2 0.2 0.4 5.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.26 Run sl a/av water surface sloe 1.2 1.2 1 3.00 1 1 1 1 Run depth/d~ 0.90 0.90 1.1 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 7.4 Pool le th/bankfull width 0.9 0.9 0.6 1.3 1 1 1 3 Pool to ool s acin bankfull width 4.1 4.7 1.5 4.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 3.55.7 CHANNEL.MATERIALS D16 0.67 0.67 0.67 8 D35 7.38 7.38 7.4 11.8 D50 16.8 16.8 16.8 18.4 D84 54.4 54.4 54 73 D95 84.9 84.9 85 100 PAVEMENT D16 39.2 39.2 39 D35 81 61 61 D50 75.3 75.3 75 D84 105.7 105.7 105 D95 115.5 115.5 115 La est #1 120 120 120 La est #2 115 115 115 SUBPAVEMENT D16 2.9 2.9 2.9 D35 7.0 7.0 7 D50 13.2 13.2 13 D84 17.8 17.6 17.6 D95 55 55 55 EEP Project #372 3/9/07 Ecologic • Table 4b. Morphological Table - UT to Ripshin Br. Project Number 372 (Ripshin Branch) • • Morphological Data, Unnamed Tribitary to Ripshin Branch Exisitin Reference Pro osed Pro osed CLASSIFICATION DATA UT to Ripshin Reach 3 Long Branch A UT to Rlpahin Reach 3A UT to Ripshin Reach 36 Ros en Stream T e B4/F4 C4 84 C4 Drains a Area mi 0.56 1.7 0.56 0.56 Bankfull Width (Wbu) (fl) 18 14.4 16 16 Bankfull Mean Depth (dpk,) (ft) 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.9 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (P,DM) (sf) 16.3 17.6 14 14 Width/Depth ratio (Wein/dekr) 21.8 11.8 18 1B Maximum depth (d,,,~M) (ft) 1.4 1.7 1.3 1.4 Width of flood prone area (Wro,) (ft) 28 94.5 16-40 20-80(60) Entrenchment ratio ER 1.6 6.6 1.0-2.5 1.0-2.5 Water surface slope (S) (fUft 0.020 0.012 0.02 0.02 Sinuosity (stream len thNalle len th) K) 1.2 1.2 1 1.2 DIMENSION. DATA Pool De th ft) 1.4 2.6 1.9 1.9 Riffle De th ft) 0.8 1.2 0.9 0.9 Pool Widfh ft 24 14.5 16 16 Riffle Width ft 17 14.4 16 16 Pool XS Area sf) 16 18 18.5 18.5 Riffle XS area 13 14.4 14 14 Pool de th/mean riffle de th 1.75 2.1 2.1 2.1 Pool width/riffle width 1.4 1.0 1 1 Pool area riffle area 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 Max pool depth/dnkr 1.28 2.2 2 2 Low bankhei ht/max bankfull de th 2.3 1.18 1 1 Mean bankfull veloci f s 5.10 3.43 4.5 4.5 Bankfull discha a Q) (ds) 83.07 60.4 64 64 PATTERN DATA. Meander length (L,,,) (ft) 50-170(88) 97.5 132 120-160 Radius of curvature Rc ff 2.5-25 15 25.3 200 40-70 Belt width (WaJ (ft) 12-33(25) 41.7 35 60-100 Meander width ratio (Wu~IWnn) 1.4 2.9 2.2 3.6 Radius of curvature/bankfull width 0.8 1.8 14 3.4 Meander len th/bankfull width 4.9 6.8 8.3 8.8 PROFILE` DATA Valle sloe 0.020 0.016 0.02 0.02 Avers a water surface sloe 0.020 0.012 0.02 0.02 Riffle sloe 0.04 0.017 0.04 0.04 Pool sta a 0.007 0.005 0.007 0.007 Pool to ool s acin 11-80 41 69.25 60 50-90 Pool len th 3.6-19(9) 18.7 25 25 Riffle slo a/av water surface sloe 2.03 1.40 2 2 Pool slo e/a water surface sloe 0.35 5.00 0.35 0.35 Run slo a/av water surface sloe 1.13 3.00 0.036 0.036 Run depttVd~ 2.4 1.7 1.7 1.7 Pool len th/bankfull width 0.78 1.3 1.6 1.6 Pool to ool spadn /bankfull width 3.5 4.8 3.2-5.7 32-5.7 :CHANNEL<MATERIALS Dt6 0.23 8 D35 4.8 11.8 D50 12.8 18.4 D84 44.2 73 D95 78.5 100 PAVEMENT- D18 35.8 D35 52.3 D50 64.3 D84 81.8 D95 87.4 La est #1 gp La est #2 85 Si18PAYEMENT D t 6 2.2 D35 505 D50 10,7 D84 31.4 D95 44.3 EEP Project #372 3/9/07 Ecologic r~ ~~ Table 5. BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates Project Number 372 (Ripshin Branch) Time Point Reach Linear Extreme Very High Moderate Low Very Sediment Foota a hi h Low Ex ort ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % Tons/Year Preconstruction UT to 920 310 35 250 28 110 12 220 25 20.68 Ripshin Branch Reach 3 Ripshin 1435 45 3 380 25 435 29 625 42 12.66 Branch Reach 1 Ripshin 1303 275 21 310 Z3 245 l8 110 8 300 23 93 7 67.42 Branch Reach 2 Project 100.76 Total C: Table 6. BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates Project Number 372 (Ripshin Branch) Time Reach Linear Extreme Very High Moderate Low Very Sediment Point Foota a hi h Low Ex ort ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % Tons/year Reference Long 900 29 3 211 23 680 74 0.25 Branch Reference Ripshin 300 15 5 285 95 0.59 Branch Internal Reference • EEP Project #372 3/9/07 Ecologic • • • Table 7. Ri shin Branch Wood S ties Plarrtin Zones 0 ode Creek banks A Line the n cortstnicted channels T ofd bank B Ri rin mix levee. D flood lain C Alluvial Forest mbc Wet flood in D Bottomland Forest Wetland enhancement E S ies to add to wetlands Wetland restoration F S to start new wetlands -~ Habitat 1 G mast and seeds fes Habitat 2 H ev 'ne stand Habitat 3 I ever reen hemlock Util' 1 J Short trees and shrubs Candace 1 K Fkw~rerin shrubs Candace 2 L Blueberries and Azalias B C D J K 81ack willow LS Sallx nl ra x x Sil willow LS Safrx serica x x x Sil D CS , Comus amomum x x x x EI LS Sambucus canadensis x x x x ninebark LS Ph sots s o Cdolius x x x Northam Red Oak Quartos rubrum var rubrum x x x x x S more Mtn P/atanus ocddentaks x x x Whte Oak Mtn Quescus a/ba x x Black Walnut Ju ens n' ra x x Black Locust Robinia eudoacada x x x White Pine Pinus stobus x x x x x Canada Hemlock Tsu a canadensis x x x x x Red Ma k Acer rubrum x x x x x White Basswood Ti1ia hatero a x x x x x Tula Tree Mtn Udodendron tuA ra Sweet Birch Betula /ante x x x x x Yellow Birch Betula all haniensis x River Birch eetula nl ra x x x 5ilverbell Mtn Ha/es/a caroknlana x x x Cucumber Tree Ma no6a acuMnata x x x x x Yelkrvv Bucke Aasculus octandro x x x x Bittemut Hicko Ca a coidl/omws x x Mokemut Hick Ca a tomentosa x x Green Ash Fraxinus nns Nanica x x x x Wikt Plum Prunus americans x x x Wdchhazel Hamameis vi hlana x x x Sourwood O dendron arboreum x r. Black ch Prunus serotina x x x Mt. laurel Kalmie latifo6a x x x x D Leucotttce Leucothoe ax~aris x x x x x Dentate ~libumum Viburnum dentatum x x x x Servicebe Amelanchier arboria x x x x x x x Sweetshrub Ca canthus floridus x x x Summersweet Clethre alnilbia x x x S sh Cinders benzoln x x x x x Sweet AzaAa Rhododendron canescens x x Flame Azal'~a Rhododendron daendulaceum x t Swam Azalia Rhododendron v-scosum x x x x Smooth Azalia Rhododendron arborescans x x Great rhododendron Rhododendron maximum x x x x American Holl Hex o ca x x x x Chokebe Amnia arbu6fo~Ga x x x x x x x Blue VacciMum sp. x x x x T akfer Alms serulafa x x x x Ironwood Ca nos caroGnlana x x x x SG d Comus amomum x x x Swam Rose Rosa palustris x _ x x x Winter Ilex vardcylata x x x x Hazelnut Co lus amedcana x x x With-rod Viburnum cassinoides x x x EEP Project #372 3/9/07 Ecologic • Table 8. Groundwater Monitoring Gage Locations Project Number 372 (Ripshin Branch) Ga a Number Northin Eastin 1 1038075.76 1038075.76 2 1233333.7 1037928.02 3 1233543.49 1037954.42 4 1233501.64 1038076.08 5 1233727.18 1038025.75 6 1235194.32 1036956.5 7 1235707.4 1036902 8 1235574.62 1036825.75 • • EEP Project #372 3/9/07 Ecologic 0 A i• i~ 1 ~ Site Boundary ~, i ~\` J U Edneyville Loam 25-45% slopes Unnamed Tributary .. dneyv' Loam 15- /o slopes Et 2E neyville Loam 25% slopes U v Edneyville Loam 25-45% slopes i Edneyville Loam 15-25% slopes Edneyville Loam 25-t159/o slopes. Edneyville Loam 15-25% slopes N Figure 3 Ripshin Branch Stream/Wetland Restoration A Project Site NRCS Ashe County, NC Soil Survey Map EEP Project # 372 ~~,cr~ti}~~CC~!` March 5, 2007 ~ 0 250 500 1,000 Feet 36,5723 N Source: ~~~ ~ ~ ~ 81.6053 W NRCS Soil Data Mart Greensboro, NC Loam Ripshin Branch • • t r - ., . ,,. •,:.:, "~ ~ ~ ~ .99N... - ,:, . ~ ~ . _ ~~~ ~ ,. '~~ ~ '~ ~ ~ .,~w _... x~, .. __. __ _ , - -Y.~w ~m'.w ^e,rc- -4310.'.: -_.-.' 4. ~- - _ :_. _. vie ..., .~` _ ~ ~ ._ltl2 .. ,472 \ t LV I 1 f 1 i 'i ~9PIMi AOgY1p ~ ~ ~ ~l I iV .` ~~ :, ~ , ~ , ,i ~~': `~ a ~'`a ' ~~ ,i , ,; i ~ \ ~• '. ~ .1 ~. ,~~' ~. 1 S ~~, ',~a i ' 1. L^o :~~ ~,~il ~~ :1 ~ • ~~~, ~ e -~ u et Site Boundary 1~ '~a ~ `~:, DPI/~ ~ ~, a i 7 ' 0 \' .~' , ' -~., ,l ,, ~ ~s ~ i i; ~ 6 ~~"M1 . ?~/~ 9990 / ~ . a . e^ -~ / ~ i yei . >~ ~'. ~ ~ 1I ... ' ',~" ,,~ ~ 111/A ., . . i' 11~ s ~. ~ 1 111• ~~ ~~~ ~ ,,^ ~ ,y a ~1>i i - ,mom ~~1~111~1 ~, `11 gg , ~~ 111 1 1 ~~~ '{ 8 /~ ~~~~ ~ ,',~~ II ~ ~ ' ~. \ "~ 990 ~ ,.~~ 111.E ,. ~ '' __. - , ~. ... ~ ~'•~~I ~ 'III ~ - a ~ - - ------ ~ .,.I '~ ~{ .•II p •I 9vx ~~ 1 t~ ~Mvmr YkrdtodnY ~ 1 `~~ r - I I ~I~ ~ ~ I fur m~nuln~n-~In~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~. 1 1„ ; - ~ 1f~Iluw~nl~1 ~,, 1~1 ~ 9~ _ ,~ d~ > ~ `, • w '~ 111 ~ - a~ ~~~,,; ~/$ I '~.,~ .~ 4oy~ter ManbfiY~q~6 111~.- ..--- ` •" • III~IIIN1, `° 1 ^ ' ~ 1111^Ui~ 11 . _ 99U9 '~~ ~ „~+ .a 4i1o n+ w~". ~~~ 9999- m' 441a .-.. ... -• .-_ ~-_9911.. ~' :~.,-- .. 'b~ Legend -~. - '_ - - _ --'~~~ ~ ~N ~ i , --- - 2 contour ~ Figure 4A-1 Ripshin Branch StreamlWetlarM Restoration ~•~ =~ 10 Contour ~~ N Project Site Existing Ashe County, NC EEP Project # 372 - ~~ cri ~'~tt911 a Hydrologic Features March 5, 2007 ~IIII 6cisGrig Wetland ~ '~<;! ~':'~'I!, Map with Gauge Locations ~~ "' Source: 0 50 100 200 Feet 36.5723 N Maptech USGS Topographic Series, Maptech Inc. l-_ I i 1 I I i i I 81.6053 tN www.maptech.comrtopo Copyright 2002 Maptech Greensboro, NC • • • i :~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~: ~.t.,, ~ ~ i ~~~ ~ ~ !I ,~ Ir ' 1 y$ 1 r ~` `` ~~ '~, ~, ~ . '. ,. ~~+, , ~ r 1 : `, ~ C 'd` \~i 1 1 ~: `r ~~ 1'~ 1.~5'~~ '1 ~ , ~ 'r 1 1 . ~ ~ ~~. ~, 1 ,, 1~~r t r ,. ~ ,1 ', ~ r1 ~ ,~ ~ I ~ 1 r , j ~ 1 5 7 ~ 1 ' N ~ h ~ ~ ee~'iEAO~.w ~ ~ 4 ~~ ' ~ w + ~ 1 ~g ~ ~ ~ / p~ ( ~ ~ a .a i \ ~ . r .x ~ T y~ ~~~f p~ ' Lr ii ll ! a ' ~ • E281 ~ = ..... ' ~ i `p'r '4c. uex ~ ' ~~~ .. °' ~ Z ;~ °'°, ~ ~~~~ ~~ A ~V A ~~~ /~ ~•'s~ A: e, ~~ ~ ~ j ~~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~A k ~ ~R,,\ iii ;, ~ ~ . ,. ~ \ ~. Site Boundary a„ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ,, V ' gym' - ~\ '~` ~' __ '' ~ ~~7II _ ~'~,~. ~'M,~,:,.~I~~~ ~ "~ ~ ~ e gym., ~ _._ ,~ _ , ~ ~~,~ ~ ~ `~ ~~r , ~~ ~ n ''. ~ s r ~a~ ~r~,1 ~. 7 ~ ~ `.~ \~ i ~r `r '~, ` ~ \ ` ~ •,;~~ ~. ~ 4 \ ~,' ~ ~' S 1~ id 1 "a I ~ i i ~yu~ ii ~ y '~~i~ i ~ 'r~ 9 I` ~3 \ \~i vQ7~®4~~ IFo O 9 0.~ ~.Q~ ~~~'c ~;,~ ~ ~~~~ N ~~ 0 o p T N m W Ql ~N W ~z 'O C ~ '0 A ~~C Np!"~ 7 m ~j q11 a ~'~ i R ? "' 98G t ` i ~~N .. , ;~~,j~; ~} B\ ~ ~g ~ 9 ~ ~ r w ~S ~\ ~ ~d n ` .~ .~ ~'. ' ~.5 ~ 3. a y 6 ~ ~~~ `;~ C ,, `~ n\ \ ~ , ~ ~~~ ~ i ~'~ ~~~ ~ ~- a ,,~~~ ,,r Z ~ -h, ~ • • oncx ._ ~ , . '9374.._.__-_ ... ~ _ ~ IlP51AEAM 9971.80 / ~ 59!9.93 -_ _, ~. ....._. OOWNSiREPM 9970.55 : ~ ~--..-;;` .... ......... ._...._-3972..._.. ,r.:• ~-..-, ~-.._.. ..• r >~ , 33~ ... , v a __.. :,.,. ,~ ..< _ ., ,. , .. , ~ , r„_ ~,. _.... - _ ,.- :~' , ~ ~ ~1~ 11 h ,. 9 '~ ~,~ ~~ \ aces ___ _. . ` ~ _ ! ` /~I t ` ~~'~ ~~ ~ ~~1 , e2,~~~11j~I11~111~Ai~j1l~lilfll -~,' °ao~xcur ,~ a Gro~dwaterMonitoringGage4 ` . _. -- ~+ ~ ' ~ 1 Groun Aoring Gage 1 ~ ~''~ , "~~. _ a '~`,:,,," - ~,~ ..~~.,.,~ ~d ~ ~r $ii , it l ~ `~ •\ _ro~ ~„~ ,p . ~ ~' `~-. ~',~ ~~~ ~' ~ ~ ` ~ ei dweter Mon' al ~~~. ~ ~ '~. V 1 '~' !/~ ~, \ ~ - ;~ _ 1 ~~ °' ~ ~~ ` ~j o ~ ~`~ ~ `~ i ~~' ~ a i ~ ~~ ~~ ~. ~ GraunM~et Monitoring Gape 3 . e~~ `e ~ 5. 1 ~ ~~ ~`, GroLndHaterMonrtori~Gr~,~ ~ `~ ~ ~ •. _... \ ,~ `, ., _ _ ~ ~ `~ ~ ' ~~.~. - ~ ti, _. _... A ~ ~~ ~i ~ ~ ~ \ .. ~. .,. ., ., ,- bw, ... ' i > `~-----9984- 4 _.. ~ , t _. ~* - „ ~ ~ ~ '• \ ~i -~ - °,... -_ a I `~ ~~ `i i ` 11` m ~ .. ~ ,:~- ~ : a - -- - i .~• - _ _._ = - __ , ,,,, ! i ~~ ~-~ a.w .., 3980 , .. ~' ~'`"ar„z a, ,, ~ I °a ,.,.., -- -,, - _. 1 i 3982 - ' ~', o ~ ~~. .. ' "_`_. _.._ Phi ..,, - - ..._..3984 ~ -.. .. ,. ~\ 8~~' - `~ .,,.-~ - ~. __-- _3x5--_ __ - +*~.~ - - y -. .. aP _..~ _ ._.--- \ • ~~. &0~ ~ Legend ~ Site Boundary Vvelis F~ure 4A-3 Ripshin Branch StreamlWetland Restoration - - 2 Contour ~ N Project Site Existing Ashe County, NC EEP Project # 372 ' ~ ==r~ to comour .. ~ ~',('43,S~~~tl'1ll Hydrologic Features Nmrch 5, 2007 - Vt~ter ~ ,il jx; ~ a , ~ ~ Map with Gauge Locations Source: X1111 Fx~ting Wetland 0 37.5 75 150 Feet 36,5723 N Maptech USGS Topographic Series, Maptech Inc. I t t r ! t t t l 81.6053 W www'maptech.corrJtopo Copyright 2002 Maptech Greensboro, NC • ~:Y ~,: ~. ~~ ~ .. - '~° ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~5~ ~a ... ,' ~' ~ .~'~,, ~~ RIPSHNL ~~ -- _ ."a~ BRANCH ~ _ w.~ltou. *+""° ~,~ S`. _._:i ~srxxr ~auvur .. u ~~ _ ~', 1 *~~. ! ' 1. ~.~.`';;` fit,` ~! . I ,• ~1 ~,1~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ', `r,~ ~8..~ ~ 1 ~~ ,i , a 1 a ,• R \~ . ~i ~ ~ ; l '~L^ ~SPR DER s STDRN h'~+ ~ .' 1~i • ~' DRCH ~ , ~ ~~. (EPHEgERAL) ~ ~~~ 1r,~~ ,~ \:\. '4s' S At ~~ I `~~i~ i ~ .~~'~ Y E:~'~~A. ~1, ' 1~ '1 ~ *. Site Boundary ~ a. Y;~~` ,~ U1 0 ~'` 7. ~yy Ey11 .~ . 6, ''i. F 1 ~1~~1hirVdnp Cl7ei sas. ~ ~ '="?~/ • L~- o~ ;~ ~ ~9 .~ `~ ~ ._ ~ u~~.`,~~~ ~ '~a - --- `~~ ~ Nye cH s ~ ~i 1'SERM ° READER ,r ~~~ ~ ' ¢ I ',\ ~ u~ ,, ~: ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ` ' PlUO ' s~H i~ i .... e~/,.x' ~~a~A. ~ ~~ ~ jai d ~~ ~ ' ,?, i i ~' ~. - ~~ ,r /y" t 1 I PLUG Ig ~~ Y $~ __, .. t ~ ^~ cio~e~+l«Non~wnpa~r ,~1 i fir' ' ,~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ b, ~~~ • ,~ ~,, ... i~ ~ +~~, V ~Mantalnpfi~pe8 ,~~ -' ~, f • ~! • legend ~ w~l: Proposed ThaMeg ---- 2 CaDWur '~"=" tOCorAour ~~~ proposed Vr~dand ~ ~ ~ .., Sys . ~• .- ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Ap~ ~- ^* ~, ~ " a,. Nom! , .' - .cV ,,,, _ _ • .,,;~ N ~~~I~ti-~r~11~ , A Figure 4B-1 Project Site Proposed Hydrologic F~ures Map with Gauge Locations 0 50 100 200 Feet I I I I L L I Ripshin Branch StreamMletland Restoration Ashe County, NC EEP Project # 372 March 5, 2007 J+ ~~~ ~. G %i I ~ ti~ 4; .,- % C. / '~ .,{i ,' .~ *~ ' .~1 '... ~. ,, .. ~~. +'~ ~ __ .. _. _ ~ Source: ~ ~Q6K',I 36.5723 N Maptech USGS Topographic Series, Maptech Inc. 81.6053 W www•maptech.comltopo Copyright 2002 Maptech Greensboro, NC • • a,, ,` ` `~ If ~ ::, ~ , ! ~e . a~' ~~, ~ng r sas ~~. P j~~r ~'` J w;~„_` ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . i .,h ~ ',q, "'~q~ Wy ~ ~ ~ ~a l ~"~J ~T :~.. ~; _ ~~ .. _ ~~ ~ ,9 ~" ~ ', ' '~~!~ \ ~'y~~ h ? \ R ~ \ ~ '..~ m ~ ~~.,. ~~ ~..~~ F `.. ~ ;e~. T F Site Boundary ,, 1 ~' \ j § 1~,~`~ ~ i > ~,~, ,~ ~ e ~ ~_ .. ~ ~ ~ a '~e.._.. ,, e "~ "moo ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ,, ~ . ~\ ry~~ \ \`~~ ` ~S l ~~°: I ~ I ~~~,~ ~ ` ~'1 ~' R ~ ~ `~'' 1'~ ,,~ ~ _ ', i~I ` i i /~ s ~~ ~ ~ ~ I . ' ,~'+ ~~i ~i ~~ .~ '. "~~,~~~ ~ ~~ ''~~ ~, ~ n ~ a ~~« ~8 ; i d~ m ,..a f:~: Q Z 0 9~~ ~~ ~ ~~'~ C ~'0 ~~ ? r ~'~ W N ~ ~ N O O ~ a .~i ~~ w ~~ ~Z ~N ~~~~ m~7o ~~~~ gm N O~C L) s N~ ~~ g. ~ p goo ~9 N N~? ~g~ a 7 ~ ~ ~S ~ ` ' :., ~ a ~ "' ~ ;~ S 7 0 ~ ~ ~ _~ O ', ~ ~ ~5 . • ~. M~ _... o a Z n 1~ u • Fmromans.shx;UNNAMEDTRZBUTARY P(I ERM ENT}} I r UPSTREM,133T190 / ~ '3374._._.. .,.% ,.... .... .:. 1 ~, ~. , _. ..~ ~. ~ OONNSiREPA173T0.55 . , .: ' .. ...; ...._.._. _.. _....._.... ~~ _...,. - .,. ........_.. i y~ - .. M ;' 33TD ... .. _... 5a ., LEVE.SPREADER ,~ ~ ~ o ~ ~o3T ,~n~', ., .,, C A ~rririr~rrirr~~rrr..r .. _. a ..- ~_ .. ; e , ", .. , ,. ,~n... ~ ..,_..,,. ~a~ ' ~, , - r q ~..,.,. d ,~ ,- ~ ~ ~~~ , use - ~~~R~ w ~/ e ,~ I _ ... /~ CUT DGVrN 1' ~~ ,'~~ ~ \ `,~ ,t ;4r, - _- LEVEL SPREADER ~ ~ ' ~ ~e , ... ~. .. ~ ~ ,~.. _ ST ~ ~ y@~ " ~~ _ UND CUT ~"` ,. ht ~ _~ ~ . >sz-....._._. _ NEM ~ NK i Gro~dw+terM ' r G 4 ~ ~ - -__ ' .._. ~,T ' t iy 1 Group orr~rrr~~ ~ ~ ~a _ -,:~~ ~ i _ _ ,~ Ili ~ ``.«~~ `\ -.~"~3rr~ ,+s-.--\--' ~ /! C~, - - '~i TERFALL deafer Mon' Ga s~ _3968- -- _ `~ `,` 1 i ~ ~~ ~ ~r L DITCk ~'1 ) 1 ~P(J 1~. ,, -~ --~ ~~ , '-ate, ~~ ~.•~~"~4-, ~~ ~ / ~~ ~U ~ i EXT D OGTLETI ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~! `~ ~ ~ "`q ~',.1 ~~ i ,tt j ~~ ~ PPR S NHANC ~ ~~ ''~ ~ ~~~ ~~) j ;~ .~' ~~ Oroundx~taAfb~ingGa~ge3 s •~' •~ ~~ `~ GrgfmdwaferMonibdngG~~ i ~1~~`., •~ rv , ~ ~ ~~ i~ ~ ~ ~-_ __ ,_ "'_~~ ~ ~.~ ~~~f ~ ii UNNAMED :~so n'1 .r t '8 ~ ~ TRIBUTARY ~ ~, -... a.,, _ y~ _ ~ ~„~ ) (PERENNIAL) ~ ~. Y. ~; .mow ~ i ..... .. r 9r ~ -. ~, ` ~, } d i ",. ~~ ' d ' ~ _._..._._. ._ -.... ~ i~eW - ~~ ._._.._.._. -y~2.. ._ ~ ~, .. _ 1 _" -_... u 1 \ ~ .~ ~._.. _ ._. ~ `~ y ~ a ~ .. , ~ ~ -_-~ - 'h .Vey. ,._... _ 'gall ~' emu' J _ .. _.. 9986...... " ~~ Site Boundary ,~ ~~ - ~~ - -- 2Contour _,~°~°° 10CoMour - vier rr~ Proposed VLetland N Figure 4B-3 `'~ Project site Proposed ~'~'t)S~~[t'lil Hydrologic Features ? .11 it;il(`C'tllt't1~ Mapwith GaugeLacations 0 37.5 75 150 Feet l r r l l r ~ l Ripsh~ Branch Streaml4VetlandResforation AsheCounty, NC EEP Protect # 372 March 5, 2007 Sou-ce: ~ ~6~O~i 36.5723 N McRtech NSGS Topographic Series, Maptech Inc. a1.6o53w www.maptech.corNtopo Copyright 2002 Maptech Greer>sbao, NC L~ • i~ Site Boundary ~ t ~ ~ ` ` ~ ``\ . .. , ~.. . e .,., .: .~ - ~. _ _.. . - ~ -. ~„ . -, ~~~ ~` ~ ~~~ -. ~,~ , -- e~~ ..~ ~.. ..., , , :_ ,, ~ ~ 1 '`\'y ' , \._.: 'a~~ ~ j ~i ~?~ 1 ;rya e-i ,t 7 ~` / ~ y~` w\ `,, ~ ~~\ °4~ i1 \, I ~~ , ,~~ l'. ~,, 1\ ~ g:11 \\ .i- 6 RR~V~~~°, ~. '}~hl .~~ # ~9~ \\ \~'~\ :pie ~ + '~ awi _ ~A ?' 1 1`t ~ ~'~b Y„~tz s , ~ u ~r Gr''~ y~~~~~~~ `% A',. ay~~ ~ ~`J'~ ! ' .b ./ i ,y W ~ '/. /k \'/~ ~S 1 ~~ • ~'•~ ~~ r .-. v I~ .\ ~~.:j .. ,... 9.. .. `~ ,. z ~ ~ ~ ~, _'~e. ~ ~ •~, '~ ~nanunuul^w^ui^ugyr • ,~ s ~ ~. _. ~'~~ ~-~.: '~ ~ --~----~ ~~1•~11 -. • a. Ifi1~•111~d ...... - .. ~ - ~ u - a~~e .--- ~. ~ ..,_, .„,sn __ .., -.. ,... _ -. c - ~ .. "'-- --~ - - ... _` .. Legend ^II11 E~usgnp Welland Figure 5-1 R'ipshin Branch StrealnlVlletland Restoration -----~ 2 Conia~x ~ N Ashe County, NC --~-- ~- 10 Cordaur ~ Project Site Wetland EEP Project # 872 - wat~ ~1>S4'4tC111; Delineation Map March 5, 2007 }' ~i l f i 1+Y ~ ~~ ~ ~ SOUroe. '~~~ 0 50 100 200 Feet 36.5723 N Maptech USGS Topographic Series, Maptech Inc. I , ~ ~ I r r r I 81.6053W www•maptech.comAopo Copyright 2002 Maptech Greensboro, NC • ~ `~, ;~ .. I ~ ~ ~ ~, ------i. . • ; ~ L~. }. ~' 3., ~ ~ i .,, ,SPA` 1<~, ~~ lp" / Tq'~gMM l 1; 1•~ I R,W16M ! l ~~ } l~ ~ / ! ~ ~ $~a ~'ar_ ~p ~ ~~.. rae~- ii a - -'- '•~ ~ ~~ •.~ ~Q1 :..tea <. ~ \ b_ \ i m ,-- e •,~`, ~' r ~. S ~. y ~'~ ~"'t, ~ ~ ~ `• `~s~ ; ~~ ,~ Site Boundary X10.. .$h k ~+P4 7 - ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ S w+ `: '~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ `~'' mom, ~ ` ~ ~, ,/.' ~ •.~~^'~ y, ` :~~ __ :.uu • ~,~: ""' b,~... ~ fit`.. ~.~ ~~4r ~ - a. ... • ~~ ~ ~ w '~,; a ~ ~ l j ~ ~ y ~~ ~~ '\ _ ~Q ~ • ~ 1 \ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~, w ~~,~ ~V ~\ ` s \ e... ~~ • "~ "'~ i ,~ ~ ~i~ '_,a, ~~ - _~ ~;~ ~ , ,~ ~:~ ~ ' • '' , j , ,~~~ , , ~ , i ' ~ ~ ~ i i ~ i 3 '~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ i' ~`` ~a`4~~' \~y~ ;~.1„" ` i I •I ~ ~ s o o ~ a ~S m' ' •~ ~ ii~~ i y \``~~i~~~~~`l _. 1`•~~ ~-, ~ O DZ O O 0 m ~s 3 ~ ~ ~~ ~ 2 {gyp N '0 ~C'L a ~~ ~~ w ~_ ~~a ~m z.. ~? N ~~o ~ o n ~8 g ~• CI S 7 i 0 a Z ~m~~ ,~ ~ ~a~= N~gm gwZ? ~ ~ ~- m~C 7 ma p ~G~. 7 • ~~ / i , f, ;' ~1 i -~~ al'` i, ~ ~ l ~~ ,1 1 i mP +~,B~ `, ~•~ uasTa6w+33n.3o DOWNBTREPM 3370.5 .. . ._ 3371-'-~ ,. .,.. .. ....... _ ,: , - _ _...- 3372 ~ .. ~ _. - - ,_ .: ,.. ,:, .~ ! , ~ - ~: ~ ... . ,._..i ... ,_ r ., / _ .... cy„ fie. :~ 3,783 _ . "t ~' ^~ ~ T .4 9~ ~. ,. ~ ~ ~ ,, a -, ._._.. -_. 4 .._ , ? ~ i ,:' ~' ~ ~ / ' a. , i L / 8 '*... .. .` I^ ort~ ~i ~Riy rR ~ ~, ~ ~` i IIr1 ~Rk ~~ ._ . ~. - ~.. -iini~x+~ree1nR~rt_ ~ ._ - _ IIIfIIIiIIrr~ , BBB6NCBT .'` ~ ~ ~ - .., ~ ~ ~ `+~ , 362 ._ euur ~ A ~~' __"' _r1~~II~ 9e~ BARN ~ .~ .D ~ .. r I~ ,.. , 7' ~~- -. ~- _ ~ 336,.,,,, _---~.~~ _ -_ .. . - -- -. ~.. i ,~:,~' 3°~ y ,~ g ~, ,- ~ -,.~_ "3366 .; ._ ._--- __ _ =~ m~ ~~ ~ '~'-- - ~ ' - ~ •,. ,. !~. a i i '~ ~ __ - ~~~ ;A ~ A. ~\ ~ t ~r ~, . .. ~ ~ .'' + ~ ~ 1 + ~ ~ ~ ~1 ` • P ~.. , i ' .,~.. ,, . P ,, ~ ` ~ 1 ~`. a 3 _.. _ .. °~ _. _, ;., , ~6 __ ..... ~ .._ _ '~~~1 .v~ . _.__. _ ~.,. .. i ~ ~~ e. .:P ~rr ~ I~~ .._.___.~.. ~~, ~~~ ~' ., ... ~ .. ~,, 1-q ~{~,1 , ~ '~ ' s ~ "' :: 3 ~~ - m ~. ,. - - - w ~ a 3 ..._.._ -' ~ ... - ~ -- _. --- # I ---- - s36r~-- ,~~. ., ~';,.~ _.. ~. ~ ~ `,..` ....-. 360."-''---- Tom.: _.. ABPPµ m l ~, w ~ ~.. BpABWAY .., ... µ`, ..., 4 2 _. _.3388 .. ~.... ,.' W.M ': ~..._~~ ....._._.3368- ._ C] / """"~ Legend / ^1111 Ex~tingWeiland Figure 5.3 Ripshin Branch StreamlWetiand Restoration AsheCounty, NC Site Boundary - -2Contour ® N Project She Wetland EEPProject#S72 ..= ~ - to Contour ` '''~ n Delineation Map Mann s, 2oor - V~a1er 1 lQ~~~t('P.) , !V SOINCe; Maptech USGS Topographic Series Maptech Inc ' 0 25 50 100 Feet 38,5723 N , . www.maptech.comnopo t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 • r 81.6053 W Copyright 2002 Maptech Greensboro, NC / ~1M i i • ` \ ~ 1 ~.~ , .%' `. \ {u i w-. ~ `..fir\. ~ n n ~ ~.-`I rr :~ ~~ ~ \ :;.,' ~ ` ) ~ ~ ~ ,ai` I~.~ fa. 1 // ) 1 ' it '\ -"'~,. tt ?' -`~.' ~~.. -v .~ I . .. :'1' i ~ / t .. t' t l l ..,,..y w„r°~.r•~ ~.f ~`.• °}.~ ~ .J ~ * ~f ~r~c~' ,..~- - t r! r lam. ~\ I f~ 9, ~„ I: ~c ` ..t C i~ l 1 ~_ ~ -~,,, ~.... ~ ` w. 1~ ._ ~ » ~ I 1. , ` 1, ,~ .- ~.,....~~i ~ \ ~ =.x:15'. ,, \i\ ~~-.~, f~ 4 ~~ / f-,`H<p., I `\; \~ t r„ ~ r~ •I ~/+ '~ ~ ~:a.~ ~ •/:. ( ~ ~y ~ ~.....,K ~~~u ` `~ f,;,ff ~ ~~ / ~1 _ , \ f.» .~ ~ \ `.' ;~ ~ ?.~~r~~\.~r-`.. ~~ 1 ; .(rf"~...~~µ. "` r', ~ rte. ~ %~ '.~, ~~r~ .. }.~~i^.'-.._J ~~ .' :`_ .. ~ . ~., r ` , l t_. \ 1' _ a~w t r JJ i a+r. : ~ ~ { r"~-- ~WrJ ,~ 1 ~ `r, ~ ~ <,~ `\ ~ r. {~~~ j, ~•' r' \• t .. ~~ kj ~~.,, ~~ ~ ~/ _.j~ ~ 1 _ ~Y`f - _ ., ' ~.._ ' ~ Jr ~ ~ 1~ ~ `~ C"l ice! % i .;Jl 7 ~..~ F `•..., - ,' _ ~ ~. r ( '~ T JJ ~ ! ~ L \ . ./' ., r .: ~. ~~ < ... ..,fit .r~. -~ ._ _ _ t :j... _ ;~.., fetich i - - _ .c `. ~ .. . )(`~~ ~ , ~.~ ~~. ,:~ ,\a '.. ~~' ~ ", - - - cwt ` .-~ ,' 3 /, - _ .\ ~_'.J~ \f`O I\. :~~ ~~~~.y/'~ 1 ~. ---F -iL` y.,"r` -_.r~ _ _..y~...(`. ~. _l __)- ~1S!!h'~-'--- - -~{ ~-` ,vAma`. ~rx~~-~_ '~t'~t-.. v_. _t ,. -• ., ~,.~ , 1 - t ~ \ - ~mm~~ cnaaau `fi 'sTUws ~ y'_ f) _ % / YZ ;~~` •~ir,.-.. ~ /qm° ] Je ,,.J `V i ~.._ _ ~..~`. ` ~i ',~ f - "-~ ~t / L.c~t ~ ~ ~ 0 ~. ,.i i ~.,~ ~~~ ) ~'' ~\~\ 1 /~.~~ji - Il (~ ~ ~~ ~' ~ cry r+~w ~~\.:, ~ ~ .-.~S f~, / sw ~• ~/ 1, I ., / ~\ ~` f elk Aa1 ~~ _ I ,;~ ~ Y e ~~ 1 ~ *' ~ ~~ , t ~) ~ , .s.,,.., Y :~ c /.'`~° `J -</ ~ `? Y ~¢ ~ ! ( l ; . . • t ~~ . aeurmM, '!yE':. 1 1, ~ .' ~ ~`("~"1/ ~i 'S :f ~~ t • . ~ `i^' ~, --•~--~ r.' 1 .. n \ } Name: GALAX Location: 036.6361691 ° N 080.3839034° W NAD 83 Date: 1/29/2007 Caption: Figure 8. Long Branch Reference Reach Scale: 1 inch equals 3.157 miles r! _' ~ ~ y ..r' ~ ~'~ ~ .~.. ~ 11 ~ ~__ i . c,-~,~ is r= gip`! ,` ~~ ',~` ~ (psi r ~'"~~ i ~f9! ~ 1 11, ~ 3 ~~~..~ ~t ~-'' ~ •i\ ~ »,. . ! _ a v, z ~ J I 1 ~ ~ ~ (,~ ~ ' r .~ ~` - 'Y ~ti '~ ~I ~~•~~~..i ( J ~/ ~~ 1 it ~ ~ ~ ~1~1~ ' ~ ~~~~ . t ~' _ LMb»~ ~ ,~ K ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~;~ } .; . t f ~ f ~ j~ . - 1 ~j.. t. ; ~.ir~ i ~.. (. ~ - ~ ~_ l.''.r=„ mr , O~~! ~ - ~` '~'C7KrC~ ' 'x•...,17 ,~~i~ ~;~ fire ; r`~~I'~.1t~l1 ~ r _ r r, j~i~. l•,f~-..___~ ~r{~ ~`~ '--.. ~ ~ ~' r r. ,.. ~ _,.~ I k ~~ y` J 1 l ~ ~~ `^.. ~~ (.. ~ ~ ,~t 1~ .+ mot" ~ `\ ~ r:~ , ` ~ ~'~.-~~.~~ r~~ 4. O+y~ ~ ~ `^,i ~ I'' r i 1, ~^~ hl 4 „ .-~ ~ ~ -- - -.__~:. __ : . ~~ -:,~, ~ ~~,. ..'~ `'~ . __~ ~ ~,ng Bran t__.~-~ _ . r ~ `~ h .~ ~~ ~ ~~ SPotNens ~ -.i `'~ ' ~ \. ,`T Cr i=~eferencec •'~ 1 ~ Knmb `t r^ r 1 '" Krtoltl ~; .c:, ''-,,,~ ~,'`,~ ~_ f r ' C`t~e 1 _ l _ _ ~,\ .. r_ .J ~. `''fit" ` •r' • • 1, Frx _ ~~ GAVE(t...-~-- ~y(!f^y < - .r Pend ~ r ..,.,s,Y.. `, , *~ t `t ~ i ~ 4 r2 ,~ .~ `, ~ f • '~ ;~ I ~ f f \ ' ~~ ~ ~ 40.E ~...--~.:.,~ ~_ ~ I ~ r ~~~ /, ~ ~ ~ ~ •. ~ -- ~~.- ~ J _ ~ Gripes ar .--~•; - Name: GALAX ~ Location: 036.6021001 ° N 080.3320236° W NAD 83 Date: 1/29/2007 Caption: Figure 7. Long Branch Reference Reach Watershed Scale: 1 inch equals 1.052 miles Copyright (C)1998r Maptech. Inc. • • • 1` \ \ II ~G S~ ~ \ ~ ~~~ 11 ~ ~ ~ BweEO wtc ro, •-~~--~-- I ~ ~ ~ % ~t~ 1 \ ~ ~ ~ ` t ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ' I 1 ~ ~~~ '~ ~ ~ I l ~ I ,r~ ~ ~ ~~ ,T d~~ \ °j~t /~ ,~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~`~ ,, nn~l ~ SNQQNmA ~ t~l iri ' ~•. ~\\~A¢~N ,., ~ s~ ~~ aot~2e'u~ I ~ sass' R u~E 1~,~=~ ~ ~ ~ e tA>E \ '~ LEE ~'~-`_ ~.~ ~ y \~'~t 1~ ~~ ~~, ` ~~rg~ a ~~ 11 ~~,~,~~~ a ~~~tiN ,, ~1'ti ~.% :` ~, . \ ~ \ ~, re + ~ -\ \\ ~ \ ~\ ~ ~_~\\ ~ r ~ ~ _ v' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ / ~ ~ ~~~~~~A~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~3~ \ ~ \ \~ \ ~ ~~~ 4 R~pSNr ~ ~\ ~~~ - ~,~\~ ~ = =- ~~ ~\ \ \\ \' - -Tat--, _ ,4p~ ~ \ \~\ ~ ~' \~ LEGEND ---- -~Dn»- D~saEau xs'~5 - r - rx:E u~ ~ V~M.IJ rte' LvE ,wau sE - ~ - rxani.ttt nwt m ~:. + in Mo rye nmEDj i + 4v'H ~ sxu cu+~a F<xu aC! RAG f'C 57 a,re rcar_r_~y H/F kPe Ct tt:II~:¢;:L': ':A cylyOFU PQHi CiV "0?vY"1'.%U 247.4 Mf; i Day a; ,v w ww. Iw rca cr uw l - wa~sEa rEavE ~ 3+'4R 6W ~~ .~~~ ~\ 'r//~i ~ a• , -~ ~ ~ \,eRq \ \\ /~ ~v>,~ ~V ~ 1~ Y ,~ \ ~~~ ~~R~ \\ ~~DJ}' ~ \ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~'~\ ~ \ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-.~ \ ~ ` ~ / ~~v~~~~ A ~\ ~~~ ~~ ~\~\\\ \ \~ \~ \ \~ ~\~~ HURRICANE 1WP., ASHE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA SCALE I" = 40 FEET CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2 FEET I 1 1 1 I wow2a.aA N Ec•Lopic ~~~ a ~~ ~ ~ n~ Il ti '~ _"~ J ~~~~~" \~~~ \_ ~~ ~~ \\\ ~\ i~P~ ~~'~ 7.04v ~ \~ ! ~~~~ ~` \~ ~,~ ~ ~~~ ~, ~ ~ ~~~ ~ \\\ ~\\ ~ ~ f ~\~ 1 ~ ~ I e III ~ 1 ~ ~ j I, ~ \\ ~\ \`~ ~ ;A ~~^~y~~~ ~' g ~, a \ ~~ :~ ~~~ .~ ~~ ~~ K a ~d W a S U Z Z O a ~~~ 0°W~ Zoo ~~ a ~ a 0 o: o_ Z Z Q U V Q ~ w z~ W F N rn O U w NU. DASCIUP?ION DATE REVISI<)NS EXISTING CHANNEL/SITE CONDITIONS SG4i F: I" e qD' p,{7p: I I/27/DB nxrd. av KOH CHECKEp BY'. MAT PRO]EGT M10= suEEi t or 3 ~~ on~ l ~u tl c ~~6 ~~g~ ~'$ E• ~ ^ ,r Gel . i / / - -, _- - - - __ ~QO~° ~~ ~ `' " \,\~~ a %' '" ~ ~/ ~ ~/ .--\~ _ / \\ ~ q / / ~' \\~ ~ ~ 1111 \ / / / I / \~\ - ~ \ 0 J44pQO `J _ / ~ \\ ~ \ ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~Y ~ ~ ~" VV R ~ -'~" f ;a ~UNOERCUT f \\ ~ // 1 ' -m -, ---- ~' .BANK ~~ ~, ~ - r, ~ ( 1 ~ ,~ ~~ , - _~~ ~ mpg __ ) ~ I '~~ ~~ ~ ~ / \\ l ~p~ v ~ - ~ , ~ ~_ ~ ~ y ~ 1 ~ ~ - ~ ~ '~~. ~ - _ -- - _ -gym. v / ~ ~ Y \ ~ ~ \ M+'0 - `~~ . ~ ~ \ ,~ _ ~ \ _. -~ ~ 4M~D ~ ay ~ ~ 8 -,011 A ~~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~, DECO ~ ~ y, ~ " . ~ ~ 51A~ ~ wP[ / _ ~e ~ ~ ~ I ~ __ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ F~11a- _ _` ~ I n"rE Rlp~ -~~ ~ Q ` ~ ' -X01,--' C ~ ~ _ _ =ur'b`- - '` '' ~a1r - ~ BRgSH~N ~~'~\ -- III ` `. _ . ]IM"" IsVHRf y ~ dy \ ~~~\` ~ RROAD ~~LEC~EtvU -____.__~ 4 Q~ ~\~''~ ~ 1~~\ `Ow\~P U SGms vn:[ 1 as .,rv.:u,:,~ ~ ~m ~ lM1C .tyJ~ ~~ ~ - + - TR.L( ruff ~ r , ~~ ~~ 1 IMJ..N IT2E 1mE ;iiAf1 p?f ~ Sy~ ~~ \ DRCRLP.If tw i m I O i ~ fGC? K)C GBtC :eNafr ~ m •w_ ! TAwL ~ if~f ~ ~: ~,EO, N Y~ 1 g ssau NNrRCe vm• i ~ reaaK eanRCK F~. ! HURRICANE 1WP„ A$HE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA P F" "b fP~ i SCALE 1' ^ 40 FEET CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2 FEET ~ H/N mv:i-a-WlY I NJF x011 or TUIUtfQr + 1 a r r j IC4 WpN PPi faiNC ~ I AGf RC3W fPJN',` ~ MRCpIM Ik1. M k ~ CP CWM:Yf[r~Ni ~ I ~ crm cmx~,elrr.;f,T; ,~_: i Ecaogc ~nuv v< N'Mf .w toa ce ur ~~~ .. _.. ~.~_._ T...-_J a: € ~~~ ~~'~ :~~ ` e 0 JnR C~ G~~u~ ~~3 I~r3 ~' U a= U n 2 O m~~ ?~,o a ~ o: 0 a zz o~ U ZQ O W Z ~ W F N o N o U a w a REVISIONS EXISTING CHANNEL/SITE CONDITIONS scale: ~' = 40' n.aTa~11/27/06 nnn. nv. KDH CH~CKEDBY: MpT PR015('f N0: SHEET 1 pF S SHF F.T 3 '/ ~ ~ , EIESTAIG 1 „~ ~~~~ pRa~D ~' ~ '~ n~o', TMKrEC ,~ i ~~ - ~Na+ ,' - ~ I m j i~ ~ , - - /.o ~ _ _ '~_ ' iA1E ~ / MRRnET apwvuv n.wtiT=e ul I ra _~~ I ~ ~ ~~ a WNW T u r ~&~ ~ tl~~ a u \\ I \~ ~ RIPSHIN ROAQ ,' ~~\.`~ ~,~~~,. ,~~~~~'~ ,~~~~~, ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~. ~~~~~ ,,~ ~~.~~'r4~~, ~w~A' ~ ~ I- ~~ta ,~`~~, ,. o~W -~~ ~ ~~ ~ .. I ~~ ~~~~ 1 1~ ~VrA i l ~~',~~ ~ I,~, \ I 11~~ ~ i ~ ~1 -~~V °..~ -~ ~ I ~ ~ A :~e_t -L. - I A~VI - .,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~1 `~ ,~,~, ~,,~, ~ ' ~~~~ ~ ~~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~\~ 1 ~ t- ~ ~~~ ~ 'i ;~ ~ unt~sNO ( ~ I ' V uN [Mida~ttLMm ~\_~\ __ ~ ~~~ 1 \` \` ~ ~~~~ t 1 , ~~ \ ~~ ~~ LEGEND ~ ~ C~,~p w F'J!£R FOIE L.7 /4T.W i tIt p '` - 1 - rLG " Vi.' I H - I a L~ - ~ - -l~e'tM[ sr. r .u vrr!f ~ 0 I I Tp m: R c:,wf I~axir. ~ I I;~d•mrt Fuh: v ~ ifTC + e, . x rrn~eicr. rasa axxn:aw, rR ~E.~naa"~ r+u;ES ~ Ecz.cc,< ftva%E w ~ / //~ xfiufi0 Fnrt,7Y'000I+t 1 7MY RMi ff+bt9 F.e^N Rti+:i-i1--n';,t I pCSW~M1 f1514~UiiCY I ~ k,a' n~» ~ rausrr I I I !?!' Snyl Yk"2 ff.C:(; PQOMbxL CwaN CG RE£ rt[C~• rixpp ----- ~'~-' cr,I:w,rrEn Farr, __.----.._. --- -----~ suv ca:,ua:EC :'nx ~ Ft I ga SDtlpa rv uuC TY Il8 a Iva HURRICANE TYiP., ASHE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA I -r.;a-,~~cfe ~ . SCALE I" = 10 FEET CONTOUR INTERVAL = Z FEET ,,,,,,,,; ~ c M • b • b ell se• aNNe t la • a /. h ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~a ~.\\\ u~\ \ / ~ Q~. \~ \ ~ Y J \ / ~ 1\~\\1 I ~~, i ~ ~ ~ ,~ ,~ ` '~ ~ ~ , VAA yNfY:i ~Ipl ~ ~~ ~~ ~~A ``~\ ~~\ I 1 ` ; - ~ \ ~` \ ~ `' \ ~~ \ 1~~~ ~ ` ~ 1 `\~1~; a A ~~ ~ ~ t: CENTEALINC /~\ ~~~`~11 OF ROAD IS ~ V14\ PROPERLY LNff ~` `1\` \ ~~~A\ ~1~1\ \1~1~ ~~~\\ ~\~\\ ,\ ~ \ N `'~ ~~ EcaLOpc RESTORATION PRIORITY 2 ~' i i P iREE twE ; ~ ~ ;',' CNNYKE nu0 RUVS ^>„ EocE % a CREFN i i ~~ii ~s~ ~ i ` __ _ ~'/! i //=~/~ iii -_' -~-ii, ~1 i~ i~ _ ~ \ ~ ~ - -,71b.,~ - ~ _~~~ ~;-. / --_= ~- I .a,._.. ._ .__--f---~ ~~~~ \~~~\ ~~ ~~ ~~' ~ ~~ J~ , \ ~\ ~Q, ~~\ ~\ wv ~ \~ ~ \~~\\ ~ ```. \ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~~~ ~ ~ ~ `~ \ ~ ` \ ~~ ~~\ , ~ ~\ ~S a~g .~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~cl a nag ~_I., `~h ~w~ ; ~ ~;1 Y _ yu~~ ~ 8~ I W ~~~ ~ 07.049 1 TREE I.wE //~ cpRiwuEs wlH EM[ ~ Or CREEK ~ ii ///~ ~ ' iii i ~. yy~yy`` %l/~~/'ice i~~~~~~~~. i i ~ ~ /~; „, ,% '~ // i ,~ -___- _-- -__- ,rnq-_~-_'- '~~µt RMp ?~' plP ]I19,1~ u a = ff Z p mW~ ZOO F =~E~ll a tt ~". C) CC ~. z z J W U Z Q D: W Z ~ W } O ~ O w ~ W c a a nn. I Drsctnrno~ I n. REVISEOA'S DESIGNED CHANNEL ALIGNMENT/SITE CONDITIONS u.atR.1" = 40' oaTr 11/27/06 onx.RY KDH CHECRFDH\': MAT PROIECENO SHEET ~ OF 3 SHLET 2-1 • • • Iii \\~~.~~~. ~~x ,. ~~- ,. ,V,•11~A1VIlll\41111r'y j r°' I di ~ Ig ,+ A\ ~ ,~~ ~ 1 11~11~1~,Ar, .--~. , \ ~ f \•~1 TATS ~ 1 \ q use ~s' ~ u>E I + II 'v v~ , ~ Q r+e~o~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~` ~ wa.~ ~ 4 iAi6 1 v ~v ~,~r ~rt~~~ e ii ~i; r.~ ~~ ~ LEE ~~ \ 1 A\ ' ~~~~ rr , ~ qS" ~ ~ ~ ~ .t1'1~ ~ A IENHANC EN ~~~ ~` ~ 1 ~~ ~ R STO ,4110N PRI ~~'- ~ ~ ~~~ r i ~ ~ /i ~ ~ , Ill I+ira~ ~s ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ I III rnc.K G~ ZN '° ~ vI ~,~' ,~ e~µ I ill a ~' ~f«ti ~ '~ ~ ~ ~s ~~- ,i , 111' ~ i ,~ 1 ~ ,+ ~ ~ ~~ _ ~'.~ ' i ,~ ~ ~ ,'~ -as-. ~ ~ Q X ~. ~: -file i~,pp~ A ^ `, +~ 1 "a ~ ~'~ +~ 1 ~ ~ ~• lq ,~ - ~ ` ~,~ , ~ , ~° ~y. ;: ~ ~ lV' i) ~ ~~ ~~ OAr ~ ) ~ ~ ~qp tiu~ ~, \ \ ~ I~ / ,\~ ON/ \ . ~ a - ~~'s ,,' ; ~ ,:~Vo: ~ ,- ~ ~ vv ' ~ ~ ~r vv , ` ~~ 3n V ~ ~` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~SfJIEIF ' RIPSHIN ~... ~ :_~ -u~= ` ~`~ ~~~-- - ~`:`: ROAD \ ~; ~~ __~- ~~ `-`= _-___= ` o . ~ ~-__ l`_~-------`\ \`. ~.., / \`~ 1 ~~ :' LEGEND '2 FAR K(Y,F; a ({n W;^ki2 M _ ....lAf r,n;~ f. ` - ~- i r :Nftl..s: - ;S;F ->- ~M f AV Fl.tiG flT,Nl1 RJN' CAyf-IC.dYAY 4~e" JUn rwE fUUW ^P wemar.:, .mn~ iw ~.u •.va.t r.,. ... ~ • .r , .,:. , l.__.--- --_..._ .._... - __ .. l t=GEND a ll: :,: ~fr. SE.. YwRt %i Ni~it'Ir;i~~~ i .~'.ll'. 'lt.k..'! iY!+~ ///// Y~IYpf10 S+&::1CiVi'`ff asilri~i rsw..rnvi ~~ i ` ~ ~ r g~~ (~ L =~ k: ~ OA ~ ~ '~ ~ .~ . ~` -;. _ ~ ~__~ :~~ - ///~ ~ ~\\ ~ ~ Y j/~ / ~~ .~ . ~, ...\,,. ~.~.. ~; .~ . .~ ~ . /`/ ~\ ~ \ `\7. ~ ~ ~\ ~ // ~\ ~ ~ ~,~ \\ _.___-_Tn .7 _.r;.._ HURRICANE TWP., ASHE COINITY, NORTH CAROLINA SCALE 1~ AO FEET CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2 FEET • e r r • w rM pMl Y Ip . A A N EcoLopk RESTORATION PRIORITY 2 PRESERVATION ~\ ~w. \ \ ~~ >r v v v; v ~ \ \\\l ~ ` 11\~ \ \ \ / ~ 1 , a~~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ( Y , \ \ . ~ y, . ~ \ \ \ ~ , ~~~ ~ 1 V 1\ 1\ +l \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ ~ \ i \ \ \ \ \, v~ Q ~~~~~ ~~~ ~ }7\ \1 v ~, ~, ~ \ \ ~'\' \ , ~~ \ ` ~~ \ ~ 1 . ~ +~` `. ~ \ lY K ~ I~ 1~,1 Y` ~ \ I ! l'~`~ ~:~\ ~ ~ Pl ~ \ I `l'~ \ ~ I . \ I l I ~ aroi ~ I'll I III \ •~ 1 1 I I I ~ ~ ~ \ \ r\; \ I ~r ~~1~ ;\ `~+\ \ ~'~ \ ~ :`. ~ ~~ '~'~>, . +~~ ~ ~~ ~,"-,~ ~Rc "u ~~S ~~ ~4~ 9 °~3 ~~~ <~ ~~ V U a Z ZO Q mW Q, zoo s~v~i a_ ~ Q O a Z ? J W U Z a oW z~ W tY O ~ W ~ U W W Q ~0. OGSCR1PTIaN d1'[L REVISIONS DESIGNED CHANNEL 4LlGNMENT/SITE CONDITIONS SC.41e. 1" = 40' naTF: 11/27/06 uu.N,ur. KOH Ci1F.CRFA RV: MAT Pk01Ei'~T KU~. sRerr 2 oe 3 SHEET 2- 2 - 5=~: ~~$~ ~~ e `~ ~ ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 1 \ '1 ~7M EST / t JB'CYP ~1 ~ 19 CuP i~ i ~ -`~ uPSm[w,un.ta .~ ;~. ~ ~ 7k~t3 ----9h--' U~ ~~ ~~ ~ _ `-' ~'~ /~~n ~ ~a+~y--' C~t~ ~~ ~ ~'~'- -r--,- --• ~~ .Sy' ---, ----- ~F. _ -- ----- 1 tc~ \ ~` / •~'~ 'i ~ - `' cernc arosvnu - ~;; i ~ ~~ ~ "r~lo EtRCto tc~~:o~ I ,_ ~ a.,8 ~~ `~ ~ ~' ~ ~t ~ i 7 ~ ' I sEe ~3V JS ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ '-- s ~ >~ ti ~ ~ 'r ,_, ~ I ~, ~. ~, i _. ..E__. 4r .. _ ~ ~ ~ ~%; .~ 'I rsw ~~~ '~ Q ~ ~ ~~?'.,~,:. ";~ ~% ~ ,. ~ ~i ~uROtecu7 V „ I ~ - i 0] W ~ II l ~~ ~ ~~ _~_ _ ~ ~~~ ¢ _ ~ Z~O 1 1 i~~~ 1 \ i ~:~ i. .-_ ~~ A _ ~ 1 I ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ `. ~'u.`` ~\ / 1~ i~ i -'~V.~\ II ~ ~ F4~AF~, \~ ~~ .alb d I Y ,~~ofA \ ~ a~b \~ \ I i i ,~ ~ uB0ERp1T \ ~~~ ~ ,p~ ~~ av Z_ Z V I ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ r ]~'..~ \ ~ ~w~w J ~ V I ~\ I i I ~ ¢A~ ~ ~ I' v ~ I T' O \ I 1 I f i ~ /~ \ 1°v, CC W 1 ~ ~ I I l t_~ I ~ ~~ ~.~ ~ /~ ~_ ~~fl ~ ~ Q U a I 1 A ~ _ _ ~, ~' eS'~ ~ '~-__ I I V A V -_1M___---- ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~~.'. ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ W ~ ~ \ asw olwt ht amns~ ~' V I -'-- ~~ 1 ~ ~ ~ EeseEO i h'w ~~ s,~o ~ ~ ~,, ~~ y \ R 1 ~ _ pi wa: ~. _1 I "fit ~ ~ ~~ ~ > 3 \ °~' I I ~ --- t ,~-'~ % vE~cf ~------ -=c _,__ \~ 1 / vt~ R/p~_ __ - ,\ ~ o O YQ "'~ ~ _~ - b , II ~ ~ Il_ --m„---~ ~ ~ ` _ ' ____=--=uisrA-------- _ ---_~~ _\~~~----- @R SyiN ~'-~~ W ~ 1 --- ~ ~ _ >f,~->~.,..-. ~ ANA ~~ ~ w i ' I i , \ ~ \ _`_ ~__ ----3111--- ~ ~ ~ ~~ _,,\\\„ ~,; H ~~ W 1 ~ ~ .___ ~, ~ \ \ ________, \ \~ ~ ~ Q ~ I waE l ~, pyplwr vt~d'y ~ ~-~- _ ~~~ n'd- \ ~ ; ~ FENCE n~=,___ --~--- ~y,1~~p~ 1 ~~\ \` \~ ~• ~, Z V ~~ ~ I ~'~!. ~ op V ~` _ _ ~ comnu:>w Is Jsoi Q Q!~ ~ 1$ ~ ~ 8. ` ~`p~~#' I )N'f:FAi REY3 I}I+1N1 RIPSHIN LEGEND ---- ---------..-'- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ `;\ ^Qj ~~ ~~. nRSCmm~~x+ nnr_ ROAD ~ LEGEND I m w PJWER P;aE a cvr uC:] R.EV1S10NS -anv- ,wuetun ~ars~ i ~,,~ ~ ,,,.ppp,,, : `'~~ ~~ ~0+oy~t. \• DESIGNED I ~ ~ ~ ro a -o-, o; ,_::; 6~ ~ CHANNEL ~asave ~ ~ ALIGNMENT/SITE j -! - R;,~,.,IC urE ~ dsl.n`~ '...~.` ~ ! CONDITIDNS I o ;~::~. G~s ~.t ~!EI; i N I m ~~~- • ,~t s ~,, 4 ., I "r $uN ',~0 .: •:: ',. ": :::'~ ! SCALE, I~ a 4~~ 1 ~ HURRICANE TWP., ASHE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA DATE: 11~1)~08 ~ ,"~ :tY COM7PpE AMM; ~';; I~:f' t!~i:7iJRpJI, i!!.:: ~ DRT', RY; KPH I ~ EmE4ac c,1n Ra. ~I ~ j SCALE 1' = 40 FEET CONTOUR INTERVAL = Z FEET CIIECKRD-Y: MAT I ~ I //// ::til4:C fgH4NCYl~.'C'~: ' ~ ~ x • O w ~ ..a ,tra farm I ~ I I I I I_ I NNOR:(1'N0: I - w/I nNVn ,>w fSNtM, ~ w6fvM 1:a • a n il'! Tdn Ft e'!Y..N:• , - rJ5E9 t'ti"' ! ~ :IIEET 3 Of 3 Cf 'i`ti.- ~;,~ ~ `fJPd5EA 24: I EcaEOyc ::? rwtl * ~¢xi ~ SHLGT "iBP ?ORP!Kr,riJ UC7k Fri 1 a.. .I:oFI¢-h., M W W O e~-- ~~. r Q.J 2 O O "~ / ~ ~ ° ~ o ~ o ~ W o H P~.a ~ c o aA o ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~~ M U R3 O O ~ U . ,.., '~ O O N O O r--+ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . ct' N O oO \O ~t N O oO \O d' N N N N ~ ~ r-+ .~ r-+ O O O O M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M uot~.~nai~ • v .~ bA U W h 0 M N h M o^ a w w ~a M H ~.W W O i O ~~ ~~, ~Y~' . ~n n O O ~~ O O M n '.C3 O t_~ O ~ O ~ N '-' W ° '-' ~ a H aA ~ 1 ~ T o W ~ ~ U W ~ O O p"'1 r~ /'~~ U C~ . ^., ~ O ¢, O •~ r-+ O O O O 00 `C d' N O o0 ~O d' N O 00 `O O O O O C~ CT 01 01 01 00 00 M M M M N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M uoi~~nai~ • C] U .Q~ i--I U w n 0 o, M N n M 'o a w w N M H W O O M N ~~ ~n ti_ ` O O ;e.... .., N N O O N O O O N '~ N O O ~ ~ "~ O O w ~ ' . ~ O ~ O ~ H a ~ O ~ ~ ~ T O ""~ ~ ~ w O O N ~ F+~1 U O ~ . ~, r--~ ~ ~ .,.., O O O O O O ~' O O O O O O O O O O O ^" O O O O O O O O O O O N O o0 ~O d' N C 00 `G ~ (V N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M uot~~nai~ • • • U O a U W 0 o~ M N M a~ ~o a a w w M M E-+ W x O O „_ O r~ r° !,~ T-- ~' O O O O 00 O O _ r 0 O O v ~ ~ o W ~ ~ ~ H 0 W °0 0 T M ~ ~ w U «3 ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ o M O H O O N O O ~--+ O O o0 `C 'l~^t' N O o0 ~O d' N O o0 ~-./ M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M uot~.~nat~ U .Q~ h-1 O U w 0 M N Cr M U O ~. a w w • • • ~a xa.accsr aoom/nocp uaauo~ `~ '~ ~ uWOJic-c[r/~ ~ na ~ is ~~L~a wia sir-3tzr~i " ~ ° ~ p j W p < ~- Wn-gCS/9PC :Wawa y'e's3imaossv ~ao,o~a N011`dMO1S321 ~:° ~ 0 Z 1-' ~ n. n ~ ° ~ "'9 u Wd2iJ021d 1N3W30NbHN3 W31SAS003 Wd3alS ~ = ~ ~ c.? ~ ~ a ~ Y ~ ~ I m ~'~~ HONd218 NIHSdRI bNll0ad0 HlaON j $ w > w ~ ~ ~ = 5 ~ J ~I .~~, ~o~ a pW~ E=z~ ~ w 3 ~1~3P021d =b0! 03LVd3ad -• i ~ (J V ° '" ~ v=. \ , \ \ \ ~j~ ~: ~~ ~ VAVAA,A \ \ \ \ ~vA ~VAV1,A \ `~~\\\\\\ \ ` W = \ \ \ \\\1\~,\ \ \ t ~~ \ 1 \ \\\\ \\ \ \ t Z , \ \ \\1 \" \\\ 1 ~ / \ \,\\\ \\\ r s 1 ~, \\\\~,\\\ \°~ d , ~\ \\\ ,\\\ ,~ , , I \ ~ ~ 1, `~~~\~\\1 II 1 + t vv~vv v~v ~ , I v I . \\\\\\\\ { \ , ,i. t nl '~~~\.vA ,- 1 IRI111111 1v;~vv~ / I 1lyl~lllyl v \`\\\\\` r oz / I 111~'lll \ \\ \ \~\1\ ~ / / ~ I I l I~i I I \ \\\ ~~\ ~m i / 1111{,111 \, \ \ r 1111111 a \\\\\ \ IIs~~, / I Illlllll a \1\ \1\\\ \ ~ I yl ll ll I \ a >t33n5 a0 \\\ 11\\ \ \ I i I 11111 \~i ~ i 3~U7 wed swna ~ ' i I 1 {\ \' 1'` 3w,7~u \\t\\\\\ W , \ \tl\, \ < \~iA`~V~v ,/ I 1A,ty\itly t \\ \\\ I I \'\' It \ G1\,1g11r"4t}\t I g ~ i {{ ~~\I { 111~1 lllRlllll I ~~ { 11~1},R R III 411 I 'R rl ~ I I 1111 ,~ ttgpyY, tl t ,111 1 ~ I r l l 1 1 ~ `^~ .~L \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ Irffl 1 !r 1 r r ! l rrll r / ~ _ _ , ~ /1111 1 lrlrrrl/ , //u~r 1 I 11,/ , /%,I,1 ~~ I r rl/1 / / //i// 1 X11/ / / //// l ~ ,1/// 1 m W ~/ ~/i//1 r /~// ,' / / //// 11111/, / _"' / / /1/ 1 r ~ ~ ,, / rll~t~~ ~ ~ 9 ~qh, _ ----- // ~ ; , / / ~ ~1j1(I ~ ~~ / / ; ~~'~' ~ /~~~1/r / //,~'i i !rl r i ~ ,'~~ ll~lrp 11 / i/, / ,p~. l• rJPjj r /~i'' ~~/C ~jll~rl 1 /~/ ~'~,'/,' ' W ~.' ~ i' ,~~ ~` ~ ,, , , ~, ' %~ - ~'~ $ l~ a, , ,%~. // /_ ~ / i ice' i. i ~~!('?' ~/ , ~ ~ 1~'~' ~ ~ ~pilt• ~~~~~ / i I , i _ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ / - ' V"' I - ~ 3 ' / ll / .~ ~ W ~ t ~ {1 / ` V- ~ \ / ti r i' / Z \ ~pp ~ \ ~ U /, / // = Q ~ b I 1 / / i/~/J ~~ r_ 1 1 1 t 1 `9 1 // '/i Z? / /%.~ 1 ~, , / J / ~ z I 1 / / / ~ ~. /// _ c~$ ~ I r \\ / 1 /// / ~ 5 x I I 1 / 1\ \ // I' ~ / ~ c ~ ~ I II ~/ ~ ~1 #Urr1rl °19~A ~ rN aW \Il .~ I ` ilir ~~jba6~b99 Ww vvv v r' Ilr ~~ \\\ ~ I 1111 ~ \ \ \\ \ \ L.'. ~~( ~ W \\\\ \ t ~ II' I II ~ ! \\\\ t\\'1 U ~ '~ ,j11 ~ ~ \\\t 1 l1 \ ~ 1111 \ \ 1 1111 ~ 1 l v ~ `~,, J ~ ` IIII or I \ ,1 t\ \ } 1\ 1 xxaaa ~ o~aava ~ IiII --'-- --- ---- -- °- : , , ~\t111 ~ ~ III < ~! ~ ~ -.'~ i \ \ \\ i I ~ \ \ IIII ~ Md700NYb a _"'^_^~-,-~. ~ ±u a :' ~ ~- ~ ''i ~~ 1 \ 1\1\ ~ \ IiII i - ~ :. k ~ ~ ~ 5 u. 7 .., I \ \\ 1 1 ~ \ III 1 I ., ~ i~ ~, 4 ~; ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ `~ .::; - 1 \ \\ \ \ 111 I I tx I , F ~ ~ ,., ~ ~: x 'd a v ~- `s. .w ~ ~ ~i x, I 1 1 \ `~ .. ~1\`\ ~\=~ IiII I~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~" E' `. ~~ ~~'~ 1} \ ~ V { IIII 1 ~~ ~ 0 0, i ,~ g~. Cam. ~ _ ._ ~S r' ~ w ~ I I II ~ • }\ \ I ~\ ! i III ~- --~ ----_ J \ ~'i 111 ~ \\~ \\`-~~ J 1 {IIII ~~ Ili V.O»V-~~Bplp;fR'~~N 90YLL 7N 'OtlOR3tLT3ep -- G '~ W N W i.ie-ece/occ :xrs 7s x~nT-rtT3 z v-iLS>. Roil-ssr/acc -~uFw '~•a's~rgo~r xwrooa NOI l~3ais 3a Nlt-a902~d 1N3W3~NVHN3 W31SAS0~3 = z F Z ~ ~~ ~ F g " y ~ Mr _ rv ? a \ c ~ ° s ~~ H~N'V2l8 NINSLil21 VNIl021d~ H12iON % ;, ~ W ~ ~ ~ ;; = ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~~. x jO a~ ~ c ~i~aroaa ~ao~ aaava3ad v 4 ~ 4~ o ~.~ • `"`~* .; ~ ~;~/ C", ~ / / '~~ .'~~ ~~ ~~ s~ ' -%i'n!%' ------- .' .- -- /- ~, , ,1. /, / ' ;~ / / / / r / / ' / / / / , , / / -~ -`, ~ . .. ~~ / / i~i~/~ ~' ~i ,--~~ i ~~ /,' ~ E ,/ / aro---------------- ~- /' ~ ,------mT--- s~/ ~,~ /' "~'~ ~,' ~s~ / ~~ C ,= ~., ~ G / / ,/, , ,, ,, ,,,/ ~• E //' ,1 / r// /// , / ~/,/ // ,; ,' F ,~ ~ i,~/;' TREE LNE // / _ / // / // RUNS MiiN EDGE -__~/ ~. ~ / // / // CK CREEK 1 r I4 ~ / / / / / CP~t I r N 32'3y / ~ ~ ~/~ /3 ~T \L / ,9' ICI F ~ /~/,~, ,,~/~ , ~, //, ; / ~ '~/ SHF1F \ ~/ / //~/~/// ,e , /~/ ~ ////~~, f~ ~ / ~ SATE , i~•, i ~ / ~ A / j //~' i/!///i /~~/,~~'i'~/, /// /////////ij///~~~/!// // /~ / ////j ////// / ~~~ //~// 1r° B iii///%:/'//ii/,~j/ / ////e~'////// / £r ~ / `!~; P r/l/!~ //~ rll~~l(l(tr~ lllljr / _u:;,_. ~' app ~ I f ~r 1 F / V, Irlltttrltl~lfllll rrr~ 1 1 S r /~.s,. ~~ ,o.~ ~ I I j/ y /~~ t~/~ ~11t~~lI~I~~Ij ~ ~ / ~1,, .r,, II,I ,, , I zN ~.~ ~ , it /l / / ~/ vv g~'~ i~ /~ // /// // /III 1 I I I I r s x gg / / wITNE55 %~~-"-' ''// r \ d' \ ~ / //'////j//j//I/~ I 1 I I / / /////~//r! III I SOUTH OF ~ , // s~ ~~ _~~ i ~~ //// /i/~ I/I I I ! I I I ~ I I I I // ~R!~; //j~'/~/ ~ ~ ~ F \~At I I II II I li I~I II I ! I / /'/j , i $ \ \ ~\\x\11 I I I~ ./ ^ / ~~;i ~~ -i .' ~i~,. E F ~ ~,' / ~ /" / -~ // /~~ ~// / - // ,,,-~ / I / ~ \)J, J11//// ~ r +EP ~ / / / / / ~ /// // ~ Ol'-~p ~ / / // / ////i///~ // // 1 W~ / / / //~//////j' /// IER 1 psi ~ // ~ / ~/ //./~/'///~/ ~////// // a ~r ~!3~ / / D -~\~ ///~////~~/9!////~ /l!/!r/i//////i/ i~' / ~ / l~rlrl/Ir/l//// / // ' ~~' L, i/ilhll~lli///~~ 4\ P ~ / /// /////~ ~ ~ i /ii ~ / i /i! l~ir/r ~``' Q ! / r ~ ~. ~ ,n/i /i li/r t;t . ///l/ /////rrr/l Q O ~, ,,,rr/r///rlr/l cry //rrllrlr~!lr l // l r!! Ili l~ /rl~ r~ I / /tr~itr~/~rrr~r~ ^~~ --' ~\ _~ ,~_ ~~ ~/ L~ll~`lI 1 / ll~~r~l~r r~ rrrt fs Inlilr Irl l~!! ~!! 11rr~ i~rl -'~ ., l r l~~~i ,rrl~ t ~' lrrl~ !t rs'!!! !! ! 'r \rl rt l it CI!! k r s7t! T0/ PT CI'1di1L by fiUOd~Y tar ~ t~aoarbin 41Ae Isd nY7:ram r tale rslr es larsan H[rdl bl i NZCI bl z Hell ri ~ unp~ i latdsL~e i tans~e x R c 0 E t 0 r I k z W i / ,~/,'~ / 1 e " / / ~_~ r !, ~~ r ~ ~'= ,' ! r r ~_~ f aTa ___-_ - --u~r---~/ 4 ~ N ~ n ~~ ~& z rc 0 ~o V W ~ II S 4 'S sti ~ 9 ® r-__-_-~_ A R-`------ • • • o. sn.oow. xomvraxs uawso N urDYau-mdo,wa'rrr 90rCi aM 'OtlOBR~33YJ ~ a ,,yJ W u+f-ffY/9Cf ave 15 3++3an3-n13 S r-+Ltr _ ~ ~1 ao+~-ccfl+tcf :maw •aa thvCp6sr anoroaa NOI1t12101S321 ~ '~' ~ Imo-- F- °v ~ x `s WV2190?Jd 1N3W30NdHN3 W31S.1S003 ~>~ ~ Z a z a „ mo b ;: MI ~ Wb3211S ~w ~ ~ c~w~~ ^~Y ~ ~ i a w HONd218 NIHShc21 t/NI102ld0 H1210N > ~µ u~ w ~ ~ ~ o x C ~I N v ~i~3roaa ~aoe aaavd3ad - z x ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~~ (y i v-'- 3NIlHJlb'YY ~ / ! /~ ,~y / / / / I J ~ / / ~~g'~ -._ / / I I ,y / ~ / / P~tl /// / I I hk ~ ~~p ~a / / I I -Or / / / /// // ' 2 c.,~ I / /,~ ~ ro ~ i / I Uj= I /'~ 8' ~ / / Q Q- / / ~,,. / / / ~4 /// b,.~ ' i I r 2'~ ;~,/ i ~~ ~ 1 / i i ~ ~ l I/ i i /l / i i + I / ~~~~~ ~ ~~ I ! ~ ~ I / / / / I / 1 f / / / I ~" ~ ~ I / / 1 IA / / / 1 e I ~ / / // I 1 1 I I 1! / ~'' // I I f~~~ o / l l!/ I I /~ I %~ ~ / ~°f~y}y '// I I I ~I ?Iw ~ // + ~ ! I I ~ ~ / i lip ~" ; ~'-~.,.~ c-i`ro ~'~ W ~ ` 1i ~ ~~ ~ V ~ coe~ p _ _ -- Z i r ,r , ~ / ~ / ~ I W , ~ II W i \ II + l Ar3'~~J~ N~ Y~all a~ W ~ l~ I ' I~ ~ Nl HSd~~ / w. ~!/ W ~ ' ull ~~ / / ~ ;SL / / I ~' it I/! I ~x 1' Z ~ t/ / I Q ` ~ / '\ / I ~ z / I ~~ ~ ~ ' `~ tl /1 Or • ~ ~/ / I I ~ I' U U '~ /// I -_ I G ~~ I I W ~/ I 1 I '~' I I I ~ / 1 \ \_ _ / I ~ s //V ~/~ ~ II ~> / \1111 / .~j t ~ / / Fmii R I F O i III r ~ ~/ t `~ // i~ ~ ~' ~ I~ ~ II 1 I I ~ / /' ~ II I / ~ 1 ~ ~ V i 7~' / ~ 11 ~ ,I r ~ ,' I ° ,' 11' ~ W / ! ` ' I '~,~ ~ III v s I I"" ~ \ \ I 1 II I _ A ~v I / ~ I I I \ 1 y / I i I ~ / i II t i i 11 t ~ m / /~\ \11 ~ i f/ ,~ \\ / / \ / i ~ r I i / ~l 1 ~ _ I I W ~ ` II °t'~ ~ ~a ~~ ~y{ [q4 I ~ I' I I /I / ~ 1 \~ / / \J~\ M ~C ~~ '1. IQT~ % V ~. ~K- ~ ~ J R ~ ~ ~ K ~ U ~J ~ I JI I J •` ' \~ ~ 1 i~/\\ I I ~ I I Ol~`_-. a: <i._ ¢=`I'. °d_ xc~~ + i 1~ 1 ~ I ~ 1 II 1 ~ / °JI+'~ I! I 1 I Y ~I + I F ~ 1 I ~ ~ /~ z I ~~ I I ~ !P ~ + ~~ m ~ 1 ice/ ~\ I I 11 ~ 1 v v V~ ti~ 18~~ ~~~ ~ I I I ~I d m y e YI .~ ~ i-~ 3e ~ \ ~ I I 1 \ ~\ ~\ ,' I 1 ll/ J I /1 I ~ I / ~ ~ ` ~~ ~Ilj~ I ~~ I ~~ \~ I 6~ A ~v _ ~~~ 11~ ~` II '• I I t 1 \ ~ III / I I Tq tr Y 1 1\ \ ~ ~ ~ 11j ~ ~~.^ I / I tt tJ7 ~ a n p p n n 1 I i 1 1 \l \\ ~, ~ 1 f // / 1 ,,~I 1 \ , /; I 4 \ / ~ 1 yl l \ ~ / W ~ I / ~w -- II ~ I I 1 / ~ ' t t r / 111 --' 4 1 I 1 \ ~ I~ / - gg, i t l V I ~ /I ,`~ 1~/ 'mil i' ~~ R t i ~ / / m 1 I 1 \ / ~' ~ ' ~ I + / ~ _ 1 S IUN , 1 Vq. \ 4~' 4 // I\ 111 I \\ / II I s 1H~ I ~~p l ~/ I ~ \/ ~ ~ I ` ~ •f / / I / ~ II ~v v ~ % ~j/ v I ~ ~v ~ti / \ /r /// 1 ~ // \\ s! U• / ~ ~~ // J v I vV ' ~`~ // - ~ (/ l \ ~ ,-~ / \ / \ \ ~ ~,! i I ~~ .~ l I ice/ ~ i--Or;'C--'~ ~ ~tiu ih~gab •. ~ I / \ \ / ~ ' i &~ `~ ~: " / ~ssti "~ ' \ \ \ '~ / `5 dP~y TEv d~3 ~~ \~\ Oa'b~ I ~~~ /l~W1a ~t~S ,_- `4 ~4w `\~ _ i ' ' i '7y,`O' \ ~ ~ I' ti4 :7 Appendix 1. Restoration Site Photographs • • • r . ~ ~ SgF~~' ,~s ~~~y~7 ., '~,.:i ^'~ H P ,~ r ~ ~,T . 2/07/07 Ripshin Branch Pre-restoration Conditions ar v ,~ ~ '~3'br ;~ i ,~y § . lr ~j~ ~s"^ P ,r.~ Y8 ~, ~ sN c ,, r r .x .~ ,, ~ ~ d~"+~. ' .R;•~. ~ r ~1L:~`'~'~r .. ~,. -r i, a ~' ~ +!'~ . ss <,~ +. An' ~ WW1 a 3. t~iG a . µ f t K w ~~` ~: ~~ ~~ r ti ~n r,'' ,, ~: ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~~ ~ ~ ! ~, a .~ ' 5c ~ ~ ~ ,r ~' ~-x ., i' ~htWk~''e-, Ecologic Associates, P.C. • • Unnamed Tributary to Ripshin Branch Pre-restoration Conditions <, ~i s y,j ~~ •v~ ,, d4 i t~' ~"' ~~ V 2 \~~ T. ; `v • 11/27/06 Page 1 of 2 Ecologic Associates • • • a~ •~,. ~,; ~~. - ,~ ~: ~~ .~. ._ -~ ~~ a~, .._ . ; x -, ~~,,,: -+t. -- ,,~; ,b! ~p b~f-ti'' . _ ~ .._ 2/07/07 Page 2 of 2 Ecologic Associates Appendix 2. Restoration Site USACE Routine Wetland Determination Data Forms • UAIA tunm 1987 COF Wellanda bates'minaoon manuar Pro)ecUSit6: " ~ Date:lLtT,cla1~---- AppllcanWwner: ~ ~ ctia~ ~ ~ Couniy:.,---- Mvesifgator. ~qev- .~,r`, off} ~ £ ~ dLc~,~~e _ _ Staie: Do Normal Circumstances exist an this site? < YBS~ No Community 10: ""`~ is the site signi6cantty disturbed (Alyplcat Situation?) e, No Transact iD: --" Is !h6 area a potential Problem Area? YBS d@ Plat ID: 2 ~ck,~R~rJ ww VEt3ETATiDN Dorrrir~ Ptanl Species Stratrm 1. ~1t~aesw... _.14,-_ 3, c;~wh~ uc Ga~nadu~.~s ,.,, ~ - 4..~kws~„~,~ fr~xwr t~. _ 8. ~ indicator Oaninanl Plan! Species Slrakm Indicator ~~ ~~_. 12. C r-nu hnow~y_ ~-_ f=14Lwt Percent of pominartt Species that are OBI, •~ GG FACW a FAC (excluding FACtJ RBritafkS:,.~~s wGrl~ a/ca.. ~C ~~^ O(~ ~c~GTV/.c. -fT~c..-~" cS G (~ ~. voa~C'cttiJ is a -n1~ ~v..~.. ..~- U~oTV-..G U,~c-~.Tiwt aK`a rM~/,~~ J" ~c~wi. awc.j ,/'eaa~iiJG ~s5 S~E'c.i G5 1 HYDRiC SOIL INDICATORS " O Hislosol J?9 Reducing Condeions Cl Organic Sireakir>g in Sandy St a„~~;$l Histic t:pipedon .~ Gleyed a low-Chrana Colors ~i L~ted on Local Hydric Soils t ' ^ Sullidic Odor l1 Contreliorrs U listed on Matiorral Ilydric Sal ~ Aquic Moisture Regime U High Organic Streaking in U Other (Ezptain in Remarks) 5urtate layer in Sandy Solis ~, Te5 Hydrrc Sorl Present? NYDRDLOQY Remarks: RECORDED DATA (Describe in Remarks): PRIMARY INDICATORS: T ^ , Lake, aTide Gauge 1N Inundated ~ Saturated In Upper 12 Inches ^ Ae RhQto~aphs ^ other ^ Water Marks ~ WETLAND DETERMINATION No Data Ava~able NS I J8t Drilt lines ^ Sediment Deposits Hydrophytic Vegelalian Present? ~ : O FIELD OB ERVAT ' } b- ~ (in W t rf ^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Wetland Hydrology Present? er: • a ace Depth of Su SECONDARY INDICATORS (2 ar mare required}: ' •• Hydric Sails Present? Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.} ~ l ~In ~ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Is Ihis sampling paint a Welland? ' Depth to Saiuraled Soi WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS: ~ Wafer Stair>ed Leaves ^ Local soil Survey Oata . R~~' - ; ,,, ~ v~,~ z UiG~ as ti ~~•~~~~~ Q"~ '""`t f"lJ "u+,l Iw~""~'"'1 "'"~`- J~.f~t"•``s •• ^ FAC-Neutral Test rks) m i i R l Fy ~s ~ ~ . ~tG GJJrc.~"~- Gv~y~ey' f¢~A.a6J ~ ryyVv1A.N4 py~J bu.VEl~S .«! ~' ~'O ~•k ~' ~~ t fi ~~ ~ e a n n a ^ Other (Exp ~o~Jc~ ~ SoMa rw~s- r, ~~ '~ Remarks: f + (,~.OOV~6v~cat.. t•~pickE-ss {'NK ~ ~ ~,,,,,,,~ ; a l.~1/tGt t.S w~ 1 Ws~ 'mac. ~„~l; ~7 •~ flK. .~c. r z • • • SOILS Map Unil Name ~Q„~,~J (Series and Phase): Cv }u°'~~ f'"''~' `a°t'~'.~.~~inage Class: rail( ~ Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup: -ro• +~`•' ~ ' ~<<~ Confirm Mapped Type? Yes ~' ~' iG l/dl{'i~~µ 1 'PROFILE DESCRIPTION 7~ Depth Matrix Color Molly Colors Monte ?exture, Cone (inches) Horizon (MurueH Maisl (Mansell Moist) Ab~dar~ce/Conlrasl Strudure, "Z ~_ ~ SY2 311 >~0 C. I~ e~.3 to c -~i :Cs • ROUTINE WETLAND [)EIENMINAIIUN • • DATA FORM 1987 COE Wetlands aeferminatton Manua! ProjeCVSite: Safe PV`yi ev ~ ln.' ~= P vi cz,L Date: ! 1 F~ L rJ S Appliranl/Owner •c~u~.(,_..' 'Y i ~ ~'w-(-~. County: ~ckc SOI1S invest(galor. K~.t. 3~:J1-~ ~~os r c State: ~L Map Unil PJame ` Do Normal Circumstances exist on This site? es Pto Community 10: -" (Series and Phase): r'~~.,r~.~~ I^:kc Sa,~.r)-~, C!o~-w~_ Drainage Class: iu~Gt ~u~wycd Q Field Observations is the site si nilicantl disturbed (Atypical Silualion?) a Pto Transect 10: ~..__ ~~G•r~`"„ `~~~"'""~[ ~O"`"''J Confirm Ma ed T e~ Yes No 9 Y ~ -- Taxonomy (Subgroup): PP YP Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ~ Plat ID: Atw~ ~• C ~PRUFILE DESCRIPTION VEGETATION Depth Matrix Culor Moule Colors Mottle texture, Concretions, (Inches) Horiron (Mansell Moist) (Mansell Prtoisl) Abundance;Contrasl Structure, etc. t)ominarrl Pbd Species 5lratum Indicator Oominanl Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. ,a,~~. SC_.nrJ (..k4 -~ ~~ 9. ~+~sAP .tio~s ..._ .~ 2, f ~ .~,ri ..,N- aw-dw, _5.- F-4GUl~ l 0..ir-r-• wr tr r-K~...w~ ~ ~~. 3. ~iN ti x n ~ c~ ._,._, .-~- -~-- 11.,pa_I~v_,c ~r+~* 5rsbta_ ~~ __~___ bh ~' 4.S«I~.~~Yri:ea ~_ Or3L 1ZQ,~,mw+dc, ~rnv~~•a~n~L_in., C''r4L~eL 5. ,r~r~ ~1fUSUS ~ F.,13~~ 13.I~~I~~F,,~de,•+41.c _-.~ t=+~}~w t- 6. ~1 Yrk Sri----- ~A` ~r4GW 14. I`,~MKJ lui IhNf~GN1 _ ~ ~~ 1. (,~afawrc~'~ww LwMar., t^ ~~,. 15.~,,t~~~'< <t~k,. -~L. ~ ~L~ 8. T~izS~ U~+ -h..._ orsc _ 16.~,e~tt,,1,,, "~G~l~,/.ti. 1ti .Y~._ Percent of Dominant Species that are t?13L, 7 gb FACW a FAG (excluding FAGU)• Remarks: // ~.J L '1'`ql~ IOLGTIUN -S LM 0. C4f((~ SU~twS Ctr'Gt. l+KJ "~C 4 ~cti Gulf(. ~~s ~v,ov~t~ ,%~~ Got i ~ c,Ppeu~-s ~ v-e-F -~. ~,e~- -~ 5} 1'IAJGK '("(4tAti HYDROLOGY RECORDED DATA (Describe In Remarks): PRIMARY INDICATORS: O Str@am, Lake, or Tide Gauge ~ Inundated ^ Aerial RhQtographs ~ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ^ ptl~er ^ Water Marks ~ No R Data AvatlaWe ^ Drift Lines FIELD OB ERVATIONS: ^ Sediment Deposits Depth o(Suriace Water: o- 3 " (in.) ~ Drainage Patterns In Wetlands Depth to Free Water in Pii: (in.) SECONDARY INDICATORS (2 or more required): Depth io Saturated Soil: I `~ (inJ ~ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 1Z inches WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS: ^ Water Stained Leaves ^ Loral Soil Survey Data ^ FAC-Neutral Tesl ^ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: .~.~ -~,g 7k[~ avc4 r s o we-f' {a• e~f((~c. "k~r'1C . ~nov w4.~c~,S (~1a~c- T' l(,Q,f J ~ r(d ~G~ Kwf iv.s ~ ~~<J su b SV ~w c~c. Ovb`'H S O t/u~ ,,`` ~ t }~t (~~ l3 Gf~r s1~a+3_ r i HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS j U Nislosol 29 Reducing Conditions U Organic Streaking in Sandy Solis U tiislic Epipedon ~! Gieyed or low-Chrorna Colnrs v llsterl on Local llydric Soils List ' O Sullidic Orlor 1.1 Concretions a Listed on tlalional Hydric Soils List ~ Aquic FAoislure Regime V High Organic Streaking in a Other (Explain in Retr>arks} Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Hydric Soil Preserrl? es No Remarks. a ,rtw~ wkati.vmok a~ yMOS-f ~s s~.~ 4,.« ~~.~ nbv;ovi III ( i~ $, r I (Z,~c~ •vsaKiG ~ (kt~L^~ uu.c~ 51~I.rev f.1G.i (~t0~/ I / / G ' WETLAND DETERMINATION Hytlrophylic Vegetation Present? ~ No Welland Hydrology Present? ® No ~, Hydric Soils Present? ~ No is ibis sampling point a Welland? es No Remarks Appendix 3. Restoration Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms tCD'VVQ Stream Classification Form r ro ect Name: ~' 1„''~ •"4 ~' River Basin: t',~i~i.,J County: }~ S~ ~ Evaluator. 7-l ~c,~ ~~ ~ ; ~ ~ -~ j is ~~oject Number. Nearest Named Stream: ~2~t1"''' Latitude: 3G ,S ~ I~ 1 ~ Z ~I Signature: J~,vwL~ ~-1 ~. G ~ '"Jt v rti~+t~ gate: ~ _~ ~c L 'o( (~ f `L USES QUAD: ~av ,~, Longitude: CI ,!~ 0 ? :~ y~7~ ~,v Location/Direcdons~ L~ rf fir:. e ~ r PLEASE NOTE: Ijevwlnator acid landowner argree cleat the jeatun is a ~na~-Horde ditrh, there use ajrkJs jnrne Ls not riec+essar~c ..~''~, j' y" ~"Y, ~ `~~' ~ '~ lso, if in the best professional judgenrerrt ojthe evaluator, the jeatem is a ryean-made ditch and not a mods, jted >raverra! stream-this cling systene should not be ustd'~ 'rimarY I+~eld Indicators: (Cfncle0+-eNumberPertlne~ 1 is The I I.C(~A Trsrttrre! In Rfrram}wfI Is Thera An Active (Or Relic) ~) Is A Continuous Bed 8t Bank Present? 2 0) Is A 2°° Order Or Greater Charmel (As Indicated On Topo Map AndfOr Tn Field) Present? Yes=3 Nor_-0 'RIMARYGEOMORPIIOLOGYIIVDICATOR POINTS: '~ I. Hydrolot~+ Absent Weak Moderate Strane Is There A Groundwater ,,~ HYDROLOGYINDICATOR POIIVTS:_~ Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Periine) [I Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong t) Is This Year's (Or Last's) I.eaflitter ~-, f) IS Water In Channel Atcd ~8 Hrs. Since 0 .5 I ~1 5,,~' (~aet Kelply~ a;n7 I•NOTE• It Ditch Inditaaled In #9 dbe~as Skty This Step R-rd #5 Setow~l 7 ere Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 ~^''1°:~'' ors Or In Growing Seasonl? ;'""" ~. , 6l Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes~1.S .) No=0 4ECONDARYIIYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: / __.. ~ ,~ ..~ si uoes ropograpny tnarcate ~- Yaturat Drainage Ways 0 5 ,~y I S SEC0IVDARY GEDMORPH'OLOGYINDICATOR POXIVTS: 1, ~TCDWQ Stream Classification Form _____rr roject Name: n ~ I°F ~ ; j,~Y } ~?~ River Basin: r~/ ~'..J County: /*.C L~ c.. Evaluator. ,'.'cv, t,: r„~' ~ c ~~jeciNumber. ---- Nearest Named Stream: r'a't'"`"'~ Latitude: 3<. S~y3y&~ ~Si ~)y~~-~ ~2-GL.~ ('o d r~~^ C .i gllature. gate: ~.7'!'e~ 7,OOS USGSQUAD• 1=''nV~: Longitude•~t,Gl-~OtI)W Location/Diiections• ~4`~r1o~>'~' ~~~~ ~, `i%i PLEASE NOTE: Ijevokuntor and landowner agm that tie jeatrrre is a nian-mode ditch, tken use of tkls form b not necessary. lso, Ijln the best pmjessional judgenwit ojthe ewi/uator, the feature !s a manancde dhch and not a enodljled nrrbuiu! strewn--ibis uing system should nw be ustd* 'rimary Field Indicators: (ClrrltOneNrareberPertine) is lttere An Active ((h Kelic) ~) Is A Continuous Bed 8t Bank Present? {,) 1 2_ - 3 •NQT!<: IfBed do BankCaec~ed By Ditch~And WlTXOUT SimrosiN Then SrnrraO`) 0) Is A 2°° Under Or Greater Channel (As Indicated On Tooo Mao And/Or U Field) Present? _ Y~s=~ No~0~ 'BINARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: I. Hydrolog~+ Absent Weak Moderate Strong Is There A Groundwater RYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: ? ~eCOndarY Field Indicators: (Ci~laOneNwnberPtrLLx) 3) Does Topography Indicate A Natural Draina¢e Wa}~? +~ _ .5 I 1.5 SECONDARYGEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATURPOINTS: n. S [I. Hvdrologv Arent Weak Moderate Strove I) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter _~ t) Ls Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 I N # A # e • ~~here Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 I I.5 SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS. ~~i w. ..• } Is The USDA Texture In Streambed pRIMARYBlOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:~~ NCDWO Stream Classification Form • Projecttlame: tZ,pc6t~~~h~..K River Basin: N~ >2~~~ County: ~ShG Evaluator. IC,a.. l~r~J~t DWQProjectNumber. j' NearptNamedStream:QJyr,~~~ Latitude: y6,S}~'f~~3b'N Signature: 7/v~WYl~ff-]~,l/I/ZL'! Date: ~?' ~Gl; zd05 11SGS QUAD: Park Longitude: ~• 6 / O'i~Cd `I W Locatioo/Directions: T,.. L y ~e &..e,.~ *PLEAS E NOTE: {lera7amor awd leada~er rtsrer flat Me jamwne Jre w~»-wade a7Urw. dYoe +rn oJllFlsJenn Ps +wt Aac~c 1~c4.H ~•y~ a.~,oss~+~ S AlAO, Ilan dre bdrMolesslonafhdsawe¢t ajrAa sMaAudor, tAe, jmlrre la a iwee~ode dlfd ord aor a nwd{ITM nrtlrna/straaiw-~Jtbr 7Mr1Aj ~'~f/QM .TkOU~It fit l7t asr~ Pltimary Field Indicators:,r.~c~N~.,~.c;,~~ L Geoma hol Absent Weak Nlederatc S 11 Is There A Ri$lo-Pool Seouenc v 0 1 2 ~ 2) Is The IlSDA Texture In Streambed --~ -Ditt'ersnt Frvm Surroundin¢ Terrain? 0 it Art N n I r n w I ~2~ • 9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bantc Prasertt? 0 I Z 3 C•NOTE/IBadkBo,ECa.~dBy ~.s/,rd S~irv%rKa$fxnemu•t 10) Is A Z~ Order Or GraaOer Channel (As Indicated '-' On Totw Man AwdA7r in Field? Prnsent9 v..~~ ~ ,v_n PRIAGtRY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICTOR P'OI1V7S: '~. Z. II. HvdroloYV Absent Weak '4oderate Stron¢ !) Is Thera A Gramdwater ,rte F1ow/Di~har¢ePre._.~+t'~ 0 1 2 (3 / PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDIGTOR POINTS:~_ °" PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICTOR Secondary I+tield Indicators:,r~o,KN.~.,Pe,u„~~ „ , 0 1 21 is There A Grade Cordrol Po'rN In Ck ne17 0 5 1, 1 5 3) Does Topography Indreate A Natural Oraina¢e WaY2 _ 0 5 l (7 5 I SECONDARYCEOAlORPHOLOGYINDLGTORPOIN7S: ~-S II. Hvdrolo¢v Absent Weak Moderate Siroae I) Is Thu Year's {Or bast's) I.eaflitter r t. 4) Is Water In Channel Axrf>48 Elrs. Sipe 0 .5 1 .5 .~ y r 4) [s Than Water In Chancel During Dry 0 .5 • 1 1.5 Conditions Orin Growing Season)? o~ nra wcuana rimes rn aveamoae~r se~v Mostly ut3L M G1v Madly FAC illadly FACU Meaty UPL (• Nr1TTi ljTanr AArenw OJAU Plo~tr In Serem~drd 1 1 .7S .5 0 0 Aa NdedAheNe~Tfelr SL a~SdYPmrr•1 e ~` S) [s Thera An Active (Or Relic) SECONDAI[YXYDROLOGYINDIGTORP+OI]VTS: t b. S `"~ • Appendix 4. Reference Site Photographs • • • Ripshin Branch On-site B Reference Stream M n ~. .~, R b b ~~md~~4 ` ~ ~, a r, ~'.,,y YN x ~. ~' ~ 3 ' ~tY1~ " 1' ~ f ~.1 y~ ~F~ .~F ~~yXI~II~~C}} k ~~ ~/ + y ,,,~~__ y ~S r+Y ~,.!a,~, ybW B sf T^~Y ,.,~ M.' w wi ,„ ~l1 'n~, Yj fir' ~Yi9 4 ~ ~`~a `+~- ~ ~;~~ _~.} 4 2/07/07 ~•~~- ~ w ~ ~~ ~' 3 4" } 4f `~~ . } iQ~l { 1 ' ,' ~ w ~ ,~~' t ~ . m~ -_ a:y 1L' :, `~s ~ i l . ~. Y ~ ~ f „~ ,R„~ ...'~ Wit,,. ~ `- .. ~+F- Ecologic Associates • • • Ripshin Branch Off-site C Reference Stream (Long Branch, Patrick Co., VA) • 2/07/07 Ecologic Associates, P.C. Appendix 5. Report of Preliminary Soil Investigation Foothills Soil Consulting, LLC • • ~~ Discussion of Preliminary Soil Investigation Site: The Tate Property near Lansing, NC Ashe County, North Carolina Prepared for Ecologic Engineering/Construction By Foothills Soil Consulting, LLC Overview and MethodoloQV: On October 24, 2006 Foothills Soil Consulting performed a brief investigation of the bottomland soils on the Tate Property in Ashe County, North Carolina. The purpose of the investigation was to identify potential for wetland restoration and creation on the site. About 10 soil observations were recorded during the investigation. Soil observations were made using auger to depths ranging from 12 to 30". Observation points were selected based on topography in areas of special interest to Ecologic. Topographic maps provided by Ecologic were used as the base map. Sampling Results: Upper cow pasture pits 1-61: Observation 5 was hydric, with a depleted matrix (indicator F3) at 6". This observation was located in the azea that was identified by Ken Bridle of Ecologic as a possible exisisting wetland; this was confirmed by the soil. Observations 1, 3, 4, and 6 were nearly hydric, with common to many chroma 2 or less mottles by 10" and a depleted matrix at 11-12" from the natural soil surface. Although these soils are not hydric, the presence of common low chroma mottles at these depths may suggest that the water table is • present at this depth often enough to meet the hydrology criteria. At observation 2 the auger was stopped at 19", with no chroma 2 or less mottles to that depth. South of the existing creek fill thickness ranged from 0" to 15". If needed, fill depths in this azea can be mapped more accurately with backhoe pits. Middle area (obserations 7-9): In pits 7 and 81ow chroma mottles were common by 10- 12". This does not indicate a hydric soil, but is a neazly hydric soil. Low chroma mottles at this depth suggest that hydrology may be present, even though the soils aze not hydric. Just below the road there was an apparent fill area, probably spoil from the road cut across the street, that is outlined on the map. Observation 9 was located in this apparent fill and had auger refusal at 6". Beaver dam area (observations 10 and 11): This area was very wet on the surface and had several streams running across the surface. Observation 10 had chroma 1 mottles by 12", and observation 11 had a 14" thick dark A horizon with redox features (indicatorF6). It had low chroma mottles, but no reduced matrix immediately below the A. For a ponded area this soil meets hydric criteria. For a soil which is wet due to subsurface saturation it does not meet hydric criteria. Lower area (observations 12 and 13): This area was less obviously wet t the time of the investigation than the Beaver Dam azea. In pit 12 there were many low chroma mottles at 15", with a reduced matrix at 22". In pit 13 there were chroma 3 redox features from 6", with <2% redox features with chroma 2 or less to a depth of 19". Potential for hydric soil development Upper cow pasture and Middle areas: In this area it appears that removing the fill and • Foothills Soil Consulting, LLC Page 1 5/16/2005 raising the water table by just 2-4 inches should allow a hydric soil to form. As mentioned above, it is possible that the water table is already high enough in the profile to meet the hydrology of a wetland based on common assumptions about redox features and their relation to water tables. Middle area: In this area it appears that removing the fill and raising the water table by about 6 inches should allow a hydric soil to form. Beaver dam: Because of recent disturbance in this azea it is hard to draw conclusions based on the soils here. The thick dazk A horizon observed in this area could well be a product of the flooding from the beaver dam, while the subsoil below had not been flooded long enough to fully reflect the new saturation levels. Nor have the soils had time to reflect the drier situation when the dam was removed. It seems likely that this area either currently meets wetland criteria or could easily have the water table raised enough to allow it to meet wetland criteria. Because this areas has been subject to disturbance and the soils may not have had time to reflect the changes in water table, which it is would be best determined by hydrology and vegetation. Lower area: Based on the soils in this azea it appears that the water table would have to be raised by at least 12" to bring water tables to a level that would allow these soils to meet hydric criteria. • n I, J Foothills Soil Consulting, LLC Page 2 5/16/2005 r ~!: Ie YIp1A(1. AAA IE OLV1- lalll~ 0wc1 OB 71! w ID05 - A7T.>7 (In n fUiS) Do ]a7 w 1707 !- ~ wsa. ~' ~a aAY VS .nn fw. r // ~-~ t' 4 y~~ cmlaac 9OOKM1 Ylp1ACl LATE k f ,~ r• ~„ . ,,,,,, 16ft. Tlk(1NA uTE UNNA4 1 oe zts w Ton os 7.7 w l»7 /~ ~~ ip ~ " ~` ~ z z K 3 ~'~ ~\~ \~. `aim »~ 4 A r ,,,. r ~ i` ... `. ~ ~ ~ o `L /sir \ Y ' • ~' ~ YKa/Ap TALE k r ~ ~ • oa 797 w 1797 ~ +' ~ ~ ~ '~ c ~ ( rt M YY>•Id TAT[ ~ ~~O •~ ~ ~ ~~ \ ~ f :' ~ °~~~ _~, ~• w""°ic jai, i a ~;~ J w :a rc In: .. ~ „` . o ~~ rs~ ~. 1w~f / f yea ,_~_~,~ ~+e Rip... ~\ ~ :.. s. ~ ! ,` ~~"' rl, RIP SHIN RD. i ~ ~ _ (4( use] I~~/ ~ ~-• ~. ~ '"~ PueuC a/w) ! i\ i (lufnllN ~».wl fai 1+ r M~ °`~ . sw.ll llln nl n.u) q ?yY •bplf"a~ ~4 \ aavEOOw YIC IYYC _ hN Ali wWAEI ,AIE • , m~// .N1il7.w M1fE. YYIO6A LAIC (. Ii7iw0.V ai OB ]u w tOLS ~ 4lv . YRw `vey~ C0 717 w 1797 .. c~ wu YET !r ~: ~~1 d )IS w 607 7 w.ww~ a I 0wr w Rm YOa lowo>d' ~ t - wvv. r PLAN ~M I~S~ ®~. ~~wa ..o ~ r VIEW [ . Ii7T.0Yw 0w Y K q r ~ ,. ~ ry ..,6.m;6~ ~ ~ w lol w ~ welwcwlE Tlw- A91C town.. x01nw evlar ••. Y• ~ SPILC 1' - AO FEET COMOUR wIETML - S fECI a i i T i wil 1 w .w... a Taw9rnw DRAFT DESIGN "`"` ~ L i ~Ha[hmen+ l a ~ PrEI~M~~nr~~ Soil Invc.,,4a-~~~r, ~~=i-U~;~er Cow ~asiUre ~~nd S,t~', RIGS^1^. Qfar~Ch S}r[Gtrn J • F1u9ty bvri.'1q i P~e~eirccl dot ~coLv~,~C (' ~1 FoUt~~, Iis ~:~1'~ ...;n ;..~ ~~In,,. `-'~G lo~3l~D6 • • • M/f YOM[l I~1[ a 7)) K 1)ai 0a 3tt K )]a a naKSw ~.. rr is tv .~. r r wea~Nal .r ~, r ` -~ __ ~ . • jI RIP SHIN RD. , ~ r I~ IJ:B (oU&1C 71 ~ ! / ~ j ~ ~~ ni n pw ~ ~ ~~ [ ~ y u ~"ei~ ui wn .a« aancnr aawartt [ [ ° g y E ~' . . RR. 6[OfT HOST aA1pQJw C@ d M 1>t K a]I ptwi -- to pU ^0 ~ i i i - t as r o.,, _ >,,.. Iwuaol . ,aaw I>Q > n.q s~ ti~ ~~ a* s~~ IEGENy -. __~,. is t.'.. ~.. N y. r.., M ~ nalworc ltr., l14[ [LIMt, woRIM CIAIY ~ it)lI 1- . b 1f[1 COMIpaI M1[1Ml ~) 7)7) ttt. I rte.... _- ~.... • -8. lip \, ~\ `~~~ \ ~' r ~. \ Q r~ y ~ r ~r • ~ I ~iA `~ (~y~ti t ~~'Qp sav tar. n alit ~~ x~ M ~, ).>r w .2 ,.~.. ,.>< M it) K 1H) a )tt K Ty a )ta K a« ~ ~ rr r I , ~ _lr \ ~ ~1 1 +~ / ~ _~~ } 7 ~ ~ l~ } ~~>;~ _ $ ~ ~~, -~-~ ~' ~: -~~ L aaa~-a a+a. i~iac. M ty K tM) -UN VIEW amp tw 1~ ~1_~ ,i....q 2 Rttacbw~~nt 1 b : f'rgltVnillary 50,1 Tnv[st~o~et~on ~P- M;ddle RrCA Sate; R~Psh~n Qrar,cl~ Straw. Prc~ar~G~ fz,r ~~o ~-v~~~- Il., F„~+~,-1s Sup ! Cons ~~'hq, :-LC Le end • ~}ug2r bJrln9 i ~ ~E~ Ki ~~i ~~ ^` Pl'Y ~ ~1~" «~~ .a ~ I ~t x _ _ o ~w s~ ffffff = Y7 ~i '~' ~3~ zoo +I a. ~5 e ~ & .was I Y a'ovi~r s a~ x ~_ u 1r ~ W _~ ~ ~ q i /n ~? i ~olo • • • ~~~ o' ~ ~ g~•~~ ~a~ek s 6 wl - t - ~... 0 ~~.a w ~+~ M ~ ~f]Q`A y~.~ )~ 4 Ji ~ ]R? YATOl11L 1g1ALl~ATC (WILT (] M J) q ]lr k lT]] q niron~ .a~ q]ukw _~ ~ ~ ' ° < <'~= ' / 'I tom IfiZ J/ {[L b I IOIM OI~N O' L]LLl L1 twWyrzTM suoo gg ~ I ~ ~ S~>; a a CaR ~ ~ awl, ~\ yI~ -~ ~ii~ • 71j1 .~1 t ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ` ~; ~ ~ ~~ =e ~_•_ _~+~~\~ ~.. ~~~ L 4'i A .~ r. • i ~ @ • ~~ ~ i~ ~ b g••~~ \ \ ~4.`~. g~t" y .~°~ ~. 4 r t;,= E ~ ~r ~~ , f~' ~' 4A. 4~ ~ ~f i ii ! ~i` 1~~ r ~' (L ~i u z 0 ~t~t ~ W C =~FoF =Ny~ ~ ~_ s 0 s o :W :W N 1 `!! PUN VIEW ~a .a 'uaxvurt 1M.. ALE mwrc. ~M GMOI]N ~ +~ ~, Ci `` 'd" Llt ~' N R[T CMUI~ MOtrl . x ]EP ~ ~~ '` ]+r]n/nN 4N r _~ ~ ~ _ d; o J~ ] r>wwwWo ,~` .~ 3 (j1-(~chrrtn~ iC ~r"eliml~Ar~ Sol =nVeS't~ga+~vT, f~'~~~-(3EPVer 1~ar,n cihA L_-E-~~ S~(tc ~ R~(5;-.;n C~r:.rci~ ~-ream rower ATCas . A, 4 ~e r hor (r;C J • ~~ Attachment 2: Non Detailed Descriptions Prepared for Ecosystem Enhancement Propgram by Foothills Soil Consulting, LLC Site: The Tate Property, Ashe County, North Carolina Page 1 of~4 Pit # 1 Depth Horizon Texture Notes 0-7" Ap L 7-12" SiL/20% 40% 2.SY 5/2, 4/2; 40% lOYR 5/8 12-19" L/-- 2.SY 5/2 matrix {-->5/3) AR (cry. 19" Comment: Depleted matrix at 12" (10" needed for hydric soil). Pit # 2 Depth Horizon Texture Notes 0-5" Fill 5-15" Ap Fill? 15-19" Bw Gr VL 2.SY 4/3; Angular gravel; fill? AR @ 19" Comment: Backhoe pit needed for determination of depth to hydric indicators. Pit # 3 Depth Horizon Texture Notes 0-15" Fill some x gr 2.SY 4/2, 5/2, 6/1 -15%; lOYR 5/6, 15-22" L/20.% 5/8 - 40%, l OYR 5/3, 5/4 2.SY 5/2, 6/1 - 40%; 2.SY 5/3 - 20- 22-26" L/20% 30%; l OYR 5/8 - 20% 26-30" Gr X SCL angular rock; 2.SY 5/2 matrix Comment: Almost depleted matrix at 22". Without fill, almost depleted matrix at 7", depleted matrix at 11" (10" needed for hydric soil). Almost depleted matrix most likely indicates suitable hydrology, but does not meet criteria for hydric soil. Printed 11/16/2006 Attachment 2: Non Detailed Descriptions Prepared for Ecosystem Enhancement Propgram by Foothills Soil Consulting, LLC Site: The Tate Property, Ashe County, North Carolina • Page 2 0~~4 Pit # 4 Depth Horizon Texture Notes 0-6" A L l OYR 3/2 w/1 OYR 4/6 mottle cl 6-12" Bw 2.SY 4/2, 5/2, l OYR 4/6 mottles c12 stinks, very black; Bwb w/redox by 12-15" Ab 15" Comment: Redox dark surface, but no depleted matrix immediately below. Nearly hydric soil. Located near well #3, in swale. Pit # 5 Depth Horizon Texture Notes 0-6" Ap L lOYR 3/2 many roots 6-12" Bw L lOYR 4/1 many roots AR @ 12" • Comment: depleted matrix at 6". Hydric soil. Pit # 6 Depth Horizon Texture Notes 2.SY 5/2, 4/2 mottles by 10" Comment: Chroma two iron depletions at 10". Need depleted matrix for hydric soil indicator, but the common reductions suggest that hydrology is present at 10". Pit # 7 Depth Horizon Texture Notes 2.SY 4/1, lOYR 4/6 c2p by 12" Comment: Chroma one iron depletions by 12". Need depleted matrix for hydric soil indicator, but the common reductions suggest that hydrology is present by 12". Located near well #4. . Printed 11/16/2006 Attachment 2: Non Detailed Descriptions Prepared for Ecosystem Enhancement Propgram by Foothills Soil Consulting, LLC Site: The Tate Property, Ashe County, North Carolina Page 3 of4 Pit # 8 Depth Horizon Texture Notes Redox features immed. below A (not < chr 2) SL w2, SiL 10-18" lenses 2 SY 4/1, 5/2 fZfp l OYR 5/2 matrix w/7.5 YR 4/6 18-23" SL mottles Comment: Depleted matrix at 18" (need at 10" for hydric soil). Common low chroma mottles at 10", plus the redox features immediately below A horizon suggest that hydrology may be present by 10". Pit # 9 Depth Horizon Texture Notes AR na. 6" Comment: Appears to be fill-step up, feels built up. This is adjacent to upland, so once fill is removed this area should be similar to or slightly wetter than adjacent soils. Pit # 10 Depth Horizon Texture Notes redox features to surface - at least 1 chr 1 by 12" Comment: No hydric features observed. Likely common chroma 2 or less mottles just below 12". Not a hydric soil indicator, but likely to have hydrology. Lots of water running on surface neazby. • Printed 11/16/2006 Attachment 2: Non Detailed Descriptions Prepared for Ecosystem Enhancement Propgram by Foothills Soil Consulting, LLC Site: The Tate Property, Ashe County, North Carolina Page 4 ofM Pit # 11 Depth 0-14" Horizon A Texture Notes lOYR 3/2 w/4/6 redox to surface 14-16+" Bw Low chroma mottles, 4/6 oxidation features, saturated Pit # 12 Depth 0-10" Horizon Ap Texture L Notes redox features (mixed from soil below) 10-15" Btl L lOYR 5/6 w/lOYR 6/4 red. 15-22" Bt2 CL lOYR 5/6 m2p 2.SY 6/2, 6/1, lOYR 5/8 mottles • 22"- Btg SCL 2.SY 6/2 matrix Pit # 13 Depth 0-6" Horizon A Texture L Notes lOYR 4/3 mostly. redox features <2% Note: 3 holes in lower area (between levy and other holes). AR @ 10"; redox,. no <2. • Printed 11/16/2006 • Appendix 6. Entrainment Calculation Form • • • ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM Stream: R hliiBra.nofi Exlaitin Reach 1 Reach: T teFarm Team: Ken K le Date: 7I13T20D8 Information In utArea -22:3 - D6o Riffle bed material D50 (mm) '14;8`' D"6o Bar sample D50 (mm) 8+1:0 >'` Di Largest particle from barsample(mm) 0.28 (feet) 3oa.emmitoot l;0.02D S. Existing bankfull water surface slope (ft/ft) '. 1,3 - d. Existing bankfull mean depth (ft) 1:2 R H draulic Radius of Riffle Cross Section ft 1.65 , Submerged specific weight of sediment Sediment Trans ort Validation 1.50 Bankfull Shear Stress -s = RS (Ib/ft2) =Density of water = 62.4 Ibslft' • , 1 . "r '' ',' Moveable particle size (mm) at bankfull shear stress (predicted by the Shields Diagram: Blue field book: 238 Red field book: 190 i,t' Predicted shear stress required to initate movement of D, (mm) (see Shields Diagram: Blue field book: 238 Red field book: 190 ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM Stream: - iii( shin Branch-(,?r ~tlit'f; each 1A - Reach: `- Tat+eFa"rm Team: Keri`K fe' Date: 7/13/008 Information In utArea 2~.3~' D6o Riffle bed material D50 (mm) ~,~ ~~~'° D"eo Bar sample D50 (mm) -'~ ~F~^ Di Largest particle from bar sample (mm) 0.26 (feet) 304.8 mmtfoot .~ S. Existing bankfull water surface slope (ftlft) ~r~•€3'"~-~u'~?~ d~ Existing bankfull mean depth (ft) 1.2': R H draulic Radius of Riffle Cross Section ft 1.65 , Submerged specific weight of sediment Sediment Trans ort Validation 1.50 Bankfull Shear Stress -~ = RS (Iblft2) =Density of water = 62.4 Ibs/ft3 -° ?- ~`?~t &'s:~s~' Moveable particle size (mm) at bankfull shear stress (predicted by the Shields Diagram: Blue field book: 236 Red field book: 190 '~ a -, ~ "' ~T.1=~~~ ~'~~ Predicted shear stress required to initate movement of Di (mm) (see Shields Diagram: Blue field book: 238 Red field book: 190 ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM _. Stream: R s#[rt.Branck'~r ';'','ild~'~+t~~ach 4B' Reach: ' •=TatsaFa~ Team: Ktrt, Date: T/13120t18 Information Input Area 22.3< D6o Riffle bed material D50 (mm) T+4$',~y~;•;, D"6U BarsampleD50(mm) `;'-,3~;~-`x`'=- Di Largest particle from bar sample (mm) 0.28 (feet) 3oa.a mmrcoot `:;~=. SQ Existing bankfull water surtace slope (ft/ft) ~~ „~~_ '~~~ de Existing bankfull mean depth (ft) 1 2 '- ~~~ R H draulic Radius of Riffle Cross Section ft 1 .85 y. Submerged speck weight of sediment Sediment Transport Validation 1.50 Bankfull Shear Stress -t = RS (Iblft2) =Density of water = 62.4 Ibslft' 156' . . Moveable particle size (mm) at bankfull shear stress (predicted by the Shields Diagram: Blue field book: 238 Red field book: 190 1.1 Predicted shear stress required to initate movement of D~ (mm) (see Shields Diagram: Blue field book: 238 Red field book: 190 LJ • • n • ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM Stream: R shin ,Brooch fsro assdReaoh 1C Reach: Tats'Fatm Team: Keh K b Date: i/1 3 /2 0 0 11- Information in utArea 22 3 Deo Riffle bed material D50 (mm) '14.5 "<< ~` D"so Bar sample D50 (mm) 81:0 D; Largest particle from bar sample (mm) 0.28 (feet) 3oa.a mmlfoot 0:20 S. Existing bankfuil water surface slope (ftlft) 1.3 ' d. Existing bankfuil mean depth (ft) 1.2' R H draulic Radius of Riffle Cross Section ft 1.65 $ Submerged specific weight of sediment Sediment Transport Validation 1.50 Bankfull Shear Stress -~ = RS (Ib/ft2) =Density of water = 62.4 Ibs/ft3 155 -` Moveable particle size (mm) at bankfuil shear stress (predicted by the Shields Diagram: Blue field book: 238 Red field book: 190 1.1 Predicted shear stress required to initate movement of D; (mm) (see Shields Diagram: Blue field book: 238 Red field book: 190 ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM Stream: 'Ri shin l3:ctnch ~%ititiA 'Roach 2 Reach: Tate~afm Team: Ken K~te Date: ~7M'3%2D08~ Information In utArea 16 ; Dso Riffle bed material D50 (mm) °'34:8 D"6o Barsample D50 {mm) `11.3='0:'~-~-- D; Largest particle from barsample(mm) 0.38 (feet) 3oa.smmxoot Oi04R• . ~ S. Existing bankfuil water surface slope (ftfft) `"1' d. Existing bankfuil mean depth (ft) '1 :2' R H draulic Radius of Riffle Cross Section ft 1.65 . Submerged specific weight of sediment Sediment Trans ort Validation 1.40 Bankfull Shear Stress ~ = RS (Ib/ft2) =Density of water = 62.4 ibs/ft3 ~3S" Moveable particle size (mm) at bankfuli shear stress (predicted by the Shields Diagram: Blue field book: 238 Red field book: 190 1.4 Predicted shear stress required to initate movement of D; (mm) (see Shields Diagram: Blue field book: 238 Red field book: 190 ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM Stream: RI ahlh Branch' Pr Gt38 aach 2' - Reach: Tale Fer Team: Ken K le Date: 7179/2008, Information In utArea 22„3' Dso Riffle bed material D50 (mm) 148 D"ao Barsample D50 (mm) 84.1} Di Largest particle from bar sample (mm) 0.28 (feet) soa.a mmRoot 0:0.19 S. Existing bankfuil water surface slope (ftlft) 1.4 ' d. Existin bankfuli mean depth (ft) 1.2 R H draulic Radius of Riffle Cross Section ft 1.65 . Submerged specific weight of sediment Sediment Trans ort Validation 1.40 Bankfull Shear Stress -~ = RS (Ib/ft2) =Density of water = 62.4 Ibs/ft' 139 Moveable particle size (mm) at bankfuli shear stress (predicted by the Shields Diagram: Blue field book: 238 Red field book: 190 1.1 Predicted shear stress required to initate movement of D, {mm) (see Shields Diagram: Blue field book: 238 Red field book: 190 • • ,r u c: ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM Stream: UT Ri shin 9rarrt:h sch 3 Existin Reach: Trite farm Team: Ken K le' Date: '7/13/2008 Information In utArea 13,4 Dbo Riffle bed material D50 (mm) 3,8• D"so Barsample D50 (mm) '; 50.fl Di Largest particle from bar sam plc (mm) 0.16 (feet) 3oa.e mmnoot ;Q,fl20 S. Existing bankfull water surface slope (ftlft) `> Os9' d. Existin bankfull mean depth (ft) 0;73 R H draulic Radius of Riffle Cross Section ft 1.65 , Submerged specific weight of sediment Sediment Trans ort Validation 0.91 Bankfull Shear Stress -~ = RS (Ib/ft2) =Density of water = 62.4 Ibslft' ~' 84 - Moveable particle size (mm) at bankfull shear stress (predicted by the Shields Diagram: Blue field book: 238 Red field book: 190 0.8 Predicted shear stress required to initate movement of D, (mm) (see Shields Diagram: Blue field book: 238 Red field book: 190 ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM Stream: UT R shin Brrnrt3 Re " ;3A-~1?o ossd Reach: Tate.:srm-~ ~- Team: Kin K e - ,-- Date: 7/13/2048 Information In utArea 8:4 ,- Dsn Riffle bed material D50 (mm) '-~3'.!X :-;< ` D"so Bar sample D50 (mm) ".30.0 D, Largest particle from barsample(mm) 0.16 (feet) 3oa.amm/foot x=0:624 =` S. Existing bankfull water surface slope (ft/ft) )m '=- Gi„9 •~; i d, Existing bankfull mean depth (ft) 0: B R H draulic Radius of Riffle Cross Section ft 1.65 , Submerged speoific weight of sediment Sediment Transport Validation 0.99 Bankfull Shear Stress -~ = RS (Ib/ft2) =Density of water = 62.4 Ibslft3 . T1 Moveable particle size (mm) at bankfull shear stress (predicted by the Shields Diagram: Blue field book: 238 Red field book: 190 +fl:78 Predicted shear stress required to initate movement of D, (mm) (see Shields Diagram: Blue field book: 238 Red field book: 190 ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM Stream: UT R shin Br ''=~ 'o s 'd Reach: '`T rm...., -' Team: ~ sn K` Date: ': 7/13~~041&-° Information In utArea r 13.4 Dso Riffle bed material D50 (mm) ~,`~339~ D"so Barsample D50 (mm) ";5~:0 Di Largest particle from bar sample (mm) 0.18 (feet) aoa.s mmnoot ~i>~'.~x0,: SQ Existing bankfull water surface slope (ftlft) 8s>} •- de Existing bankfull mean depth (ft) 0.68 R H draulic Radius of Riffle Cross Section ft 1 .65 Submerged specific weight of sediment Sediment Trans ort Validation 0.82 Bankfull Shear Stress ~ = RS (Ib/ft2) =Density of water = 62.4 Ibs/fts 53 Moveable particle size (mm) at bankfull shear stress (predicted by the Shields Diagram: Blue field book: 238 Red field book: 190 0. 8 Predicted shear stress required to initate movement of D, (mm) (see Shields Diagram: Blue field book: 238 Red field book: 190 C7 Appendix 7. Agency Correspondence • • North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ~ Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director June 14, 2006 ., Dr. Kenneth Bridle, PhD ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ Ecologic Engineering 4321-A South Elm-Eugene Street Greensboro, North Cazolina 27406 RE: Proposed Ripshin Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Project, Ashe County Deaz Dr. Bridle: This correspondence is in response to your letter of May 31, 2006 concerning possible • restoration activities on Ripshin Creek in Ashe County. The North Cazolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) is authorized to comment and make recommendations which relate to the impacts of this project on fish and wildlife through the Federal License of Water Resource Project Act (Federal Power Act-16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d). The proposed project is neaz the Tennessee and Virginia borders of Ashe County, North Carolina. According to your letter, several sections of channel have been significantly degraded and without protective buffers. Your letter also indicates that the site may be used to provide in- kind mitigation for other projects. Ripshin Creek supports Brook trout and Big Horse Creek is Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout Water. Listed species in the watershed include the following: Common Name Scientific Name Listed Status Kanawha darter Ethostoma kanawhae NCSR Tonguetied minnow Exoglossum laurae NCSR Kanawha minnow Phenacobius teretulus NCSC/FSC Based on our review, we believe that adequate measures can be taken to minimize impacts to listed species while improving aquatic habitats in the area. Instream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone are prohibited during the brown and brook trout spawning season of October 15 through April 15 to protect the egg and fiy stages of trout from off-site sedimentation during construction. Sediment and erosion control measures should adhere to the design standards for sensitive watersheds (15A NCAC 4B .0124) to the extent practicable for • stream restoration and the project should be accomplished in the dry and properly stabilized with autochthonous plants prior to turning water into restored sections. Streambanks can be Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries 1721 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1721 Telephone: (919) 707-0220 Faz: (919) 707-0028 Eco1.o~~c Engineering/Construction 4321-A S. Elm-Eugene St. • Greensboro, NC 27406 (336) 335-1108 • Fax 335-3141 www.ecologic-nc.com 0 7' ~ ~ ~~ May 31, 2006 Shannon Deaton North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission Division of Inland Fisheries 1721 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 RE: Ripshin Branch Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project, Ashe County, NC Dear Ms. Deaton: The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with a planned stream and wetland restoration project on the referenced site. Specifically, we request any recommendations relative • to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (16 USC 661-667(d)). Portions of USGS topo showing the site's general location and approximate property lines are enclosed. Ripshin Branch and its tributaries has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded, channelized and/or lacking riparian buffer. We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Flease feel free to contact EEP's project manager copied below with any questions that you have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project. Sincerely, Ecologic Associates, P.C. Kenneth A. Bridle, PhD Principal Biologist C: Harry Tsomides, Project Manager, NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (919) 715-6817 • Enclosure: Vicinity Map and Site Location Map Technology Serving Ecology w• Printed on rerycled paper. EcoLoo~c Engineering/Construction May 31, 2006 Marella Buncick US Fish and Wildlife Service Asheville Field Office 160 Zillicoa Street Asheville, NC 28801 4321-A S. Elm-Eugene St. • Greensboro, NC 27406 (336) 335-1108 • Fax 335-3141 www.ecologic-nc.com RE: Ripshin Branch Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project, Ashe County, NC Dear Ms. Buncick: The Ripshin Branch site owned by the Tate family has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded, channelized and lacking • riparian vegetation. Portions of USGS topo showing the site's general location and approximate property lines are enclosed. We have obtained an updated species list for Ashe County from your web site (http://nc- es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html). The threatened or endangered species for this county are: Bog Turtle (Glyptemys (formerly Clemmys) muhlenbergii), Heller's Blazing Star (Liatris helleri), Roan Mountain Bluet (Houstonia montana), Spreading Avens (Geum radiatum), Swamp Pink (Helonias bullata), Virginia spiraea (Spriaea virginiana) and Rock Gnome Lichen (Gymnoderma lineare) (pending). We are requesting that you please provide any known occurrence information for each listed species. We conducted a site reconnaissance on May 9-10 with the purpose of investigating and documenting the presence or absence of listed species or suitable habitat for same. On the basis of that reconnaissance and the noted absence of said species and suitable habitat, we conclude that the proposed project will have no effect on the listed species. Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered species, migratory birds or other trust resources from the construction of a wetland and/or stream restoration project on the subject property. Specifically, we request any recommendations relative to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (16 USC 661-667(d)) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703-712). If we have not heard from you within 30 days, we will assume that our species list is correct, that . you do not have any comments regarding associated laws, and that you do not have any information relevant to this project at the current time. Technology Serving Ecology «? Printed on recycled paper. Ripshin Branch Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project, Asl~e County, NC • • We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation: Please feel free to contact EEP's project manager copied below with any questions that you have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project. Sincerely, Ecologic Associates, P.C. ~~k~' Kenneth A. Bridle, Ph.D. Principal Biologist ~i0~--~- Mark Taylor, PE, CPESC Project Manager C: Harry Tsomides, Project Manager, NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (919) 715-6817 Enclosure: Vicinity Map and Site Location Map 5/31 /06 Ecologic Associates, P.C. ~~A~4 ~~ ~a,~ • M1a •~ pt1M Vf~~ North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office I'ctcr 13. Svulbcck, ;ldministratnr 1lichacl 1~. I?:tslcy, Gt>ccrn°r OElite nE r\rchi~•cs ;tnJ I listorv I,isUcth (:. I(~~an., ticcrcCtrV Uicision ~~E I Iisklncal I(csourccs Jeffrey J. (:row, DcFuty ticcnL'try Uat•id Brot>k, Director July 12, 2006 Mark Taylor, PE ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 Ecologic 4321-A S. Elm-Eugene Street Greensboro, NC 27406 Re: Ripshin Branch Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project, Ashe County, ER 06-1589 Dear I~1r. Taylor: Thank you for your letter of June 12, 2006, concerning the above project. We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or architectural importance located within the planning area. However, since this area has not been surveyed in over twenty-five years and there may structures of which we are unaware located within the planning area. If there are any structures more than fifty years old on or adjacent to the project site, please send us photographs of each structure. These photos should be keyed to a map that clearly shows the site location. If there are no buildings over fifty years old on or adjacent to the project, please notify us in writing. There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological resources. Based on the topographic and hydrological situation, there is a high probability for the presence of prehistoric or historic archaeological sites. We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologic t to identify and evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities. Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site forms, should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in advance of any construction activities. r1 list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North Carolina is available at www.arch.dcr.state.nc.us/consults.htm. The archaeologists listed, or any other . experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey. Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax ADMINISTRATION 5117 N. Ill~~unt titrcct, Ralcihh NC 4617 Mail tienice Center, Ralci}(h NC 27(9'14617 (91'))733-47(.1/711-8651 RESTORATION 515 N. l;k~unt titrcct, Ralci};h N(: 4617 Mail tien•icc Ccntcr, Rald};h NC 2769'14617 (919)731-6547/71S48U1 SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Ill~~unt titrcct, Ralcil;h, NC 4617 Mail ScniccCcntcr, Kald};h NC 37699-4617 (919)713-6 545 /7 1 5 48111 "I'he above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation tlct and the • Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 10G codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please contact Rcnec Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number. Sincerely, l~~ _ ~~ ter Sandbeck c: Harry Tsomides, Project manager, NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program .7 • Eco1.o~~c Engineering/Construction June 12, 2006 Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley Environmental Review Coordinator NC State Historic Preservation Office MSC 4617 Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 4321-A S. Elm-Eugene St. • Greensboro, NC 27406 (336) 335-1108 • Fax 335-3141 www.ecologic-nc.com RE: Ripshin Branch Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project, Ashe County, NC Dear Ms. Gledhill-Earley: The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to archaeological or religious resources from a proposed stream and wetland restoration project on the referenced site by the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). Portions of USGS topo showing the site's general location and approximate property lines are • enclosed. The Ripshin Branch site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded, channelized and lacking riparian vegetation. We thank you in advance for your timely consideration of this request. Please feel free to contact EEP's project manager copied below with any questions that you have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project. Sincerely, Mark Taylor, PE, CPESC Project Consultant C: Harry Tsomides, Project Manager, NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (919) 715-6817 Enclosures: Vicinity Map and Site Location Map • Technology Serving Ecology ~? Printed on recycled paper. Page 1 of 6 Mark Taylor From: Donnie Brew [donnie.brew@ncmail.net] Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 3:30 PM To: Mark Taylor Cc: 'Michael McDonald'; 'Harry Tsomides (NCEEP)' Subject: Re: Historic Significance of Your Property Follow Up Flag: Fo-low up Flag Status: Completed Mark, When we are documenting EEP project compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) we need to assess two basic categories of resources: historic structures and archeological resources. Both of these categories could have the potential for a piece of property to be considered "eligible" for listing on the National Register. In regards to EEP projects, both resource categories have a boundary or "area of potential effect" (APE). The APE for historic structures is normally the easement boundary acquired to complete the mitigation project. The APE for archeological resources is normally the area of ground disturbing activities to complete the mitigation project. . The first step in assessing and documenting NHPA compliance is looking for structures within the easement boundary and photographing any that are found. Someone also needs to review SHPO /other DENR databases to see if there are any known archeological sites within the easement boundary. The next step is to include this information into a scoping letter to be sent to SHPO. The following link provides templates for scoping letters that can be sent to SHPO and the EBCI (when in the western portion of NC): http_//www.nceep.vet/business/fhwa_catag_orical_doc.htm In many instances of EEP projects, there are no structures within the easement, no known archeological resources, and a low potential for unknown archeological resources to be identified within the archeological APE. In these situations, SHPO will respond iri writing that the project is compliant with 106 and no future coordination is required as long as something does not turn up later. When the scenario just described occurs for projects, then to document compliance with NHPA, simply check the appropriate boxes in the checklist and attach the scoping letter provided to SHPO and their response. Mark, in terms of your question below, if the farmhouse you are asking about is outside of the easement for the EEP project then it would. not be located within the APE developed for structures, and would therefore not need to be included in any project evaluation. Let me know if you have any additional questions, Donnie 7/19/2006 Page 2 of 6 • Mark Taylor wrote: Mike, I want to make sure we do it right for EEP and FHWA. I'm copying Donnie Brew on this response so he can clarify the matter. The question we must answer says "...in the project area". We have interpreted this to mean in the vicinity. Donnie - Please see the discussion below. There is an old farmhouse in the floodplain a few hundred feet from the area to be disturbed. Where do we draw the line in interpreting "in the project area"? Best regards, Mark -----Original Message----- From: Michael McDonald [m_ailto:mike.mcdonald@ncmail.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:32 PM To: Mark Taylor Cc: Virginia Tate; Harry Tsomides (NCEEP); Ken Bridle (Ken Bridle) Subject: Re: Historic Significance of Your Property Harry has reminded me to remind you (he's away from the cube) all that • the only areas we need to think about are areas within the proposed restoration construction limits. Enhancement areas where planting only will be done are not considered ground disturbing activities for the purpose of this review. Additionally the wetland restoration areas will need to be thought about. Off the top of my head I do not recall any structures within the restoration construction limits as I envision them to be? Please narrow down the areas you need Virginia to think about as they pertain to the ground disturbing activities. Mark Taylor wrote: Hello Virginia! We are assembling documentation for EEP relative to federal laws that must be addressed due to the nexus between federal funding through FHWA and EEP projects. One of the laws we must consider is the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106), which deals with properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places. • We must answer the question, "Are there properties listed on, or eli ible 9 for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places in the project area?" 7/ 19/2006 Page 3 of 6 • First, the State Historic Preservation Office' .(SHPO) website lists the following listed sites in Ashe County that might be in your area: Miller Homestead (Lansing vicinity) John W. Tucker House (Lansing vicinity) Is either of these properties located near your property? Second, we must offer an opinion as to whether unlisted structures or features on your site are eligible for listing. We need your help determining if any of the following criteria would suggest that anything o your site, including the old farmhouse (photos attached), is eligible. Eligibility does not obligate you to list the property, nor does it necessarily render the project in conflict. Please look over the following criteria and advise us of any facts or . anecdotes we should consider for the old farmhouse or any feature of your property that might be eligible. We must offer an eligibility opinion to SHPO for their concurrence, and it must be 'Yes' or 'No', not "Maybe'. Onl if they concur that a property is eligible must we address the question of whether or not the project will affect the property. In the case of the farmhouse, it should not. NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION "The following criteria are designed to guide the states, federal agencies and the Secretary of the Interior in evaluating potential entries for the National Register. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: A. that are associated with events that have made significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; r~ L_J or C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or metho of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess 7/19/2006 Page 4 of 6 high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Criteria Considerations (Exceptions): Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions o used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the followin categories: A. a religious property deriving primary significance from architectural o artistic distinction or historical importance; or B. a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or • C. a birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no other appropriate site or building directly associated with hi or her productive life; or D. a cemetery that derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or >from association with historic events; or E. a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or F. a property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own historical significance; or G. a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of • exceptional importance. APPLYING THE CRITERIA The two principal issues to consider in determining eligibility for the 7/19/2006 Page 5 of 6 • National Register are "significance" and "integrity." A property may have "significance" for association with important events o patterns of history (criterion A); for association with an important historical figure (criterion B); as an important example of period architecture, landscape, or engineering (criterion C); or for the information it is likely to yield (criterion D, applied to archaeological sites and districts, and sometimes applied to certain types of structures) A National Register nomination must demonstrate how a property is significant in at least one of these four areas. For properties nominated under criterion A, frequently cited areas of significance are agriculture, community planning and development, social history, commerce, industry, politics and government, education, recreation and culture, and others. Fo technical reasons, criterion B (significant person) nominations are rare. Criterion C (architecture) is cited for most, but not all, nominations of historic buildings. Archaeological sites are always nominated under criterion D, but may also have significance under one or more of the other three criteria. Besides meeting one or more of the above criteria, a property must also have "integrity" of "location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association." This means that the property must retain enough of its • historic physical character (or in the case of archaeological sites, intac archaeological features) to represent its historic period and associations adequately." We would appreciate a reply at your earliest convenience so that we can submit our eligibility determination to SHPO as soon as possible. Don't hesitate to call me or Harry Tsomides at (919) 715-6817 if you have any questions. Best regards, Mark • Mark Taylor, PE, CPESC 7/19/2006 EcoLo~~c Engineering/Construction June 6, 2006 Mr. Tyler Howe Tribal Historic Preservation Specialist Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians P.O. Box 455 Cherokee, NC 28719 4321-A S. Elm-Eugene St. • Greensboro, NC 27406 (336) 335-1108 • Fax 335-3141 www.ecologic-nc:com RE: Ripshin Branch Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project, Ashe County, NC Dear Mr. Howe, The purpose of this letter is to request review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to archaeological or religious resources from a potential stream and wetland restoration project on the referenced site by the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). Portions of USGS topo showing the site's general location and approximate property lines are enclosed. The Ripshin Branch site has been identified for the purpose of providing in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded, channelized and lacking riparian vegetation. Photographs of one old structure on the property are enclosed. We are in discussion with the NC State Historic Preservation Office regarding the structure's eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. We thank you in advance for your timely consideration of this request. Please feel free to contact EEP's project manager copied below with any questions that you have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project. Sincerely, Mark Taylor, PE, CPESC Project Consultant • C: Harry Tsomides, Project Manager, NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (919) 715-6817 Enclosures: Vicinity Map and Site Location Map Photos of On-site Structure Technology Serving Ecology ~.? Printed on rerycled paper.