The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20120182 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan draft final_20120104Confluence Engineering, PC 16 Broad Street Asheville, NC 28801 828.255.5530 TRANSMITTAL Date: November 30, 2011 To: Julie Cahill, EEP 5 Ravenscroft Dr. Asheville, NC 28801 Subject: Hogan Creek Mitigation Project DENR Contract Number 090856601 H U C 03040101 Surry County, North Carolina No. Date Description 1 12/11 r)df of Draft Final Mitiaation Plan Julie — thanks for the comments on the Draft Mitigation Plan, sent on November 18. We have revised the document to address the comments and we trust that the revisions do not warrant further explanation. Please note that some of the information in the appendices has changed, notably the geomorphic summary tables and the cover sheet of the preliminary plans. If you have any questions or comments before sending to the agency review team, please call me at 255.5530, x 19. Thanks. Andrew Bick, PE MITIGATION PLAN — DRAFT FINAL Hogan Creek Stream Mitigation Project Surry County, North Carolina EEP Project No. 94708 Upper Yadkin River Basin Cataloging Unit 03040101 Prepared for: r"';J Fcowstem ..-',n a ement PROGRAM NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 December 2011 Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 MITIGATION PLAN — DRAFT FINAL Hogan Creek Stream Mitigation Project Surry County, North Carolina EEP Project No. 94708 Upper Yadkin River Basin Cataloging Unit 03040101 Prepared for: E ios stem anmement PROGRAM NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 Prepared by: Confluence Engineering, PC 16 Broad Street Asheville, NC 28801 828.255.5530 December 2011 Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) provides off -site compensatory wetland and stream mitigation to private sector, state government agencies, municipalities, schools, military bases and other applicants through its In Lieu Fee Programs. EEP is proposing the Hogan Creek Stream Mitigation Project (project) to help fulfill stream mitigation requirements accepted by this program for the Upper Yadkin River Basin (CU 03040101). Through this project, EEP proposes to restore and enhance approximately 4,109 linear feet (LF) of Hogan Creek and three unnamed tributaries (UTs), provide livestock fencing and alternative water sources to keep livestock out of the streams, remove invasive plant species across the project, establish native riparian buffers, and preserve approximately 5,673 LF of relatively un- impacted forested streams. Based on preliminary estimates from the design proposed in this Mitigation Plan, the Hogan Creek Stream Mitigation Project will net 4,994 stream mitigation credits through a combination of restoration, enhancement I and II, and preservation. This Mitigation Plan describes specific project goals and objectives as they relate to EEP's programmatic goals (watershed planning -based mitigation), provides baseline data on the existing conditions of Hogan Creek and its UTs at the project site, and describes the methodologies that were used develop the preliminary design. The Mitigation Plan also outlines the performance standards and monitoring protocol that will be used to evaluate the project's success, and it details long term management strategies for protecting and maintaining the restoration site in perpetuity. This Mitigation Plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following: • Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14). • EEP In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010 These documents govern EEP operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation. Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ....................................... ..............................1 2.0 SITE SELECTION .......................................................................................................... ..............................2 2.1 DIRECTIONS TO SITE .......................................................................................................... ..............................2 2.2 HISTORICAL CONDITIONS AND FUTt?RE LAND USE TRENDS .............................................. ..............................2 2.3 SITE MODIFICATIONS, STRESSORS AND ECOLOGICAL SERVICES ........................................ ..............................9 2.4 E\-OLUTIONARY TRENDS ................................................................................................... ..............................9 2.5 PROJECT SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ............................................................................................ .............................12 3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT ........................................................................... .............................14 4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION ......................................................................................... .............................16 5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS ............................................................................... .............................17 6.0 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE ................................................................................ .............................18 6.1 INITIAL ALLOCATION OF RELEASED CREDITS ................................................................... .............................18 6.2 SUBSEQUENT CREDIT RELEASES ....................................................................................... .............................18 7.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN ......................................................................................... .............................19 7.1 TARGET STREA1\IS ............................................................................................................. .............................19 7.2 TARGET PLANT CO1\I1\IUNITIES ......................................................................................... .............................20 7.3 DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND DATA ANALYSES ............................................................... .............................20 7.3.1 Design Discharge .............................................................................................. .............................20 7.3.2 Sediment Transport ........................................................................................... .............................21 7.3.3 Cross Section ..................................................................................................... .............................21 7.3.4 Plan and Profile .................................................................................................. .............................22 7.3.5 In- Stream Structures ......................................................................................... .............................23 8.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN ................................................................................................ .............................23 9.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ................................................................................. .............................24 10.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................... .............................25 11.0 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................................................ .............................25 12.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................................ .............................26 13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ....................................................................................... .............................26 14.0 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................. .............................26 15.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... .............................27 APPENDIX A: SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENTS APPENDIX B: BASELINE INFORMATION APPENDIX C: MITIGATION WORK PLAN DATA AND ANALYSES APPENDIX D: PRELIMINARY PLANS Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 1.0 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The EEP develops River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) to guide its restoration activities within each of the state's 54 cataloging units. RBRPs delineate specific watersheds that exhibit both the need and opportunity for wetland, stream and riparian buffer restoration. These watersheds are called Targeted Local Watersheds (TLWs) and receive priority for EEP planning and restoration project funds. The 2009 Upper Yadkin RBRB Restoration Priorities (www.nceep.net /services /restplans /Upper Yadkin RBRP 2009.pdf identified the Candiff Creek /Hogan Creek 14 -digit HUC 03040101110060 as a TLW due to water quality and habitat impacts from past and present agricultural practices. Agriculture is the primary land use in the watershed (41 % agriculture land cover) and the RBRP identified non - forested buffers and livestock operations as major stressors to water quality. There are 26 permitted animal operations and 25% of the watershed has non - forested riparian buffers. The site assessment phase of the project identified other stressors as well, including bank erosion, sediment deposition, disconnection of the streams and floodplains, and exotic plant species. The project was identified as an opportunity to improve water quality and aquatic and terrestrial habitats within the TLW. In addition to being within an EEP TLW, the upper Hogan Creek subwatershed has been identified as a priority area for stream restoration and agricultural BMPs as part of EEP's initial Ararat River Local Watershed Planning (LWP) effort (EcoEngineering, 2008). The project goals address stressors identified in the TLW and LWP priority subwatershed, and include the following: • Improve water quality in Hogan Creek and the UTs through reductions in sediment and nutrient inputs from local sources; • Create conditions for dynamic equilibrium of water and sediment movement between the supply reaches and project reaches; • Promote floodwater attenuation and secondary functions associated with more frequent and extensive floodwater contact times; • Improve in- stream habitat by increasing the diversity of bedform features; • Enhance and protect native riparian vegetation communities; and • Reduce fecal, nutrient, and sediment loads to project streams by promoting and implementing livestock best management practices. The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives: • Restoration of the dimension, pattern, profile of approximately 2,493 LF (proposed) of Hogan Creek and two UTs; • Restoration of the dimension and profile (Enhancement 1) of approximately 1,200 LF of Hogan Creek; • Limited channel work coupled with livestock exclusion and /or invasive species control (Enhancement 11) on approximately 416 LF along two UT; • Livestock exclusion fencing and alternative water source installations; • Invasive plant species control measures across the entire project wherever necessary; and • Preservation of approximately 5,673 LF relatively un- impacted forested streams in permanent conservation easement. Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 1 2.0 SITE SELECTION 2.1 Directions to Site The Hogan Creek project site (Figure 1) is located southeast of Level Cross in Surry County, North Carolina. The site is accessed from 1 -77 north out of Statesville. Turn east off 1 -77 at exit 85 (NC 268 Bypass) and travel approximately 3 miles to the intersection with NC 268. Turn east and travel approximately 12 miles to a south turn onto Miller Gap Road (SR2088). The site is located approximately 2 miles south of NC 268 on Miller Gap Road, which bisects the project site at the bridge over Hogan Creek. The project site is bordered to the north by Trajan Trail, to the south by Anderson Road, and to the west by Siloam Road. Latitude and longitude for the site are 36.321609 N and 80.602389 W, respectively. 2.2 Historical Conditions and Future Land Use Trends Reference is made in the following discussions to project reaches and design stationing as shown on the attached preliminary plans (Appendix D). The project site falls within two parcels owned by Marion Chilton and Marion H. Chilton, Jr. encompassing a total of 179 acres. The Chiltons currently operate a cattle farm on the two parcels. The majority of the cattle operations take place on a 25 -acre field with barns on the northeast side of Miller Gap Road and on a 13 -acre field on the opposite side of the road. The site also includes seven 1 to 3 -acre fields scattered around the parcels that are accessed by farm paths. The total cleared area measures approximately 56 acres (about one -third of the total land area). Based on a review of an aerial photograph of the project site from 1966 (Figure 6), the left floodplain of Hogan Creek upstream of Miller Gap Road and both floodplains downstream of the road have been maintained as field or pasture for over 50 years. A row of mature trees, generally one stem wide, has been present along the left bank of Hogan Creek upstream of the road and on both banks downstream of the road during this period. Aerial photographs from 1966 through 2010 (Figures 4 through 6) indicate that land use practices and the extent of cleared land at the project site have remained consistent over the past five decades. Based on the series of aerial photographs, the right bank of Hogan Creek between the upstream project limits and the confluence with UT2 has been forested over this same time period, as has the UT1 valley and the upstream 90 percent of the UT3 valley. The age of the trees (estimated at roughly 50 years for a 12 -inch diameter oak, growth factor of 4) in these upland areas supports this conclusion. The existing Hogan Creek crossing at Miller Gap Road is a triple 7 -foot by 9.5 -foot CMP arch culvert with concrete headwalls. Based on the relatively large size and good condition of the crossing, it appears to have been constructed within the past twenty years. The alignment of Miller Gap Road has not changed since at least 1966. Invasive plant species, particularly kudzu, are a significant problem at the site. Hogan Creek between Stations 20 +00 and 30 +00 and UT2 between Stations 10 +00 and 15 +50 are the reaches most severely impacted; kudzu is the dominant ground cover and has infested most of the canopy trees in these areas. A recent infestation of kudzu was noted encroaching into the wooded upstream reach of UT3. In October 2006, Surry County issued Land Use Plan 2015 which describes growth, land use changes and future development policies through 2015. The Hogan Creek site is located in a rural land use area and this land use classification extends four miles or more in all directions from the site, inclusive of the Hogan Creek project catchment (Figure 2). According to the 2015 plan, the best use of land within the Hogan Creek watershed will be agriculture, low density residential, forestry and other similar practices. Technical Memorandum Task 2, Upper Yadkin Basin Local Watershed Plan (EcoEngineering, 2008) identified the Hogan Creek sub - watershed as a high priority for stream restoration because of its low population density and agricultural land uses. Current and projected future land use for this watershed supports an investment in restoration at this site. Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 I" fL w KEY: R - RESTORATION EI - ENHANCEMENTI EII - ENHANCEMENT II P - PRESERVATION SEMENT 780UNDARY w 0' 400° 800' 12W PARCEL W R1 (EI) \ HOG (R) 1 � HOGAN R3 (R) U. 31(R) 9"r :Ell) UT3-(P) I f IMAGE DATE: 2010 As Shown Hogan Creek Restoration Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map Surry County, NC Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 3 NIJ . tN� 1 1- ,�� Hill. rckss Q I � 6 C 1� D B. DARY - } Z�L PAk6EL BOUNDARY ✓. ,� � } / J e If ®r - - rr �� •n_, is � •. � it -•4�;, �_�' _1 �� a � _ ^ T Scale: 1" = 2,000' Hogan Creek Restoration Figure 2: Watershed Map Surry County, NC Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 4 3$119471 36' IV SW' Soil Map--Surry Ccunty, Ncrtb Carol ina [Hogan Creek Site] Map Sale. 5.8,690 if priniaa or T .4c (8.6'x ' 1" I —L de L N Meters 0 e11 100 200 390 w F991 0 200 400 800 1,200 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 9176!2017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Sail Survey Page t of 3 V1- I P1421 36'18'.f' Scale: As Shown Hogan Creek Restoration Surry Figure 3: Soils Map County, NC Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 Scale: As Shown Hogan Creek Restoration Surry Figure 4: Current Conditions County, NC (2010 Aerial) Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 Scale: As Shown Hogan Creek Restoration Surry Figure 5: Historical Conditions County, NC (1982 Aerial) Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 J 1 h A6 f i i • 7 r � � Site Location a r� Legend :4 Parcels f 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 Map Production Date - August 2011 Feet Scale: As Shown Hogan Creek Restoration Figure 6: Historical Conditions Surry County, NC (1966 Aerial) Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 2.3 Site Modifications, Stressors and Ecological Services Throughout the project area site modifications have diminished the ecological services provided by riparian buffers and adjacent floodplains. Farming operations over the past several decades have deforested riparian buffers, a water quality and habitat stressor identified for this TLW. The creeks and adjacent floodplain areas have also been impacted by levee construction. A prominent levee, measuring up to 3 feet above the adjacent floodplain, exists along the left bank of Hogan Creek Reach 1 and on the right bank in Reach 2. Another levee, aligned perpendicular to Hogan Creek near Station 21 +20, is present on the left floodplain; the landowners indicted that this perpendicular levee was constructed several decades ago to provide flood relief to the downstream reach. Three -foot high levees are present on both banks of UT3 between a culvert on a farm road at Station 10 +20 and the confluence with Hogan Creek. In addition to restricting floodplain access on UT3, the levees constitute a significant pinch point in the Hogan Creek floodplain. Judging from the low sinuosity of this downstream reach relative to the sinuosity of the less disturbed upstream reach, the alignment of UT3 appears to have been straightened when the levees were constructed. Widespread bank erosion, identified as a major stressor in this TLW, is visible throughout Hogan Creek and within the impacted reaches of the UTs. A clear -span bridge is present on a farm road over UT2 near station 14 +00 and erosion on the left bank of UT2 threatens the stability of this road near station 10 +50. A well supplies water to cattle adjacent to Hogan Creek Reach 2 and livestock fencing is present along the left bank of Hogan Creek between the upstream property line and station 16 +50, along both banks within Reach 2 and on UT2 upstream of Station 12 +50. However, cattle have direct access to Hogan Creek Reach 1 and the downstream end of UT2, exacerbating bank erosion and allowing direct nutrient and fecal inputs to the stream. Table 1 provides a summary of stressors and ecological services needing enhancement in this project area. Table 1. Stressors and Proposed Ecological Service Enhancements Stressor Ecological Services Needing Enhancement Levees disconnecting streams from floodplains Flood attenuation, fine sediment storage, maintenance of stable channel bed and banks Bank erosion and mid - channel sediment deposition Equilibrium sediment transport, maintenance of in- stream riffle and pool habitats Buffer deforestation Filtration of runoff, thermal regulation, input of organic matter Invasive, exotic vegetation Riparian buffer habitat, species diversity Direct livestock access to streams Protection of water quality from nutrient inputs. 2.4 Evolutionary Trends Reach 1 of Hogan Creek generally flows through the low point of its valley, and judging by valley topography, it does not appear that the channel position within the valley was altered significantly during the levee construction activities. It does appear that the bankfull channel alignment and cross sectional dimensions were modified enough to create bank stability and sediment transport problems. In Reach 2 of Hogan Creek, the topography indicates that the low point of the valley is 60 to 80 feet south of the current channel alignment; it appears that the channel was shifted north at some time prior to 1966. This conclusion is supported by data from three hand auger borings in the low area of the right floodplain, which encountered gravel indicative of the one -time creek bed at depths of 3 to 4 feet below existing grade. Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 Hogan Creek appears to be near the midpoint of a trend from a C -type steam to an F -type stream, as evidenced by the following (refer to project site photographs, section 2.5): • Bank erosion; • Leaning and fallen trees; • Channel cross sectional areas up to twice the estimated bankfull areas; • Bank heights up to twice the bankfull depth; and • Mid - channel sediment bars. Bedrock is visible in the channel bed throughout much of Hogan Creek and the tributaries. Exposed rocks appear to be gneisses and schists. The Soil Survey of Surry County indicates most of the rock in the area strikes northeast- southwest and dips northwest. This attitude of the rock is not apparent from surface observations of the stream pattern or topography; the shape and alignment Hogan Creek and tributary valleys appear to have been governed by rocky hillsides, which are evident in the topography. Soils on the Hogan Creek floodplain are mapped as the Colvard series, described in the soil survey as a fine sandy loam originating from recent alluvium with a depth to bedrock generally more than 5 feet. Soils in the tributary valleys are mapped as the Fairview series, described as a clayey loam and the product of in -situ weathering; the depth to bedrock in the Fairview series is indicated to be more than 5 feet. The soil survey provides general information about soils but it cannot describe reach -scale historic alluvial deposits, isolated bedrock outcrops and other geologic influences. The aforementioned bedrock has prevented channel down - cutting; incised channel conditions are the result of the levees, which have restricted floodplain access and confined flows greater than bankfull to within the channel. The confinement of these large flows has lead to bank erosion, which in turn has lead to channel widening, mid - channel sediment deposition and loss of near -bank vegetation. Left unchecked, this process of widening and mid - channel deposition will likely continue as leaning trees fall and expose erodible soils. The evolutionary trend suggests that the stream will migrate laterally and breach the levees until the system eventually reaches equilibrium with its water and sediment supply. Evidence of this process at work can be found in a short meander bend between Stations 21 +00 and 24 +00. Observations of recent bank slumping and review of aerial photographs (1982 and 2010) indicate that the channel has eroded roughly 10 feet into the left bank. This response of lateral migration is evident in an area that is devoid of mature trees and their stabilizing root masses. Similar meander bends would likely be evident elsewhere, if not for some remaining mature trees on the banks. Appendix C includes an inventory drawing showing areas of significant bank erosion, tree falls, debris jams, and mid - channel and lateral bars. Judging by the fresh conditions of the wood, most of the tree falls shown on the inventory appear to have occurred within the last year or two. In the 14 months since the initial site visit, new tree falls have been observed in both reaches of Hogan Creek and bars have shifted in size and shape; these are both indications that the stream is not close to reaching a state of dynamic equilibrium. UT1, UT2 and UT3 are similar to each other in terms of valley and channel slope. Each of these tributaries has formed a sinuous pattern within a confined valley. The belt widths of these streams appear to be governed by bedrock at the valley walls. Observations of bank soil profiles in Hogan Creek reveal a buried topsoil layer is present about 2 feet below existing grade, indicating that the Hogan Creek valley was subjected to significant aggradation, likely from surface erosion following initial land disturbances in the 19th century. Under this scenario, the tributaries were also subjected to this aggradation process and observations of fine - grained soils in the tributary banks generally support this idea. The highly sinuous tributary patterns may be a response to large volumes of deposited sediment filling the valleys. The forest in the upstream reaches of these tributaries appears to have recovered significantly since initial disturbance and the streams are generally stable, aided by deep rooted vegetation and frequent bedrock outcrops at the valley walls. Over the downstream 100 LF of UT1, the stream makes a tight meander bend through a highly incised reach (bank heights at least twice the bankfull maximum depth) as the tributary reaches its confluence with Hogan Creek. Observations of active bank erosion indicate that this downstream reach is likely to avulse without intervention. Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 10 Upstream of station 6 +50 on UT2, the stream is highly sinuous and generally stable, with isolated bank erosion at the outside of some meander bends. Between stations 6 +50 and 11 +00, the valley is confined topographically and by the aforementioned farm road, which was constructed on the left hill slope. Bank erosion near Station 10 +50 has caused the partial collapse of the road and a 40 -foot length of fencing along the road is currently suspended in air. Between Stations 11 +00 and the confluence with Hogan Creek, the UT2 channel is incised with bank heights of twice the bankfull maximum depth, and the buffer is dominated by kudzu. The reach of UT2 downstream of Station 10 +00 lacks the appropriate geomorphic characteristics and buffer vegetation to heal itself without first causing widespread bank erosion. Instability within the UT3 system begins upstream of an 18 -inch culvert on a farm road near station 10 +20; the banks immediately upstream of the culvert are unstable, apparently due to culvert effects on flow. Downstream of the culvert, bank heights are up to 4 feet higher than the estimated bankfull maximum depth due to the aforementioned levees. This high level of incision has resulted in a very low frequency of floodplain access and flows reaching levee elevations are producing bed shear stress more than twice that estimated for bankfull. The downstream reach of UT3 will not regain floodplain access and heal to a stable dimension, pattern and profile without the removal of the levees and restoration of the appropriate geomorphic characteristics. Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 11 2.5 Project Site Photographs Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 12 r Hogan Creek, looking downstream from Agricultural field and levee looking downstream station 12 +50; bank erosion and mid - channel along left bank of Hogan Creek from station bar deposition; March 8, 2011 14 +00; March 8, 2011 ,k. pia Hogan Creek, looking downstream from Hogan Creek, looking downstream at station station 16 +00; leaning trees, bank erosion; 22 +50; lateral migration, mid - channel bar mid - channel bar; September 12, 2011 deposition; October 18, 2010 r. ti •a Hogan Creek, looking downstream from Hogan Creek, looking downstream from station station 27 +25; buffer deforestation and 33 +75; narrow buffers; levee on right bank; kudzu infestation; March 8, 2011 March 8, 2011 Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 12 Hogan Creek looking downstream from station 35 +00; bank erosion and mid - channel deposition; April 8, 2011 UT1 looking upstream from station'! 0+00 at downstream end of preservation reach; April 8, 2011 UT2, looking downstream from station 10 +50; bank erosion threatening farm road on left; April 8, 2011 UT1 looking downstream from station'! 0+00; bank erosion at confluence with Hogan Creek; March 8, 2011 UT2, looking downstream from station 12 +50; buffer deforestation and kudzu infestation; March 8, 2011 UT3, looking downstream from station 11 +00. Straightened channel with levees on both banks; March 8, 2011 Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 13 3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes portions of the following parcels. A copy of the land protection instrument(s) will be included in Appendix A upon completion of the documents. Table 2: Summary of Project Land Parcels and Site Protection Instruments Parcel Site Deed Book Acreage ID Landowner PIN County Protection and Page protected Instrument Number Parcel A Chilton, Marion 5924 -00 -80 -2896 Surry Conservation TBD 17.4 ac Easement Parcel 131 Chilton, Marion H. Jr. 5923 -00 -79 -9259 Surry Conservation TBD 13.5 ac Easement All site protection instruments require 60 -day advance notification to the Corps and the State prior to any action to void, amend, or modify the document. No such action shall take place unless approved by the State. Figure 7 shows the current parcel boundaries and the proposed conservation easement boundaries. Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 14 _* I 'r ; r - A L a'� f PARCEL BOUNDA y F \ \ EASEMENT\ HOGAN CREEK BOUNDARY L UT1 ^- , awl 9 r� VT2 e� r If w 0' 400' 800' 1200' z IMAGE DATE: 2010' Scale: As Shown Hogan Creek Restoration Figure 7: Site Protection Surry County, NC Instrument Boundaries Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 15 4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION Table 3: Project Baseline Information Project Name Hogan Creek Restoration County Surry Project Area (acres) 40 (conservation and temporary construction easements) Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 36.321609 N, 80.602389 W Project Watershed Summary Information Physiographic Province Piedmont River Basin Yadkin USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit 03040101 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit 03040101110060 DWQ Sub -basin Pee Dee River Subbasin 03 -07 -02 Project Drainage Area (acres) 1,514 ac (2.37 mil) Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 0.4% CGIA Land Use Classification Managed Herbaceous Cover, Broadleaf Deciduous Forest Land Reach Summary Information Parameters Reach 1 Hogan Creek Reach 2 Hogan Creek Main Stem UT1 Main Stem UT2 UT3 Existing length of reach (LF) 2,128 876 1,395 2,983 1,223 Valley classification (Rosgen) VIII VIII VI VI VI Drainage area (acres) 1,479 1,514 60 81 18 NCDWQ stream identification score 40 37 31 31.5 32.5 NCDWQ Water Quality Classification C C C C C Morphological Description (Rosgen stream type) C4 C4 E4b E4b G4 Evolutionary trend C -F C -F Eb -G Eb -G Eb -G Underlying mapped soils CsA CsA CsA, FsE FsE FsE Drainage class well drained well drained well drained well drained well drained Soil Hydric status not hydric not hydric not hydric not hydric not hydric Slope 0.007 0.005 0.031 0.021 0.030 FEMA classification AE AE Not in SFHA Not in SFHA Not in SFHA Native vegetation community Felsic Mesic Forest Felsic Mesic Forest Felsic Mesic Forest Felsic Mesic Forest Felsic Mesic Forest Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation 40 10 <10 40 20 Wetland Summary Information Parameters Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Wetland 3 Wetland 4 Size of Wetland (acres) 0.09 0.02 0.13 0.1 Wetland Type (non- riparian, riparian riverine orriparian non - riverine) riparian non - riverine riparian non - riverine riparian non - riverine riparian non - riverine Mapped Soil Series CsA CsA and FsE CsA and FsE CsA and FsE Drainage class well drained well drained well drained well drained Soil Hydric Status not hydric not hydric not hydric not hydric Source of Hydrology Creek ( oxbow) Toe seep Toe seep Impoundment Hydrologic Impairment none none none none Native vegetation community Dist. Small Stream/ Narrow FP Forest Dist. Small Stream/ Narrow FP Forest Dist. Small Stream/ Narrow FP Forest herbaceous t: Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation 80 <10 <10 <10 Regulatory Considerations Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation Waters of the United States - Section 404 Y N Waters of the United States - Section 401 Y N Endangered Species Act Y Y CE Approved 9/30/11 Historic Preservation Act N N/A Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) N N/A FEMA Floodplain Compliance Y N CLOMR in progress Essential Fisheries Habitat N N/A Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 16 5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS Mitigation credits presented in these tables are projections based upon site design. Upon completion of site construction the project components and credits data will be revised to be consistent with the as -built condition. Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 17 Table 4: Projected Mitigation Credits Hogan Creek Stream Mitigation Surry County, North Carolina EEP Project No. 94708 Stream Mitigation Credits Type Restoration Enhancement I Enhancement II Preservation Total 2,493 1,200 166 1,136 Project Components Project Component -or- Reach ID Proposed Stationing /Location Existing (Thalweg) LF 'Approach Restoration -or- Restoration Equivalent Proposed LF Mitigation Ratio Hogan Reach 1 STA 1000 -2200 1,331 P2 El 1,200 1:1 Hogan Reach 1 STA 2200 -2884 797 P2 R 684 1:1 Hogan Reach 2 STA 2935 -3897 876 P2 R 962 1:1 UT1, 1A, 1B Upstream of STA 1000 1,485 Preservation P 1,485 5:1 UT1 STA 1000 -1066 66 P3 Ell 66 2.5:1 UT2, 2A, 2B, 2C Upstream of STA 650 3,225 Preservation P 3,225 5:1 UT2 STA 650 -1000 370 P3 Ell 350 2.5:1 UT2 STA 1000 -1555 633 P2 R 555 1:1 UT3 Upstream of STA 940 963 Preservation P 963 5:1 UT3 STA 940 -1232 260 P2 R 292 1:1 Component Summary Restoration Level Proposed Stream Length (LF) Restoration 2,493 Enhancement 1 1,200 Enhancement 11 416 Preservation 5,673 Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 17 6.0 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built survey of the mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary US Department of the Army (DA) authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is required for construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the Interagency Review Team (IRT), will determine if performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release schedules below. In cases where some performance standards have not been met, credits may still be released depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended, depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release of project credits will be subject to the criteria described as follows: Table 5: Stream Credits Release Schedule Monitoring Credit Release Activity Interim Total Year Release Released 0 Initial Allocation - see requirements above 30% — 30% 1 First year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met 10% 40% 2 Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being 10% 50% (65 %`) met 3 Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met 10% 60% (75 %`) 4 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being 10% 70% (85 %`) met 5 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met 15% 100% and project has received closeout approval 6.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the EEP without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities: a. Approval of the final Mitigation Plan b. Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE covering the property c. Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; per the EEP Instrument, construction means that a mitigation site has been constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an as -built report has been produced. As -built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to project closeout, if appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits. d. Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA permit issuance is not required. 6.2 Subsequent Credit Releases All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream projects a reserve of 15% of a site's total stream credits shall be released after two bankfull events have occurred, in separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. In the event that less than two bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits shall be at the discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, the EEP will submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation substantiating achievement of criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be included with the annual monitoring reports. Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 18 7.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN 7.1 Target Streams The Hogan Creek site affords the opportunity to address the major stressors described in the RBRP (EEP, 2009) and the Local Watershed Plan Technical Memorandum (EcoEngineering, 2008) for the Hogan Creek watershed. The project's conceptual design phase focused on developing objectives that would enhance the ecological services threatened by these stressors. (The proposed conservation easement boundaries will encompass the four wetlands at the site, but no work is proposed and no wetland mitigation credit is being sought.) Table 6 below summarizes the links between each design objective proposed for this project and the ecological service improvements that can be achieved on a reach -by -reach basis. Specific site constraints and design measures for each reach, along with the target Rosgen stream types, are presented in Table 7. Table 6: Design Objectives and Ecological Services Reach Target Stream Type (Slope) Project Reach Design Objective Enhanced Ecological Services Hogan Hogan Levee removal; in- stream structures; bank grading; Hogan R1 C4 (0.007) bedrock in profile; culverts at bankfull benches; new off -line channel segments; Reach 1 Reach 2 UT1 UT2 UT3 Remove levees; restore stream to a. Flood attenuation ✓ ✓ ✓ floodplain interaction. b. Fine sediment storage a. Maintenance of stable channel bed and banks. Create new channel dimension, b. Equilibrium sediment transport ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ pattern and profile C. Maintenance of in- stream riffle and pool habitats Use in- stream structures and a. Maintenance of stable channel bank grading to promote stability, bed and banks. riffle and pool formation and b. Equilibrium sediment transport ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ sediment transport continuity for C. Maintenance of in- stream riffle on -line reaches. and pool habitats Establish 50 -foot wide riparian a. Filtration of runoff buffers with diverse group of b. Thermal regulation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ native species. C. Input of organic matter Eradicate invasive exotic vegetation and seed source; a. Riparian buffer habitat ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ replant buffer areas with native b. Robust species diversity vegetation. Install additional livestock fencing a. Protection of water quality from and ford crossings to restrict nutrient and pathogen inputs. ✓ ✓ livestock access to streams; b. Protection of banks from provide alternative water source. livestock trampling Table 7. Target Streams, Constraints and Reach - Specific Measures Reach Target Stream Type (Slope) Constraints Reach - Specific Measures Farming operations on left bank; Levee removal; in- stream structures; bank grading; Hogan R1 C4 (0.007) bedrock in profile; culverts at bankfull benches; new off -line channel segments; downstream end riparian buffers; invasive species removal; livestock fencing; ford crossing Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 19 Table 7. Target Streams, Constraints and Reach - Specific Measures Farming operations on left bank; Levee removal; new off -line channel; in- stream Hogan R2 C4 (0.006) culverts at upstream end structures; bank grading; bankfull benches; riparian buffers; invasive species removal UT1 B4 (0.031) Mature forest; confluence with Bank sloping and minor re- alignment at downstream Hogan Creek end Farm road and new bridge crossing; New off -line channel; in- stream structures; bank UT2 B4 (0.022) right -of -way; mature forest grading; bankfull benches; riparian buffers; invasive species removal; livestock fencing Mature forest upstream; confluence New off -line channel; in- stream structures; bank UT3 B4 (0.025) with Hogan Creek grading; bankfull benches; riparian buffers; invasive species removal 7.2 Target Plant Communities The target plant community is a more robust and diverse version of the existing Felsic Mesic Forest plant community identified in the upland and relatively undisturbed reaches of the three UTs. In upland areas where stream and floodplain grading are not proposed but where invasive exotic plants have encroached, buffer restoration design will include the following: • Eradication of invasive exotic species; • Preservation of desirable existing species; and • Supplemental planting with selected native trees and shrubs to encourage a more diverse version of the target community. Most of the areas proposed for stream and floodplain grading are currently pasture or hay field. The target plant community for these areas will be the same as the upland areas, but species within this community will be selected for their adaptation to streambank and floodplain conditions. Appendix C includes a table with several candidate species for buffer planting. 7.3 Design Methodology and Data Analyses The design methodology incorporated form -based and analytical approaches, using a combination of statistical relationships and analyses to arrive at a design discharge for each reach. Other primary design criteria, such as cross section dimensions, pattern and profile, are all linked to the design discharge and to each other. The following sections summarize each phase of the methodology; supporting calculations and data are included in Appendix C. 7.3.1 Design Discharge In order to estimate a range of design discharge for each reach, we evaluated regional regression equations, analyzed field bankfull indicators using hydraulic models, and considered sediment transport competence using critical discharge for initiation of bed material mobility. In addition to evaluating discharge at various surveyed riffle cross sections on the project reaches, we also evaluated the predicted discharge for the Mill Creek reference reach as a check of the analysis methodology. As indicated in the table, there is considerable spread in the predicted design discharge values. The USGS 2 -year estimate typically provides an upper bound on the bankfull discharge while the critical discharge estimates typically provide a lower bound. (The nearest USGS stream gauging station is not particularly helpful for our analyses; it is located on the Mitchell River with a drainage area nearly 40 times larger than the project reach.) The critical discharge estimates based on competence for the bar sample Dloo appear to over - predict bankfull discharge for Hogan Creek and under - predict bankfull discharge for the two tributaries and the reference reach. The field indicators and the critical discharge based on pavement D84 appear to be reasonable predictions, judging by their close agreement to each Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 20 other and the regional curve. Selected design discharge values are indicated Table 8 below. We did not perform hydraulic or sediment transport analyses for UT1 since the bank sloping work proposed is minor and will not significantly affect channel dimension, pattern or profile. Table 8: Design Discharge Estimates (cfs) Design Reach NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve USGS 2 -year Hydraulic Model using Field Indicators Critical Discharge (Pavement Da4) Critical Discharge (Bar D,00) Selected Design Value Hogan Reach 163 211 201 -308 111 -163 215 -290 170 Hogan Reach 2 166 215 220 142 356 180 UT2 20 22 25 8 3 20 UT3 7 7 28 3 1 7 Mill Creek R.R. 284 385 191 -196 173 -270 77 -87 N/A 7.3.2 Sediment Transport Table 8 above summarizes sediment transport competence analyses; supporting data are included in Appendix C. Our analyses indicate the design streams (in terms of cross section and profile) will transport the size of the large bed materials sampled at the site. We also evaluated sediment transport capacity and continuity between the supply and design reaches, using unit stream power as the indicator parameter. We compared stream power over a range of stages up to and above the bankfull stage to check if continuity was achieved. Hydraulic models (HEC -RAS and RIVERMorph) of the existing and design conditions were used to support the sediment transport analyses by providing hydraulic parameters such as hydraulic radius, slope, shear stress, and power. Graphical output of these analyses is included in Appendix C. Given the presence of mid - channel sediment deposition and abundant bedrock in the bed, aggradation is more of a concern that degradation for Hogan Creek. Bars were observed to contain a mixture of coarse gravel (bed material) and fine to medium sand. The sand fraction is likely the product of bank erosion in upstream reaches rather than watershed supply and overland flow given the presence of the levee adjacent to agricultural fields, which tends to trap sediment and confine stream flows. A primary design objective is to create somewhat greater stream power than currently exists in order to minimize the potential for future aggradation from the upstream supply reach. Analyses indicate that the Hogan Creek design reaches have slightly greater unit stream power than the supply reach for stages up to 1.2 to 1.3 times the bankfull stage (about 2.5 times the bankfull discharge). At UT2, unit stream power comparisons show similar values in the supply and design reaches up 2.3 times the bankfull stage (about 5 times the bankfull discharge). At UT3, the supply reach has consistently greater unit stream power than the design reach, but aggradation is not of great concern for UT3 (or UT1 or UT2) because sediment supply is relatively low with the forested headwaters, which will remain forested in conservation easement. 7.3.3 Cross Section Design discharge and sediment transport analyses inform the design of cross section dimensions and shapes; cross section dimensions and shapes along with slope govern hydraulic parameters that are relevant to design. Past experience also informs the cross section design. For example, project monitoring over the past several years has indicated that a newly constructed E or C -type channel with a width -depth ratio less than about 10 can lead to stability problems. We evaluated reference cross sections as indications of bankfull area and general shape, but the design bank slopes are also governed by geotechnical stability needs during the monitoring period in areas where little or no deep- rooted vegetation will be present for the first few growing seasons. Ratios of pool -to -riffle depth and top width are based in part on reference reach data and in part on past experience. Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 21 The design cross sections also account for sediment storage within the channel on point bars and /or in lateral bars upstream of vane structures. This stored sediment is available for transport during large flow events, which promotes long -term stability and sediment transport equilibrium; if sediment is not available for transport within the channel, hungry water conditions can lead to bed and bank scour. 7.3.4 Plan and Profile Plan geometry design is based on multiple factors, chiefly the selected design slope and lateral constraints such as easement boundaries and topography. At a particular plan feature such as a meander bend, geometry is based on a range of dimensionless ratios that have proven to be effective in meeting design objectives while promoting stability. The prime example for plan geometry is radius of curvature ratio; well- vegetated and /or bedrock - influenced reference reaches (Mill Creek and upstream reaches of the UTs) suggest a radius of curvature ratio of 1.0 or less would be desirable, but experience indicates that a ratio less than about 1.8 places undue stresses on newly constructed banks that lack deep rooted vegetation. We note that the geomorphic characteristics of the Mill Creek reference reach are affected by bedrock on the banks and in the bed. We considered reference reaches when developing plan geometry. Our search for a Hogan Creek reference reach included upstream reaches of Hogan itself and several other streams in relatively undisturbed watersheds, primarily in Surry County. We identified a reach of Mill Creek with a stable meander bend in a valley and with bed materials similar to Hogan Creek. For the UTs, we were able to locate stable reference cross sections and /or reaches in upland areas at the project site. Reference cross section /reach data for each project stream are summarized in Appendix C. As with reference cross sections, reference plan form is useful as a general guide for parameters such as belt width, radius of curvature and pool -pool spacing. However, as with low width -depth ratios in reference cross sections, tight radii and pool spacing in reference reaches often cannot be assigned to a design reach without risk of stability problems in the time while vegetation is becoming established. The selected pattern and profile take into account aquatic habitat needs, stability throughout the monitoring period and space constraints. With pattern being directly linked to profile, we considered profile constraints such as existing bedrock outcrops and the culverts on Miller Gap Road, as well as sediment transport equilibrium, when assigning profile grades. We also referenced data from three hand auger borings on the right floodplain of Hogan Creek Reach 2; as mentioned previously, these borings encountered coarse grained sediments indicative of a former creek bed at depths close to the Reach 2 design thalweg. The target stream type for Hogan Creek is a moderately sinuous, moderate width -depth ratio C4, which is appropriate for the relatively flat and wide alluvial valley through which it will flow. Reach 1 will be constructed largely within the existing channel, with modest pattern shifts at station 22 +00 where existing pattern is unstable and near station 27 +00 where the new channel will connect to an abandoned oxbow (wetland 1). The levee on the left bank will be removed, as will a portion of the perpendicular levee near 21 +20. In- stream structures will be incorporated in Reach 1 to promote sediment transport equilibrium, riffle and pool formation, and enhanced bank stability. Bedrock is not anticipated to affect construction significantly because the profile will generally follow the existing thalweg. Reach 2 will be constructed mainly off -line to position the channel in the low point of the valley and provide much improved floodplain access on both banks. The short reach immediately downstream of Miller Gap Road will be left relatively straight, with a pool constructed in order to dissipate energy. We considered enhancing Reach 2 in its existing channel but determined that the result would be sub - optimal in terms of natural riffle and pool formation and floodplain access. In -line enhancement would also require as much if not more earthwork /hauling, significant structure /bioengineering, and considerably more streamflow control during construction than an off -line approach. In the proposed off -line scenario, excess cut material not used to backfill the abandoned channel can be spoiled on -site in upland areas. The target stream type for each of the UTs is a B4, with a moderate width -depth ratio and moderate sinuosity which is suited to the somewhat steeper and more confined tributary valleys. Bankfull benches, cut on 10:1 slopes, will be provided on both banks. The off -line channel segments promote formation of Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 22 riffle and pool sequences while also affording the ability during construction to maintain clean flow separate in the original channel. 7.3.5 In- Stream Structures In- stream structure types and locations were selected based on design stability, habitat enhancement and sediment transport objectives within each reach. Table 9 below provides a summary of specific objectives for the proposed structures. Data and analyses supporting the sizing of stone for in- stream structures are provided in Appendix C. 8.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN EEP shall monitor the site on a regular basis and shall conduct a physical inspection of the site a minimum of once per year throughout the post- construction monitoring period until performance standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site construction and may include the following: Table 10. Maintenance Provisions Component /Feature Table 9. In- Stream Structures Structure Objectives Stream a. Bank stability at channel plugs Geolifts b. Quickly establish deep rooted bank vegetation Rock Vane or Log Vane a. Direct flow toward center of channel vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and b. Promote sediment storage upstream and pool formation downstream a. Center flow Cross Vane / Parabolic Vane b. Mitigate over -wide conditions and lessen potential for mid - channel bar formation Site Boundary C. Promote sediment storage upstream and pool formation downstream means as allowed by site conditions and /or conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, a. Set grade in profile Constructed Riffle or Step b. Provide roughness in bed Structure C. Initiate riffle habitat and sediment transport equilibrium a. Enhance bank stability Root Wad Cluster b. Provide bank roughness C. Establish near -bank cover and pool habitat 8.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN EEP shall monitor the site on a regular basis and shall conduct a physical inspection of the site a minimum of once per year throughout the post- construction monitoring period until performance standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site construction and may include the following: Table 10. Maintenance Provisions Component /Feature Maintenance through project close -out Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include securing of loose coir matting and Stream supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the channel. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows intercept the channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and head - cutting. Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and Vegetation fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species shall be controlled by mechanical and /or chemical methods. Any vegetation control requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations. Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the mitigation site and Site Boundary adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree - blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and /or conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and /or replaced on an as needed basis. Ford Crossing By landowner, as allowed by Conservation Easement. Road Crossing By landowner, as allowed by Conservation Easement. Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 23 9.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS In accordance with the provisions in CFR Title 33, "performance standards that will be used to assess whether the project is achieving its objectives... and should relate to the objectives ... so that the project can be objectively evaluated to determine if it is developing into the desired resource type, providing the expected functions, and attaining any other applicable metrics ". Table 11 below lists proposed success criteria for each proposed ecological service enhancement. While some success criteria are quantitative (e.g. bank height ratio) and others are qualitative (e.g. observations of fine sediment deposition on the floodplain), each is measurable. Year to year comparisons for the various parameters will allow adaptive management to be implemented early on in the monitoring period if necessary in order to reduce the risk of widespread problems. Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 24 Table 11. Performance Standards Proposed Ecological Service Metrics /Success Criteria Enhancements a. Evidence of at least two out -of -bank flows (wrack lines, crest gage data) by year 5 Flood attenuation b. BHR < 1.2 each year Fine sediment storage a. Evidence of fine sediment on floodplain at least twice by year 5 a. Annual changes in riffle cross sectional area generally modest (e.g. <20 %) and Maintenance of stable channel bed exhibit a stabilizing trend. and banks b. Annual width -depth ratio changes generally modest (e.g. <20 %) and exhibit a stabilizing trend a. No trends in widespread development of robust (e.g. comprised of coarse material and /or vegetated actively diverting flow) mid - channel bar features Equilibrium sediment transport b. Majority of riffle pebble counts indicate maintenance or coarsening of substrate distributions a. Overall number and distributions of riffle and pool features are generally maintained Maintenance of in- stream riffle and b. Pool depths may vary from year to year, but the majority maintain depths sufficient to pool habitats be observed as distinct features in the profile c. Majority of riffle pebble counts indicate maintenance or coarsening of substrate distributions Filtration of runoff a. Evidence of floating debris or fine sediment on buffer vegetation at least twice by year 5 Thermal regulation a. Measured water temperature reduction at locations of new buffer establishment and at selected dates at years 3 and 5; a. Density of 320 stems /ac at year 3; 260 stems /acre at year 5 Riparian buffer habitat density and b. Four dominant species at year 5 shall be native diversity c. <20% non - native species at year 5, based on measurements of aerial extent Protection of water quality from a. Observations of intact livestock fencing and absence of evidence of livestock access nutrient and pathogen inputs to streams, each year Protection of banks from livestock a. Observations of intact livestock fencing and absence of evidence of livestock impacts, trampling each year Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 24 10.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Annual monitoring data will be reported using the EEP monitoring template. The monitoring report shall provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends, population of EEP databases for analysis, research purposes, and assist in decision making regarding project close -out. Table 12. Monitoring Requirements Required Parameter Quantity Frequency Notes As per April 2003 USACE Pattern /profile survey will extend for at least 20 Pattern Wilmington District Stream annual bankfull widths per reach. Mitigation Guidelines As per April 2003 USACE A minimum of one representative riffle and pool Dimension Wilmington District Stream annual cross section will be surveyed per reach. Mitigation Guidelines As per April 2003 USACE Pattern /profile survey will extend for at least 20 Profile Wilmington District Stream annual bankfull widths per reach. Mitigation Guidelines As per April 2003 USACE Sampling will include reach -wide pebble counts Substrate Wilmington District Stream annual and zigzag pebble counts Mitigation Guidelines As per April 2003 USACE A crest gauge and /or pressure transducer will be Surface Water Wilmington District Stream annual installed on site; the device will be inspected on Hydrology Mitigation Guidelines a quarterly /semi - annual basis to document the occurrence of bankfull events on the project Quantity and location of Vegetation vegetation plots will be annual Vegetation will be monitored using the Carolina determined in consultation with Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocols EEP Exotic and nuisance annual Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will vegetation be mapped Project boundary semi - annual Locations of fence damage, vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped Photographs annual Reference photographs will be made at selected overviews and near - stream locations. 11.0 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT) the site will be transferred to the NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program or other IRT- approved stewardship entity. This party shall be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed restrictions shall be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party. The NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program currently houses EEP stewardship endowments within the non - reverting, interest - bearing Conservation Lands Stewardship Endowment Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account is governed by North Carolina General Statute GS 113A- 232(d) (3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used only for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable. The NCDENR Stewardship Program intends to manage the account as a non - wasting endowment. Only interest generated from the endowment funds will be used to steward the compensatory mitigation sites. Interest funds not used for those purposes will be re- invested in the Endowment Account to offset losses due to inflation. Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 25 12.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN Upon completion of site construction EEP will implement the post- construction monitoring protocols previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described previously in this document. If, during the course of annual monitoring it is determined the site's ability to achieve site performance standards are jeopardized, EEP will notify the USACE of the need to develop a Plan of Corrective Action. The Plan of Corrective Action may be prepared using in -house technical staff or may require engineering and consulting services. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized EEP will: 1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions. 2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as necessary and /or required by the USACE. 3. Obtain other permits as necessary. 4. Implement the Corrective Action Plan. 5. Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the extent and nature of the work performed. 13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program's In -Lieu Fee Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources has provided the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund projects to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by EEP. This commitment provides financial assurance for all mitigation projects implemented by the program. 14.0 DEFINITIONS Belt width — amplitude of a stream meander bend, measured from outside top of bank to top of bank DX— with respect to sediment grain size distribution, the grain mean diameter which is larger than x% of the sample distribution Morphological description — the stream type; stream type is determined by quantifying channel entrenchment, dimension, pattern, profile, and boundary materials; as described in Rosgen, D. (1996), Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition Native vegetation community — a distinct and reoccurring assemblage of populations of plants, animals, bacteria and fungi naturally associated with each other and their population; as described in Schafale, M.P. and Weakley, A. S. (1990), Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation Project Area - includes all protected lands associated with the mitigation project Priority Levels of Restoration — 1: convert incised stream to new stream at original floodplain elevation; 2: establish new stream and floodplain at existing stream elevation; 3: convert incised stream to new stream type without establishing an active floodplain but providing flood -prone area; 4: stabilize incised stream in place. Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 26 15.0 REFERENCES Andrews, E.D. (1984), Bed - material Entrainment and Hydraulic Geometry of Gravel -Bed Rivers in Colorado. Geol. Soc. of Am. Bull., 95, 371 -378. Andrews, E.D. and James M. Nankervis. (1995). Effective Discharge and the Design of Channel Maintenance Flows for Gravel -Bed Rivers. Geophysical Monograph Series, Vol. 89,151 -164. Bathurst, James C., (2007). Effect of Coarse Surface Layer on Bed -Load Transport. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 33(11), 1192 -1205. EcoEngineering (2008). Technical Memorandum Task 2, Upper Yadkin Basin Local Watershed Plan. Harman, et al. (1999). Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams, AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, AWRA Summer Symposium, Bozeman, MT, 401 -408. Leigh, D.S. and Webb, P.A. (2006) Holocene erosion, sedimentation and stratigraphy at Raven Fork, Southern Blue Ridge Mountains, USA, Geomorphology 78 (2006) 161 -177, Elsevier Leab, Roger J. (2007), Soil Survey of Surry County, North Carolina, NRCS Leopold, L.B., Wolman, M.G. and Miller, J.P. (1964). Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, NY. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (2009), Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Priorities. Rosgen, D. L. (1994). A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169 -199. _. (1996). Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books. _. (1997). A geomorphological approach to restoration of incised rivers. Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Wang, S.S.Y, E.J. Langendoen, and F.D. Shields, Jr., eds. 12 -22. _. (1998). The reference reach - A blueprint for natural channel design (draft). ASCE Conference on River Restoration. Denver CO. March, 1998. ASCE. Reston, VA. (2001a). A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Conference. Reno, NV. March, 2001. _. (2001 b). The cross -vane, w -weir and j -hook vane structures... their description, design and application for stream stabilization and river restoration. ASCE conference. Reno, NV. August, 2001. Schafale, M.P. and Weakley, A. S. (1990). Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation, NC Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC. Surry County Planning and Development Department (2006). Land Use Plan 2015; A Ten -Year Vision for Surry County, North Carolina. US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District (2003). Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Weaver, J.C., Toby D. Feaster and Anthony J. Gotvald, (2009). "Magnitude and Frequency of Rural Floods in the Southeastern United States, through 2006: Volume 2, North Carolina" Scientific Investigations Report 2009 -5158, USGS, Nashville, TN. Young, T.F. and Sanzone, S. (editors). (2002), A framework for assessing and reporting on ecological condition. Ecological Reporting Panel, Ecological Processes and Effects Committee. EPA Science Advisory Board. Washington, DC. Hogan Creek Mitigation Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan December 2011 27 APPENDIX A SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENTS APPENDIX B BASELINE INFORMATION WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: (,y-- 1t� cvl: City/County: _ Sampling Date: 21 • t� Lj Applicant/Owner: State: NC. Sampling Point: \A)C. #� 1 Investigator(s): 'R- NCVI;tjn t C - R\d(j 1P Section, Township, Range: Landform (hilislope, terrace, etc.): Q# SICk?f—. Local relief (concave, convex, none): anmye Slope my f%'Z Subregion (LRR or MLRA): ML\ZPe 13(a Lat: 3(o• ?22.020 Long: 00 •tnC7`�1,7`�l Datum: NA-P E�3 Soil Map Unit Name: _Q56- CQiVCAyC( `6 'aLnh�-S NWI classification: n0,11e Are climatic ! hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes — X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X_ No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes % No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 7C No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) X Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) — Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) _ High Water Table (A2) rC Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (1310) X Saturation (A3) X Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (1316) Water Marks (81) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry- Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) — Drift Deposits (133) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Algal Mat or Crust (134) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) — Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Iron Deposits (135) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water - Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ FAC- Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes ) No Depth (inches): O--Ps Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0`2 Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 0 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: t US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Interim Version VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. S01ly_ t(1kC1rD._, % Cover Species? Status to Det- 2. L1V`I er�_jY-C)n 1U 1ts?t lid _� 3. FAC species x 3 = 4. x4= UPL species 5, ' Column Totals: (A) (B) 6. B/A = 7. 8. Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) �D = Total Cover 2. P2iUiCL VIIGya7�. 3. 1 C� - 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. i m t2Gt-i -j eri 50 = Total Cover 2. JQJ C,05 to 3. (/ F'� c� 1d ,V 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Sampling Point: Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species ci That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: -1 (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 5 (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x2= FAC species x 3 = FACU species x4= UPL species x5= Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation _ 2 - Dominance Test is X50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 In. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb -All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 5� = Total Cover Woody vine -All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) height. 2. -Po ey/QV -10- -, 1Q 3. 4. 5 Hydrophytic Vegetation 6• Present? Yes X No 15 =Total Cover Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) No �1o�S we�� u"�e� to evci�vct to v ege rton . enttv�c we��anok_ ate, \rjo-s ccr+eivc US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version SOIL Profile Description: (Describe to Sampling Point: or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) . Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc U--Co rCN` P_ -6r i l ciG( io'i(z 51 ?' 1 t4A PL RM= Reduced Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (Al) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _, Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Type: Depth (inches): marks: Texture Remarks 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix. Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc _ Dark Surface (S7) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (SB) (MLRA 147,14B) _ Thin Dark Surface (39) (MLRA 147, 146) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Redox Depressions (FB) _ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 136) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 146) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 136, 147) — Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydric Soil Present? Yes %c No US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont– Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project/Site: t2!(n ck wet r^lcj City /County: 50T C.-:j Sampling Date: z� • �, Applicant/Owner: ESP State: NC-1 Sampling Point: �A1� -$Z Investigator(s): Mf-W %Dn r G l�Cf l� Section, Township, Range: Landform (hills lope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): CLl✓BG.CA1JZ Slope ( %): (3y -2- Subregion (LRR or MLRA): ML9-A 1�Ca7 Lat: �(p a� Z Long: - CC�(3 ' J'1 Datum: � � icy Soil Map Unit Name: Cf,5A " Ca; .-CAS -b Scr -neS NWI classification: Y'1C7-l2 Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes K_ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes Y% No Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 7C No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes )C No within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 7C No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (136) Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (1314) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) _ High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) — Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry- Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (132) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) Drift Deposits (B3) `_ _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water - Stained Leaves (B9) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ FAC- Neutral Test (135) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Q- WaterTable Present? Yes No _ Depth (inches): , 0— Saturation Present? Yes _ No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No includes capillary fringe) _ Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1, t�Esr �oC�,CfF 1Ci�' t1� 61'�tO } % Cover . Species? Status 2. 3, (A) 4. 5, (B) 6. 7. (A/B) 8. Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1. jt0j n,7elr� 1Q i Y' IOrr 30 = Total Cover } 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. (B) 8. 9. 10. Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. Impatiens r3� = Total Cover ) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Sampling Point: 1Z Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species �„°� That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x2= FAC species x 3 = FACU species x4= UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: - 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation _ 2. Dominance Test is >50% _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of height. Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Herb -All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in =Total Cover height. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes iC No = Total Cover larks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) - 4 Pt Yy)- onck -enng -,,..re`f , one. ten- w< \JQ�JOnCk- Cre:?A- WCLS cDncC octt& US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: 1fe9(— Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvge Loc Texture Remarks O - l�`I�Zl1 ��f iD`49 -e+1(o 'Type: C= Concentration, D =De lefion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (A1) _ Dark Surface (S7) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148) (MLRA 147, 148) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (1719) _ Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (1713) — Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) — Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Redox (S5) — Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Project(Site: b4ol CX• — W6-lCVy-k_t?'6 City /County: a0r`T`:t Sampling Date: �J Z\ • `1 \ Applicant/Owner: G E \---> State: V3C— Sampling Point: Investigator(s): iZ• WC%- 0'CDn C'.- Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): SUr 'ff( cal relief (concave, convex, none): Cio,1 Cca tJ-e_ Slope ( %): 02- Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: 'No-32-3123 Long: "SD• 009 1 Z Datum: W - Soil Map Unit Name: F,5L 1F0k 1/ttN,) - SGg*-'t V-ne i Cpfri47icYG NWI classification: InC n-C Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _ No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes---,X No Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes _ X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes . )k No within a Wetland? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes 7� No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) _ Surface Soil Cracks (66) X Surface Water (Al) _ True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) High Water Table (A2) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Drainage Patterns (1310) X Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16) Water Marks (B1) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Dry- Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ` Crayfish Burrows (C8) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _ Iron Deposits (135) — Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) — Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water - Stained Leaves (139) _ Microtopographic Relief (D4) _ Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ FAC- Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes _ No Depth (inches): C� Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Q ° Z Saturation Present? Yes_ No Depth (inches): U Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Interim Version VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants, Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. LirVC3G1��IC��iY1 tV`I�i�C'�G._ % Cover Species? Status `F�tG 2. YkCer Vb�Ur'fl ! 3 FAC 3. FACW species 4. FAC species x3= FACU species 6. UPL species 7. Column Totals: 8. Sapling /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1, Ito M ca me It 3 'V i V-Q F rl k C(A 6k- 1E5 =Total Cover } 2. L1Q05-TVQrn 5I11 °en -)e. 2- 14 FAG 3. r, M k1L3��S �'!'1✓i�.k 1{yS�1�SiS Z �I FflG�- 4. height. 5. 8. 6. 7. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. Sampling Point: Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: co (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 30/0 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x2= FAC species x3= FACU species x4= UPL species x5= Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = 8. - 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation - 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.01 9. 10. _� 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 5 °2-. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 2. 00 J�, � 61 Urn a ,y (�St" IGr✓1U(C�CS 3' 4' Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata: 5. Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of 6' 7. height. 8. Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less g. than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall. 1 D. Herb - All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. 11. 12. 1 D = Total Cover Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) height. 1, ioniceya.. japDvina, 2. 3. 4. Hydrophytic 5. Vegetation 6. Present? Yes No �5 = Total Cover ks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Imo 016 is \NCr-e- Used '?-\f r ) CA tom Ce ;-- ;-�vr . Pr m2C1nci2�1�� ax o �n2 �r�h�� w iCv7c�• c�rec WCQ) Cmcicr-tcal, US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: \[4L-AA-3 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) . Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Twe Loc Texture Remarks y-to 104 1�-41 ( C10 i o`F t2 3i(2 2_ 21A 'Type: C= Concentration, D =De letion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS= Masked Sand Grains. ZLocation: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol (Al) _ Dark Surface (S7) — 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) — Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Black Histic (A3) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Piedmont Fioodplain Soils (F19) _ Stratified Layers (A5) ZC Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147) _ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, _ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N, MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Redox (35) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 14B) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Stripped Matrix (S6) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes �_ No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: v3- Ilk • Z0!\ Project/Site: EEC . as t- V- (f � Latitude: Evaluator: �.bc'�tti(A� 1 \`�f',1 tor-1 County: Longitude: Total Points: ?, Stream Determination (circ a Other 'S' kk0c_ ,rrl Q C%_ Stream is at least intermittent if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30* Ephemeral Intermittent (Perennial'i e.g. Quad Name: A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 2A ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-pool sequence 0 1 n, V_J 3 4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 . 5. Active /relict floodplain 0 1 2 1.5 6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 0.5 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 9. Grade control 0 n 1 1.5 10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 Co 11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes 3 artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B. Hydroloqy (Subtotal= ( ) 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 3® 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 < 0 15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 21. Aquatic Mollusks 1.5 16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 .5 17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? No= 0 Yes = 3 C. Biology (Subtotal= 'w __1) 18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0 20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 3 21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 22. Fish 0.5 1 1.5 23, Crayfish CO) 0.5 1 1.5 24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 25. Algae CO) 0.5 1 1 1.5 26. Wetland plants in streambed I FACW = 0.75; OBI = 1.5 Other 0 *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual. Notes: r7CA " L ve <, , rY'3 �:,� =r v-t(- c� -�- `✓'�Cx .� ° �Fa a+� �� c�°i -+��a� en c t r � . Sketch: NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: 0'6.2\. Zcr Project/Site: EE , i C -<,ff K Latitude: Evaluator:_ v County: �. Longitude: Total Points: Stream Determination (circl Other 5t \DCtrn Stream is at least intermittent if? 19 or perennial if? 30* Ephemeral Intermittent erennial e.g. Quad Name: A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 2.2• ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1a' Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 (3 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle-pool, step -pool, ripple-pool sequence 0 1 0 3 4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 Ci 5. Active /relict floodplain 0 1 23 1.5 6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 8. Headcuts G 1 2 3 9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5 10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes 3 ° artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B. Hydrology (Subtotal = Co ) 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 0 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0 15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1 1.5 16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 1 0.5 1 .5 17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes = 3 C. Biologv (Subtotal = ) 18. Fibrous roots in streambed 2 1 0 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0 20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 22. Fish 0 .5 1 1.5 23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 24. Amphibians 0 0 1 1.5 25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5 26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other 0 *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual. Notes: . ,� n t-. r v {�'rY c r► zt c.. Sketch: NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: Project/Site: F-EP5L-kr- Latitude: Evaluator: County: s Longitude: Total Points: 1 Stream Determination (circllesing Other 51 00j- A QUC'ck Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent erennial) e.g. Quad Name: if ? 19 or perennial if ? NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: Project/Site: �� Latitude: Evaluator: pl� oc1?1 County: SUf%r.�4 Longitude: Total Points: 2.cl 5 Stream Determination (circle one) Other S \ \0CtiJq Q\XAd(. Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral Intermittent P-erenniat e.g. Quad Name: if? 19 or perennial if ? 30` 2 3D A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = t ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1a"Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3D 3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-pool sequence 0 1 2 3 4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 5. Active/relict floodplain 0 1 2 3 6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 CD 2 3 8. Headcuts (0 1 2 3 9. Grade control 0 Q 1 1.5 10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 11. Second or greater order channel No 0 Yes = 3 - artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B. Hvdrolociv (Subtotal= 5.5 ) 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 3 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 14. Leaf litter 1.5 C1 0.5 0 15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 (D 1 1.5 16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 3 1.5 17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? No =Q) Yes = 3 C. Bioloqv (Subtotal = �► ) 18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 Q 1 0 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed CD 2 1 0 20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 Q 3 21. Aquatic Mollusks Q 1 2 3 22. Fish 0.5 1 1.5 23. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5 24. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5 25. Algae 0.5 1 1 1.5 26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other 'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual. Notes: Ctc(a' Sketch: NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: Project/Site: ��J�t Latitude: Evaluator: County: SUS Longitude: Total Points: Stream Determi "on (circle one) Other11�Ctty Stream is at least intermittent if ? 19 or perennial if ? 30* Ephemeral termittent Perennial P e. Quad Name: 9' A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 1 ° ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1"Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg t 1 2 3 3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-pool sequence 0 0.5 2 3 4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 5. Active /relict floodplain 0 1 2 3 6. Depositional bars or benches M 1 2 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 , 2 3 8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 9. Grade control 0 0.5 V 1.5 10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 11. Second or greater order channel No 0 Yes = 3 artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B. Hydrology (Subtotal= 2.5 ) 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 Q 2 3 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 ) 2 2 3 14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0 15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5 17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? No Yes = 3 C. Biologv (Subtotal = 6 ) 18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 Q 1 0 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0 20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 21. Aquatic Mollusks 1 2 3 22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 23. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5 24. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5 25. Algae 0.5 1 1.5 26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other =to-) *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual. Notes: Sketch: NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: U'' .2 1d Project/Site: GG�' Std _ n tire' Latitude: Evaluator: County: Longitude: Total Points: 51 Stream Determination (circle 511C3C.ttV1 QLkOC Other , Stream is at least intermittent if ? NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: Project/Site: OE'�p Sim` ` Latitude: Evaluator: County: Longitude: Total Points: �. Stream Determination circl (} Other Stream is at least intermittent if ? 19 or perennial if ? 30" Ephemeral Intermittent erennial P e. 5' Quad Name: A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1' Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-pool sequence 0 �*� ==' 2 3 4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 1 3 5. Active /relict floodplain 0 1 2 1.5 6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 8. Headcuts a 1 2 3 9. Grade control 0 0. 1 1.5 10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 .5 11. Second or greater order channel No = 0 Yes 3 artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B. Hydrology (Subtotal= V' 6 ) 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 2 1 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria t0 1 2 3 14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0 15. Sediment on plants or debris 6 0.5 1 1.5 16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 .5 17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? No 0 Yes = 3 C. Biology (Subtotal = ) 18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0 20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 21. Aquatic Mollusks 1 2 3 22. Fish 0.5 1 1.5 23. Crayfish a 0.5 1 1.5 24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5 26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other 0 'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual. Notes: i min _. �1 r) :N IBS r�o �✓ tic .� pr C Sketch: NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: a95, '21, ZO°t\ Project/Site, `_'� St-< - l - cv ff V. Latitude: Evaluator: `- � � County: son . Longitude: Total Points: y , Stream Determination (cir el Other C `fit �Ct� Stream is at least intermittent if? 19 or erennial if> 30* Ephemeral Intermittent erennial e.g. Quad Name: A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = � CA, ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 0 3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-pool sequence 0 1 Q 3 4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 1. 5. Active /relict floodplain 0 1 2 3 6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 6) 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 0.5 2 3 8. Headcuts 0 1 3 9. Grade control 0 0.5 1.5 10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 .5 11. Second or greater order channel No 00 Yes = 3 a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B. Hydrology (Subtotal = (Q } 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 �,. 3 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1° 2 3 14. Leaf litter 1.5 ) 0.5 0 15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1 1.5 16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1. 17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? No .0 Yes = 3 C. Biology (Subtotal= UST-) 18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 Q 1 0 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 03 2 1 0 20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1.5 25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1.5 26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual. Notes: - ae) Sketch: NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: 0�- -Lt 20 \! Project/Site: EEA' Std v`{ -cK. Latitude: Evaluator: 9_"noe Y> County: S?rv--4 Longitude: Total Points: 31 Stream Determination (cir an4) Other 5 0cri,"l if 2: 19 or if ? 30' is at least intermittent if >_ 19 Ephemeral Intermittent erennia e.g. Quad Name: A. Geomorphology (Subtotal Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 - 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 37 3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-pool sequence p 1 0 3 4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 5. Active /relict floodplain 0 1 2 3 6. Depositional bars or benches d 1 2 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 9. Grade control 0 0.5 1.5 10. Natural valley 0 1 0.5 1 0 11. Second or greater order channel No Yes = 3 artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B. Hydrology (Subtotal = ) 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 0 3 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria M7- 1 2 3 14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0 15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 0 1.5 16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 1 0.5 1 1.5 17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? No 0 Yes = 3 C. Biology (Subtotal = ) 18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 3 21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 2 3 22. Fish 0" 0.5 1 1.5 23. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5 24. Amphibians d 0.5 1 1.5 25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1 1.5 26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual. Notes: c Sketch: NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: Project/Site: ESQ '� Latitude: Evaluator: County-� Longitude: Total Points: �e�j.� Stream Determination (circle one) Other 0UQ(A_ Stream is at least intermittent Ephemeral- (Yf mitte Perennial e.g. Quad Name: if? 19 or perennial if? 30� 2 3 A. Geomorphology (Subtotal ='I ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 W 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 3 3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-pool sequence 0 1 2� 3 4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 _ 5. Active /relict floodplain 0i Yes = 3 2 3 6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 9. Grade control 0 .5 1 1.5 10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 1. 11. Second or greater order channel No =IQ Yes = 3 a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B. Hydrology (Subtotal = (0-5 ) 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 1 3 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 ( 3 14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 2 0 15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1 1.5 16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 1 0.5 1 1. 17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? No 0 Yes = 3 C. Biology (Subtotal=___ Pi ) ' 18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 1 0 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 0 2 1 0 20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) Q 1 2 3 21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 22. Fish 0.5 1 1.5 23. Crayfish o 0.5 1 1.5 24. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5 25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1 1.5 26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other - 0 'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual. Notes: \_,kT Z10 Sketch: NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: •, Project/Site: C . �6 _ Latitude: Evaluator: .� I County: Longitude: Total Points: ? 2 �j Stream Determi circle one) Other i r-n °.�t;� C-d Stream is at leastintermiftenT if? 19 or perennial if >_ 30* Ephemeral termittent Perennial e.g. Quad Name: A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = $ ° ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 6) 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 9) 3 3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-pool sequence 0 0.5 2 3 4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 1 3 5. Active /relict floodplain E2 1 2 3 6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 1 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 9. Grade control 0 0.5 1.5 10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 11. Second or greater order channel No _0 Yes = 3 artmcial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal= 2, 57) 1 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 0 2 3 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 1 1 1 2 3 14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 2 0 15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5 17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? No 0) Yes = 3 G. 13loloQV (Subtotal = c5 .c ) 18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 (0 1 0 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 V 1 0 20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 2 3 21. Aquatic Mollusks 1 2 3 22. Fish Q 0.5 1 1.5 23. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5 24. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 25. Algae 0 1 1.5 26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other x'01 *perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual. Notes: C - Sketch: NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: ®. � ` Project/Site: e�p S If Latitude: Evaluator:e_lf�a County: re Longitude: Total Points: j � .5 Stream Determination circle onel Other 1 r C(,,. f1; .a �7Gr�� Stream is at least intermittent if ? 19 or perennial if ? 30 Ephemeral Intermittent ennia P , e. Quad Name: 9 A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = _)_0 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 0. 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 ID 3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-pool sequence 0 1) V 3 4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 1.5 5. Active /relict floodplain 0 1 2 3 6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 10. Natural valley 0 0.5 1 11. Second or greater order channel No 0 Yes = 3 _ artiticial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal= Z* 1 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1? 1 3 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 3 1 2 3 14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0. 0 15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0D 1 1.5 16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5 17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? No tlZ' Yes = 3 U. ti101OCIV (Subtotal = -1 .1-) ) 18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 2 1 0 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 2 1 0 20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 1 (D 3 21. Aquatic Mollusks (D 1 2 3 22. Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5 23. Crayfish 0 0.5 1 1.5 24. Amphibians 0. 1 1.5 25. Algae 0.5 1 1.5 26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other .. 0 "perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual. Notes: S aion n_) gf'<'CXC" 0 Sketch: NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: „ �',o 2\ �� - IQ Project/Site: GE ? Latitude: Evaluator: n County: �rY Longitude: Total Points: 2�vv :1t Stream is least intermittent Stream Determination (circl o e Other `;E' , a at if? 19 or perennial if? 30' Ephemeral Intermitten erennial P e. Quad Name: g• A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= Absent Weak Moderate Strong 18 Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3, 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 0 3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple-pool sequence 0 1 1 3 4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 1 3 5. Active/relict floodplain 0 1 1 3 6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 1 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 , 2 3 8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 9. Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.5 10. Natural valley 0 _ 0.5 1 .5 11. Second or greater order channel No Yes = 3 artlticial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 4 ) 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 01. 3 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 3 ) 1 2 3 14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0 15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 (Q 1 1.5 16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5 17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? No 0 ) Yes = 3 L. bloloQV (subtotal = ilo ) 18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 1 0 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 3 ) 2 1 0 20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) '0 2 3 21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 22. Fish U 0.5 1 1.5 23. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5 24. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5 25. Algae 0 0.5 1 1 1 1.5 26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other 0 "perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual. Notes: P, ops-nrleCA" TM 01 0 Sketch: NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Date: Project/Site: G � Sit-' ' n cir e4f .. Latitude: Evaluator: v County: e., Longitude: 0 1 2 Total Points: 2�6 Stream Determina 'on circle one) other 51 lr_.i€aM Stream is at least intermittent if? 19 or perennial if? 30` Ephemeral Inermittent erennial P e. Quad Name: g' A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = i ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1a' Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3 2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 Q 3 3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool, ripple -pool sequence 0 1 2 3 4. Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3 5. Active /relict floodplain 0 1 2 3 6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 3 7. Recent alluvial deposits 0 0.5 2 3 8. Headcuts 1 2 3 9. Grade control 0 0` 1 1.5 10. Natural valley 0 1 1.5 11. Second or greater order channel No qQ Yes = 3 a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = -1 ) 12. Presence of Baseflow 0 1 Q2 3 13. Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3 14. Leaf litter 1.5 1 0.5 0 15. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1 1.5 16. Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1.5 17. Soil -based evidence of high water table? No " Yes 3 C. Biology (Subtotal= C:� ) 18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3 1 0 19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 0 2 1 0 20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) (D 1 2 3 21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3 22. Fish 0.5 1 1.5 23. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5 24. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5 25. Algae 0.5 1 1.5 26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other =� "perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual. Notes: LtT art _ SE, REQ�.2�, . Sketch: Appendix A Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement Program Projects Version 1.4 Note', Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the enwil °onmontai document. t'ro eC[ Name: Count Name: EEP Number: Project Sponsor: Hogan Creek Mitigation Project Surry 94708 Ecosystem Enhancement Program Project Contact Name: Julie Cahill Project Contact Address: 5 Ravenscroft Drive, Asheville, NC 28801 Project Contact E -mail: julie.cahill @ncdenr.gov EEP Proiect Manager: Julie Cahill Reviewed By: 6 Version 1.4, 8118105 APPENDIX C MITIGATION WORK PLAN DATA AND ANALYSIS Existing Conditions Data Existing, Design and Reference Morphology Parameters Parameter Existing Stream Design Stream Reference Stream Min I Median I Max Min I Median I Max Min I Median I Max Stream name Hogan Creek Hogan Creek Mill Branch Stream type C4 C4 C4 Drainage area, DA (sq mi) 2.37 2.37 5 Mean riffle depth, dbkf (ft) 2.1 1.9 2.0 1.8 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.2 Riffle width, Wbkf (ft) 21.5 25.7 29.7 22.5 23.3 24.0 27.2 30.4 33.6 Width -to -depth ratio, [Wbkfldbkf] 10.3 13.6 14.9 12.5 12.3 12.1 14.5 15.0 15.6 Riffle cross - section area, Abkf (sq ft) 45.1 48.6 59.3 40.6 44.1 47.6 50.8 61.6 72.4 Max riffle depth, dmbkf (ft) 2.5 2.7 3.2 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.4 2.5 2.7 Max riffle depth ratio, [dmbkfldbkf] 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 Mean pool depth, db.kfp (ft) 2.2 2.5 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.6 Mean pool depth ratio, [db.kfp /dbkf] 1.0 1.3 3.0 1.4 1.4 3.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 Pool width, Wb.kfp (ft) 28.1 31.4 34.8 34.0 35.0 36.0 20.1 22.3 24.4 Pool width ratio, [Wb.kfpNUbkf] 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 Pool cross - section area, &kfp (sq ft) 61.4 80.6 99.8 92.0 92.0 92.0 51.5 53.4 55.4 Pool area ratio, [Ab.kfp /Ab.kf] 1.4 1.7 1.7 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 Max pool depth, dmbkfp (ft) 4.0 4.3 4.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.4 3.5 3.5 1 Max pool depth ratio, [dmbkfp /dbkf) 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.9 Low bank height, LBH (ft) 3.14 3.4 4.6 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.4 2.5 2.56 Low bank height ratio, [LBH /d,,b.kf] 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 Width flood -prone area, Wfpa (ft) 178 220 246 100 150 200 72.1 72.3 72.5 Entrenchment ratio, ER [Wfpa/Wbkf] 8.3 8.6 8.3 4.4 6.5 8.3 2.7 2.7 2.7 Meander length, L,, (ft) 133 297 479 133 311 325 81 81 81 Meander length ratio [L,,/Wb.kf] 6.2 11.6 16.1 5.9 13.4 13.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 Radius of curvature, Rc (ft) 20 29 52 67 73 101 19.6 22.7 25.8 Radius of curvature ratio [Rc/Wb.kf] 0.9 1.1 1.8 3.0 3.1 4.2 0.7 0.8 0.9 Belt width, Wbit (ft) 44 65 117 48 88 126 86 86 86 Meander width ratio [WNt/Wb.kf] 2.0 2.5 3.9 2.1 3.8 5.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 Valley length, VL (ft) 2525 2525 4730 Stream centerline length, SL (ft) 2762 2897 327 Valley Elevation Change, VE (ft) 18 18 60 Stream Elevation Change, SE (ft) 17.56 17.96 3.29 Valley slope, VS (ft/ft) 0.0071 0.0071 0.0127 Average water surface slope, S (ft/ft) 0.0064 0.0062 0.0101 Sinuosity, k = VS /S 1.12 1.15 1.26 Riffle slope, Srif (ft/ft) 0.0100 0.0240 0.0550 0.0067 0.0100 0.0132 0.0194 0.0201 0.0207 Riffle slope ratio, [Srif /S] 1.6 3.8 8.7 1.1 1.6 2.1 1.9 2.0 2.1 Pool slope, Sp (ft/ft) 0.0000 0.0010 0.0070 0.0010 0.0012 0.0013 0.0003 0.0013 0.0022 Pool slope ratio, [Sp /S] 0.0 0.2 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.3 D5o riffle (mm) 30 30 40 D5o bar (mm) 28 28 20 Dfoo bar (mm) 116 116 94 w O L a aA a� 3 L •V W Y 4l 4l i V ca dA W J cW C Q N � U Q W W 7 � N � Q v 3 N ti z ?i � XTL XTL X XTL XTL XTL X � v1 O in O In O in O 00 00 Obi a) a) a) a) a) ti ti (11) uolIeA@13 O O O O Ln m O O O m 0 Ln N E O 0 O C N ++ f6 V) 00 ti O O O ti O O Ln O y T- 7- (11) uoi }enaI-q 0 0 i§ M 9 W N U 0 N . 0 2 N O fn 4-a (- � Q C CU m Ln N N O N T- 7- (11) uoi }enaI-q 0 0 i§ M 9 W N U 0 N . 0 2 N O fn 4-a (- � Q C CU m Ln N O N T- 7- (11) uoi }enaI-q 0 0 i§ M 9 W N U 0 N . 0 2 O � � O O T- 7- (11) uoi }enaI-q 0 0 i§ M 9 W N U 0 N . 0 2 I (D II ca 0000"%% O � O 0� oc) Q. N `.0000 II (11) uoi }enaI-q i 9 s U cu Q cu 0 N .0 2 cn 4-a L O Q CU C . o C O C� 0 (11) uoi }enaI-q i 9 s U cu Q cu 0 N .0 2 N N rn Cn N di C � II � U Q X W �_ >� O ■ o L *%M.0000 � N N N c �_ II Cn o C O � U Q X C: _0 (a , O T- (11) uoi }enaI-q J N v U cn i5 c� �--0 O N .L O 2 N c �_ II O 4-a C O O T- (11) uoi }enaI-q J N v U cn i5 c� �--0 O N .L O 2 C: di N cn �_ II O y-� C V O II ca `r 4-- U) 0000"%% ma (D -I-' C: 0�� O *%ft.0000 N Mw II Cn L �e C c� C: N cn �_ II O y-� C O O I I LO O O T- (11) uoi }enaI-q i 9 W U cu Q c� 0 N .0 2 O T- 7- (11) uoi }enaI-q 0 cfi N LO (6 U cu Q O N .L O 2 c� c N �_ II rn N Ln II � W C/) C: O >� *%M.0000 N '^ V II 4-4 ♦ C/) 4-- (a Q C (u O T- 7- (11) uoi }enaI-q 0 cfi N LO (6 U cu Q O N .L O 2 � l9 c N �_ II O 4-4 C O O T- 7- (11) uoi }enaI-q 0 cfi N LO (6 U cu Q O N .L O 2 co II Ln i O (D di � II ` 4-� U) m 0000"%% ' W �_ �C: L� >� O > Tt1 VJ C/) o L `.0000 ► N co II i O 4-a -1.4 X U Q C: (u m Ln Tt1 VJ C/) N Oo � II O O m 00 00 00 m m m m (11) uoi }enaI-q 0 —LO N -LO O —O -LO U cu i5 cu O N L- 0 2 r r cn O 4-� x U di U C II ca rn N `-- 4-� 00 on'� W U c HO N ._ n I L O I 00 00 CD r r cn O 4-� x U Q clul� m C: C Cl) rn N C: I I 00 7 O I O I 00 00 CD 00 00 00 m m m (11) uoi }enaI-q i i LO O O 00 U cu Q cu O N .O N di Ln N U II ca N cn O i n � U Q C: CU N I cn °� X � U Q C: CU -0 C m � OC) cn N 0 � II O O m 00 00 00 ti m m m m m (11) uoi }enaI-q i 0 LO O LO ti U cu Q ca O N .L O 2 0 o rn rn rn rn (11) uoi }enaI-q i i A In 9 U O N .L O 2 N nV♦ W E m cn C: �O n oc) cn U Q CU (a C m C ry cn � C: �° 4-� CU 0 CD T o 0 o rn rn rn rn (11) uoi }enaI-q i i A In 9 U O N .L O 2 RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY River Name: Hogan Creek Reach Name: Reach 1 Sample Name: Hogan Reach 1 Bar Survey Date: 03/08/2011 SIEVE (mm) NET WT 31.5 4485.2 16 2587.3 8 1532.2 4 967.3 2 785.1 PAN 1229 D16 (mm) 4.39 D35 (mm) 16.59 D50 (mm) 28.44 D84 (mm) 86.68 D95 (mm) 106.84 D100 (mm) 116 Silt/Clay ( %) 0 Sand ( %) 9.33 Gravel ( %) 69.63 Cobble ( %) 21.04 Boulder ( %) 0 Bedrock ( %) 0 Total Weight = 13178.8000. Largest Surface Particles: Size(mm) Weight Particle 1: 116 950.9 Particle 2: 111 641.8 file :IHWI /Projects/Hogan %20Creek/ Assessment / Geomorphic% 20Summary% 20Data /hogan %20reach %201 %20bar.tat[10 /4/2011 2:53:20 PM] RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY River Name: Hogan Creek Reach Name: Reach 1 Sample Name: Hogan Reach 1 pebble, 200' d/s of UT 1 Survey Date: 03/08/2011 Size (mm) TOT # ITEM % CUM % 0-0.062 0 0.00 0.00 0.062 - 0.125 0 0.00 0.00 0.125-0.25 0 0.00 0.00 0.25-0.50 2 1.92 1.92 0.50 - 1.0 0 0.00 1.92 1.0-2.0 1 0.96 2.88 2.0-4.0 1 0.96 3.85 4.0 - 5.7 1 0.96 4.81 5.7- 8.0 3 2.88 7.69 8.0 - 11.3 4 3.85 11.54 11.3 -16.0 12 11.54 23.08 16.0-22.6 13 12.50 35.58 22.6-32.0 19 18.27 53.85 32-45 18 17.31 71.15 45-64 11 10.58 81.73 64-90 4 3.85 85.58 90- 128 11 10.58 96.15 128- 180 3 2.88 99.04 180-256 1 0.96 100.00 256-362 0 0.00 100.00 362- 512 0 0.00 100.00 512- 1024 0 0.00 100.00 1024- 2048 0 0.00 100.00 Bedrock 0 0.00 100.00 D16 (mm) 13.12 D35 (mm) 22.29 D50 (mm) 30.02 D84 (mm) 79.33 D95 (mm) 123.87 D100 (mm) 255.99 Silt/Clay ( %) 0 Sand ( %) 2.88 Gravel ( %) 78.85 Cobble ( %) 18.27 Boulder ( %) 0 Bedrock ( %) 0 Total Particles = 104. file :IHWI /Projects/Hogan %20Creek/ Assessment / Geomorphic% 20Summary% 20Data /hogan %20reach %201 %20zigzag.txt[10 /4/2011 2:53:20 PM] RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY River Name: Hogan Creek Reach Name: Reach 2 Sample Name: Bar sample by zigzag 2 Survey Date: 04/08/2011 SIEVE (mm) NET WT 31.5 2592.3 16 2350.6 8 1500.3 4 1031 2 968.1 PAN 1303.3 D16 (mm) 2.94 D35 (mm) 10.93 D50 (mm) 20.61 D84 (mm) 89.3 D95 (mm) 122.78 D100 (mm) 138 Silt/Clay ( %) 0 Sand ( %) 11.85 Gravel ( %) 69.96 Cobble ( %) 18.2 Boulder ( %) 0 Bedrock ( %) 0 Total Weight = 11002.9000. Largest Surface Particles: Size(mm) Weight Particle 1: 138 676.5 Particle 2: 122 580.8 file :IHWI /Projects/Hogan %20Creek/ Assessment / Geomorphic% 20Summary% 20Data /hogan %20reach %202 %20bar.tat[10 /4/2011 2:53:20 PM] RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY River Name: Hogan Creek Reach Name: Reach 2 Sample Name: Zigzag at Riffle Survey Date: 04/08/2011 Size (mm) TOT # ITEM % CUM % 0-0.062 0 0.00 0.00 0.062 - 0.125 0 0.00 0.00 0.125-0.25 0.00 0.00 0.25-0.50 0 0.00 0.00 0.50 - 1.0 0 0.00 0.00 1.0-2.0 1 0.99 0.99 2.0-4.0 0 0.00 0.99 4.0 - 5.7 2 1.98 2.97 5.7- 8.0 1 0.99 3.96 8.0 - 11.3 7 6.93 10.89 11.3 -16.0 11 10.89 21.78 16.0-22.6 15 14.85 36.63 22.6-32.0 17 16.83 53.47 32-45 13 12.87 66.34 45-64 13 12.87 79.21 64-90 10 9.90 89.11 90- 128 9 8.91 98.02 128- 180 2 1.98 100.00 180-256 0 0.00 100.00 256-362 0 0.00 100.00 362- 512 0 0.00 100.00 512- 1024 0 0.00 100.00 1024- 2048 0 0.00 100.00 Bedrock 0 0.00 100.00 D16 (mm) 13.51 D35 (mm) 21.88 D50 (mm) 30.06 D84 (mm) 76.58 D95 (mm) 115.12 D100 (mm) 180 Silt/Clay ( %) 0 Sand ( %) 0.99 Gravel ( %) 78.22 Cobble ( %) 20.79 Boulder ( %) 0 Bedrock ( %) 0 Total Particles = 101. file :IHWI /Projects/Hogan %20Creek/ Assessment / Geomorphic% 20Summary% 20Data /hogan %20reach %202 %20zigzag.txt[10 /4/2011 2:53:20 PM] RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY River Name: Hogan Creek Reach Name: Supply Reach Sample Name: Bar sample by zigzag supply riff Survey Date: 04/08/2011 SIEVE (mm) NET WT 31.5 1302.6 16 2581.1 8 1698.8 4 1064.9 2 869 PAN 1491 D16 (mm) 2.39 D35 (mm) 8.96 D50 (mm) 16.37 D84 (mm) 68.67 D95 (mm) 110.83 D100 (mm) 130 Silt/Clay ( %) 0 Sand ( %) 14.38 Gravel ( %) 72.77 Cobble ( %) 12.85 Boulder ( %) 0 Bedrock ( %) 0 Total Weight = 10369.4000. Largest Surface Particles: Size(mm) Weight Particle 1: 130 1012 Particle 2: 90 350 file :IHWI /Projects/Hogan %20Creek/ Assessment / Geomorphic% 20Summary% 20Data /hogan %20supply %20bar.txt[10 /4/2011 2:53:21 PM] RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY River Name: Hogan Creek Reach Name: Supply Reach Sample Name: Zigzag at supply riffle Survey Date: 04/08/2011 Size (mm) TOT # ITEM % CUM % 0-0.062 0 0.00 0.00 0.062 - 0.125 0 0.00 0.00 0.125-0.25 1 0.97 0.97 0.25-0.50 0 0.00 0.97 0.50 - 1.0 0 0.00 0.97 1.0-2.0 0 0.00 0.97 2.0-4.0 0 0.00 0.97 4.0 - 5.7 3 2.91 3.88 5.7- 8.0 3 2.91 6.80 8.0 - 11.3 4 3.88 10.68 11.3 -16.0 12 11.65 22.33 16.0-22.6 14 13.59 35.92 22.6-32.0 16 15.53 51.46 32-45 14 13.59 65.05 45-64 19 18.45 83.50 64-90 9 8.74 92.23 90- 128 6 5.83 98.06 128- 180 2 1.94 100.00 180-256 0 0.00 100.00 256-362 0 0.00 100.00 362- 512 0 0.00 100.00 512- 1024 0 0.00 100.00 1024- 2048 0 0.00 100.00 Bedrock 0 0.00 100.00 D16 (mm) 13.45 D35 (mm) 22.15 D50 (mm) 31.12 D84 (mm) 65.49 D95 (mm) 108.05 D100 (mm) 180 Silt/Clay ( %) 0 Sand ( %) 0.97 Gravel ( %) 82.53 Cobble ( %) 16.5 Boulder ( %) 0 Bedrock ( %) 0 Total Particles = 103. file :IHWI /Projects/Hogan %20Creek/ Assessment / Geomorphic% 20Summary% 20Data /hogan %20supply %20zigzag.txt[10 /4/2011 2:53:21 PM] (11) uoi }enaI-q El I s� U cu Q cu O N L- 0 2 C) O II U cu 4-a I U � O �L 4-� C/) O 4-- ca C X m C: r � cn II 0 o 4a O C� 0 (11) uoi }enaI-q El I s� U cu Q cu O N L- 0 2 Existing, Design and Reference Morphology Parameters Parameter Existing Stream Design Stream Reference Stream Min Median Max Min Median Max Min I Median Max Stream name UT2 UT2 UT2 Upstream Stream type E4b B4 E4b Drainage area, DA (sq mi) 0.13 0.13 0.12 Mean riffle depth, dbkf (ft) 1.5 0.7 0.9 Riffle width, Wbkf (ft) 8.2 9.0 7.1 Width -to -depth ratio, [Wbkfldbkf] 5.6 12.5 7.6 Riffle cross - section area, Abkf (sq ft) 12.1 6.5 6.6 Max riffle depth, dmbkf (ft) 2.1 1.0 1.2 Max riffle depth ratio, [dmbkfldbkf] 1.4 1.4 1.3 Mean pool depth, db.kfp (ft) 1.5 1.1 1.1 Mean pool depth ratio, [db.kfp /dbkf] 1.0 1.5 1.2 Pool width, Wb.kfp (ft) 9.3 12.0 6.8 Pool width ratio, [Wb.kfpNUbkf] 1.1 1.3 1.0 Pool cross - section area, &kfp (sq ft) 14.4 12.8 7.3 Pool area ratio, [Ab.kfp /Ab.kf] 1.2 2.0 1.1 Max pool depth, dmbkfp (ft) 2.7 1.6 1.5 1 Max pool depth ratio, [dmbkfp /dbkf) 1.8 2.2 1.6 Low bank height, LBH (ft) 3.2 1.0 1.2 Low bank height ratio, [LBH /d,,b.kf] 1.6 1.0 1.0 Width flood -prone area, Wfpa (ft) 66.0 30.0 15.0 Entrenchment ratio, ER [Wfpa/Wbkf] 8.0 3.3 2.1 Meander length, L,, (ft) 128 159 190 73 103 130 53 58.5 64 Meander length ratio [L,,/Wb.kf] 15.6 19.4 23.2 8.1 11.4 14.4 7.5 8.2 9.0 Radius of curvature, Rc (ft) 16 18.5 21 22 27 30 7 16 25 Radius of curvature ratio [Rc/Wb.kf] 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.4 3.0 3.3 1.0 2.3 3.5 Belt width, Wbit (ft) 28 42 56 17 26 49 62 67.5 73 Meander width ratio [WHt/Wb.kf] 3.4 5.1 6.8 1.9 2.9 5.5 8.7 9.5 10.3 Valley length, VL (ft) 641 641 1350 Stream length, SL (ft) 568 555 1980 Valley Elevation Change, VE (ft) 20 20 48 Stream Elevation Change, SE (ft) 13.33 12.35 52 Valley slope, VS (ft/ft) 0.0312 0.0312 0.0356 Average water surface slope, S (ft/ft) 0.0235 0.0223 0.0263 Sinuosity, k = VS /S 1.33 1.40 1.47 Riffle slope, Srif (ft/ft) 0.0303 0.0326 0.0561 0.0267 0.0323 0.0378 0.0227 0.0334 0.0363 Riffle slope ratio, [Srif /S] 1.3 1.4 2.4 1.2 1.5 1.7 0.9 1.3 1.4 Pool slope, Sp (ft/ft) - 0.0036 0.0028 0.0069 0.0030 0.0045 0.0060 0.0008 0.0027 0.0118 Pool slope ratio, [Sp /S] -0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.5 D5o riffle (mm) 21 21 40 D5o bar (mm) 8 8 20 Dfoo bar (mm) 84 84 94 (:y) uOi;ena13 v V f0 7 ao N v 3 x X I I ON O O O 00 0 , a � oo (L) 3 s H S 0 ° W � N MA �X W N H °O Zt °O N O O O 01 01 00 00 O O a> a> a> a> (:y) uOi;ena13 CD 4-4 N U N cu XCU U i C/) C: O n OC) cn CD 4-4 �o� � U -Q Q 70 XCU m N N cn o C O c� 0 (11) uoi }enaI-q H W U cu Q 0 N L- 0 0 0 (11) uoi }enaI-q loo i U cu Q 0 0 N L- 0 di di 0 ca II `r 4-- (i c � 0000"%% O di Ln 0 ► �, 0 11 0 0 (11) uoi }enaI-q loo i U cu Q 0 0 N L- 0 CU Q CU 70 m � N N ' �cn � II 0 C 0 c� 0 0 0 (11) uoi }enaI-q loo i U cu Q 0 0 N L- 0 W H . L a) C.) C: a) L 4- a) L N D 1 U II ca � U " C/) O rn o Q CU C: cn II C O c� 0 (11) uoi }enaI-q U cu Q O N .L O Q9 N V nC: W L W L C/) 4-� CU Q CU70 CU m OC) N`n � II C 0 c� 0 (11) uoi }enaI-q U cu -1--+ Q 0 N L- 0 0 II LE 4-� V nC: W L W L C/) 4-� CU Q CU70 CU m OC) N`n � II C 0 c� 0 (11) uoi }enaI-q U cu -1--+ Q 0 N L- 0 RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY River Name: Hogan Creek Reach Name: UT2 Sample Name: zigzag near ref riffle Survey Date: 09/12/2011 Size (mm) TOT # ITEM % CUM % 0-0.062 0 0.00 0.00 0.062 - 0.125 0 0.00 0.00 0.125-0.25 0 0.00 0.00 0.25-0.50 3 2.86 2.86 0.50 - 1.0 4 3.81 6.67 1.0 -2.0 2 1.90 8.57 2.0-4.0 6 5.71 14.29 4.0 - 5.7 4 3.81 18.10 5.7- 8.0 6 5.71 23.81 8.0 - 11.3 8 7.62 31.43 11.3 -16.0 14 13.33 44.76 16.0-22.6 7 6.67 51.43 22.6-32.0 6 5.71 57.14 32-45 8 7.62 64.76 45-64 11 10.48 75.24 64-90 8 7.62 82.86 90- 128 7 6.67 89.52 128- 180 5 4.76 94.29 180-256 2 1.90 96.19 256-362 1 0.95 97.14 362- 512 0 0.00 97.14 512- 1024 1 0.95 98.10 1024- 2048 0 0.00 98.10 Bedrock 2 1.90 100.00 D16 (mm) 4.76 D35 (mm) 12.56 D50 (mm) 21.19 D84 (mm) 96.5 D95 (mm) 208.4 D100 (mm) Bedrock Silt/Clay ( %) 0 Sand ( %) 8.57 Gravel ( %) 66.67 Cobble ( %) 20.95 Boulder ( %) 1.91 Bedrock ( %) 1.9 Total Particles = 105. file :IHWI /Projects/Hogan %20Creek/ Assessment / Geomorphic% 20Summary %20Data /ut2 %20zigzag.tat[10 /4/2011 2:53:22 PM] RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY River Name: Hogan Creek Reach Name: UT2 Sample Name: Bar sample us reach Survey Date: 09/15/2011 SIEVE (mm) NET WT 16 508.6 8 509.1 4 420.8 2 467.2 PAN 477.1 D 16 (mm) 0 D35 (mm) 4.23 D50 (mm) 8.29 D84 (mm) 50.29 D95 (mm) 73.46 D100 (mm) 84 Silt/Clay ( %) 0 Sand ( %) 17.24 Gravel ( %) 77.47 Cobble ( %) 5.29 Boulder ( %) 0 Bedrock ( %) 0 Total Weight = 2767.2000. Largest Surface Particles: Size(mm) Weight Particle 1: 84 146.1 Particle 2: 80 238.3 file :IHWI /Projects/Hogan %20Creek/ Assessment / Geomorphic% 20Summary %20Data /ut2 %20bar.txt[10 /4/2011 2:53:22 PM] Existing, Design and Reference Morphology Parameters Parameter Existing Stream Design Stream Reference Stream Min Median Max Min Median Max Min I Median I Max Stream name UT3 UT3 Upstream UT3 Stream type G4 B4 E4b Drainage area, DA (sq mi) 0.03 0.03 0.02 Mean riffle depth, dbkf (ft) 0.9 0.4 1.0 Riffle width, Wbkf (ft) 5.9 5.0 5.8 Width -to -depth ratio, [Wbkfldbkf] 6.3 12.5 6.1 Riffle cross - section area, Abkf (sq ft) 5.5 2.0 5.6 Max riffle depth, dmbkf (ft) 1.4 0.5 1.3 Max riffle depth ratio, [dmbkfldbkf] 1.5 1.3 1.4 Mean pool depth, db.kfp (ft) 1.0 0.7 1.0 Mean pool depth ratio, [db.kfp /dbkf] 1.0 1.7 1.0 Pool width, Wb.kfp (ft) 7.0 8.0 7.0 Pool width ratio, [Wb.kfpNUbkf] 1.2 1.6 1.2 Pool cross - section area, &kfp (sq ft) 6.8 5.5 6.8 Pool area ratio, [Ab.kfp /Ab.kf] 1.2 2.8 1.2 Max pool depth, dmbkfp (ft) 1.6 1.0 1.6 1 Max pool depth ratio, [dmbkfp /dbkf) 1.7 2.5 1.6 Low bank height, LBH (ft) 4.4 0.5 1.9 Low bank height ratio, [LBH /d,,b.kf] 3.2 1.0 1.5 Width flood -prone area, Wfpa (ft) 12.0 20.0 31.0 Entrenchment ratio, ER [Wfpa/Wbkf] 2.1 4.0 5.3 Meander length, L,, (ft) 75.0 64 70 76 78.0 128.5 179.0 Meander length ratio [L,,/Wb.kf] 12.8 12.8 14.0 15.2 15.6 25.7 35.8 Radius of curvature, Rc (ft) 11.0 16 17 29 14.0 21.0 28.0 Radius of curvature ratio [Rc/Wb.kf] 1.9 3.2 3.4 5.7 2.8 4.2 5.6 Belt width, Wbit (ft) 26.0 22 25 27 47.0 55.5 64.0 Meander width ratio [WHt/Wb.kf] 4.4 4.4 5.0 5.4 9.4 11.1 12.8 Valley length, VL (ft) 290 290 697 Stream length, SL (ft) 298 292 925 Valley Elevation Change, VE (ft) 9 9 40 Stream Elevation Change, SE (ft) 9 7.76 41 Valley slope, VS (ft/ft) 0.0310 0.0310 0.0574 Average water surface slope, S (ft/ft) 0.0302 0.0266 0.0443 Sinuosity, k = VS /S 1.03 1.17 1.29 Riffle slope, Srif (ft/ft) 0.0247 0.1447 0.3831 0.0254 0.0317 0.0381 0.0247 0.1181 0.2115 Riffle slope ratio, [Srif /S] 0.8 4.8 12.7 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.6 2.7 4.8 Pool slope, Sp (ft/ft) 0.0038 0.0098 0.0126 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0038 0.0060 0.0082 Pool slope ratio, [Sp /S] 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 D5o riffle (mm) 14 14 14 D5o bar (mm) 2 2 2 Dfoo bar (mm) 65 65 65 O L aAA ^ 0 W 3 s` F- b.0 X W M H a) U f6 i to a) O (6 a I s 4- X I N O 00 to ZT N O Ol Ol 00 00 00 00 00 Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol M (11) UOIIEAD13 O Ln m O O m O Ln N O O N r_ O ca N O Ln -i O O O Ln O 0 Q0 4-� di O N `n CU � II V, U � ,000=.%s n ' N C _ W O L� > o0 M II `.0000 0 i W H . L U L W L M Ln Ln U II LE 4-� U) O rn O Q -�e 0 � -0 CU m C: N Ln cn 1--j II C O c� 0 (11) uoi }enaI-q El I 0 9 9 U cu Q 0 N L- 0 L) L L O Q � ca 70 CU CU o, M`n � II C O c� 0 (11) uoi }enaI-q W- In 5 9 A U cu Q O N L- 0 U II LE 4-� O U) ^ � O rn L) L L O Q � ca 70 CU CU o, M`n � II C O c� 0 (11) uoi }enaI-q W- In 5 9 A U cu Q O N L- 0 RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY River Name: Hogan Creek Reach Name: UT3 Sample Name: zigzag thru ref riffle Survey Date: 09/12/2011 Size (mm) TOT # ITEM % CUM % 0-0.062 0 0.00 0.00 0.062 - 0.125 0 0.00 0.00 0.125-0.25 4 3.92 3.92 0.25-0.50 6 5.88 9.80 0.50 - 1.0 5 4.90 14.71 1.0-2.0 1 0.98 15.69 2.0-4.0 2 1.96 17.65 4.0 - 5.7 8 7.84 25.49 5.7- 8.0 9 8.82 34.31 8.0 - 11.3 10 9.80 44.12 11.3 -16.0 11 10.78 54.90 16.0-22.6 15 14.71 69.61 22.6-32.0 8 7.84 77.45 32-45 3 2.94 80.39 45-64 10 9.80 90.20 64-90 6 5.88 96.08 90- 128 2 1.96 98.04 128- 180 1 0.98 99.02 180-256 1 0.98 100.00 256-362 0 0.00 100.00 362- 512 0 0.00 100.00 512- 1024 0 0.00 100.00 1024- 2048 0 0.00 100.00 Bedrock 0 0.00 100.00 D16 (mm) 2.32 D35 (mm) 8.23 D50 (mm) 13.86 D84 (mm) 51.99 D95 (mm) 85.22 D100 (mm) 255.99 Silt/Clay ( %) 0 Sand ( %) 15.69 Gravel ( %) 74.51 Cobble ( %) 9.8 Boulder ( %) 0 Bedrock ( %) 0 Total Particles = 102. file :IHWI /Projects/Hogan %20Creek/ Assessment / Geomorphic% 20Summary %20Data /ut3 %20zigzag.tat[10 /4/2011 2:53:22 PM] RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY River Name: Hogan Creek Reach Name: UT3 Sample Name: Bar sample us reach Survey Date: 09/12/2011 SIEVE (mm) NET WT 16 150.1 8 258.3 4 280 2 346.1 PAN 1346.1 D 16 (mm) 0 D35 (mm) 0 D50 (mm) 0 D84 (mm) 13.94 D95 (mm) 46.74 D100 (mm) 65 Silt/Clay ( %) 0 Sand ( %) 52.25 Gravel ( %) 47.6 Cobble ( %) 0.15 Boulder ( %) 0 Bedrock ( %) 0 Total Weight = 2576.2000. Largest Surface Particles: Size(mm) Weight Particle 1: 65 116.7 Particle 2: 64 78.9 file :IHWI /Projects/Hogan %20Creek/ Assessment / Geomorphic% 20Summary %20Data /ut3 %20bar.txt[10 /4/2011 2:53:23 PM] Hydraulic Analyses — Flood Attenuation /\\ / \/ ;i \ �� 8 G 8 / 17 CD c / g 5 x 0 $ 0 % { // R \ � ° co CL �0 $ % o $ � 2 \ � 2 � 0 e O o 7 \ \ ƒ \ \ \ \ \ \ U um mg /\\ / \/ ;i \ �� / \\ \\ \;/ / \/ \ ®\ :2 � ;i \ :6 ;� :� S G \ 6 CD e e \ § \ _ $ 2 % E / \ @ § ° k � E7 F 0 f _ . } \ ) } \ \ 0 2 \ 17 2 O g % 9 E I ; co \ \ \ \ \ \ U uq mg / \\ \\ \;/ / \/ \ ®\ :2 � ;i \ :6 ;� :� \.;\ \\ / / \,/ � m :� @ 2 LU i \ 8 G \ % G k g E LO \ o m / ƒ 0 C \ R e 9 : co �22 / CL { > U) $ e LO \ � 7 � \ 2 $ e O § % 9 E I $ \ \ \ \ \ \ ( U u@ mg � :� d � C1 C> 1 -6 � d Cy x Cy J w W V r O LN n O N C) r O C) r O C > N N o y °O O 4-- O O o- 0 N 0) v cL o co N O LO Q N UO ) 7 U) co 0 N O ' CC O LLv O J Y N N L U co � o co 0) O 2 O LO 0) O O 0) rn 00 00 00 0� 00 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) (; ;) uol;en913 m > r r O N LO O r O) C N X N O O N 0) c co L co ,o7 VJ co y-+ 0 y-+ J Y N N L U c co 0) co 2 .N r r O N LO O r O) C N X N O O N 0) c co L co ,o7 VJ co y-+ 0 y-+ J Y N N L U c co 0) co 2 r r O N LO O r C O) N N O O N O) C co L co ,o7 VJ co y-+ 0 y-+ J Y N N L U c co 0) co 2 .N r r O N LO O r C O) N N O O N O) C co L co ,o7 VJ co y-+ 0 y-+ J Y N N L U c co 0) co 2 Section Design and Sediment Transport Analyses Hogan Creek Reach 1 Typical Section Design RIFFLE SECTION Regional Curve Estimate Hogan Creek to Miller Gap bridge Right Bank Slope, x:1 2.5 DA (sq. mi.) 2.31 Left Bank Slope, x:1 2.5 NC Mountains (area) 38.18659 Max Depth (ft) 2.5 NC Mountains (discharge) 190.1585 Bottom Width (ft) 10 Area 40.625 NC rural Piedmont (area) 37.86852 Bankfull Width (ft) 22.5 NC rural Piedmont (discharge) 162.6993 Bankfull Depth (ft) 1.81 W/D ratio 12.46 USGS 2 year discharge Ave Width (ft) = NC Hydro Area 1 211 SW Appalachian (area) 58.4128 Discharge Calculation overall reach SW Appalachian (discharge) 281.117 Q = 1.49/n R" s" A WP (ft) 23.46 FROM CAD, design tw slope = 0.006959 R (ft) 1.73 design slope 0.0073 existing eg slope from RAS = 0.007881 Channel n 0.035 design eg slope from RAS = 0.007348 Q (cfs) 214 Q (power) 4.36 7Rs = 0.7939221 psf bar sample 1 grain diam, Shields = 120 mm (CO data) d84 = dloo = .��eenletzz.�� Right Bank Slope, x:1 Left Bank Slope, x:1 Max Depth (ft) Bottom Width (ft) Area Bankfull Width (ft) pt bar tob o/s outside bank tob o/s OFF -LINE POOL Right Bank Slope, x:1 Left Bank Slope, x:1 Max Depth (ft) Bottom Width (ft) Area Bankfull Width (ft) pt bar tob o/s outside bank tob o/s 3.5 2.5 4 10 88 34 19 15 4 2.5 4 10 92 36 21 15 width ratio = depth ratio = width ratio = depth ratio = 79 mm 256 mm 1.51 2.22 1.60 2.22 < - - -- questionable, more like 130 mm Andrews (1984) and Andrews and Nankervis (1995) ti,i* = 0.0834(di/d'50) -0.872 ti,i* = 0.0384(di/d'50) -0.887 di = d50 of riffle pavement (from zigzag), mm d'5o = d5o of sub - pavement (bar sample), mm d = 1ciTPsand- Ph20) /Ph2O)*Dj) /s applies if di /d'50 ranges from 3 to 7 if di /d'50 is 1.3 to 3.0 d = mean bankfull depth of water (ft) needed to move largest particle Psand = 2.65 g /cc specific gravity of sand Ph20 = 1.00 g /cc specific gravity of water Di = largest particle found in bar or subpavement sample (ft) S = average (bankfull) water surface slope For Reach 1 sample location di 30 mm d'50 28 mm di /d'50 1.071429 out of range tici* = 0.036121 Di 116 mm = 0.380577 ft s 0.0071 ft/ft d = 3.19 ft For Hogan supply reach samples di 31 mm d'50 16 mm di /d'50 1.9375 tici* = 0.021357 Di 130 mm = 0.426509 ft s 0.0071 ft/ft d = 2.12 ft from stage report in RM w/ dbkf = d, % from RAS model of Qbkf for reach 1 215 cfs XS2 290 cfs XS5 237 cfs XS8 Bathurst et al (1987) gcD50 = (0.15g0.5D501.5)/(S1.12) gci — gcD50( D i /D 50) b b = 1.5(D84/D16) -1 Hogan Reach 1 Pebble Count D50 = 0.03 m D84 = 0.079 m D16 = 0.013 m S = 0.007881 gcD50 = 5.961453 cfs b = 0.246835 qci = 7.570906 cfs /ft Active Channel Section Width (ft) q�i (cfs) _ Supply 17.2 130 XS2 21.5 163 XS5 14.6 111 XS8 15.7 119 Dinft 0.0984 ft 0.25912 ft 0.04264 ft Check discharge for initiation of Phase 2 transport using Bathurst (2007) equations qc2 = 0.0513 g0 5 D501.5 S -1.2 units of cros; D (m) of the surface material from pebble count qo2 = 0.0133 g0.5 D841.5 S -1.23 g = 9.81 m /s` From Hogan Supply Reach: D50 = 0.031 m D84 = 0.065 m S = 0.0079 Bottom Width (active channel) = 17.2 ft qc2, D50 = 0.292 m " /s /m 0.089 cros /ft = 3.145 cfs /ft 54 cfs qc2, D84 = 0.266 m' /s /m 0.081 cros /ft = 2.862 cfs /ft 49 cfs From Hogan XS 2 D50 = 0.03 m D84 = 0.079 m S = 0.0079 Bottom Width (active channel) = 21.5 ft qc2, D50 = 0.278279517 m' /s /m 0.0848413 cros /ft = 2.993842 cfs /ft 64 cfs qc2, D84 = 0.356488447 m " /s /m 0.1086855 cros /ft = 3.835245 cfs /ft 82 cfs From Hogan XS 5 D50 = 0.03 m D84 = 0.079 m S = 0.0079 Bottom Width (active channel) = 14.6 ft qc2, D50 = 0.278279517 m " /s /m 0.0848413 cros /ft = 2.993842 cfs /ft 44 cfs qc2, D84 = 0.356488447 m' /s /m 0.1086855 cros /ft = 3.835245 cfs /ft 56 cfs From Hogan XS 8 D50 = 0.03 m D84 = 0.079 m S = 0.0079 Bottom Width (active channel) = 15.7 ft qc2, D50 = 0.278279517 m' /s /m 0.0848413 cros /ft = 2.993842 cfs /ft 47 cfs qc2, D84 = 0.356488447 m " /s /m 0.1086855 cros /ft = 3.835245 cfs /ft 60 cfs RIFFLE SECTION Right Bank Slope, x:1 Left Bank Slope, x:1 Max Depth (ft) Bottom Width (ft) Area Bank-full Width (ft) Bank-full Depth (ft) W/D ratio Ave Width (ft) _ Hogan Creek Reach 2 Typical Section Design Regional Curve Estimate Hogan Creek to downstream end 2.5 DA (sq. mi.) - 2.5 NC Mountains (area) 38.85829 2.8 NC Mountains (discharge) 193.9007 10 47.6 24 1.98 12.10 Discharge Calculation overall reach Q = 1.49/n R 21 s "2 A WP (ft) 25.08 R (ft) 1.90 design slopey Channel n 0.035 Q (cfs) 244 C2 (power) 4 yRs = 0.7283777 psf grain diam, Shields = 110 mm (CO data) POOL SECTION Right Bank Slope, x:1 4 Left Bank Slope, x:1 &25 Max Depth (ft) Bottom Width (ft) Area 92 Bank-full Width (ft) 36 pt bar tob o/s 21 outside bank tob o/s 15 NC rural Piedmont (area) 38.53462 NC rural Piedmont (discharge) 165.7311 USGS 2 year discharge NC Hydro Area 1 215 SW Appalachian (area) 59.47228 SW Appalachian (discharge) 286.5757 Qbkf slope from design model = 0.00615 bar sample 2 d.4 = 89 mm dloo = 138 mm width ratio = 1.50 depth ratio = 2.02 Andrews (1984) and Andrews and Nankervis (1995) ti,i* = 0.0834(di/d'50) -0.872 ti,i* = 0.0384(di/d'50) -0.887 di = d50 of riffle pavement (from zigzag), mm d'5o = d5o of sub - pavement (bar sample), mm d = 1ciTPsand- Ph20) /Ph2O)*Dj) /s applies if di /d'50 ranges from 3 to 7 if di /d'50 is 1.3 to 3.0 d = mean bankfull depth of water (ft) needed to move largest particle Psand = 2.65 g /cc specific gravity of sand Ph20 = 1.00 g /cc specific gravity of water Di = largest particle found in bar or subpavement sample (ft) S = average (bankfull) water surface slope For Hogan Reach 2 sample location di 31 mm d'50 21 mm di /d'50 1.47619 tiCi* = 0.027183 Di 138 mm = 0.452756 ft s 0.0063 ft/ft from RAS model of Qbkf for reach 2 d = 3.22 ft mean bankfull depth from stage report in RM w/ dbkf = d, % — 356 cfs XS11 Bathurst et al (1987) gcD50 = (0.15g0.5D501.5)/(S1.12) gci — gcD50( D i /D 50) b b = 1.5(D84/D16) -1 Hogan Reach 2 Pebble Count D50 = 0.03 m D84 = 0.077 m D16 = 0.014 m S = 0.0061 gcD50 = 7.942229 cfs b = 0.272727 qci = 10.27043 cfs /ft Active Channel Section Width (ft) q�i (cfs) _ XS11 13.8 142 Dinft 0.0984 ft 0.25256 ft 0.04592 ft Check discharge for initiation of Phase 2 transport using Bathurst (2007) equations: qc2 = 0.0513 g0 5 D501.5 S -1.2 units of cros; D (m) of the surface material from pebble count qo2 = 0.0133 g0.5 D841.5 S -1.23 g = 9.81 m /s` From Hogan Reach 2 (XS11): D50 = 0.03 m D84 = 0.077 m S = 0.0079 Bottom Width (active channel) = 13.8 ft qc2, D50 = 0.278 m " /s /m 0.085 cros /ft = 2.994 cfs /ft 41 cfs qc2, D84 = 0.343 m' /s /m 0.105 cros /ft = 3.691 cfs /ft 51 cfs 1.2 1 N 0.s L f6 w N 0.6 M 0.4 0 m U N w 3 0 0 a E M w L Hogan Creek - Stage vs. Shear 0 ' 0 1 2 3 4 5 Stage (feet) s 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 Hogan Supply Hogan Reach 1 Design Hogan Reach 2 Design Hogan Creek - Stage vs. Unit Stream Power 1 2 3 4 5 Stage (feet) Hogan Supply Hogan Reach 1 Design Hogan Reach 2 Design UT2 TYPICAL SECTION DESIGN RIFFLE SECTION Regional Curve Estimates Right Bank Slope, x:1 2.5 DA (sq. mi.) Left Bank Slope, x:1 2.5 NC Mountains (area) Max Depth (ft) 1 NC Mountains (discharge) Bottom Width (ft) 4 Area 6.5 NC rural Piedmont (area) Bankfull Width (ft) 9 NC rural Piedmont (discharge) Bankfull Depth (ft) 0.72 W/D ratio 12.46 USGS 2 year discharge NC Hydro Area 1 Discharge Calculation overall reach SW Appalachian (area) SW Appalachian (discharge) Q = 1.49/n R2i3 s1i2 A WP (ft) 9.39 R (ft) 0.69 FROM CAD, design slope = design slope 0.0223 Channel n 0.04 Q (cfs) 28 bar sample 1 yRs = 0.961682 psf d84 = grain diam, Shields = 140 mm (CO data) dloo = POOL SECTION Right Bank Slope, x:1 3 Left Bank Slope, x:1 2 Max Depth (ft) 1.6 width ratio = 1.33 Bottom Width (ft) 4 depth ratio = 2.22 Area 12.8 Bankfull Width (ft) 12 pt bar tob o/s 6.8 outside bank tob o/s 5.2 0.126199 5.288994 20.87245 5.244939 20.06068 22 7.611258 31.76657 0.022252 30 mm 84 mm Andrews (1984) and Andrews and Nankervis (1995) ti,i* = 0.0834(di/d'50) -0.872 ti,i* = 0.0384(di/d'50) -0.887 di = d50 of riffle pavement (from zigzag), mm d'5o = d5o of sub - pavement (bar sample), mm d = 1ciTPsand- Ph20) /Ph2O)*Dj) /s applies if di /d'50 ranges from 3 to 7 if di /d'50 is 1.3 to 3.0 d = mean bankfull depth of water (ft) needed to move largest particle Psand = 2.65 g /cc specific gravity of sand Ph20 = 1.00 g /cc specific gravity of water Di = largest particle found in bar or subpavement sample (ft) S = average (bankfull) water surface slope Using UT2 sediment data from reference reach: di 21 mm d'50 8 mm di /d'50 2.625 tici* = 0.016314 Di 84 mm = 0.275591 ft s 0.022252 ft/ft d = 0.33 ft from stage report in RM w/ dbkf = d, qci — 2.6 cfs xs6 3.0 cfs ref riffle Bathurst et al (1987) gcD50 = (0.15905 D501.5)/(S1.12) Din ft qci — gcD50( D i /D 50) b b = 1.5(D84/D16) -1 UT2 Reference Riffle D50 = 0.021 m 0.06888 ft D84 = 0.097 m 0.31816 ft D16 = 0.005 m 0.0164 ft S = 0.022252 gcD50 = 1.091688 cfs b = 0.07732 qci = 1.2288 cfs /ft channel width (assumed bottom width) = 6.4 ft qci = 7.9 cfs Check discharge for initiation of Phase 2 transport using Bathurst (2007) equations: qc2 = 0.0513 g0 5 D501.5 S -1.2 units of cros; D (m) of the surface material from pebble count qo2 = 0.0133 g0.5 D841.5 S -1.23 g = 9.81 m /s` From UT2 reference reach: D50 = 0.021 m D84 = 0.097 m S = 0.0223 Bottom Width (active channel) = 6.4 ft qc2, D50 = 0.047 m " /s /m 0.014 cros /ft = 0.506 cfs /ft 3.2 cfs qc2, D84 = 0.136 m' /s /m 0.041 cros /ft = 1.460 cfs /ft 9.3 cfs 2.5 2 1.5 L t M 1 C 0 m 0.5 0 0 UT2 - Stage vs. Shear 25 20 U N 15 L N 3 10 0 0 CL E M L 5 41 E 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Stage (feet) 2.5 3 3.5 UT2 - Stage vs. Unit Stream Power 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Stage (feet) UT2 Supply UT2 Design UT2 Supply UT2 Design UT3 TYPICAL SECTION DESIGN RIFFLE SECTION Regional Curve Estimate UT3 Right Bank Slope, x:1 2 DA (sq. mi.) 0.027515 Left Bank Slope, x:1 2 NC Mountains (area) 1.877441 Max Depth (ft) 0.5 NC Mountains (discharge) 6.559159 Bottom Width (ft) 3 Area 2.0 NC rural Piedmont (area) 1.861803 Bankfull Width (ft) 5 NC rural Piedmont (discharge) 6.700075 Bankfull Depth (ft) 0.40 W/D ratio 12.50 USGS 2 year discharge Ave Width (ft) = NC Hydro Area 1 7 SW Appalachian (area) 2.616728 Discharge Calculation overall reach SW Appalachian (discharge) 10.13584 Q = 1.49/n R2i3 s1i2 A WP (ft) 5.24 R (ft) 0.38 design slope 0.0254 FROM CAD, design slope = 0.02538 Channel n 0.045 Q (cfs) 6 Q (power) 9 yRs = grain diam, Shields = POOL SECTION Right Bank Slope, x:1 Left Bank Slope, x:1 Max Depth (ft) Bottom Width (ft) Area Bankfull Width (ft) pt bar tob o/s outside bank tob o/s 0.605 psf 100 mm (CO data) 2 width ratio = 1 depth ratio = 3 5.5 8 4.5 3.5 UT3 bar sample 1 d84 = 14 mm dloo = 65 mm 1.60 2.50 Andrews (1984) and Andrews and Nankervis (1995) ti,i* = 0.0834(di/d'50) -0.872 ti,i* = 0.0384(di/d'50) -0.887 di = d50 of riffle pavement (from zigzag), mm d'5o = d5o of sub - pavement (bar sample), mm d = 1ciTPsand- Ph20) /Ph2O)*Dj) /s applies if di /d'50 ranges from 3 to 7 if di /d'50 is 1.3 to 3.0 d = mean bankfull depth of water (ft) needed to move largest particle Psand = 2.65 g /cc specific gravity of sand Ph20 = 1.00 g /cc specific gravity of water Di = largest particle found in bar or subpavement sample (ft) S = average (bankfull) water surface slope For UT3 sample location di 14 mm d'50 6 mm di /d'50 2.333333 tici* = 0.018111 Di 52 mm = 0.170604 ft s 0.023292 ft/ft d = 0.22 ft from stage report in RM w/ dbkf = d, qci Bathurst et al (1987) gcD50 = (0•15905D501 .5)/(S1.12) Din ft qci — gcD50( D i /D 50) b b = 1.5(D84/D16) -1 UT3 Reference Riffle D50 = 0.014 m 0.04592 ft D84 = 0.052 m 0.17056 ft D16 = 0.002 m 0.00656 ft S = 0.023292 gcD50 = 0.564614 cfs b = 0.057692 qci = 0.609017 cfs /ft channel width (assumed bottom width) _ qci = 2.7 cfs 1.11 cfs Existing REW above culvert 4.4 ft 0.023292 Check discharge for initiation of Phase 2 transport using Bathurst (2007) equations: qc2 = 0.0513 g0 5 D501.5 S -1.2 units of cros; D (m) of the surface material from pebble count qo2 = 0.0133 g0.5 D841.5 S -1.23 g = 9.81 m /s` From UT3 reference reach: D50 = 0.014 m D84 = 0.052 m S = 0.0233 Bottom Width (active channel) = 4.4 ft qc2, D50 = 0.024 m " /s /m 0.007 cros /ft = 0.261 cfs /ft 1.1 cfs qc2, D84 = 0.050 m' /s /m 0.015 cros /ft = 0.542 cfs /ft 2.4 cfs 1.8 1.6 1.4 N 1.2 a m 1 w t 0.8 M C 0.6 0 m 0.4 0.2 0 0 UT3 - Stage vs. Shear 14 12 10 U v 8 w 6 3 0 M. E 4 M w L Y _ 2 C 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Stage (feet) 3 3.5 UT3 - Stage vs. Unit Stream Power 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Stage (feet) UT3 Supply UT3 Design UT3 Supply UT3 Design Hand Auger Boring Summary Hogan Creek Restoration 4/20/2011 HA -1 right floodplain Hogan Reach 2 0 -0.3' Topsoil 0.3' - 4.0' Tan silty sand, moist to wet 4.0' - 4.7' Gray silty sand, gw at 4.05' 4.7' Refusal on gravel N: 940065.91 E: 1528232.14 Z: 984.68 HA -2 right floodplain Hogan Reach 2 0 -0.4' Topsoil 0.4'- 2.0' Tan and gray clayey sand, moist 2.0' - 3.9' Mottled gray and tan sandy clay, wood debris and gw at 2.5' 3.9' Refusal on gravel N: 940071.48 E: 1528334.01 Z: 983.68 HA -3 right floodplain Hogan Reach 2 0 -0.3' Topsoil 0.4'- 2.2' Red -brown silty sand, moist 2.2'- 3.0' Red -brown and gray silt sandy, moist 3.0'- 3.7' Red -brown and gray coarse sand and gravel, wet 3.7' Refusal on gravel N: 940050.98 E: 1528450.15 Z: 983.87 SNOiSin3�J s� °o�may """ ;.•,q9N� �2'. W Oa bua aauan �u�� OE55'SSZ'SZB:auoy� }� (� _ O 'ddV 31V0 NOLdIaDS30 ,' :y ? �� =� '�� Z c = 1099Z PUIIOJPD 3JON'allinasy laanS PpOi8 91 "9NIN33NIDN3 �N 'AINf-IOJ AuunS o d w p Z F- H X O s�� °..• Dd 3DN3m-1N0� NO I1VIHN XX NVOH w Z � w p Z w U) 2 i i 1 � a 4 K m O w w g\ w Y CL Z F ll \ C7 m � Q H � W Z Z Q Q Z O LL N = W Z CL V a , APPENDIX D PRELIMINARY PLANS �] z° a w z Q iti w d z Qi d W .2 / w (SI y LL Z o . L Z v �j z- O z F Z U w c ci a U � w �o 000 00 D �w z J V W N U o O ° 0 80L i,6 'OAT JJ9TOWJ d99 SNOISIAI�l s � o�nva ,' I �" �2', wOa 6uaaauanyuOa OE55'SSZ'8Z8 :auoy� 1088Z PuIIOJPD LIVON "alllnaysy [� Z O 'dCjv ]iV(l NOI1 1213SIG Z = j lawns PPO'B 9I Dd "9NI?J33NI9N3 JN'AINf1OJ Auurls NOIIVDIJ IN >I-4ND NVDOH 0 iii w � O w m 3 3DN3ni:INOD o 0 I � o i ► � In O 0 � w w O J w > EL z > w w O cn � w Ch z cn w Ch z z o z w z w U > Q M > > Q m > > o EL > �n o ° � (n O (n Q X w d S O w O w w O z Q cn - w cL o U o O - c O z W W I no o z N In X w w w w w O O w X X w z z w O ~ U � C� w U w Ch w w w O w O O U U w Cif Q Q w > � > d X m Ea E ? - 3 E 3 - E °E - _03 _ _ m - E - E y - 49 _ m E 22 E' E.° E �E c_ n E m E - - - - E c o a r A R o 3 _° -_ - N_ 3 a - =� E° m E - a° E_- E 3 m 3 _ u _ ° 3 E E -- - t�E r E m 3 v- y ffi A p - - m E n n OO +�Z 01 00 +0� 'd1S x sNOlslnI� s� ��o�wa4 u woa 6uaaauanyuoa o 'dCjv ]iV(l NOI1 1213SIG N II 1=1 O ? � _ —j `.� : 1088Z PulIaPD LIVON "all!naysy _ p Z a = lawns PPo,B 9I ~ J `-6 JN 'A INf IOJ Auuns z j Jd "9NR133NI9N3 o NOIIVDIIIIN X -4-4ND NFL DOH w 3DN3ni:INOD w w U' Z ui V OZIV� N,: o N G o oo� S � + f N 1 Ld � o � o O cV O N 1 � � co 1 ,. w o > 1 o + 0 ' LLI LL } I �t + o 1 ° f + LU LU a zL ° � w o U Uz c� z U 1 1 (D U LL Z J Q 1 Z S Z (D u°� O W v 1 W ❑ 1} o � 1 CD p + ' I 1 1 � 'm o 1 Iw 1 1 uwi ° w 1 1 LLJ < o w 1 w w LL 0 Q =w 1 Y ° w + U � Z i 0 o rn rn rn rn s = sNOisinI�l 70T N0 ; �Z} l "VI wOD bUDaDuanyuOD OESS'SSZ'sZs :auoycj I 099 PuIIOJPD 41JON'DIIIAa14sy ]aaA$ PPOIs 9 f Dd IDNIN33NIDN3 3DN3ni -IN0-) V O oo +z� of oo +�z dls r� rz w N JN 'A INf IOJ Auuns o i O NOIIVDIIIIN X - -uD NFL DOH W W w w OZ¢ oN x� p CD I m LO M N / / p O L M l \ \ M O M CD+ O O M O N O N O O O N O W LL— I / N O I / � (D � N \ W J O \ = + \ \ IO N / W UJ o0 J O a O I I ry a N p +' I LU Q Z N Z K + N 7 W ` Oz \ CC W ` p `n (D U Z / Z Ur < z N U1 W w ) w c 7 po + N O � V N _ / \ O O + V N O T + N O N 1 m O � � 1 m N N V r LU J_ OO LL + p N d O Y W W N U o Z o � N i \ l \ I LU J_ OO LL + p N d O Y W W N U o Z o � N SNOISIOI�l 70T N0 s o� nva 4 ' , *�'",,�� ; cNyS�L wOa bUDaDuanyuOD OE55'SSZ'8Z8 :auoy� 1099Z PulIaPD 41JON "alllnaysy 433nS PPOIB 9 f O n Dd "9NIN33NI'DN3 3DN3ni -IN0-) av� JN 'A INf1OJ Auuns L6 +K 01 OO +Z�: d1S M O n L� rz w N co o JN 'A INf1OJ Auuns o + m m O W NOIIVDIIIIN X - -uD NFL DOH W w w oN Oa x� O o 0 o o M O n 0 0 m a, co o + m m > O m i O O+ _ oc) � m O O O m w Q O F + CJ W ao0 p � + a I rCDi 0 ii m LLJ o °+ a z � ZLLJ m Q H o W (7 z Cl) Z ( Lu W+ p m O m m O O M CD N m O O � N m O V W J_ LL O w d Y W W w U z Q O O 2 SNOISIOI�J s 1p\,Ava� 09+01 01 OO +O L d1S n;,lY wOa 6uaaauanyuOD o 'dd'd ]iV(l NOI1d1213SIG �= 'T `.� : 1088Z PUIIOJPD LIVON "alllnaysy = p Z a = halls PPOJB 9 f ~ W ` ' JN'AINf1oJ �uuns j Dd "9NIN33NIDN3 0 O NOIIVDI,LIIN )I"-4 --4ND NVDOH W 3DN3ni:IN0� m w a ui o o � 1 wz 1 w az Z) � w W w LL O U = d 1 1 z cD ~ 1 N LI LU 1 1 w a 1 1 a K a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 1 D 1 � 1 1 a � I / / co / SNOISIAIO s 0 �wa4�� Z 55 +9 � 01 00 +0 � +1S n;,lY WOa 6uaaauanUUOD o dd'd 31'dQ NOIldl2lo53a r �-j2"I� "may OESS'SSZ'8Z8 `.� : 1088Z PUIIOJPD LIVON'alllnaysy = Z a = lawns PPO'B 9 f ~ _j W O j Dd "9NI?J33NI9N3 0 O NolsVDl�ra x��uD NVDox w 3 3DN3ni:IN0� Q w ui o 0 a ° 0 o rn rn co m o 0 0 + ° w N W O a o O ° + a 0 0 0 F W a z _ ] J + Z W O oe Z 1 (7 U o C7 0 z z o H � �W LU o �' rn � o 0 � I 0 TO o 0 co o o 0 O + 0 o rn rn ro m �° 0 o rn rn rn rn O V W J_ LL 0 rr a N H M - � O O (D M M F W a z _ ] J + Z W O oe Z 1 (7 U o C7 0 z z o H � �W LU o �' rn � o 0 � I 0 TO o 0 co o o 0 O + 0 o rn rn ro m �° 0 o rn rn rn rn O V W J_ LL 0 rr a N H o 0 co o o 0 O + 0 o rn rn ro m �° 0 o rn rn rn rn O V W J_ LL 0 rr a N H SNOISIOI�J s 1p\,Ava��''�"., Sg �S +Z� 01 0t+6 b1S JN'AINf1oJ �uuns NOIIVDII,IIN X - -ND NVDOH n;,lY �= 'T `.� : Z a = ` ' j N, : WOa 6uaaauanyuOD OE55'SSZ'8Z8 :auoyd 1088Z PuIIOJPD LIVON "alllnaysV halls PPOJB 9 f Dd "9NIN33NIDN3 ~ 0 w o o = w 0 W O m F� a w z 'dd'd ]iV(l NOI1d1213SIG 3DN3f11�N0D a -- %� r - W z O � ❑ Ij x Irk 33x00 r U � LL in o in o Y O z rn rn rn i°n W + � U z 0 d � ❑ O 1 o I + W p m z LL IL 1 w ¢ I ° _J o 1❑ 1Z I O 3 I / a O LU z ❑ o W w ' a -- z ce 0 Ow o o a cD z Z (7 0 rn y I X 0 W 1 11 1 1 O u O O W O O O O O O+ CO O O i 1 I � I 1 0 V � I w J_ LL O fr a SNOISIOI�l s 1 �o�nva Z ` -,1131,111", wOa 6uaaauanyuOa CD 'dCjv ]iV(l NOIld121353a ,�n l`�j�" �2', OE55'SSZ'8Z8 :au-yd o ii 'z w �= 'T 1088Z PuIIOJPD LIVON "alllna4SV cv _ V4 O P. Z a = halls PPOJB 9 f ~ Q `' JN'AINf1OJ Auuns 0 z j Jd "9NI?J33NIDN3 NOILFTDIIIIN )I$--42ID NVDOH W w 3DN3ni:IN0D w : > z a o o � Z U K m � F Z z U W U W K % W ui QU <ZCC Z w W U Z ¢� awa M 0 n w O'n Hwy I I l I Y O m � � I ,09) YJ O Y 2 �j i i � O � I � N I I 0 \ I SNOisinI�l s. . o.wa ..... z wOa 6uaaauanUUOa C 31 N d'd 'dQ NOIldl2��53a �'�`� OESS'SSZ'8Z8 d :auoy� o H n �2 'T,J�w `.� 1088Z PUiIOJPD LIVON'allinaysV w 11 O Z j lawns PPOJ 9 f JN CLNfIOJ i22IS 0 Dd 9NR33NI9N3 m w NOI VDII IN >I"-4 --ND NVDOH co 3 3DN3ni:INOD w i C M,os) 5' 0 N 0 SNOISIOI�l s �,,'vnva Z 0, Woa 6uaaauanyuoa d N 'ddH ]iV(l NOI1 1213SIG ,��j a OESS'SSZ'8Z8 � 4J o � 1099Z PuiIaPD LIVON "allinaysy ° O jawls PPo,B 9 f ~ a Z 2, �d "9NR133NI9N3 JN 'AINfIOD ANNf1S o Z o � � o 3�N3f11� Lu 9 N0� NOIIVDIIIIN x -4-4uD NVDOH W Lu Lj SS3 ,,: 6i a Q a HN '' o N I — — \ zI LU v 0 U Lu K m a I LU O _] — aI z Z — isss�:�daneg0 p� QbQN dve M,�I301M LU / \\ / Z N O \ •N \ U z cq \ Z N O O \ j ID I I E a a S.2 @ @ \\ m F I N N ~ l @ O — L ~ Q d s= N O O — — U 75 � a o U ° o m o x a o @ .o o O o L S 15 u�aa -o ama ° -o a-i -gym >N amv co d t -c % ua a UJ N N ' v cn U o m E a n o @ o a @ c@ 3 a LL LL H c L c n 3 m m 3 n c c o >+ O @ -mac LL y o @ o @ N aai m n s o 3 p_ N a L in co a W E v� o L Uo ID �momo ENO= =d�aco °O& m @ o �Y o cfla O .N U Q o N fl�. p m m LL O N L2 m N c`7 L W U Q m s .N o L U L a y N O Z LL, Z a ._ - ,p 6 3 a o- c O cO N @ N N Q W W = o° t °' "n �i m E m m c o °J a`� � 4Ni m N c 0_ 0 W oz O Z D_ Q a ' O'3'o'm6'i4o�i�`°` =o°.3ao° -'`-6 �= o �o > a 0� On 0J WJ m m a s o a n N o m a m .o n N tl .� It Z U) Z d Z a % 0 cn i s i 'y o o ._ E o o m a a c (n a N � F F o W m w °-m =t omomaao > Y 3 w Z� ZO ZO QZ m3 Q QO QO C C. . . N O j Y_ N. t6Q @ a> O.32s_ o. @U @ F 0_ 0_ LL d LL Z U SNOISIOI�l `o�nva r wor6ua- Duanguoa U ddd 31d0 NOI1d12IOS30 = ' =,2 OESS'SSZ'SZS'auoy� N Z w _ I099Z eui�OIPD 44loN'a��inaysb "� O jp(1ZZZ _ 7aai1S Pegg 91 U F N J1j/y+ �N 'X LNROD 12121I1S 0 z H a 1 a; Dd''�NI?J33NI9N3 a �j NOIZVJlIly x� D NVDOx di 0/ W a Q w lyJ J }a F 'n r a U F J _ Y FQ a (a ❑ Z � ¢ Q � F � Z H LL❑ F uU , J S O O O O N m c c 2 2 O O N `@ U � lU m N Qa Q 1 T Q ° @ 3 @ °�2 O O 2 O N m m � + . 2 O O N m @ O 2 2 O N m 6 G o m N 7 I4 L F 2 � O W N W Z o0 o0 o m p m p W — — — — — — — — Z Q W N N N N N O N >- 00 O elf V Z Q Ii QQO Q O O � Q Q w W Q O w LL LL w LL W Ii w W m W IL 0 O O O O o 0 0 U) U) co U U U U U U U U U U 'D 2 W Q @ n LL LL E EL E ° 4 c O co wco d W (n U O 0 E i SNOISIOI�l wor6ua-aauanguoa U ddd 31d0 NOI1d12IOS30 = ' =,2 OESS'SSZ'SZS 'auoy� N Z W _ I 099 euiIOIPD 44loN'ailinaysb "� O jp(1ZZZ _ laails Pea9 91 �N 'X LNROD 12121I1S 0 z H a Dd''�NI?J33NI9N3 a -,��iss� 3�N3f11�N0� NOIZVJlIly� xa D NVDOx w a Q w W J P-i IyJ H />0�� Qp W ❑ J � J W J U) m `) FO U- _` F 0 O w �> O0 Q wm x ¢ z v z a OQ J �? Z �0-m LU a LL z J w F z Q y% Z of LU F Z z wx J❑a FO LU 0 00, x w zJ ixJ z�z U OU F g m Q lo Q Z— Z Q U) � 0� i m Q❑a QUw U UQQ U�wO 0- U` zol < Q O W J F lo n LL �� Y F W U z LU of of Q W r C7 Q F tr ❑ a cn w w � a i C7 Z z z w ~ J z z U Q Y a Z J 0 U 0m W a z U) < z Z LU ❑ — - < z z UO z (D J� z W � \ V y� J W U r d h-f ❑ N d z_ W z a Z w n 0 z 1 Z U` O U W W zQ ❑ C7 w m ❑ \ K Q ZQ z Q K Q c� W x w w U 0 z w i� > U�w J= Lu tY ❑ 0 of Z m O W w ❑ F =LU 0> _ C7 Z FQ ZO W m K U Z O J x Q L z a ❑ F ❑ z � H LL w w O Q a m F w z❑ F w F J O = 00 z m = g Y L z F QU ❑ J� w w Q z w U W F U = O LLWO LU � 1 z� 0 Ox F W =-2 0 0 O W =z aF W Q Q Z) O W — Q§❑ U O w w> W F x O z 2 LL w U J F O O ne ❑ w¢ 0 O LLI w OQ Q O❑ U 0 Z O LU 00 Q O F w m m oe > U N W Q Q 0 Q w F W H Z z O i aQ 0 W W F LQ ❑= Q H O Q LLJ O F F W J o w KQ ❑Q Q U i 1-cLI:0 — LL w F z XU <LLJ W �i W O x rJQOFU W W U W % W W Q > o o o<,< o m w o O z z Qm LU =~ OO wz Q ¢ U J 0 a z ¢ zLLY YF LL w w Q UQ z U �ae - o_ z � w � 0 U cli ai v ui SNOISIOI�l `o�nva o wor6ua DuanguoD cq dd'd 31'd0 NOIid12IOS30 = ' = -2 OESS'SSZ'SZS'auoyd N u W I099Z P- IIOIPD 411- N'ailin34ib O IDDAS Peoae 91 U �N 'AiNnoD �uuns �. Dd'E)NI?J33NI9N3 O P- F" � a= NOI VDIIIW >IIRND NVOOH � J 3DN3niJNOD w H w M b Z V LU Q z ° LU W W > ° OUJ m U- w OJ U U z 0 ¢ p 0 W — J ❑ ° tY(7 Jaw a ui H p=zQ0 JJJI ° — J w a o a° Of 0 0 W Z r z a = uj 0- ° O 2 n- [-- z FA o U 0x =¢CDaz FO J Y (D°Z) 2W F V J �Y p W 7Lu0° 0- n o O 0 W Ox Z W w a a wGmao O U z U m J J 0 Q Z J J W W oe Q Z p U Q J° Z U) W O N�' d C7 xo<n >-= WoaO 00 H 2 wLU=a0 U d = U of Y U J < W Q p W m ° N H ~ w O IL W O co ° J Z~ 7 p W I� W W J LLLL,D_ Z z Z 0,= 0 0W0~� QV 0Y00U g a Y co Y W J W Z N Z W of J Q = Q W LL o m0�- Y Z N U ri U m O Z H X W O D_ z< Z N p N N U U o W Q W W o (n Of LU LU ° W Q v LJi W -i Y N W W EE N c. ~ EE x z U i i U � U Q i a U Q w a a EL O 0 a� H 0 O O n o z C— ° U 00 M Z z O a_ I � J w a I I SNOISIOI�l `o�nva o wor6ua DuanguoD ddd 31d0 NOIid1213S3a = ' = -2 OESS'SSZ'SZS'au0yd N u LL Pow 1099Z euiloIeD 411-N 'ailin34ib � � � � O ]aa$$ Peoae 91 DN 'AiNnoD �uuns �. Dd'E)NI?J33NI9N3 ° P- F" � a= NOI VDIIIW >IIRND NOOH J 3DN3niJNOD w -i H w F� o II � I i I I c� - Z z o H N r wQ ZLU LU o w 2 o w o m > K U U Z J N O m L ¢ LL Z Z LLwx� LLJ 0_ �OZZ U U �0�=¢ W W 0g��Lw �L UJ ❑J (n �� <Zo (-4j - _ J Z / J KU` �Q W O OZ c9 O ¢oxxU of zy O ��UOLu a a Q U a U x Z Q 0 IL Q Q W D 1 Q w a 0 U) a N LL °< a M xow °o U, } H U O H a Q 0 LL LL H w J ° � x Z ¢ ° z LL, Z Z0w�U x w j N O N Lu Q U` Q❑ wo M (n U Ln (n UOZ) gw U U K Z LU CCUwm¢a O w J m 2 J w Lu Lu b z w 0 ¢a =nw ro 1 U =LL1 (/) Z: co 0 w (D wwaZ) U � _ ¢ O x U K J ¢ oM O wo�¢o F- K LL Lu H U w °z Z LL 0 W J w LL OU LL U' - (n z OLL =O J OwOFU O U LL } LL W a } H ° <N OO� Q L l Y w Q= Q o W QL YK Z U r N I I I o I Z o Z o O O I � � U U w w U W U - w c� - � LL LL. L<_ /� -- c ii cr U ~_ U } H N } H cD F N N -Z J Xw N Ul OZ C9a i v w¢ ~ o= �� Dr) � o Lu ¢ Z o a OD o °x w z 0 LL LL a Z Y (D In O D °U < OLL W W LL Z O U SNOISIOI�l woDtua DuanguoD Fi dp"; o H N 'ddd 31d0 NOI1dl2losl0 = ' =,2 OESS'SSZ'SZS'au0yd N Z �n w I099Z euiIOIPD 411- N'ailina4sy O 7aai1S Pea9 91 Od'Nld33NI9N3 DN '11LN110D k?I?II15 O O o ,= NOI VDIIIW >IIRND NF�OOH �, w �iss�„ 3DN3niJNOD w Q W rr�' w J Q LLJ � U O Z J L O J ~ O a Ow w F7 n 0 ~ Q O Z w Z) � LL O X 70 U) z 2 O U O 00 Z z J U)a a U 0 ¢ O LL > 0 J % N OO 100 � 0/ W J P p0 \NT gPR LL LL H h Z Z QJ �- M �o 4/ R � ) U �0 �0 Q411 �O O �v a Q- �O /lo.sl& w 0 Lu LL J ¢ 0 ¢ w� Z 7 Z o O Z w LL a U w Ul w C7 U = J Z 0 w n H m H m F N w 0 U m0 �O 0 X Q O O U �W pwp �¢ LL z 00 z O z ¢ W W< J x �O C� z �> draw oe F xw w �a(� U ° U) LL xC9 OU Q J W J Z OW Lu O O 00 J �:w mx Q LL ° O 2i W 0 J HL L OzLU LL J z LL w U) O p Ul } LLI LU x a ¢ U` Z+,� w U FLOW x o¢ U ¢ W Z J Y ~>C� Z ZW K w m warn�� A� F Z � LU O U O J Q m l J 1 J LL O ¢ a o U z z of TOE OF BANK (TYP) C) Z o � w(D cn ?Ux I- 0 0 Z m U Co z a F O§ z N D ¢ X ~ m H J LU 0 �_ z w g TOP OF BANK (TYP) J F UJ 0 OUzO Z ¢ N SNOISIOI�l `o�nva" wor6ua-aauanguoa U) w 'ddd 31d0 NOI1dl2losl0 = ' =,2 OESS'SSZ'SZS'auoyd N Z �n W I099Z euiIOIPD 411- N'ailina4sy O j�(1ZZZ _ laailS Pea9 91 U F ~ N J1j/y� a �d''�?J33NI9N3 DN '11LN110D k?I?II15 p NI ❑ ,= NOI VDIIIW >IIRND NVOOH �, w �iss�„ 3DN3niJNOD w Q W w W ❑ J ❑ W m LU LU W F H m z �_ ~ zJa Q Z ZOp ❑ �f ❑ U x L¢ Z ZQ U _ U m Z Q W O ❑� d! �dm fl' O�~ Q�� Z F O O p o O O Z O LL O U z Y cn x�n ? mFZwmo?�OUw ❑ a O n U z ¢ z ji (D Lu Q a Z o w w z Q z=> Q U m z o � �U ~ w ❑ H 00 p o O O > 0 ¢ a fr Z w Y ¢Z Z m � N m J U w — LU LU O0 <U� W ❑ m M N x W F W O O J LL z Y w z ❑ Q --- I_ -- z J m w o `L - o z U) Y Z \Lu-..U) U) m W Q � z ° w15 � L ❑ m ❑ U Y Q U) Q N W gm � < - w J Q LL 00 LL K❑ z o p U w a U J w CL U) � IL w ❑ g m Q a � O ° W d. Y EE m p 0 Z ❑ w Um w U �� a m m Q J U W S U M) (D N ❑ LU J Z m O U Z ❑ F Q 5; � LLJ Z z w Of O 2 o ❑ W z< w ❑ O m ~O❑ uwi Y ¢ L¢LI �UZ a z¢ Q x �a w d W z wm Q an W O 7J) <,J o Q H < o N O > U pew O ° D_ L �LLI Of a c� cn � J Q U o 0 ¢ Z O z ❑ d Z a- w Q O z z U� ❑ ii 1 J _ Z. H Z_ dO Q 2 x + V J W W _ W m = O Q LL w O Y K m DC-1 U) z m D- OU ❑ m J LLJ J P J LL a O z O "oppFg�� 0 �❑W, L�o O N Z U W U) :�! _ M O J ❑ U) Q Q N z N J LU o z ❑OZF� ow z 0! IK u) �F_�_W ZZ�� / U 0 ❑ U Z F opm�Oz� Fx d' =OLLH �zw m� p� d Z Y Y� D O D_ U << 0-wpwH W m m O 0 m m m U) U) N SNOISIOI� �", a" woDtua Duanguoa 'ddd 31d0 NOI1dl2losl0 OESS'SSZ'SZS'auo yd o H Fi N N Z �n LL I099Z PuiIOIPD 411- N'ailina4sy U j�(1ZZZ _ laailS Pea9 91 U F ~ a �d'?J33NI9N3 DN 'XLNf100 12121115 O ONI ° ,= NOI VDIIIW >IIRND NF�OOH �, w �iss�„ 3DN3niJNOD w Q W W J Q W J m Q H W d' H U 0' H Z_ H Z_ O TOP OF BANK (TYP) P W z Z O � Q w TOE OF BANK (TYP) U) J O W U m LU _ Y W LU N P �N xa Q o X J J ZZ U m N d' W Z d 0 (n �� K O LU 0 ow 00 Z H LL - -D O O W O m LL m Q �•._. LL m N M O F w U U ° m O LL z m cc w w of W H m W ° J z 0 W LL O U 2 >� Z J > J LL LL W Y > W O Q D ° W m (D -,w Z) Q Om m2 H = K W Z K W ° J W O m Z LU SOP OF > 6 PNK P Y o Y ¢ O m O 4 LL Q O _ 2 O O� Q �O�OF BPN� N 9 W ° p U) LWJi P V Z J U Q z a O H 00 Z X O Lu LL \ D W W U a M x-17 (Q7 U5 m of ae WLU z 0 z m H p 0 0 ? w 70 O Q � z o pJ =O J > m J LL > J LL ; U) Q ow U QCD Jm m 0 m m 2 Y ~ O3: O 2 SNOISIOI�l wor6ua DuanguoD .'`9NI dp o H N ddd 31dQ NOI1d12loS3a =' = -2 OESS'SSZ'EZS'auoyd N Z Cp 1099Z P- IIOIeD y�oN 'apinaysy W j ow aaans veoje s 1 DN 'AINROD .,NN IS o Z S 7d'9Nld33NI9N3 Fc 3 �o�ss 'a 3�N3f11�N0� NOILF�JILIL�I xa � N��Ox w Q j �'�f' W J w m CD Q U 0 Y 0- Z 0 HzQ 7 oa D o �C0 D (D �a Ow zLL 0 z0_ 00 o n a �U ¢� W W J co 0 Z U J 00 X Z O LU H U) U � D_ /\ a a w > LU W Q >0 m Q Y Y > Q Q Q m LL z Y m m W Z 0 O O W z � O O v a � Z � N M U W N >- W X O a H D_ J j0CL w0 Z� (D 0n m w z a 0 QD H w Z �0 J w N o} o 0 W W U Z in III Z Y Z K O W U 0 m w W LL 0 0 w � U z I= H �0, J7 W J O (D N W In = _ W X V W U J v~i L wo v o L 0 L � IIIIII z z Z 0 C)� LU 0 U LLJ O L Z O UaJ_ w02 �O>> > 2 F W W Z U Ymn' W D J m O W m U Ja LL co J_ Q _ � = O H W 0 0 Z Cn Z O H w w w 0 a O Z J W W W J Z LL J W o w D_ N Q } W ~ O L L Z < Z a w W w 0 CO Q O Z > 0 CL a o 0 0 K o go iD (- W H W n- o Lu LU L n- H Q o oo > 0 N O Z_ o � N CV I I W SNOISIOI�l wor6ua- Duanguoa ddd 31dQ NOI1d12loS3a =' = -2 OESS'SSZ'SZS'auoyd N Z Cp I099Z euiIOIPD 441 -N 'a��ina4sy 0 a LL fl ZZ _ laails Pe9 91 U `n Ln �N '�iNno� �uuns 0 H ❑ Dd'E)NI?J33NI9N3 F� ��iss� �� 3�N3f11�N0� NoIZVJ1IIV� xaD NVoox w Q j �'�f' W J w J J_ W LL z Y Z Q _ J M U LL ❑ Y w U z ¢ O ❑ Q m J z } �w ¢z > _ 0 Y O �z U w z <a Q U ❑ a > W w w> Z w r' Q W O 22 u ¢ z � � cn z Q U L } O 2 Q LLJ Zi�2 r� Y LL U U Z ❑ U W IZ z z m m U (n 00 H M W H � u5 z U z U Z z L4 W W Q w � �_ 2 � } ❑ U � In ¢ > ❑ W_ ~ Z W i W Q z } ) W F Z a Q O J � O LL a a a rr m w U) ❑ U) e (D g LL = a — ¢ a ❑ U z�w a as w LL "¢U) Of mx O m Q U w W o LL co U� LL z0 ¢ [if ? g Q p �> K � ❑ 7 �U °� hwX ` 2 W h z LLJ 0� (o �Q Q ¢ o LU OL z w z0 o Ow Q A o > u H W a z w ❑ z ¢ w X III UJ ¢a m z N 00 a z ¢� DO �� ❑ UZ m �_J YQ w az z- 0QU ' w� a �b mw z� °m �a Ow Z wg H SNOISIOI�l woDtua DuanguoD ddd ]iVG NOI1d12]OS30 OESS'SSZ'SZS'auoyd N Z Z H I099Z P- IIOIeD 411oN'alllnaysy W w0 J1j/y 7aai1S Peae 91 DN'AINCIOD Q �uuns �. Dd'E)Nld33NI9N3 O Z W O p a= NOI VOI11W >IFIRND e �L , NVDOH � w F F- (� w w ss� 3DN3niJN0� ii J ¢ U v W ux p w z 00 LU Q Q)¢ v U p p O w 0 d 10 � V J C) c°x N m¢ 1 in W Y N Q O U) O 0 W o M > X O M — J cL � L< Z W III - co Q' Z N LU Z } o I O r CL o Q ¢ 0 J -III= O m o W l W X W III W W J Q= p c Z x- H U o 0 ¢ z� a O LL d ce m D_ wLL m I- z U) OY z ccLU° II IF O O °� wo m W O O H (V III —III ~ J J ¢ ¢ J w 111 =1111 W 0 10 0- o m a O z oW- p w� w p 01 U Q IL aO ¢ ¢ > v tY i z = H O O m Z m III 2 uJ Q pa ¢ ¢ I - N 0¢oY� O ° @ w -III p��m z ¢ 0 � X 0..z Y O1 xOZCn0 Q z III II ~ W 0 H cli z 1 - Y O¢Xa00 W = I1 ¢ F ¢ g to j > U) H 0WC7 CY J Z O Yzcc > aZ ��v�OW x W W 0 Cfl 0 C> O J N p LU D— W I- 0 Z N CL J W U � L 0 p 0 W W W U)<n �m U) Y W Ox W CL m0 z z� ui O ¢ c� L Z C) w U� H 0 U� z� �O m x p a s Q O w Z x H J� L u Uo a J Q LL w H O Z � O °� �� p: O �x H W Q LU az ov ILL Lo U o Z o (D 0 zp No // �¢ O W Fw /// wz Z �> /i\ j mo O cn m J Z � H n W 2U' 2x W Z W o >O0z �� ¢ /V A p Q �� j /�� \ /�� j�\ F W CD W ID W �� %A�� U W z_ ¢ W D_ Lu! 2 O K Z < O ¢ a z U) xcex OwLL Opw 2 U) J Q m U M M a� a a� � E c � .F �, C @ y O O Oc C > N LS1 d U � � � tA N (6 3 N n 'c > a � D_ w a U m> U m E Z a � � c O K N � O� C U U N U c ~ aci in Q _� L C x ~ cn > N p O C� rn ° � �