20120396 Ver 1_DRAFT Final Mitigation Plans_20120701

r
1a -ate
MITIGATION PLAN — DRAFT FINAL
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project
Surry County, North Carolina
EEP Project No. 94709
Upper Yadkin River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03040101
Prepared for:
Y
Ekotem
aWemeht
PROGRAM
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
July 2012

MITIGATION PLAN — DRAFT FINAL
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project
Surry County, North Carolina
EEP Project No. 94709
Upper Yadkin River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03040101
Prepared for:
os stem
E larement
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
July 2012

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) provides off -site compensatory wetland and
stream mitigation to private sector state government agencies municipalities schools military bases and
other applicants through Its In Lieu Fee Programs EEP is proposing the Moores Fork Stream
Restoration Project (project) to fulfill stream mitigation requirements accepted by this program for the
Upper Yadkin River Basin (CU 03040101) Through this project, EEP proposes to restore enhance and
preserve approximately 19 915 linear feet (LF) of Moores Fork and fifteen previously unnamed tributaries
(UTs) provide livestock fencing and alternative water sources to keep livestock out of the streams
remove Invasive plant species across the project and establish native riparian buffers Based on
preliminary estimates from the design proposed in this Mitigation Plan the Moores Fork Stream
Restoration Project will net 11 659 stream mitigation credits through a combination of restoration
enhancement I and II and preservation
This Mitigation Plan describes specific project goals and objectives as they relate to EEP s programmatic
goals (including watershed planning) provides baseline data on the existing conditions of Moores Fork
and its UTs at the project site and describes the methodologies that were used develop the preliminary
design The Mitigation Plan also outlines the performance standards and monitoring protocol that will be
used to evaluate the project s success and it details long term management strategies for protecting and
maintaining the restoration site in perpetuity
This Mitigation Plan has been written In conformance with the requirements of the following
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal
Register Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332 8
paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14)
• EEP In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28 2010
These documents govern EEP operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS
10
RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
1
20
SITE SELECTION
2
2 1
DIRECTIONS TO SITE
2
22
HISTORICAL CONDITIONS AND FUTURE LAND USE TRENDS
2
23
SITE MODIFICATIONS, STRESSORS AND ECOLOGICAL SERVICES
9
24
EVOLUTIONARY TRENDS
10
25
PROJECT SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
12
30
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
15
40
BASELINE INFORMATION
17
50
DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
19
60
CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE
22
6 1
INITIAL ALLOCATION OF RELEASED CREDITS
22
62
SUBSEQUENT CREDIT RELEASES
22
70
MITIGATION WORK PLAN
23
7 1
TARGET STREAMS
23
72
TARGET PLANT COMMUNITIES
25
73
DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND DATA ANALYSES
26
7 3 1 Design Discharge
26
732 Sediment Transport
27
733 Cross Section
28
734 Plan and Profile
29
735 In- Stream Structures
30
736 Farm Management Plan
30
80
MAINTENANCE PLAN
31
90
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
32
100
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
32
110
LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
33
120
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
33
130
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
33
140
DEFINITIONS
34
150
REFERENCES
35
APPENDIX A SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENTS
APPENDIX B BASELINE INFORMATION
APPENDIX C MITIGATION WORK PLAN DATA AND ANALYSES
APPENDIX D PRELIMINARY PLANS
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Protect - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012

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

20 SITE SELECTION
21 Directions to Site
The Moores Fork project site is located northwest of Mount Airy in Surry County North Carolina To
access the site from Asheville take 1 -40 East towards Statesville to Exit 152B Merge on 1 -77 North
toward Elkin and travel approximately 49 miles Take Exit 100 (North Carolina 89) toward Mt Airy and
Galax Turn right onto North Carolina 89 (West Pine Street) and travel approximately 2 miles Turn left
onto Pine Ridge Road and travel approximately 0 2 mile and turn right onto Horton Road The project site
is located on both sides of Horton Road A site vicinity map (Figure 1) and USGS topographic map
(Figure 2) are attached for review Latitude and longitude for the site are 36 506671 N and 80 704115 W
respectively
22 Historical Conditions and Future Land Use Trends
Reference is made in the following discussions to project reaches and design stationing as shown on the
attached preliminary plans (Appendix D) The project site falls within five parcels encompassing 461
acres One of the parcels (11 7 acres) is owned by William L Horton Jr and the other four parcels are
owned by Maple Ridge Farm Maple Ridge Farm is an operating dairy and a portion of the Horton parcel
is used as pasture for the dairy cows An 18 -acre area comprised of two outparcels is located near the
center of the site Dairy operations are focused at a cluster of barns silage pits and small buildings in a
4 -acre area near the farm entrance along Horton Road A few other barns and sheds are located
elsewhere on the property
The majority of the stream length targeted for channel modifications lacks a robust vegetative buffer
Enhancement and preservation are proposed for stream reaches in areas of the site that do contain
functional buffers including much of the Barn Tributary drainage UTs 6 and 7 portions of the Silage
Tributary drainage and the right floodplain over the downstream half of Moores Fork Vegetation in the
Barn Tributary drainage includes mature trees (greater than 18 inches dbh) and dense mountain laurel
On the downstream Moores Fork floodplain several trees In the 12 to 18 inches dbh size range are
present
Based on a review of aerial photograph of the project site land use and the extent of cleared land have
not changed significantly since at least 1982 (Figure 5) Between 1948 (Figure 6) and 1982 upland
areas in the Corn Silage and Barn tributary drainages were cleared of trees and converted to pasture or
row crop fields The permanent stream crossings on the project site include a clear -span bridge over
Moores Fork near the mid -point of the project reach and two culverts at the upstream and downstream
ends of the Corn Tributary While it is difficult to be certain the aerial photographs indicate the crossing
locations have remained consistent since at least 1982 Judging by the deck materials the bridge over
Moores Fork appears to have been improved or replaced within the past 10 years The landowners
indicated that they have reinforced the stream banks upstream of the abutments on multiple occasions
over the past several years
In October 2006 Surry County issued Land Use Plan 2015 which describes growth land use changes
and future development policies through 2015 The Moores Fork site is located at the divide between a
rural land use area and a rural growth area A rural growth area Is defined as being appropriate for
medium density residential development Land to the west of the dividing line leading to upland areas of
the Moores Fork watershed is designated as rural land with a best use of agriculture low density
residential forestry and other similar practices Technical Memorandum Task 2 Upper Yadkin Basin
Local Watershed Plan identified the Moores Fork sub - watershed as a high priority for stream restoration
presumably because of its low population density agricultural land uses and potential for improvement
Current and projected future land use for this watershed supports an ecosystem investment at this site
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
2

As Shown Moores Fork Restoration Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map
Surry County, NC
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012

Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
ZS
1` 1
_ —
r-
0
D bmY
CrCd
/ 'roc _ `�, � •,�� � /iyf V
~L` � JJ. (
lit' ,�� � • !
- 1 '
1
_ _ n r • ,.�m Jam'
ELS P
r
Scale: 1" = 2,500' Moores Fork Restoration Figure 2: Watershed Map
Surry County, NC
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012

Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
5
Sal Map —Surry County, North Carolina
(Moores Fork Mitigation Site)
e
S ?4t 00
b241UO i Ww 5 25300 525400
fi.
36'31'16
•i
4 ei
a ➢
�
a
�j
1
•a�_
•r
_
.i
A
i • ` W �
� ors .�
h
{ r
36' 1311'
5 ?unn
5M W SAM S 00
516200
`."Pstale 1'13,600Ifpnrftd
aAnms(ai'x11•(Sr"I
�N
- 0 160
Oldars
160
0 000 1.000 1.000 3=
USDA Natural Resources
Web Soil Sauey
10(3!2011
Conservation Service
National Cooperative Soil Survey
Page 1 of 3
Moores Fork Restoration
Scale: As Shown
Figure 3: Soils Map
Surry County, NC
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
5

• 1 ,w
- y l
ova
\ -4
Map }
�f
Production October

rs
9.
IN
4'
--elf
. rt�
IV'
n
11 000 2,000 3,000
. I .
Map Production Date - October 203110§= P—f

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

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

24 Evolutionary Trends
Appendix C Includes a two-page Inventory map showing areas of significant bank erosion bar formation
gully formation and debris dams Moores Fork appears to have been straightened and shifted to the edge
of Its valley between stations 19 +00 and 38 +00 There is also evidence of possible channelization or
lateral migration between stations 56 +00 and 62 +00 This assessment is supported by observations of
the floodplain topography which shows low points in the floodplain and wetland areas indicative of relict
channel sections offset 100 feet or more from the current channel Additional supporting data were
gathered from five of six hand auger bonngs in the floodplain that encountered gravel indicative of the
one -time creek bed at depths of 3 7 to 4 7 feet below existing grade Based on a review of aerial
photographs this straightening and /or lateral migration was completed to its current conditions prior to
1948 The shortened stream length and resulting steepening of the channel profile likely set an incision
process in motion Bedrock is visible throughout much of Moores Fork and it appears that the bedrock
has limited the depth and extent of channel incision Observations of a gravel layer in the bank near the
downstream end of the project indicate the channel has down -cut 1 to 2 feet
The channel modifications Incision and subsequent widening have created bank stability and sediment
transport problems particularly when combined with buffer vegetation removal and livestock trampling
Moores Fork appears to be less than halfway on a trajectory from a C -type steam to an F -type stream as
evidenced by the following (refer to project site photographs section 2 5)
• Extensive ongoing bank erosion
• Leaning and fallen trees
• Channel cross sectional areas up to nearly three times the estimated bankfull areas
• Bank heights up to twice the bankfull depth and
• Frequent large mid - channel sediment bars
The Soil Survey of Surry County indicates most of the rock in the area strikes northeast - southwest and
dips northwest The dominant soils at the site are in the Fairview series which are residual sandy clays
the products of in -situ weathering of the parent bedrock The residual soils are overlain by alluvial soils in
the Moores Fork floodplain
Even the relatively modest incision observed throughout much of the project reach has confined large
flows to the channel which in turn has led to bank erosion widening and mid- channel sediment
deposition While most obvious in Reach 2 through a pasture immediately upstream of the bridge, this
scenario is ongoing in the wooded reaches downstream of the bridge as well Left unchecked this
process of widening and mid - channel deposition will likely continue as leaning trees fall and expose
erodible soils The evolutionary trend suggests that the stream will migrate laterally and form a new cross
section until the system eventually reaches equilibrium with its water and sediment supply
Flow in the Pond Tributary is affected greatly by the upstream pond located about 200 feet upstream of
the project reach there appears to be a moderate storage volume in the pond to mitigate flood flows to
the downstream reach Downstream of the farm road the Pond Tributary is badly trampled by cattle and
while an evolutionary trend is difficult to define this reach will not recover without intervention The Corn
Tributary is generally stable despite being confined in a deep V- shaped valley and impacted by logging
debris Bankfull bench construction and bank sloping are warranted in the short reach at the downstream
end to address vertical banks but the majority of the reach should respond well to debris removal and
buffer restoration The Instability over the upstream reach of the Barn Tributary is attributed to the former
dam and impoundment The dam breach Is located at the upstream end of a highly Incised reach that will
continue to erode laterally unless the unstable banks are addressed At its downstream limit the Barn
Tributary is highly sinuous and suffers from a lack of woody vegetation on the banks but it is generally
stable
The upstream 3 000 LF of the Silage Tributary and both Cow tributaries are actively incising through their
steep, V- shaped valleys with numerous headcuts evident in the profiles It appears that the Incision was
set in motion by an increase in runoff from adjacent fields and pastures following initial clearing several
decades ago Landowners indicated that an on -line pond was once present in the Silage Tributary
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
10

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

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

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

WIT,
i III IR
_
y a'�. '�'ht�7 - �'r`r�," . -r'� �`- � •+ .
'AID •x ' - .
•
• 1
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
14

30 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
The land required for the construction management and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
portions of the following parcels A copy of the land protection instrument(s) will be Included in Appendix
A upon completion of the documents
Table 2 Summary of Project Land Parcels and Site Protection Instruments
Site
Deed Book
Acreage
Tract
Landowner
PIN
County
Protection
and Page
protected
Instrument
Number
Maple Ridge Farm &
4090 -57 5440
Conservation
5041127
A
Construction Inc
4090 -39 0783
Surry
Easement
5041134
126 46 ac
4090 -49 -7679
4261017
B
Horton William L Jr
4090 -39 -0783
Surry
Conservation
325 461
7 8� ac
& Laura Horton
Easement
REF 388 41
All site protection Instruments require 60 -day advance notification to the Corps and the State prior to any
action to void amend or modify the document No such action shall take place unless approved by the
State
Figure 7 shows the current parcel boundaries and the proposed conservation easement boundaries
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
15

As Shown Moores Fork Restoration Figure 7: Site Protection
Surry County, NC Instrument Boundaries
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
16

40 BASELINE INFORMATION
Table 3 Project Baseline Information (p 1 of 2)
Project Name
County
Project Area (acres)
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Moores Fork Restoration
Surry
-140 (conservation and temporary construction easements)
36 506671 N 80 704115 W
Project Watershed Summary Informatlon
Physiographic Province
River Basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
DWQ Sub basin
Project Drainage Area (acres)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
CGIA Land Use Classification
Piedmont
Yadkin
03040101
03040101100010
Pee Dee River Subbasm 03 07 02
1 527 ac (2 39 sq miles)
<5%
Cropland and Pasture Confined Animal Operations
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reaches 1/2
Moores Fork
Reach 3
Moores Fork
Silage Trib
Cow Trib 1
Cow Trib 2
Existing length of reach linear feet)
2 397
2 856
3 348
167
767
Valley classification (Ros en)
VIII
VIII
II / IV
II
II
Drainage area (acres)
1 193
1 527
156
4
16
NCDWQ stream identification score
35
345
235
20
235
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
WS IV
WS IV
WS IV
WS IV
WS IV
Morphological Descnpbon (Rosgen
stream e)
C4
C4
G4 /C4
G5
G5
Evolutionary trend
C F
C F
G F
G
G
Underlying mapped sods
CsA FsE
CsA FsE
FeD2
FeD2
FeD2
Drainage class
well drained
well drained
well drained
well drained
well drained
Soil H dnc status
not h dnc
not hydnc
not h dnc
not h dnc
not hydnc
Slope
00078
00055
00297
00559
00384
FEMA classification
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Native vegetation community
Felsic Mesic
Forest
Felsic Mesic
Forest
Felsic Mesic
Forest
Felsic Mesic
Forest
Felsic Mesic
Forest
Percent composition of exotic
invasive vegetation
40
40
50
<10
<10
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland 1
Wetland 2
Wetland 3
Wetland 4
Size of Wetland (acres)
0 09 ac
0 02 ac
0 13 ac
0 lac
Wetland Type (non riparian npanan
nvenne or riparian non nvenne)
riparian non nvenne
riparian non nvenne
riparian non nvenne
riparian non nvenne
Mapped Soil Series
FsE
FsE
CsA
FsE and CsA
Drainage class
well drained
well drained
well drained
well drained
Soil H dnc Status
not h dnc
not hydnc
not h dnc
not h dnc
Source of Hydrology
UT9 and UT10
UT8
Toe seep
Toe see
Hydrologic Impairment
none
none
none
none
Native vegetation community
Dist Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest
Dist Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest
Dist Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest
Dist Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest
Percent composition of exotic
invasive vegetation
20
65
<10
<10
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Y
N
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Y
N
Endangered Species Act
Y
Y
CE Approved 12/21/11
Historic Preservation Act
N
N/A
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA)
N
N/A
FEMA Flood lain Compliance
N
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N
NlA
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Protect - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
17

Table 3 Project Baseline Information (p 2 of 2)
Project Name Moores Fork Restoration
County Suny
Project Area (acres) -80 (conservation and temporary construction easements)
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 36 506671 N 80 704115 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
River Basin Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit 03040101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03040101100010
DWQ Sub -basin Pee Dee River Subbasin 03 07 02
Project Drainage Area (acres) 1 527 ac (2 39 square miles)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <5%
CGIA Land Use Classification Cropland and Pasture Confined Animal Operations
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Pond Trib
Barn Trib
Com Trib
UT1
Existing length of reach linear feet
194
3 498
2 464
466
Valley classification Ros en
VIII
IV
IV
IV
Drainage area acres
27
184
30
6
NCDWQ stream identification score
20
365
21
23
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
WS IV
WS IV
WS IV
WS IV
Morphological Description (Rosgen
stream e)
134/5
G4
G4
B4
Evolutionary trend
B C F
G F
G F
Underlying mapped soils
CsA
FeD2 FsE
CsA FsE
FeD2
Drainage class
well drained
well drained
well drained
well drained
Soil H dnc status
not hydnc
not h dnc
not hydnc
not hydnc
Slope
00290
00250
00571
004+/
FEMA classification
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Native vegetation community
Felsic Mesic
Forest
Felsic Mesic
Forest
Felsic Mesic
Forest
Felsic Mesic
Forest
Percent composition of exotic
invasive vegetation
<10
25
60
40
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland 5
Wetland 6
Size of Wetland (acres)
0 03 ac
0 06 ac
Wetland Type (non npanan riparian
nvenne or npanan non nvenne)
riparian non nvenne
riparian non nvenne
Mapped Soil Series
FeD2
FsE and FeD2
Drainage class
well drained
well drained
Soil Hydnc Status
not hydnc
not hydnc
Source of Hydrology
Toe Seep
Toe see
Hydrologic Impairment
none
none
Native vegetation community
Dist Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest
Dist Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest
Percent composition of exotic
invasive vegetation
<10
20
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
18

5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Mitigation credits presented in these tables are projections based on site design. Upon completion of site
construction, the project components and credits will be revised to be consistent with the as -built
conditions. The high end of the credit ratio spectrum for Enhancement Level I was assigned to Moores
Fork Reach 3 and Barn Tributary Reach 1, where extensive bank shaping, bankfull bench construction,
in- stream structure installation and buffer planting are proposed. Similarly, where gully repairs and
extensive farm conservation plan improvements are proposed upland of jurisdictional streams and no
credit is requested (Cow Tributaries and UT1), we have assigned the high end of the Enhancement Level
II credit ratio spectrum. Descriptions of each reach with proposed treatments are presented Table 4a
below.
Table 4a. Reach Descriptions
Reach
Characteristics and Uplift Discussion
Relatively stable bed and banks; bedrock common; well vegetated right bank;
Moores Reach 1
�T
levee, livestock fencing and narrow buffer on left bank.
Uplift gained through buffer planting on left bank and wide conservation easement
on forested right bank and upland areas.
Impacted by direct cattle access; widespread bank erosion and mid - channel
deposition; some matures trees on right bank and floodplain; small wetland and
Moores Reach 2
clear span bridge at downstream end.
Uplift gained by construction of new off -line channel with in- stream structures and
!`
planted buffers. Livestock fencing will be installed. Existing wetland will be
protected during construction with fencing.
Impacted by buffer vegetation removal; widespread bank erosion and mid - channel
deposition; some matures trees on right bank and floodplain; clear span bridge at
upstream end; eroding gullies entering from left floodplain; small wetland on right
Moores Reach 3
floodplain near station 44 +00.
Uplift gained by mainly on -line enhancements including extensive bankfull
benching, bank sloping, in- stream structures, bioengineering bank treatments and
buffer planting. Short off -line reaches will be constructed where appropriate.
Existing wetland will be protected during construction with fencing.
Impacted by direct cattle access and vegetation removal; widespread gully incision
and bank erosion; some matures trees on both banks and upland areas; invasive
species common.
Silage Reach 1
Uplift gained by on -line enhancement including construction of new step -pool
profile, bank shaping, removal of invasive species, buffer planting and relocation of
silage pits away from the stream as part of a farm management plan. Livestock
l�
fencing will be installed.
Impacted by direct cattle access and vegetation removal; widespread bank
erosion; some matures trees on both banks and upland areas; invasive species
Silage Reach 2
%. S' f age
common.
Uplift gained by on -line enhancements including isolated bankfull benching, bank
sloping, in- stream structures, invasive species removal and buffer planting.
Livestock fencing will be installed.
Impacted by direct cattle access and vegetation removal; gully incision and bank
erosion; some matures trees on both banks and upland areas.
Cow Tributaries 1 and 2
Uplift gained by on -line enhancements including, bank sloping, in- stream
C
If EE
structures, buffer planting and upland gully stabilization /runoff management.
Livestock fencing will be installed.
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
19

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

Table 4b Projected Mitigation Credits
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation
Sur y County, North Carolina
EEP Project No 94709
Stream Mitigation Credits
Type
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
Total
2071
6 726
2 953
909
Project Components
Project Component
-or Reach 10
Station Ing/Location
Existing LF
Approach
Restoration -or
Restoration
Equivalent
Proposed LF
Mitigation
Ratio
Moores Reach 1
STA 989 -1750
761
N/A
Ell
761
2 5 1
Moores Reach 2
STA 1750 -3578
1 636
P2
R
1 828
1 1
Moores Reach 3
STA 3578-6410
2 856
P2/3
El
2 832
1 1
Silage Reach 1
STA 1000 -1900
900
j P1
El
900
1 1
Silage Reach 2
STA 1900-4348
2 448
P3
El
2 448
1 5 1
Cow 1
STA 1219 -1386
167
P4
Ell
167
1 5 1
Cow 2
STA 1331 -2098
767
P4
Ell
767
1 5 1
Pond
STA 1000 -1243
194
P2
R
243
1 1
Barn Reach 1
STA 1000 1250
250
P3
El
250
1 1
Barn Reach 2
STA 1250 -4498
3 248
N/A
Ell
3 248
2 5 1
Corn Reach 1
STA 1000 2350
1 350
N/A
Ell
1 350
2 5 1
Corn Reach 2
STA 2350 2462
112
P3
El
112
1 1
UT1
STA 1000 - 1466
466
N/A
Ell
466
2 5 1
Preservation
Reaches
UTs 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10
4 543
N/A
P
4 543
51
Component Summary
Restoration Level
Stream
(linear feet)
Restoration
2071
Enhancement 1
6 542
Enhancement II
6 759
Preservation
4 543

60 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 cntena described as follows
Table 5 Stream Credits Release Schedule
Monitoring
Year
credit Release Activity
Interim
Release
Total
Released
0
Initial Allocation — see requirements above
30%
30%
1
First year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met
10%
40%
2
Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met
10%
50%(60% )
3
Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met
10%
60%(70%-)
4
Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met
5%
65%(75% )
5
Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met
10%
75%(85% )
6
Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met
5%
80%(90%)
7
Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being
met and project has received closeout approval
10%
90%(100%-)
• A reserve of 10% of a site s total stream credits shall be released after two bankfull events have occurred in separate years
provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met
61 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
62 Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE in consultation with the IRT, based on a
determination that required performance standards have been achieved For stream projects a reserve of
10% of a site s total stream credits shall be released after two bankfull events have occurred in separate
years provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met In the event that less
than two bankfull events occur during the monitoring period release of these reserve credits shall be at
the discretion of the IRT As projects approach milestones associated with credit release the EEP will
submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation substantiating achievement of
criteria required for release to occur This documentation will be Included with the annual monitoring
reports
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
22

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

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

Table 7 Target Streams, Constraints and Reach -Specific Measures
Reach
Target Stream
Type (Slope)
Constraints
Reach - Specific Measures
Livestock grazing on left bank
Riparian buffer planting invasive species removal
Moores R1
C4 (0 009)
bedrock in profile steep upland
livestock fencing
slope on right mature trees
Livestock grazing bedrock in profile
New off line channel in stream structures bank grading
Moores R2
C4 (0 007)
mature trees bridge at downstream
bankfull benches riparian buffers invasive species
end
removal
Coin field on left bank bedrock in
In stream structures bank grading bankfull benches
Moores R3
C4 (0 007)
profile mature trees property line at
riparian buffers invasive species removal
downstream end
Silage
Steep confined valley mature trees
Bioengmeenng stabilization of upland gullies new on
Tributary
B4 (0 036)
pasture on both banks stormwater
line strep pool channel in stream structures riparian
R1
inputs
buffers invasive species removal runoff controls
Silage
Livestock grazing bedrock in profile
In stream structures bank grading bankfull benches
Tributary
B4 C4 (0 020)
steep upland slopes mature trees
riparian buffers invasive species removal livestock
R2
property line at downstream end
fencing
Cow
Steep confined valley mature trees
Bioengmeenng stabilization of upland gullies in stream
Tributaries
B4 (0 038 0 055)
pasture on both banks
structures riparian buffers invasive species removal
1 and 2
runoff controls
Pond
C4 (0 018)
Culvert at upstream end Moores
New off line channel in stream structures bank grading
Tributary
Fork confluence adjacent pasture
bankfull benches riparian buffers
Bain
Steep confined valley stormwater
In stream structures bank grading bankfull benches
Tributary
E4b (0 025)
inputs connection to stable
riparian buffers invasive species removal runoff controls
R1
downstream reach
Bain
Tributary
E4b (0 025)
Steep confined valley mature trees
Logging debris and invasive species removal isolated
R2
bank repairs riparian buffers
Coin
Steep confined valley mature trees
Logging debris and invasive species removal riparian
Tributary
B4 (0 02 +/ )
corn field on both banks farm roads
buffers
R1
at upstream and downstream ends
Com
Mature trees on left bank farm road
In stream structures bank grading bankfull benches
Tributary
B4 (0 04 +/ )
at upstream end Moores Fork
riparian buffers invasive species removal
R2
confluence
LIT1
B4 (0 04 +/)
Steep confined valley mature trees
Bioengineenng stabilization of upland gullies invasive
upland corn field/pasture
species removal runoff controls
72 Target Plant Communities
The target plant community Is a more robust and diverse version of the existing Felslc Meslc Forest plant
community Identified In the upland and relatively undisturbed reaches of the UTs In upland areas where
stream and floodplaln grading are not proposed but where Invasive exotic plants have encroached buffer
restoration design will Include the following
• Eradication of Invasive exotic species
• Preservation of desirable existing species and
• Supplemental planting with selected native trees and shrubs to encourage a more diverse
version of the target community
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
25

Most of the areas proposed for stream and floodplain grading are currently pasture The target plant
community for these areas will be the same as the upland areas but species within this community will be
selected for their adaptation to streambank and floodplain conditions Appendix C includes a table with
several candidate species for buffer planting
73 Design Methodology and Data Analyses
The design methodology incorporated both form -based and analytical approaches using a combination
of statistical relationships and analyses to arrive at a design discharge for each reach Other primary
design criteria such as cross section dimensions pattern and profile are all linked to the design
discharge and to each other The following sections summarize each phase of the methodology
supporting calculations and data are included in Appendix C
7 3 1 Design Discharge
In order to estimate a range of design discharges for each reach where dimension and pattern and /or
profile modifications are proposed we evaluated regional regression equations analyzed field bankfull
indicators using hydraulic models and considered sediment transport competence using critical
discharge for initiation of bed material mobility (where sediment data could be obtained) In addition to
evaluating discharge at various surveyed riffle cross sections on the project reaches we also evaluated
the predicted discharge for the Mill Creek reference reach as a check of the analysis methodology As
indicated in Table 8 there is considerable spread in the predicted design discharge values The USGS 2-
year estimate typically provides an upper bound on the bankfull discharge while the critical discharge
estimates typically provide a lower bound
The critical discharge estimates based on competence are at the low end of the range for all project
reaches where suitable samples could be obtained The regional curve and USGS estimates are also at
the low end of the discharge range Our selected design values are based primarily on hydraulic models
that include surveyed cross sections with reliable bankfull indicators in each case a well- defined bench
with evidence of relatively recent flow The reach -wide model which also accounts for floodplain and
channel roughness allowed us to adjust discharge until the stage matched the stable bankfull indicators
We also used the model to check for other possible geomorphic features (scour lines changes in bank
angle, etc ) using the range of predicted discharges and were unable to identify any reliable indicators of
the bankfull stage in the surveyed cross sections other than those that were first identified in the field We
are confident in the modeled discharges because they are based on site - specific measurements rather
than predictions based on average regional conditions or empirical formulae
Also as discussed in Section 7 3 2 the design attempts to create sediment transport continuity with
upstream supply reaches so as to address widespread mid - channel deposition as is evident throughout
Moores Fork The reach of Moores Fork immediately upstream of the project limits has greater transport
capacity than the project reach owing mainly to a 40 percent greater slope The existing stable cross
sections (M1 1 M1 6 M1 7 M1 9 and M1 10) appear to have adjusted shape and dimension to be in
better balance with the supply reach than the unstable cross sections likely because of more robust bank
vegetation and more frequent floodplain access Our analysis of a design discharge based on regional
relationships or critical discharge estimates indicates that such a design would lead to even more
sediment transport imbalance than currently exists because the resulting smaller cross section would
have less competence and capacity
We have considered contributing factors to explain the wide spread between predicted and measured"
discharges We also surveyed additional cross sections and profiles near the upstream limits of Moores
Fork and these surveys confirm our measurements and predictions in the supply reach and project
reaches Our observations in the Moores Fork watershed indicate that the differences are likely
attributable to relatively low infiltration rates caused by sod compaction in pastures shallow bedrock
steep upland areas and impervious surfaces along the Interstate 77 corridor
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
26

Table 8 Design Discharge Estimates (cfs)
Design Reach
NC Rural
Piedmont
Regional
Curve
USGS
2 year
NC HR1
Hydraulic Model
using Field
Indicators
Critical
Discharge
(Pavement Da4)
Critical
Discharge
(Bar Dloo)
Selected
Design Value
Moores Rch 1
139
237
380 -400
185 190
101
400
Moores Rch 2/3
166
278
380 -430
170 185
56
400
Silage Tnb Rch 1
14
29
51
n/a
n/a
24
Silage Tnb Rch 2
32
63
n/a
n/a
n/a
60
Pond Tnb
9
20
n/a
n/a
n/a
19
Barn Tnb
3
8
18
n/a
n/a
11
Mill Creek R R
284
385
191 196
173 270
77 87
N/A
On reaches of the Silage and Pond Tributaries reliable bankfull indicators could not be located and
estimates based on field indicators could not be made We did not perform hydraulic or sediment
transport analyses for reaches where pattern or profile are not proposed to be changed
The smaller project reaches (Silage Pond Barn and Com Tributaries) were either so heavily impacted by
cattle or small enough In cross section to make pebble counts infeasible In order to gather some
sediment size data for these streams representative bar samples were collected and analyzed the Pond
Tributary is so heavily trampled that even bar sampling was not feasible
7 3 2 Sediment Transport
As part of our sediment transport evaluations we considered landscape position and the connections
between the various reaches with a focus on Moores Fork A qualitative assessment of Moores Fork at
the project site and the reach upstream reveals the following general conditions
• The reach Immediately upstream is a both a source of sediment to the project reaches (through
hlllslope and bank erosion processes) and a transport reach Sediment export appears to be
balanced with supply the reach has a bedrock controlled profile a steep rocky hillside on the
right bank and exposed unstable soils on the left bank
• Reach 1 is primarily a transport reach similar In profile to the upstream reach with somewhat
more prominent bars some of which are influenced by In- stream woody debris
• Reach 2 is primarily a storage reach but extensive bank erosion provides a source of fine
sediment to the system Lateral erosion has allowed large mid- channel and lateral bars to form
• Reach 3 has storage source and transport sub - reaches with several large bars (storage)
widespread bank erosion and hlllslope colluvium (source) and bedrock controlled bed and banks
(transport)
Given the presence of mid- channel sediment deposition and abundant bedrock in the bed aggradation is
more of a concern that degradation for Moores Fork Our Moores Fork sediment transport analyses were
targeted on developing design strategies to accommodate excess sediment supply
Table 8 above summarizes sediment transport competence analyses supporting data are included In
Appendix C Our analyses indicate the design streams (in terms of cross section and profile) will
transport the size of the large bed materials sampled at the site We also evaluated sediment transport
capacity and continuity between the supply and design reaches using unit stream power as the indicator
parameter We compared stream power over a range of stages up to and above the bankfull stage to
check if continuity was achieved Hydraulic models (HEC -RAS and RIVERMorph) of the existing and
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project — Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
27

design conditions were used to support the sediment transport analyses by providing hydraulic
parameters such as hydraulic radius slope, shear stress and power Graphical output of these analyses
is included in Appendix C
Slope and cross section size and shape are the factors that determine stream power There is no
realistic opportunity to increase slope in the project reaches to match the supply reach slope so cross
section shape and size become the design focus As discussed in Section 7 3 3 there are geotechnlcal
stability considerations for cross section design the design attempts to optimize sediment transport
continuity and bank stability
Analyses indicate that the design unit stream power in the Moores Fork restoration and enhancement
reaches is somewhat lower than the supply reach but greater than the existing conditions up to the
bankfull stage The decrease in sediment transport capacity from the supply reach to the project reaches
suggests that excess sediment may continue to deposit in the project reaches The design cross section
shape and size accounts for this potential by providing space for sediment deposition in advantageous
sections of the channel such as in point bars In- stream vane structures will also be used to reduce the
potential for mid - channel deposition in riffles and runs We expect that sediment loads and the potential
for excessive mid -channel deposition will be reduced once upstream banks on the site are stabilized but
off -site reaches will likely continue to deliver a relatively large supply of sediment
At the Silage Tributary sediment supply is low and velocities are high so the main concern in the steep
Reach 1 is down - cutting and the key parameter is boundary shear Comparisons of existing versus
design boundary shear for Reach 1 indicate reductions in the design shear at the bankfull stage At twice
the bankfull stage and beyond when valley morphology dictates hydraulic behavior the design shear is
slightly higher than the existing shear but not enough of a difference to warrant design adjustments The
flatter Silage Tributary Reach 2 and the Pond Tributary are similar to Moores Fork in terms of
morphology and bank erosion and deposition are the main concerns For both of these reaches the
estimated shear and unit stream power values are similar to the existing cases up to the bankfull stage
Above the bankfull stage the design values are less than the existing up to about 2 5 times the bankfull
stage at which valley morphology governs the hydraulics
The primary design goal for proposed enhancement reach of the Barn Tributary is to provide floodplaln
access in order to reduce shear on the badly incised banks Analyses indicate an abrupt decrease in
shear at the bankfull stage The estimated shear increases approaches the reference case at stages of
about 2 times bankfull where valley morphology comes into play
7 3 3 Cross Section
Design discharge and sediment transport analyses inform the design of cross section dimensions and
shapes cross section dimensions and shapes along with slope govern hydraulic parameters that are
relevant to design Past experience also informs the cross section design For example project
monitoring over the past several years has indicated that a newly constructed E or C -type channel with a
width -depth ratio less than about 10 can lead to stability problems We evaluated reference cross
sections (on Moores Fork and the Com and Barn Tributaries) as indications of bankfull area and general
shape but the design bank slopes are also governed by geotechnical stability needs during the
monitoring period in areas where little or no deep - rooted vegetation will be present for the first few
growing seasons Ratios of pool - to-nffle depth and top width are based in part on reference reach data
and in part on past experience
As noted in the previous section the design cross sections will accommodate sediment storage within the
channel on point bars and /or in lateral bars upstream of vane structures This stored sediment is
available for transport during large flow events, which promotes long -term stability and sediment transport
equilibrium Mobilized sediment in the project reaches will be replaced by sediment from upstream
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Protect - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
28

7 3 4 Plan and Profile
Plan geometry design is based on multiple factors chiefly the selected design slope and lateral
constraints such as easement boundaries and topography At a particular plan feature such as a
meander bend geometry Is based on a range of dimensionless ratios that have proven to be effective In
meeting design objectives while promoting stability The prime example for plan geometry is radius of
curvature ratio well- vegetated reference reaches (Mill Creek for example) suggest a radius of curvature
ratio of 1 0 or less would be desirable but experience Indicates that a ratio less than about 1 8 places
undue stresses on newly constructed banks that lack deep rooted vegetation Reference cross
section /reach data are summarized in Appendix C
We considered reference reaches when developing plan geometry Our search for a Moores Fork
reference reach Included upstream reaches of Moores Itself and several other streams In relatively
undisturbed watersheds primarily In Surry County We Identified a reach of MITI Creek with a stable
meander bend in a valley and with bed materials similar to those found In Moores Fork As with
reference cross sections reference plan form is useful as a general guide for parameters such as belt
width radius of curvature and pool -pool spacing However as with low width -depth ratios in reference
cross sections tight radii and pool spacing In reference reaches often cannot be assigned to a design
reach without risk of stability problems in the time while vegetation is becoming established The selected
pattern and profile take Into account aquatic habitat needs stability throughout the monitoring period and
space constraints With pattern being directly linked to profile we considered profile constraints such as
existing bedrock outcrops as well as sediment transport equilibrium when assigning profile grades
The target stream type for Moores Fork is a moderately sinuous moderate width -depth ratio C4 which Is
appropriate for the relatively flat and wide alluvial valley through which it will flow Reaches 1 and 3 will
be constructed largely within the existing channel with modest pattern shifts where existing pattern is
unstable In- stream structures will be Incorporated in both of these reaches to promote sediment
transport equilibrium riffle and pool formation and enhanced bank stability Reach 2 will be constructed
mainly off -line to position the channel In the low point of the valley and provide better floodplaln access on
both banks The overall approach can be described as a hybrid Rosgen Priority 2/3 restoration
Given Its slope and confined valley the stable morphology for Reach 1 of the Silage Tributary Is a step -
pool 64 stream type For key profile design parameters such as step height pool width and depth and
pool spacing, we consulted the research of Chin and Abrahams Li and Atkinson We established the
design profile based on the ratio of step height to step length which was found in stable natural step pool
systems to vary from 1 to 2 In order to limit the potential for excess shear stress on the structures and
surrounding bed and banks the step height was capped at 12 Inches Where fish passage Is a
consideration (not the case for the Silage Tributary because there does not appear to be a fish population
present), step heights will be limited to 6 Inches Because of the highly confined nature of the Silage
Tributary and the desire to preserve mature upland trees, addressing eroding banks and Incised
conditions through bank sloping is not practical The design solution is to partially fill the channel (3 to 4
feet deep) with clayey soil (compacted In horizontal lifts not exceeding 9 inches in thickness) and create a
new channel cross section and step pool profile at a higher elevation Vegetated upland areas will be
protected The new bed will be reinforced with stone riffles sized to resist mobilization at flows beyond
bankfull For the purposes of this mitigation plan we are assuming no loss of stream length
Reach 2 of the Silage Tributary the Com Tributary and the Barn Tributary are similar in terms of
morphology each is a relatively steep alluvial channel with significant Incision and bank erosion problems
with little length to transition to a stable profile end point The design approaches for these streams are
also similar The channels will be left in their current alignments banks will be graded to stable slopes
bankfull benches will be constructed and in- stream structures will be used to promote bed and bank
stability Reference cross sections on stable reaches of the Com and Barn Tributaries were used to size
the design cross sections for these streams
The target stream type for the Pond Tributary Is a moderately sinuous moderate width -depth ratio C4
The project reach begins at the outlet of the culvert where flow drops about 2 feet to a small plunge pool
at the existing thalweg The design profile will start at this existing thalweg elevation taking advantage of
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
29

the energy dissipating effects of the pool and then abandon the badly trampled channel for a new
alignment across the floodplain to the east The downstream end of the profile Includes a 1 5 -foot high
transition to the Moores Fork thalweg which will be constructed using a grade control structure
Both of the Cow Tributaries will be stabilized in their current channels using grade control structures in
select locations to address headcut erosion These reaches are badly trampled by cattle and should
respond well to livestock exclusion both In terms of morphology and buffer vegetation
The design Includes filling and stabilizing gullies at the headwaters of the Silage Tributary the Cow 1 and
Cow 2 Tributaries LJT1 and two runoff conveyances entering Moores Fork Reach 3 The proposed gully
stabilization will include upland measures such as level spreaders swales and vegetation to divert and /or
redirect concentrated runoff away from gullies Check dams made from nprap woody brush crushed
concrete decay resistant logs and other on -site materials will be used to reduce erosive stresses In the
gullies and promote long -term healing Stabilized areas will be planted with species and densities as
specified for buffer areas
7 3 6 In-Stream Structures
In- stream structure types and locations were selected based on design stability habitat enhancement and
sediment transport objectives within each reach Table 9 below provides a summary of specific
objectives for the proposed structures Data and analyses supporting the sizing of stone for In- stream
structures are provided In Appendix C
7 3 6 Farm Management Plan
The Sury Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) s developed a Conservation Plan that will be
implemented as part of the project EEP and the SWCD will install a water well that will supply four
separate watering stations around the farm The plan also includes two heavy use areas Installed so that
livestock can be fed away from all streams during the winter months and a stock trail so the livestock can
be moved from pasture to pasture without crossing Inside the conservation easement areas The
Conservation Plan Map is Included In Appendix D
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project — Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
30
Table 9 In-Stream Structures
Structure
Objectives
Geolifts
a
Bank stability at channel plugs
b
Quickly establish deep rooted bank vegetation
Rock Vane or Log Vane
a
Direct flow toward center of channel
b
Promote sediment storage upstream and pool formation downstream
a
Center flow
Cross Vane
b
Mitigate over -wide conditions and lessen potential for mid - channel bar
formation
c
Promote sediment storage upstream and pool formation downstream
a
Set grade in profile
Constructed Riffle or Step
b
Provide roughness in bed
Structure
c
Initiate nffle habitat and sediment transport equilibrium
a
Enhance bank stability
Root Wad Cluster
b
Provide bank roughness
c
Establish near -bank cover and pool habitat
7 3 6 Farm Management Plan
The Sury Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) s developed a Conservation Plan that will be
implemented as part of the project EEP and the SWCD will install a water well that will supply four
separate watering stations around the farm The plan also includes two heavy use areas Installed so that
livestock can be fed away from all streams during the winter months and a stock trail so the livestock can
be moved from pasture to pasture without crossing Inside the conservation easement areas The
Conservation Plan Map is Included In Appendix D
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project — Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
30

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

90 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
In accordance with the provisions in CFR Title 33 performance standards that will be used to assess
whether the project is achieving its objectives and should relate to the objectives so that the project
can be objectively evaluated to determine if it is developing into the desired resource type providing the
expected functions and attaining any other applicable metrics
Table 11 below lists proposed success criteria for channel stability and riparian buffer vegetation Year to
year comparisons for the vanous parameters will allow adaptive management to be Implemented early on
in the monitoring penod if necessary in order to reduce the risk of widespread problems
Table 11 Performance Standards
Parameter
Metrics/Success Cntena
Frequency
a Bank height ratio for reaches where BHR is corrected through design and
construction shall not exceed 12
b Entrenchment ratio for reaches where ER is corrected through design and
Channel Stability
construction shall be no less than 2 2
As -Built
c The stream project shall remain stable and all other performance standards
shall be met through two separate bankfull events occurring in separate
years during the monitoring years 1 through 7
a Density of 320 live planted stems/ac at year 3 260 live planted stems/acre
Riparian Buffer Vegetation
at year 5 210 live planted stems /acre at year 7
b Planted vegetation must average 8 feet in height at year 7
10 0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the EEP monitoring template The monitoring report shall
provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends
population of EEP databases for analysis, research purposes, and assist in decision making regarding
project close -out
Table 12 Monitoring Requirements
Required Parameter
Quantity
Frequency
Notes
As per April 2003 USACE
Pattem /profile survey will extend for at least
Patter and Profile
Wilmington District Stream
As -Built
20 bankfull widths per reach Annual
profile surveys only required if channel
Mitigation Guidelines
instability is observed
A minimum of one representative riffle and
As per April 2003 USACE
As -Built
pool cross section will be surveyed per
Dimension
Wilmington District Stream
Years 1 2
reach Bank pin arrays shall be installed at
Mitigation Guidelines
3 5 and 7
pool cross sections in restored reaches
where bankfull width exceeds 3 feet
A crest gauge and /or pressure transducer
Surface Water
As per April 2003 USACE
will be installed on site the device will be
Hydrology
Wlmington District Stream
annual
inspected on a quarterly /semi- annual basis
Mitigation Guidelines
to document the occurrence of bankfull
events on the project
Quantity and location of
Vegetation will be monitored using the
Vegetation
vegetation plots will be
determined in consultation
annual
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS)
with EEP
protocols
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
32

Exotic and nuisance
vegetation
annual
Locations of exotic and nuisance
vegetation will be mapped
Locations of fence damage vegetation
Project boundary
semi annual
damage boundary encroachments etc will
be mapped
Reference photographs will be made at
Photographs
semi annual
selected overviews and near - stream
locations
11 0 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon approval for close -out by the Interagency Review Team (IRT) the site will be transferred to the
NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation s Stewardship Program This party
shall be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the
conservation easement or the deed restnction document(s) are upheld Endowment funds required to
uphold easement and deed restrictions shall be negotiated pnor 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 govemed by North
Carolina General Statute GS 113A- 232(d) (3) Interest gained by the endowment fund maybe used only
for the purpose of stewardship monitoring stewardship administration and land transaction costs if
applicable The NCDENR Stewardship Program intends to manage the account as a non - wasting
endowment Only interest generated from the endowment funds will be used to steward the
compensatory mitigation sites Interest funds not used for those purposes will be re- invested in the
Endowment Account to offset losses due to inflation
12 0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of site construction EEP will implement the post - construction monitoring protocols
previously defined in this document Project maintenance will be performed as described previously in
this document If dunng 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 monitonng 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 Programs In -Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28 2010 the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
has provided the U S Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund
projects to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by EEP This commitment provides financial
assurance for all mitigation projects implemented by the program
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project— Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
33

14 0 DEFINITIONS
D,— 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, 2"d edition
Native vegetation community — a distinct and reoccurring assemblage of populations of plants animals
bacteria and fungi naturally associated with each other and their population as described in Schafale
M P and Weakley A S (1990) Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina Third
Approximation
Project Area - includes all protected lands associated with the mitigation project
Priority Levels of Restoration —1 convert incised stream to new stream at original floodplain elevation 2
establish new stream and floodplain at existing stream elevation 3 convert incised stream to new stream
type without establishing an active floodplain but providing flood -prone area 4 stabilize incised stream in
place
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mrtigahon Plan July 2012
34

150 REFERENCES
Abrahams A D G Li and J F Atkinson (1995) Step -Pool Streams Adjustment to Maximum Flow
Resistance Water Resources Research 31(10), 2593 -2602
Andrews E D (1984) Bed - material Entrainment and Hydraulic Geometry of Gravel -Bed Rivers in
Colorado Geol Soc of Am Bull 95 371 -378
Andrews E D and James M Nankervis (1995) Effective Discharge and the Design of Channel
Maintenance Flows for Gravel -Bed Rivers Geophysical Monograph Series Vol 89 151 -164
Bathurst James C (2007) Effect of Coarse Surface Layer on Bed -Load Transport Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering 33(11) 1192 -1205
Chin A (2002) The Periodic Nature of Step -Pool Mountain Streams Amencan Journal of Science Vol
302 144 -167
EcoEngineenng (2008) Technical Memorandum Task 2 Upper Yadkin Basin Local Watershed Plan
Harman et al (1999) Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams AVVRA
Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings Journal of Hydraulic Engineenng AWRA Summer
Symposium Bozeman MT 401 -408
Leopold, L B Wolman M G and Miller J P (1964) Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology Dover
Publications, Inc New York NY
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (2009) Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Pnont►es
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 Sur Ty County, North Carolina
US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District (2003) Stream Mitigation Guidelines
Weaver J C Toby D Feaster and Anthony J Gotvald (2009) Magnitude and Frequency of Rural
Floods in the Southeastern United States through 2006 Volume 2 North Carolina Scientific
Investigations Report 2009 -5158 USGS Nashville TN
Young T F and Sanzone S (editors) (2002) A framework for assessing and reporting on ecological
condition Ecological Reporting Panel Ecological Processes and Effects Committee EPA Science
Advisory Board Washington DC
Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project - Draft Final Mitigation Plan July 2012
35

FBI Mm
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENTS

APPENDIX B
BASELINE INFORMATION

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 411
Date 03 -17 Wkk
Project/Site M �S
Latitude
Evaluator
County 5Uvv- j
Longitude
Total Points 201, Jc
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (cirel one)
Other, Gj l
l
rf 2 19 or perennial if 230
Ephemeral Intermittent reran
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
3
3 In- channel structure ex nffle -pool step -pool
ripple-pool s uence
0
1
®
3
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5 Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
1
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
19
1
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
1
2
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
9 Grade control
0
05
1
10 Natural valley
0
05
1
11 Second or greater order channel
No III
Yes = 3
- artmClal ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B Hydrology (Subtotal = —1 5 )
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
Q
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
15
1
2
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
to
1
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
05
1
1 5
F17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
U3
G 131010av (Subtotal = (n )
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
®
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
05
1
1 5
23 Crayfish
05
1
15
24 Amphibians
Q
05
1
15
25 Algae
19
05
1
1 5
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0 75 OBL = 1 5 Other
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes
Sketch

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 411
Date 03 2 2 2a i
Project/Site EE P stir__
00/'-'s 'Fcv
Latitude
Evaluator �kojjt' j
County r� ry
Longitude
Total Points ?�\
Stream Determination (circcle,�on`el,
Other CQ�L. SCE
Stream is at least intem,��tent
if z 19 or perennial if 2 30
Ephemeral Intermittent _re ran P
e g Quad Name
A Geomorphology Subtotal f-1-7)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1B Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
Q
2
3
3 In- channel structure ex nffle -pool step -pool
ripple-pool s uence
0
1
®
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
ZF
3
5 Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
15
7 Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9 Grade control
0
05
1
10 Natural valley
0
05
1
11 Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
- artificial ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B Hvdroloav (Subtotal = h
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
1
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
1 5
Q
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
0
1
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 05
1
1 5
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
L; Ii1010CIV (Subtotal = In l
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21 Aquabc Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
05
1
1 5
23 Crayfish
05
1
1 1 5
24 Amphibians
05
1
15
25 Algae
05
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 kA7TCt
Sketch

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Vernon 411
Date pq> 22 -ZOl\
Project/Site�
Macs K
Latitude
Evaluator R � �
County _vr-f
Longitude
Total Points 22
Stream Determination (clrc e)
Other (2CVI7L. QUt
Stream is at least intermittent
if a 19 or perennial d 2:30*
Ephemeral Intermittent erennla
e g Quad Name
A Geomorphology Subtotal = 0,5 A
Absent W
Weak M
Moderate S
Strong
1H Continuity of channel bed and bank 0
0 1
1 0
0 3
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0
0 2
2 3
3
3 In- channel structure ex nffle -pool step -pool
ripple-pool se uence 0
0 ©
© 2
2 3
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate 0
0 ©
© 2
2 3
3
5 Active /relict floodplain a
a 1
1 2
2 3
3
6 Depositional bars or benches 0
0 2
2 3
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits 1
1 2
2 3
3
8 Headcuts 0
0 1
1 3
3
9 Grade control 0
0 0
05 1
1 1
15
10 Natural valley 0
0 0
05 1
1
11 Second or greater order channel N
No 0 Y
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B Wdroloav (Subtotal = to ,5 1
12 Presence of Baseflow 0 1 ® 3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria 1 2 3
14 Leaf litter 1 5 1 0
15 Sediment on plants or debris 0 0 1 15
16 Organic debris lines or piles 0 1 1 5
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table? No = 0 Yes
t✓ bloloav (Subtotal = 5 1
18 Fibrous roots in streambed 3 1 0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ® 1 2 3
21 Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22 Fish 05 1 1 5
23 Crayfish OD 05 1 15
24 Amphibians 05 1 1 5
25 Algae 0 05 1 1 5
26 Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0 75 OBL = 1 5 Other
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes
Sketch
t✓ bloloav (Subtotal = 5 1
18 Fibrous roots in streambed 3 1 0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) ® 1 2 3
21 Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2 3
22 Fish 05 1 1 5
23 Crayfish OD 05 1 15
24 Amphibians 05 1 1 5
25 Algae 0 05 1 1 5
26 Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0 75 OBL = 1 5 Other
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes
Sketch

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 411
Date 0 , Z7- ?toll
Project/Site MvorC5 Forte
Latitude
Evaluator Q �f OxItt3-1
County 5,_W -f
Longitude
Total Points 2-q 5
Stream Determination (circl one)
Other C040. G Ot
Stream is at least intermittent
if a 19 or perennial if z 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent erenni
e g Quad Name
A Geomorphology Subtotal = l
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1° Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
0
3
3 In -channel structure ex nffle -pool step -pool
n le- ool sequence
0
1
0
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
1 5
5 Active /relict floodplain
a
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
0
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
05
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
1
Q
3
9 Grade control
0
05
1
1
10 Natural valley
0
05
1
11 Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B Hydrology (Subtotal = _a+_)
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
©
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
1 5
1
2
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
611,
1
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
05
1
1 5
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No VO
Yes = 3
C Biology (Subtotal = -1 5 )
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
®
1
2
3
22 Fish
05
1
15
23 Crayfish
05
1
15
24 Amphibians
0
0
1
1 5
25 Algae
0
05
1
15
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
d% CS
Sketch

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Vermon 4 11
Date 03 22,2011
Project/Site C- 6psitc
t- 1cxYC5
Latitude
Evaluator (z K CWton
County �r.!
Longitude
Total Points 2_1
Stream Determination (cr a )
Other CAr1CU (X)Dd
Stream is at least intermittent
if? 19 or erennial d t 30
Ephemeral Intermitter erennia
e g Quad Name
A Geomorphology Subtotal = (o
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
(
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
05
3
3 in-channel structure ex nffle -pool step -pool
ripple-pool se uence
0
1
2
1 5
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
is
5 Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
1
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
FACW = 0 75 OBL = 1 5 Other
2
3
9 Grade control
0
®
1
15
10 Natural valley
0
05
1
11 Second or greater order channel
No 0
Yes = 3
- artificial ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B Hvdroloav (Subtotal= 4 )
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
1
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
U
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
15
Q
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1
1 5
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
05
1
is
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No
Yes = 3
G 1310low (Subtotal= -1 )
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
®
1
2
3
22 Fish
Q
05
1
15
23 Crayfish
Q
05
1
15
24 Amphibians
0
05
1
15
25 Algae
0.5
1
1 5
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0 75 OBL = 1 5 Other
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes
Sketch

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 411
Data p3 Z5 2011
Project/She JE;—�P 5k�'
t-% Oore3 V-c,, t.
Latitude
Evaluator 9
County Sor"
Longitude
Total Points S
Stream Determination (cl e)
tither Ca/ta, Q
Stream is at least intermittent
if 2 19 or perennial if? 30•
Ephemeral Intermittent erennl
e g Quad Name
A Geomorphology (Subtotal = 'L'b 5
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
0
3 In -channel structure ex nffle -pool step-pool
n le- ool sequence
0
1
2
15
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
15
5 Active/relict floodplain
0
Yes = 3
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
1 5
8 Headcuts
0
1
10
3
9 Grade control
0
05
in 1
15
10 Natural valley
0
05
1
11 Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
° artificial ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B Wdroloav (Subtotal= (Pro )
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
0
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2
2
3
14 Leaf litter
15
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
05
15
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No 1w
Yes = 3
C Bioloov (Subtotal= 9) 5 )
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
0
05
15
23 Crayfish
05
1
1 5
24 Amphibians
0
1
1 5
25 Algae
0
05
1
1 5
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0 75 OBL = 1 5 Other
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes
Sketch

NC DWO Stream Ident>tf'ication Form Version 411
Date 03,23 ��
Project/Srte eey Stiff
is Fv✓<
Latitude
Evaluator P � �
County 5L)y,ry
Longitude
Total Points 25 5
Stream Deterr� mUca- (circle one)
Other GCxrjqk.0QL'tG�
Stream is at feast intermittent
ff _ 19 or perennial if a 30
Ephemeral ntermftten Perennial
e g Quad Name
A Geomorphology Subtotal =--L6--)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
op
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
05
3
3 In- channel structure ex riffle -pool step -pool
n le- ool sequence
0
1
®
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
1
3
5 Active /relict floodplain
0
Yes = 3
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
05
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
M
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
FACW = 0 75 OBL = 1 5 Other
2
3
9 Grade control
0
Notes
1
15
10 Natural valley
2__=
05
1
11 Second or greater order channel
No 0
Yes = 3
- arli ficial ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 4.ci I
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
(D
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
7ff—
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
1 5
M
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
Q
1
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
05
1
1 5
17 Soil -based evidence of high water tables
No ;0
Yes = 3
L; 1:5I010C1V (Subtotal = Ln 1
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
®
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
®
05
1
1 5
23 Crayfish
05
1
15
24 Amphibians
05
1
1 15
25 Algae
05
1
1 5
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0 75 OBL = 1 5 Other
.perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes
Sketch

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 411
Date 03 23 20%
ProjecVSrte ElEpSrr— r
MEJ>(eS r32
Latitude
Evaluator eW
County 4--"
Longitude
Total Points �, r�
Stream Determination (circle one
Other 0100— 6N_V ok
Stream is at least intermdten
if a 19 or perennial if 2 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent erennla
e g 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
C>
2
3
3 In- channel structure ex riffle pool step -pool
n le- ool sequence
0
O
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
®
2
3
5 Active /relict floodplam
®
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
1
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
®
1
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
0
2
3
9 Grade control
0
05
1
10 Natural valley
0
05
1
11 Second or greater order channel
No 0
Yes = 3
"artficial ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B Hydrology (Subtotal= A-5--)
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
it
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
1 5
1
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
®
05
1
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
05
1 1 5
Yes = 3
17 Sod -based evidence of high water table?
No
C Biology Subtotal =
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
M
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
05
1
15
23 Crayfish
19
05
1
15
24 Amphibians
05
1
1 5
25 Algae
05 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 u
m
r
f
Sketch

NC DWO Stream Identitfication Form Version 411
Date D 3 2`3 20\ \
Project/Site � sktc'
Latitude
Evaluator Ran
County
Longitude
Total Points 3
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (cilrc e)
Other CCinCt. CCU G�
if t 19 or perennial if 230'
Ephemeral Intermittent erennia
e g Quad Name
A Geomorphology Subtotal = 20 F2_)
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 nffle -pool step -pool
n le ool sequence
0
1
2
15
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
15
5 Active /relict floodplain
0
Yes = 3
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
1
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
1
3
8 Headcuts
0
Q
2
3
9 Grade control
0
05
©
1 5
10 Natural valley
0
05
1
11 Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B Hydrology Subtotal = 5
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
®
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
15
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
05
1
15
17 Sod -based evidence of high water table?
No V
Yes = 3
C Biology (Subtotal= 9_) )
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
p
1
2
3
22 Fish
0
1
1 5
23 Crayfish
0
05
1
1 5
24 Amphibians
0
1
1 5
25 Algae
05
1
15
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 LAT -L
Mein is -Pt tC
Sketch

NC DWQ Stream Idenhfication Form Version 411
Date b3 Z ZOO
Project/Site 03� 'AC
Latitude
Evaluator Nt3,�
County S>�
Longitude
Total Points 'L?j
Stream Detennin on circle one)
Other. Q t C(d
Stream is at least intermittent
if t 19 or perennial if a 30'
Ephemeral ntermitten Perennial
e g Quad Name
A Geomorphology (Subtotal = 13 5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 B Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
05
3
3 In- channel structure ex nffle -pool step -pool
ripple-pool se uence
0
©
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
05
2
3
5 Acbve /relict floodplain
0
Yes = 3
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
Q
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
05
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9 Grade control
0
Notes u
1
15
10 Natural valley
0
05
15
11 Second or greater order channel
No =0
Yes = 3
artrf'icial ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B Hydrology Subtotal = 5
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
©
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
1 5
1
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
05
1
15
17 Sod -based evidence of high water table?
No QO
Yes = 3
C Biology (Subtotal= 0--)
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
®
05
1
15
23 Crayfish
C
05
1
1 5
24 Amphibians
Q
05
1
15
25 Algae
05
1
15
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 u
Sketch

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 411
Date 03 Z�� Zo \�
Project/Site CAP `�!
t-A cs yNprr x.
Latitude
Evaluator v Ne w
County SLW-"
Longitude
Total Points
Stream DeterrWaaffiaG.Lcircle one)
Other CCtno., Ql7t' ok
Stream is at least intermittent
if _ 19 or erennial if 2 30'
Ephemeral ntermrtten erenmal
e g Quad Name
A Geomorphology (Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
®
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
®
3
3 In- channel structure ex nffle -pool step -pool
n le- ool sequence
0
1
©
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5 Active /relict floodplain
®
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
W
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
Q
2
3
9 Grade control
9
05
1
15
10 Natural valley
0
05
15
11 Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B Hydrology (Subtotal = lD 5 )
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
®
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2
2
3
14 Leaf litter
15
1
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
05
1
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
1
1
15
17 Sod -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
C Biology (Subtotal = (D )
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
05
1
15
23 Crayfish
05
1
1 5
24 Amphibians
05
1
15
25 Algae
05
1
15
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0 75 OBL = 1 5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes %t I1 b
Sketch

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 411
Data O3 ZZ 2-0% \,
Project/Site M �
Latitude
Evaluator 9 N ,�
County SNv,y
Longitude
Total Points 2-0
Stream Determin circle one)
Other (onCt, p U at�
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral termltte Perennial
e g Quad Name
if a 19 or perennial if z 30'
2
3
A Geomorphology Subtotal =--b-)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
Q
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
Q
2
3
3 In- channel structure ex nffle -pool step-pool
ripple-pool uence
0
Q
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5 Active /relict floodplam
®
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
0
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
©
2
3
9 Grade control
0
11p
1
1 5
10 Natural valley
0
05
1
UP
11 Second or greater order channel
No =
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B Hydrology (Subtotal = lD_ )
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
©
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
®
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
15
Q
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
U
1
15
16 Organic debns lines or piles
0
1 <p
1 1
15
17 Sod -based evidence of high water tablet
No = 0
Yes =U>
C Biology (Subtotal = W--)
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
®
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
®
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
05
1
15
23 Crayfish
05
1
1 5
24 Amphibians
05
1
1 5
25 Algae
05
1
15
26 Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0 75 OBL = 1 5 Other
*perennial streams may also be identrfied using other methods See p 35 of manual
Notes P -rvx No
Sketch

NC DWO Stream Identilfication Form Version 411
Date 03 Z2 10x%
Project/Site El'p s1tt:
Mvor�s k
Latitude
Evaluator
County &.4,Xir,j
Longitude
jrj t
1
2
Total Points 35
Stream Determination (circ e)
Other CDnoa_ Woc a
Stream is at least intermittent
if a 19 or perennial if 2 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent erennia
e g Quad Name
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
05
3
3 In -channel structure ex nffle -pool step -pool
n I ool sequence
0
1
®
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
®
3
5 Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
15
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
1
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
3
8 Headcuts
0
©
2
3
9 Grade control
0
15
1
1 15
10 Natural valley
0
05 1
1
1 CID
11 Second or greater order channel
No = 0 1
Yes
- artificial ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B Hvdroloav (Subtotal= to
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
1
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
1 5
1 )
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
05
®
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
05
3
15
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No
Yes = 3
G Hloloav (Subtotal = W 1
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
10
1
2
3
22 Fish
0
05
1
15
23 Crayfish
M>
05
1
15
24 Amphibians
05
1
15
25 Algae
0
05
1
15
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 rYt CY OSSI
Sketch

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 411
Date 03 22 Zp\%
Project/Site eev;, S%#C
1 -koofCS
Latitude
Evaluator Newton
County Sorf-_1
Longitude
Total Points 34 5
Stream Determination (Circle o e )
tatter GG,10L• Qu61011,
Stream is at least intermittent
if 2 19 or perennial if 2 30'
Ephemeral Intermittent pilirenniab
e g Quad Name
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
05
3
3 In- channel structure ex riffle pool step -pool
ripple-pool se uence
0
1
®
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
15
5 Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
15
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
15
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
FACW = 0 75 OBL = 1 5 Other
2
3
9 Grade control
0
05
v"o
15
10 Natural valley
0
05
1
1 5
11 Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes
- artfival ditches are not rated see discussions In manual
B HAroloav (Subtotal = to )
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
0
13 Iron owdizmg bacteria
M
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
1 5
0
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
05
1
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 05
1
15
17 Sod -based evidence of high water table'7
No
Yes = 3
C Bloloav (Subtotal= (rte 1
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
(5)
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
M
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
0
05
1
15
23 Crayfish
®
05
1
1 5
24 Amphibians
®
05
1
15
25 Algae
05
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 tACa n M n
v"o
_tr S'S1 no
Sketch

NC DWQ Stream IdenhScation Form Version 411
Date 03 22 201\
Project/Site ff? rw
Latitude
Evaluator
County S�nf
Longitude
Total Points �3,C�
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other CCA -10. Qv0d,
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral &MM793 Perennial
e g Quad Name
if 2:19 or perennial if a 30'
05
3
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
05
3
3 In- channel structure ex riffle -pool step -pool
ripple-pool se uence
0
©
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
(2>
3
5 Active /relict floodplam
M
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
©
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
S
1
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9 Grade control
0
0
1
15
10 Natural valley
0
05
1
5
11 Second or greater order channel
No Z0
Yes = 3
" artificial ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B Hydrology (Subtotal= __Ln S
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
(?)
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
15
1
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
9
05
1
15
16 Organic debris Imes or piles
0
05
1
15
17 Sod -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
C Biology (Subtotal= tD )
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
Q
1
2
3
22 Fish
®
05
1
15
23 Crayfish
0
05
1
1 5
24 Amphibians
05
1
15
25 Algae
05
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 C04J -rv,00 1i Z
Sketch

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Vernon 411
Date 03 22— ZO \�
Project/Site !=CS
Latitude
Evaluator
County 5Ur
Longitude
n
2
2
Total Points 2O
Stream Dotermi on (circle one)
Other ConGL,
Stream is at feast intermittent
d Z 19 or perennial if 230'
Ephemeral iermltten Perennial
e g Quad Name
A Geomorphology Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
2
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3 In- channel structure ex nffie -pool step -pool
n le ool sequence
0
®
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
0
05
2
3
5 Active /relict floodplain
0
1
1
3
6 Deposibonal bars or benches
0
05
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
1
®
3
9 Grade control
0
Notes Cow T\r u2 ¢ 1
1
1
15
1 5
10 Natural valley
0
11 Second or greater order channel
No
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B Hvdrologv (Subtotal = 4 )
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
©
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2
2
3
14 Leaf litter
15
1
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
®
05
1
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
05
1
1 5
17 Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No =QD
Yes = 3
C Biology (Subtotal = )
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21 Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
05
1
15
23 Crayfish
(2)
05
1
1 5
24 Amphibians
05
1
15
25 Algae
05
1
15
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 Cow T\r u2 ¢ 1
Sketch

NC DWQ Stream Identi5cation Form Version 411
Date 03.2-2- 2 Cok\
Protect/Slte IFE
Latitude
Evaluator R N
County �� f
Longitude
Total Points Z\
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other CCtnGL, Q l.lG7d
if z 19 or perennial if 2:30*
Ephemera ntenmittan Perennial
e g Quad Name
A Geomorphology Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 B 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 nffle -pool step -pool
n l ool se uence
0
©
2
3
4 Particle size of stream substrate
Q
1
2
3
5 Active /relict floodplain
No = 0
1
2
3
6 Depositional bars or benches
0
05
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8 Headcuts
0
m
2
3
9 Grade control
0
®
1
1 5
10 Natural valley
0
0 5
1
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
®
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
3
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
15
1
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
05
1
15
17 Sod -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes
G Milo Subtotal =
18 Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19 Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20 Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
CD
1
2
3
21 Aquabc Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
®
05
1
15
23 Crayfish
05
1
15
24 Amphibians
05
1
15
25 Algae
05
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 b
Sketch

NC DWQ Stream Idenbficabon Form Version 411
Date ID3 23 ZU\\
Projectisite Sep 5%t--
Latitude
Evaluator 1Z Nov^
County j_ _1
Longitude
Total Points 3(0 c5
stream Determination (circle one)
Other CoreL Qum
Stream is at least rntermi en
Ephemeral Intermittent erennla
e g Quad Name
if t 19 or erennial rf t 30'
2
0
A Geomorphology Subtotal = 3
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2 Sinuosity of channel along thatweg
0
1
2
0
3 In- channel structure ex nffle -pool step -pool
n le- ool sequence
0
1
2
15
4 Parbcle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
15
5 Active /relict floodplam
0
®
2
3
6 Deposibonal bars or benches
0
1
2
15
7 Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
1
3
8 Headcuts
0
1
3
9 Grade control
0
05
1
10 Natural valley
0
05
1
11 Second or greater order channel
No 0
Yes = 3
artfiaal ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B Hydrology (Subtotal = lD )
12 Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13 Iron oxidizing bacteria
3
1
2
3
14 Leaf litter
1 5
1
05
0
15 Sediment on plants or debris
0
05
0
15
16 Organic debris lines or piles
0
05
1
15
17 Sod -based evidence of high water table'?
No =kw
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
2
3
21 Aquabc Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22 Fish
0
05
1
1 5
23 Crayfish
05
1
15
24 Amphibians
0
05
1
15
25 Algae
0
1
15
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
Q vin
Sketch

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Sits M001fTS FOf 1e- - Wet IOM >4* 1 Gty/County* St" Sampling Date 3 Z1 k\
ApplicenVOwner EE p State W(-- Sampling Point V-JL !$
investigators) Q t,1evjtDrl , G 2 kc1UI 1f- Section Township Range
Landforrn (hUlslope terrace etc.) 't'Oe O*e '5\09C Local relief (concave convex none) CZ)r1Q2Ve Slope (%) 0 _Z
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MtJ?A 1;(D Let 3(0,510 VXP Long -00-11511(a Datum NA9 13
Soil Map Unit Name FsE - Fi7►1rylP+(V • Scc V-.V = Cjr) a 1f-% NWI classification V)OAe-
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes 1_ No (If no explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation San . or Hydrology signfflcantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances* present? Yes _K No
Are Vegetation . Sal . 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
Hyddc Sod Present? Yes _ A No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ CX No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Sawndery Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required.
check all that aooN)
_ Surface Sod Cracks (BB)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B6)
_ High Water Table (A2)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhiaospheres on Living Roots (0)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (1212)
_ Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Solis (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C6)
Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain In Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iran Deposits (B5)
_ Geomorphic Position (132)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (133)
Water - Stained Leaves (69)
_ Microtopogrephlc Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations
Surface Water Present? Yes _ X No
Depth (Inches) O -'Z
Water Table Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches) h- (0
Saturation Present? Yes Y_ No
Depth (Inches) in
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes V_ No
(includes capillary
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge monitoring well aerial photos previous Inspections) If avaltable
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 r
% Cover Species? us
�_�_Del,
2 Ace✓ tru 6vvro
�_ `l S -
3 - V'%IQI '&,
4 Garp Ih C,cc�D1►nl alyl/.t..
�_ y
_�
5
x3=
5
x4=
7
x5=
8
(A) (B)
Sapllna/Shrub Stratum (Plot size
1
= Total Cover
)
q'
2 LArau4Yy-UM r,1- lr'1ev1�
_ � rPt
3
4
5
8
7
8
9
10
Herb Stratum (Plot size )
1 1rnRQrhPnS
0_ = Total Cover
An _
3 31JnCU5 P. SUS
Z W_ IFfeAN
4 1;�a�I2 -t1 l 1 n-
Z tQ L t) EL
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
12.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size
1 Iorxcera . %Cr
X� = Total Cover
)
5_ 1� —
o)2j;-,?n
2 2Lng=- na0�1-%1r)"r,
_
lJPl-
3
4
5
B
Sampling Point W L.# 1
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL FACW or FAC 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata �_ (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL FACW or FAC C (AB)
Total % Cover oL
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 =
_ 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophylic Vegetation
2 Dominance Test Is >50%
_ 3 Prevalence Index Is 53 0'
—4 Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supping
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
Tree — Woody plants excluding vines 3 in (7 B 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 328 ft (1 m) tall
Herb — All herbaceous (non - woody) plants regardless
of size and woody plants less than 328 ft tall
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft In
height
Hydrophytk
Vegetation
Present? Yes �_ No
19.5_ =Total Cover
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
No pots \vev"e u,�c6 to ova \uCt1t~ vej- etcenon A mY'comev
Su✓vej Oq -tine- nni(wit. wept \ar6 c -ro - 'AIA3 c.c)netuct ed ,
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

SOIL
Description (Describe to the
or
Depth Matrix Redox
(inches) Color (moI60 %_ Color (moist) % lype
O_cn _I 9-447- 9$_ 5Ne41(o _. C ?L
Hydric Soil Indicators
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Eplpedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A71)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed)
Type
Depth (inches)
Remarks
Sampling Point VNL:I;:I
of Indicators
Texture Remarks
WaM
Dark Surface (S7)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (88) (MLRA 147 148)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (1`12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbria Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Sills (F19) (MLRA 148)
m PL =Pore Lining, M--Matrix
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Praine Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147 148)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Red Parent Material (72)
_ 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 X No
i
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site J�NDO rtS F Qr1r- W rA-I Q1fVj City /County 12,13-f r-1 SamplIng Date 3-2\ I%
Applicant/Owner EE? State WC-_ Sampling Point \NL#44
Investigators) R.iyGwiN1 ► G QtdrA I{ Section Township Range
Landfonn (hillslope terrace etc.) RyC= %nI'1 Local relief (concave convex none) GOAMyW. Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MLQPv l3(D Let ab sn:jc5 Long -90 -I \r tf' to Datum
Soil Map Unit Name MIF- tCO - SoOrt' �rvx5b LGZrn DW-9 NWI classification /)OA4
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 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
Hydrophydc Vegetation Present? Yes X_ No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Welland? Yes X_ No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Y- No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reaulred.
check all that apply)
_ Surface Soft Cracks (138)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
_ High Water Table (A2)
X Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
& Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhlzospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B15)
_ Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry - Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2)
_ Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Soils (CB)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (CT)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Other (Explain In Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (137)
_ Iron Deposits (86)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (133)
]� Water Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Mkan6opographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (813)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D6)
Field Observations
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (Inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No
X Depth (Inches)
Saturation Present? Yes A _ No
Depth (Inches) 1 O
Watland Hydrology Present? Yes No
(includes caDillm fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge monitoring well aerial photos previous Inspections) If available
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point \
Tree Stratum (Plot size
1 Sol 11x Y'
r1 j A
) Cover SDecies? status
�_
Number of Dominant Spades
That Are OBL FACW or FAC _ (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across Au Strata + (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL FACW, or FAC 100_ (AB)
2 I�v^t CAP n[" I V-0,1 913 I t fa t mod/`
3
4
5
6
Prevalence Index worksheet
Total % Cover of Multloly by
OBL species x 1 =
FACW spades x 2 =
FAC species x3=
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
8
_24 = Total Cover
Saollna/Shrub Stratum (Plot size )
1 UQ ustY. QrA 61v1?P y1 SC
2
3
4
5
6
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
— 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 Dominance Test is >50%
— 3 Prevalence Index la 53 0'
— 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data In Remarks or on a separate sheet)
— Problematic H ro h c
Yd P Ytl Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric sol and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
B
9
10
"I5 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size 1
2
3
4
5
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata
Tree – Woody plants excluding vines 3 In (7 6 cm) or
more In diameter at breast height (DBH) regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants excluding vines less
than 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 it (1 m) tag
Herb –All herbaceous (non - woody) plants regardless
of size and woody plants less than 328 ft tall
Moody vine – All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
6
8
9
10
11
12
0_ =Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size ) 8h�
1
2
3
4
5 Hydrophytic
Vegetation
6 Present? Yes X No
= Total Cover
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
1<0 ?io*s vier4 uscci-tv ava<< coc �ft9etc� -ncr� , A Yrtcctrtc(evt/�
suit -t oP �Nas concr uar -cal
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

SOIL
or
Sampling Point- \ 4 LU2
Depth Matrix Redox Features
Mches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Twe Loci Texture Remarks
o-In k e413 100
to—I?— �sz 412 �_ - o�tZ/�I(e t G ?L 1� /�
Hydric Soil Indicators
_ Histasol (Al)
_ Histic Eplpedon (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 (S7) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (85)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type
Depth (Inches)
Remarks
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147 148)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron- Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbrlc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Indicators for Problematic Hydnc Sc
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Red Parent Materiel (TF2)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Other (Explain In Remarks)
�Indlcalors of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydnc Soil Present? Yes X No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
ProtectlSite Cfty/County Sampling Date ?x.23 \k
Applicant/Owner ESP State "C- Sampling Point WL4
Investigators) G j ?-yjCJW- Section Township Range
Landfonn (hillslope terrace etc) IDC- 0Q6 SWQ&._ Local relief (concave convex none) CL Crn ye- Slope (%) n--2-
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) !d\,1-2-6 12ko Let 3(0 569V5.3 Long eO -1211 W Datum to tD 6%
Soil Map Unit Name CSR- CoNged tit SQCV1CS NWI classification iih/V2
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes --)C- No (If no explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Normal Circumstances present? Yes _ No
Are Vegetation Soil . or Hydrology naturally problematic? (H needed explain any answers in Remarks )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes :— No Is the Sampled Area
Hydrtc Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes �_ No
Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes C No
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Se=dary Indicators (minimum of two reaulred)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reaulred.
check 0 that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
_ High Water Table (A2)
Z Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
X Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhimspheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (BIB)
Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tliled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain In Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (DI)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (BT)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
JC Water - Stained Leaves (Bg)
_ Mlcrolopographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations
Surface Water Present? Yes _Y No
Depth (Inches)
Water Table Present? Yes X No
Depth (Inches) - 4
Saturation Present? Yes _j­ No
Depth (Inches) 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes --X-_ No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge monitoring well aerial photos previous Inspections) If avallabie
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Paint API L{ t
Saciino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Herb Stratum (Plot size
1
2
3
4
5
8
7
8
9
10
11
12
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size
1
2
3
4
5
6
tincivas pnoto numoers nere or on a
No pots \NC-Te
Gyve -i L-A
!gtO_ =Total Cover
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size
) % Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
3
1 A c -ee yw %cy u nrl
I n_ _ FAC,
That Are OBL FACW or FAC
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across AD Strata
Percent of Dominant Species
(A)
3 (B)
2 L-%r(n de.n 6 wan 1t 11 t t iPrr�. �� _ �g�
3 ?)e-tu (Q -
4
5
(A) (B)
That Are OBL FACW or FAC
r On (AB)
6
7
Prevalence Index worksheet
Total % Cover oh
Multiply by
8
Saciino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Herb Stratum (Plot size
1
2
3
4
5
8
7
8
9
10
11
12
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size
1
2
3
4
5
6
tincivas pnoto numoers nere or on a
No pots \NC-Te
Gyve -i L-A
!gtO_ =Total Cover
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
x3=
FACU species
x4=
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_2L 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
— 3 Prevalence Index Is 53 0'
= Total Cover — 4 Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
date In Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetaton' (Explain)
Total Cover
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
Definitions of Four Vogetation Strata
Tree – Woody plants excluding vines 3 in (7 8 cm) or
more M diameter at breast height (DBH) regardless of
height
SaplkVfflhrub – Woody plants excluding vines less
than 3 In DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tag
Herb – A11 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
height
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes _A_ No
= Total Cover
separate sheet )
vSed fip �I Cilk e. �l�g�'tGtt un l� mgcaty \
�. \1401 etelok QfeGt" WaS C IvGt -ems
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

SOIL
(Describe to the depth needed to
Depth Matrix Redox
finches) Color (moW _% Color (moist) %_
O –b 1 z?SI1 too
Hydric Soil Indicators
_ Hislosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Strabfled Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muds (A10) (LRR td)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (85)
— Stdpped Matrix (S8)
Type
Depth (inches)
or
Sand Grains
Sampling Point wL-W-3
Texture Remarks
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ Poyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
ZC Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (FB)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron - Manganese Messes (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
_ Piedmont Floodplam Soils (1719) (MLRA 148)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (Al 6)
(MLRA 147 148)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Red Parent Material (fF2)
_ 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 —&– No
I
1
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Pro)ect/Site MocWi M Fo,r's - \IJe} S n eie7f t* A City/County S' ic! j Sampling Date 5.23 1
Applicant/Owner EEP State MC Sampling Point (—tk
Investigator(s) R kle�� G 1L1 d 1111_ Section Township Range
Landform (hllisiope terrace etc) tD e- 04 U � Local relief (concave convex, none) C JMA0 UJC. Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MLR IN %-kLQ Let 3i D , ^5 ') Long -X0.1241 t 2 Datum MAD ¢�3
Soil Map Unit Name FSE - Va1 VVtcw -S:0" Y-MID COftloey. I GSA - COI'CLWrNWI classifimtion GEM \A
Alcyies
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes Y_ No (If no explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _ 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
Hydrophybc Vegetation Present? Yes _�_ No is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes )k No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary indicators (minimum of one Is required.
check all that aooly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
X Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
X Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
_ High Water Table (A2)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C7)
ZC Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (0)
_ Moss Trim Lines (816)
Water Marks (Bl)
_Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Diy- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Solis (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (137 )
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water - Stained Leaves (Bg)
_ Microl opographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Fleld Observatlons
Surface Water Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches) Q'2-
Water Table Present? Yes X No
Depth (Inches) 0 -9'
Saturation Present? Yes X No
Depth (Inches) 0
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _y,— No
(includes capillary fri
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge monitoring well aerial photos previous Inspections) if available
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Paint \t4u"
Tree Stratum (Plot size ) Species? Status
1 Ater yJtOrt)M Number of Dominant Species
�_ Fi�G That Are OBL FACW or FAC (A)
2 111- 1niXfnrkfccYj - rU%1-71f'eVM- ~ F G Total Number of Dominant
3 Species Across All Strata 2 (B)
4
Percent of Dominant Species
5 That Are OBL FACW or FAC I bO (AB)
6
7 Prevalence Index worksheet
8 _
Total % Cover of Multiply bv:
=Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Herb Stratum (Plot size
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8
10
11
12.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size
1
2
3
4
5
B
photo numbers here or on a
= Total Cover
OBL spades
x 1 =
FACW species
x2=
FAC species
X3=
FACU species
X4-
UPL species
x5=
Column Totals
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
_ 1 Rapid Test for Hydmphytic 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 Vegetaton' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soft and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
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 328 ft (1 m) tall
Herb - All herbaceous (non-woody) plants regardless
of size and woody plants lase then 3 28 ft tall
= Total Cover Wood vine - All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X,_ No
WO pis Nefe. to "N
9�rve`-i o@- v-ne Nwttko -. arm-, visa card urtect .
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
to the depth needed to document the Indicator or
Of
Sampling Point. WL"W*
Depth Matrix -- Redox Features
(Inches) Color (moist) %_ Color (moist) %_ - T) M Texture Remarks
O"(o eAg6j l 415 ton a2a)_
Hydric Soil Indicators
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Hlstic Epipadon (A2)
_ Black Hisfic (A3)
Hydrogen Sufflde (A4)
Stratlfled Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Si) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
_ Sandy Glayed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S6)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Type
Depth pnches)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ Polyvalus Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147,148)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148)
�( Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron - Manganese Messes (F12) (LRR N.
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
_ Piedmont FloodpMin Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
_ 2 cm Muck (Al 0) (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Piedmont Floodplaln Solls (1`19)
(MLRA 136,147)
_ Red Parent Material (72)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (fF12)
Other (Expimn In Remarks)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes _X_ No
i
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
Project/Site MO &S Farr — \OCtiraICIL #5 City/County r_ S01f Semprng Date 1.1s 11
Applicant/Owner I_ E D State Ai C. Sampling Point NN L— ti'--i
Investigator(s) R NC\W tB '1 e G RarlN le Section Township Range
Landform (hilislope terrace etc.) Ji' C 096 a6a:L Local relief (concave convex none) CClaQ lie Slope ( %) b—'Z
Subregion (LRR orMLRA) MLIZA 13th Let S0i344A Long $0 %'1209(00 Datum NAV
Soil Map Unit Name E= - 'F'Q.\yAJV -_W NWI classification 1M114F.
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes _X No (If no explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetaton Soil . or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Sod 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 t No within a Wetland? Yes �— No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Secondery Indicators (minimum of two reouired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is reouired. check
all that aooly)
_ Surface Sag Cracks (B6)
_ Surface Water (A1)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
_ High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidtmd RhbmVhams 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 Sofis (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (CB)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
_ Other (Explain In Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (Di)
_ Iron Deposits (0)
_ Geomorphle Position (132)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
_ Shallow Aquitard (133)
_ Water- Stalned Leaves (B9)
_ MrcroOpographic Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (135)
Field ObservaUons
Surface Water Present? Yes No _ X Depth (Indies)
Water Table Present? Yes �C No
Depth (Indies) 10
Saturation Present? Yes �_ No
Depth (Inches) 2
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge monitoring well aerial photos previous Inspections) If available
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

SOIL
document the Indicator or
Depth Matrix Redox
finches) Color (moist) %_ Color (moist) % Twe Lo
(0 -12 ICUR AA 2 okb 24 tz41 W _I- C, �1=
Hydric Soil Indicators
_ Histosol(A1)
_ Histic Eplpedon (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 (Si) (LRR N.
MLRA 147, 148)
_ Sandy Oleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (85)
_ Stripped Matrix (SB)
Type
Depth (inches)
Dark Surface (S7)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (SB) (MLRA 147,148)
_ Thin Dark Surface (Sg) (MLRA 147,148)
_ Loamy Oleyed Metric (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F8)
Depleted Dark Surface (FI)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MI-RA 138)
_ Umbrtc Surface (F13) (MLRA 138,122)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Solis (F1 g) (MLRA 148)
Sampling Point: W L
of Indicators
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Praine Redox (A18)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (Fig)
(MLRA 138,147)
_ Red Parent Materiel (TF2)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain In Remarks)
'Indicators of hydrophyfic vagetatkm and
wetland hydrology must be present
unless disturbed or aroblematic
Hydric Soil Present? Yes _A No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Intemn Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point kAJL
Tree Stratum (Plot size )
1 LI✓10ClCrj6yOr1 1t)LI42teeva,
% Cover e e Status
?�p r-AAC,
Number of Dominant Spades
ThatAm0BL FACW or FAC 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Spades Across All Strata 4 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL FACW, or FAC -15 (AIB)
—'4
2 AkP✓ Ir *,,onen 2Z
_
3
a
5
8
7
Prevalence Index workshest
Total % Cover of Multiply by
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x2=
FAC spades x3=
FACU species x4=
UPL spedes X5=
Column Totals (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
8
50 = Total Cover
SaollnclShrub Stratum (Plot size )
1 E C1!AMiwMP 1',S NA 1 ^ !a /'n– A7
_-: _*-4_
2. L&96U )M Sine N �_ Ii FAC-
3
4
5
6
7
Hydrophy h: Vegetation Indicators
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 Dominance Test is >50%
— 3 Prevalence Index Is s3 0'
— 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
— Problematic Hydmphytic Vegetation' (Main)
'Indicators of hyddc soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
8
g
10
3 5 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size )
1 CC.1�lT�� �_ �— Ulf
2
3
4
5
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
then 3 in DBH and greater than 3 28 ft (1 m) tali
Herb – All herbaceous (non - woody) plants regardless
01 size and woody plants less than 328 ft tati
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
6
7
8
g
10
11
12.
_Q70 =Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size )
1
2
3
4
5
6
or on a
eight.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes —X-- No
= Total Cover
No p\0k5 \UAere -�o e-,O)Vntc� veg� agar, . pr matt ,115�c✓1
S vey o� -HnC, entve, wear- area. vas Cca�clueteol,
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
ProJecusite Mope. Fork- WtM anal #3 (0 C@y/CounW D2V Sampling Date 3 .23 \\
Applicent/Owner Er P State C. Sampling Point W L WO
Investigator(s) )?, "4Z\V3 1k'% G RA Cid If- Section Township Range
Landfonn (hliislope terrace etc) *01C Q !& oQQt Local relief (concave convex none) rnMtJC- Slope ( %) O- i
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) MLRA 1A14_ Lot 'a&2'5C5(tom Long -50 -12-2-5% Datum N&b 53
Sod Map Unit Name Vet)-? - Fatal 1t'W I FsE - FGt✓VIeV -J NWI classification rQA4E
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on Me site typlcal for this time of year? Yes -_)L_ No (If no explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation . Soil . or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Normal Circumstances present? Yes _ X No
Are Vegetation . Sod 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
Hydrophydc Vegetation Present? Yes X_ No is the sampled Area
Hydric Sol[ Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes >( No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _� No
Remarks
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one Is required.
check all that apply)
_ Surface Soli Cracks (B6)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
_ High Water Table (A2)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C7)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
ZC Saturation (A3)
X Oxidized Rhimspheres on Living RDoW (C3)
_ Moss Trim tines (816)
_ Water Marks (B1)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (62)
_ Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Sods (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (63)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg)
Algal Met or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain In Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomoxptdc Position (132)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aqullard (133)
_ Water - Stained Leaves (Bg)
_ Microtopographlc Relief (134)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_ FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations
Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (Inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (Inches) 0 - 4
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (Inches) 8--2-
Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes _X No
(includes capillary frin
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge monitoring well aerial photos previous Inspections) if available
Remarks
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Interim Version

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point: V�L i�FCo
Tree Stratum (Plot size )
Pie✓ yutvtJM
Cover Species? Status
?Q 4
bAre FAC 4
1
Fit G
That OBL FACW or (A)
2 UVla7derdVt)n 'CUIt j�✓0..
� �G
— '
Total Number of Dominant
3
Species Across All Strata —�_ (B)
4
5
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL FACW, or FAC 0 (A/B)
6
7
Prevalence Index worksheet
8
Total % Cover of. Multiply by
f0 =Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
Seplina/Shrub Stratum (Plot size
)
FACW species x2=
1—
FAC species x3=
2 IM a M41 S Aq%V11Qt
�— �_
FACU species x4-
3
UPL species x5=
4
Column Totals (A) (B)
5
8
Prevalence Index = B/A =
7
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
8
_ 1 Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
9
2 Dominance Test Is >50%
10
— 3 Prevalence Index 19 :53 0'
=Total Cover
— 4 Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
Herb Stratum (Plot size )
date in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1 I hnRa± 1Pn5 c o. !1515
_
— Problematic HydrophytIc Vegetation' (Explain)
2
3
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic
4
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata
5
8
Tree - Woody plants excluding vines 3 In (7 B cm) or
more M diameter at breast height (DBH) regardless of
heighL
8
g
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants excluding vines less
than 3 In DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall
10
11
Herb -Ali herbaceous (non - woody) plants regardless
of size and woody plants less then 328 it tall
12
_ _ = Total Cover Woody vme - All woody vines greater then 3 28 ft In
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size ) height.
1
2
3
4
Hydrophytic
5 Vegetation
8 Present? Yes _,&_ No
= Total Cover
Remarks (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
P\ am, \ve e-e, oz wC to fNCi u0. . �leg�ta�
Pc �1�tn�1evinc� y,�"e --j cA -hie -r-rmve- \wno not cv co ,
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Sampling Point WLA4CD
Profile Description (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators )
Depth Mahe Redox Features
finches) Color (moist) %_ Color (moist) _% Twe Loci Texture Remarks
Q! 1 Q4 9-412 ACO_
I(r1S412 -L Wain
Hydric Soil Indicators
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Stradfled Layers (A5)
_ 2 cm Muck (Al 0) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147,148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ gypped Matrix (S6)
Type
Depth (Inches)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ Polyvalue Belo Surface (SB) (MLRA 147,148)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147,148)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
�C Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbrlc Surface (F13) (MLRA 136,122)
_ Piedmont Floodplom Solis (F1g) (MLRA 148)
gn PL =Pore Lining M =Matrbc
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sc
_ 2 cm Muck (Al 0) (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Preme Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147,148)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Solis (F1g)
(MLRA 136,14T)
_ Red Parent Material (72)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (rF12)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or Droblematk:.
Hydric Sob Present? Yes _X— No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Interim Version

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Part
1: General Project Information
Project Name:
Moores Fork Mitigation Project
Count Name:
curry
EEP Number:
94709
Project Sponsor:
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Project Contact Name:
Julie Cahill
Project Contact Address:
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Asheville, NC 28801
Project Contact E -mail:
[e-mail]
EEP Pro ect Manager:
I Julie Cahill
Project Description
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
1 Z - 1Z
L 04,��A L
Date
P Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date
For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
C-1- -ZI-1 I
U/ L4"11-L-1--
Date
For Division Administrator
FHWA
6 Version 1.4, 8/18/05
-,

EXISTING CONDITIONS DATA

Existing, Design and Reference Morphology Parameters
Parameter
Existing Stream
Design Stream
Reference Stream
Min
Median
Max
Min Median Max
Min
Median
Max
Stream name
Moores Fork R 1 and 2
Moores Fork R 1 and 2
Mill Branch
Stream type
C4
C4
C4
Drainage area, DA (sq mi)
1.89
1.89
5
Mean riffle depth, dbkf (ft)
1.7
2.2
2.6
2.4
1.9
2.0
2.2
Riffle width, Wbkf (ft)
27.3
29.0
30.6
29.0
27.2
30.4
33.6
7
Width -to -depth ratio, bkddbkfl
L""
12.0
13.4
15.9
12.1
14.5
15.0
15.6
Riffle cross - section area, Abkf (sq ft)
46.9
62.6
78.2
69.7
50.8
61.6
72.4
Max riffle depth, dmbkf (ft)
3.0
3.2
3.4
0.0
3.4
0.0
2.4
2.5
2.7
//
Max riffle depth ratio, [dmbkPdbkfl
1.7
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.4
Pool width, Wbkfp (ft)
32.7
40.8
48.8
0.0
40.0
0.0
20.1
22.3
24.4
Pool width ratio, [Wbkfp/Wbkfl
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.4
0.7
0.8
0.9
Pool cross - section area, Abkfp (sq ft)
147.3
153.7
160.1
0.0
124.8
0.0
51.5
53.4
55.4
Pool area ratio, [Abkfp/Abkfl
3.1
2.5
2.0
1 1.8
1.0
11
1.1
Max pool depth, dmbkfp (ft)
5.6
5.6
5.6
0.0
5.0
0.0
3.4
3.5
3.5
/
Max pool depth ratio, [dmbkfp/dbkrl 1
3.2
2.6
2.2
2.1
1.8
1 1.8
1.9
Low bank height, LBH (ft)
3.7
4.3
4.9
0.0
3.4
0.0
2.4
2.5
2.56
Low bank height ratio, [LBH /dmbkp
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
Width flood -prone area, Wfpa (ft)
109
123.4
137.7
0
145
0
72.1
72.3
72.5
Entrenchment ratio, ER [Wfpa =bkfl
4.0
4.3
4.5
5.0
2.7
2.7
2.7
Radius of curvature, Rc (ft)
65.8
857
102.7
58
1 87
174
19.6
1 22.7
25.8
Radius of curvature ratio [Rc/Wbkfl
2.4
10
3.4
2.0
3.0
6.0
0.7
0.8
0.9
Belt width, Wblt (ft)
52
112.7
161
55
93
165
86
86
86
Meander width ratio [Wblt /Wbkfl
1.9
1 3.9
1 5.3
1.9
3.2
5.7
3.2
3.2
3.2
Valley length, VL (ft)
2227
2227
4730
Stream length, SL (ft)
2393
2578
327
Valley Elevation Change, VE (ft)
20
20
60
Stream Elevation Change, SE (ft)
18.5
19.6
3.29
Valley slope, VS (ft/ft)
0.0090
0.0090
0.0127
Average water surface slope, S (ft/ft)
0.0077
0.0076
00101
Sinuosity, k = SL/VL ( ft/ft)
1.07
116
1.26
Mannings bankfull discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
193.9
297.3
411 A
349.3
251.9
323.1
396.6
Mannings bkf velocity, Ubkf = Q/A (ft/s)
4.13
1 4.75
1 5.26
5.01
4.96
5.24
5.48
D50 riffle (mm)
29
29
40
D50 bar (mm)
12
12
20
D100 bar (mm)
55
1 55
94

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
Moores Fork Reach 3
Moores Fork Reach 3
Mill Branch
Stream type
C4
C4
C4
Drainage area, DA (sq mi)
2.39
2.39
5
Mean riffle depth, dbkf (ft)
2.9
2.6
2.3
2.6
1.9
2.0
2.2
Riffle width, Wbkf (ft)
24.9
29.6
34.2
31.0
27.2
30.4
33.6
Width -to -depth ratio, [WbkWdbkf)
8.4
11.6
15.1
11.8
14.5
15.0
15.6
Riffle cross - section area, Abkf (sq ft)
73.3
75.5
77.6
81.7
50.8
61.6
72.4
Max riffle depth, dmbkf (ft)
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.8
2.4
2.5
2.7
/ 11
Max riffle depth ratio, [dmbkf/dbkfl
1.4
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.4
Pool width, Wbkfp (ft)
22.2
24.3
26.4
64.5
20.1
22.3
24.4
Pool width ratio, 1Wbkfp/Wbkf1
0.8
0.8
0.9
2.1
0.7
0.8
0.9
Pool cross - section area, Abkfp (sq ft)
66.3
70.0
73.7
145.4
51.5
53.4
55.4
Pool area ratio, 1Abkfp/Abkf1
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.8
1.0
1.1
1.1
Max pool depth, dmbkfp (ft)
4.5
4.7
4.8
5.5
3.4
3.5
3.5
Max pool depth ratio, [dmbkf ^kfl
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.1
1.8
1.8
1.9
Low bank height, LBH (ft)
4.95
6.27
7.59
3.8
2.4
2.5
2.56
Low bank height ratio, [LBH /dmbkfl
1.2
1.6
1.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
Width flood -prone area, Wfpy (ft)
104
114.5
125
124
72.1
72.3
72.5
11
Entrenchment ratio, ER [Wfpa/Wbkfl
4.2
3.9
3.7
4.0
2.7
2.7
2.7
Radius of curvature, Rc (ft)
41
62
94
53
62
124
19.6
22.7
25.8
Radius of curvature ratio [Rc/Wbkf]
1.7
2.1
2.8
1.7
2.0
4.0
0.7
0.8
0.9
Belt width, Wbic (ft)
43
123
208
53
127
267
86
86
1 86
Meander width ratio [Wb,f/Wbkf]
1.7
4.1
6.1
1.7
41
8.6
3.2
12
1 3.2
Valley length, VL (ft)
2234
2234
4730
Stream length, SL (ft)
2847
2825
327
Valley Elevation Change, VE (ft)
16
16
60
Stream Elevation Change, SE (ft)
19.1
18
3.29
Valley slope, VS (ft/ft)
0.0072
0.0072
0.0127
Average water surface slope, S (ft/ft)
0.0067
0.0064
0.0101
Sinuosity, k = SLNL (ft/ft)
1.27
1.26
1.26
Mannings bankfull discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
380.1
370.2
358.4
397.7
251.9
323.1
396.6
Mannings bkf velocity, ubkf = Q/A (ft/s)
5.19
4.91
4.62
4.87
4.96
5.24
5.48
D50 riffle (mm)
30
30
40
D50 bar (mm)
14
14
20
D100 bar (mm)
84
84
94

1170
1165
1160
1155
1150
d
a,
c
1145
0
a
1140
W
1135
1130
1125
1120
1115
Moores Fork Existing Thalweg Profile

I�
r�
5L£ ejs ap} j AlddnS u,weaajsdn
(}}) uoiJen913
O
O
M
O
N
O
O
N
cu
L
LO
Ir- cm
_O
O
C) U
cu
a--0
CD
o �
LO
D
w
U)
U
m
m
a_
CL
a
O
►
.
O
+
X
(}}) uoiJen913
O
O
M
O
N
O
O
N
cu
L
LO
Ir- cm
_O
O
C) U
cu
a--0
CD
o �
LO
D

Moores Upstream Supply Riffle
o Ground Points • Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 24 Dbkf = 3 25 Abkf = 78 1
11
� 11
C
O
O
w 11
11
0 20 40 60 80
Horizontal Distance (ft)

11
11
0O 11
(D 11
W
11
11
Moores Downstream Supply
Riffle
o Ground Points • Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 24.2 Dbkf = 3 33 Abkf = 80 4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Horizontal Distance (ft)

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name Moores Fork
Reach Name supply
Sample Name upstream supply riffle
Survey Date 12/08/2011
Si ze (mm)
TOT # ITEM % CUM %
0 -0062
0
000
000
0 062 - 0 125
0
0
00
0 00
0125 -025
0
000
000
0 25 - 0 50
1
0
96
0 96
0 50 - 1 0
0
0
00
0 96
10 -20
0
000
096
20 -40
0
000
096
4 0- 5 7
1
0
96
1 92
57 -80
1
096
288
80 -113
5
481
769
11 3 - 16 0
11
10
58
18 27
16 0 - 22 6
17
16
35
34 62
22 6 - 32 0
24
23
08
57 69
32 - 45
20
19
23
76 92
45 - 64
15
14
42
91 35
64 - 90
7
6
73
98 08
90 - 128
1
0
96
99 04
128 - 180
0
0
00
99 04
180 - 256
0
0
00
99 04
256 - 362
0
0
00
99 04
362 - 512
0
0
00
99 04
512 - 1024
0
0
00
99 04
1024 - 2048
0
0
00
99 04
Bedrock
1
0
96
100 00
D16 (mm)
14 99
D35 (mm)
22 75
D50 (mm)
28 87
D84 (mm)
54 32
D95 (mm)
78 1
D100 (mm)
Bedrock
silt /clay ( %)
0
Sand ( %)
0 96
Gravel ( %)
90 39
Cobble ( %)
7 69
Boulder ( %)
0
Bedrock ( %)
0 96
Total Particles = 104

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name Moores Fork
Reach Name Supply
Sample Name lateral bar ds of us riffle
Survey Date 12/08/2011
SIEVE (mm) NET WT
31 5 1259 8
16 997
8 434 5
4 220 9
2 148 7
PAN 1076 9
D16 (mm)
0
D35 (mm)
11
13
D50 (mm)
22
66
D84 (mm)
43
3
D95 (mm)
49
28
D100 (mm)
52
silt /clay ( %)
0
sand ( %)
23
31
Gravel ( %)
76
69
Cobble ( %)
0
Boulder ( %)
0
Bedrock ( %)
0
Total weight = 4619 2000
Largest surface Particles
Size(mm) weight
Particle 1 52
244
5
Particle 2 50
236
9

River Name
Reach Name
Sample Name
Survey Date
Size (mm)
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
Moores Fork
sul
downstream supply riffle
12/08/2011
TOT # ITEM % CUM %
0- 0 062
0
0 00
0 00
0 062 - 0 125
0
0 00
0 00
0125 -025
0
000
000
025 -050
1
096
096
050 -10
0
000
096
10- 20
0
000
096
20 -40
0
000
096
40- 5 7
0
000
096
5 7- 8 0
2
1 92
2 88
80 -113
3
288
577
11 3 - 16 0
13
12 50
18 27
160 -226
9
865
2692
22 6 - 32 0
19
18 27
45 19
32 - 45
15
14 42
59 62
45 - 64
18
17 31
76 92
64 - 90
16
15 38
92 31
90 - 128
2
1 92
94 23
128 - 180
3
2 88
97 12
180 - 256
2
1 92
99 04
256 - 362
1
0 96
100 00
362 - 512
0
0 00
100 00
512 - 1024
0
0 00
100 00
1024 - 2048
0
0 00
100 00
Bedrock
0
0 00
100 00
D16 (mm)
15 15
D35 (mm)
26 76
D50 (mm)
36 33
D84 (mm)
75 96
D95 (mm)
141 85
D100 (mm)
361 99
silt /Clay ( %)
0
sand ( %)
0 96
Gravel ( %)
75 96
Cobble ( %)
22 12
Boulder ( %)
0 96
Bedrock ( %)
0
Total Particles = 104

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name Moores Fork
Reach Name Supply
Sample Name point bar ds of ds riffle
survey Date 12/08/2011
SIEVE (mm) NET WT
31 5
1413 2
16
1009
8
704 5
4
500 7
2
306 2
PAN
0
D16 (mm)
7
32
D35 (mm)
17
04
D50 (mm)
27
44
D84 (mm)
61
14
D95 (mm)
72
73
D100 (mm)
78
Silt /Clay ( %)
0
Sand ( %)
0
Gravel ( %)
90
37
Cobble ( %)
9
63
Boulder ( %)
0
Bedrock ( %)
0
Total weight = 4511
6000
Largest surface Particles
Size(mm)
weight
Particle 1 78
416
Particle 2 50
162
0

6?9
C
O
O
_O
W
o Ground Points
118
117
117
116
116
115
Wbkf =
xS-M1.1
• Bankfull
Indicators
30.6 Dbkf =
• Water Surface
Points
2.56 Abkf =
78.2
0 50 100 150
Horizontal Distance (ft)

11
11
C: 11
O
O
N 11
W
11
11
XS-M1.2
o Ground Points • Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 32 7 Dbkf = 3 24 Abkf = 106 1
0 50 100 150 200
Horizontal Distance (ft)

XS-M1.3
o Ground Points • Bankfull
Indicators
Wbkf = 27 3 Dbkf =
115
115
O
CU
O
w 114
114
• Water Surface
Points
1.72 Abkf =
HMO
0 50 100 150
Horizontal Distance (ft)

6?9
C
O
CO
O
W
11
11
11
11
11
11
o Ground Points
XS-M1.4
• Bankfull
Indicators
Wbkf = 48 8 Dbkf =
• Water Surface
Points
3 02 Abkf = 147.3
0 50 100 150
Horizontal Distance (ft)

11
11
� 11
O
O
N 11
W
11
11
XS-M1.5
o Ground Points • Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 51 3 Dbkf = 3.83 Abkf = 196 2
0 50 100 150 200
Horizontal Distance (ft)

?.9
C
O
N
W
11l
11
11
11
XS -M 1.6
o Ground Points • Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 34 2 Dbkf = 2.27 Abkf =
77 6
0 50 100 150
Horizontal Distance (ft)

11
� 11
C
O
CU
O
LLI 11
11
XS-M1.7
o Ground Points • Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 22 2 Dbkf = 2 98 Abkf = 66 3
0 50 100 150
Horizontal Distance (ft)

o Ground Points
11nr
� 11
O
CU
N
w 11
11
Wbkf =
XS-M1.9
• Bankfull
Indicators
26.4 Dbkf =
• Water Surface
Points
2.79 Abkf = 73 7
0 50 100 150
Horizontal Distance (ft)

XS -M1.10
o Ground Points • Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 24.9 Dbkf = 2 94 Abkf = 73.3
11'r
11
� 11
O
N 11
W
11
11
w
Horizontal Distance (ft)
1045

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name Moores Fork
Reach Name Reach 1
sample Name zig -zag riffle pavement for MF subpave 1
Survey Date 02/08/2011
Size (mm)
TOT # ITEM % CUM %
0- 0 062
0
0 00
0 00
0 062 - 0 125
0
0 00
0 00
0125 -025
0
000
000
025 -050
3
291
291
0 50 - 1 0
1
0 97
3 88
10 -20
0
000
388
20 -40
0
000
388
40- 57
3
291
680
5 7- 8 0
3
2 91
9 71
80 -113
7
680
1650
11 3 - 16 0
5
4 85
21 36
16 0 - 22 6
16
15 53
36 89
22 6 - 32 0
21
20 39
57 28
32 - 45
15
14 56
71 84
45 - 64
11
10 68
82 52
64 - 90
13
12 62
95 15
90 - 128
5
4 85
100 00
128 - 180
0
0 00
100 00
180 - 256
0
0 00
100 00
256 - 362
0
0 00
100 00
362 - 512
0
0 00
100 00
512 - 1024
0
0 00
100 00
1024 - 2048
0
0 00
100 00
Bedrock
0
0 00
100 00
D16 (mm)
11
06
D35 (mm)
21
8
D50 (mm)
28
64
D84 (mm)
67
05
D95 (mm)
89
69
D100 (mm)
128
silt /Clay ( %)
0
Sand ( %)
3
88
Gravel ( %)
78
64
Cobble ( %)
17
48
Boulder ( %)
0
Bedrock ( %)
0
Total Particles = 103

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name Moores Fork
Reach Name Reach 1
Sample Name Bar sample D/S XS-Ml 1
Survey Date 04/20/2011
SIEVE (mm) NET WT
31 5
38
16
1322 4
8
967 4
4
482 8
2
222 7
PAN
767 8
D16 (mm)
0
D35 (mm)
7 15
D50 (mm)
12 02
D84 (mm)
25 97
D95 (mm)
31 02
D100 (mm)
55
Silt /Clay ( %)
0
Sand ( %)
19 6
Gravel ( %)
80 4
cobble ( %)
0
Boulder ( %)
0
Bedrock ( %)
0
Total weight =
3918 0000
Largest Surface
Particles
Size(mm)
weight
Particle 1
55 57 7
Particle 2
53 59 2

River Name
Reach Name
Sample Name
Survey Date
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
Moores Fork
Reach 1
Subpavement 1
02/08/2011
SIEVE (mm) NET WT
31 5
143 6
16
812 6
8
506 9
4
166 3
2
85 5
PAN
366 6
D16 (mm)
4 61
D35 (mm)
14 73
D50 (mm)
23
D84 (mm)
81 25
D95 (mm)
109 95
D100 (mm)
123
Silt /Clay ( %)
0
Sand ( %)
12 28
Gravel ( %)
70 9
Cobble ( %)
16 82
Boulder ( %)
0
Bedrock ( %)
0
Total weight =
2984 4000
Largest surface
Particles
Size(mm)
weight
Particle 1
123 673 8
Particle 2
110 229 1

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name Moores Fork
Reach Name Reach 2
Sample Name zig -zag riffle pavement for MF subpave 2
Survey Date 02/08/2011
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
0
0 00
0 00
0 50 - 1 0
0
0 00
0 00
10 - 2 0
1
100
100
20 -40
0
000
100
4 0- 5 7
0
0 00
1 00
57 -80
1
100
200
80- 113
5
500
700
11 3 - 16 0
8
8 00
15 00
16 0 - 22 6
19
19 00
34 00
22 6 - 32 0
21
21 00
55 00
32 - 45
34
34 00
89 00
45 - 64
10
10 00
99 00
64 - 90
1
1 00
100 00
90 - 128
0
0 00
100 00
128 - 180
0
0 00
100 00
180 - 256
0
0 00
100 00
256 - 362
0
0 00
100 00
362 - 512
0
0 00
100 00
512 - 1024
0
0 00
100 00
1024 - 2048
0
0 00
100 00
Bedrock
0
0 00
100 00
D16 (mm)
16
35
D35 (mm)
23
05
D50 (mm)
29
76
D84 (mm)
43
09
D95 (mm)
56
4
D100 (mm)
90
silt /Clay ( %)
0
sand ( %)
1
Gravel ( %)
98
Cobble ( %)
1
Boulder ( %)
0
Bedrock ( %)
0
Total Particles = 100

River Name
Reach Name
Sample Name
Survey Date
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
Moores Fork
Reach 2
Subpavement 2
02/08/2011
SIEVE (mm) NET WT
31 5
470
7
16
775
3
8
496
4
4
298
1
2
148
4
PAN
845
2
D16 (mm)
0
D35 (mm)
6 51
D50 (mm)
14 37
D84 (mm)
49 02
D95 (mm)
73 07
D100 (mm)
84
Silt /Clay ( %)
0
Sand ( %)
25 05
Gravel ( %)
68 29
cobble ( %)
6 66
Boulder ( %)
0
Bedrock ( %)
0
Total weight =
3373 6000
Largest Surface
Particles
Size(mm)
weight
Particle 1
84 214 1
Particle 2
52 125 4

Existing and Design Morphology Parameters
Parameter
Existing Stream
Design Stream
Min
I Median
I Max
Design Values
Stream name
Silage Trib U/S (10 +00- 34 +80)
Silage Trib R1
Stream type
G4 /134
B4
Drainage area, DA (sq mi)
0.07
0.07
Mean riffle depth, dbkf (ft)
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.6
Riffle width, Wbkf (ft)
6.7
6.8
6.9
8.8
7
Width -to -depth ratio, [Wbkf /dbkfl
5.7
6.6
8.0
15.1
Riffle cross - section area, Abkf (sq ft)
5.6
7.0
8.4
5.1
Max riffle depth, dmbkf (ft)
1.2
1.4
1.7
0.8
Max riffle depth ratio, [dmbkf /dbkfl
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Pool width, Wbkfp (ft)
7.6
7.9
8.1
12.4
Pool width ratio, [Wbkfp/wbkfl
11
1.2
1.2
1.4
Pool cross - section area, (sq ft)
6.8
7.4
8.0
11.2
AAbkfp
Pool area ratio, [Abkfp /Abkfl
1.2
1.1
1.0
2.2
Max pool depth, dmbkfp (ft)
1.2
1.5
1.7
1.4
7
Max pool depth ratio, [dmbkfp /dbkfJ
1.4
1.4
1.4
2.4
Low bank height, LBH (ft)
1.4
1.7
1.9
0.8
Low bank height ratio, [LBH /dmbkfl
1.0
1.1
1.6
1.0
Width flood -prone area, Wfpa (ft)
11
13.5
16
19
Entrenchment ratio, ER [Wfp.[Wbkfl
1.6
2.0
2.3
2.2
Valley length, VL (ft)
2233
2233
Stream length, SL (ft)
2480
2480
Valley Elevation Change, VE (ft)
82.7
82.7
Stream Elevation Change, SE (ft)
88.5
88.5
Valley slope, VS (ft/ft)
0.0370
0.0370
Average water surface slope, S (ft/ft)
0.0357
0.0357
Sinuosity, k = SL/VL (ft/ft)
1.11
1.11
Mannings bankfull discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
30.2
42.1
55.1
23.0
Mannings bkf velocity, Ubkf = Q/A (ft/s)
5.39
6.02
6.56
4.50
D50 bar (mm)
4
4
D100 bar (mm)
63
63

Existing and Design Morphology Parameters
Parameter
Existing Stream
Design Stream
Min
I Median
I Max
Design Values
Stream name
Silage Trib R2 (34 +80- 43 +48)
Silage Trib R2
Stream type
E4
E4
Drainage area, DA (sq mi)
0.24
0.24
Mean riffle depth, dbkf (ft)
1.7
1.0
Riffle width, Wbkf (ft)
18.2
12.5
Width -to -depth ratio, [Wbkf /dbkfJ 77
10.5
11.9
Riffle cross - section area, Abkf (sq ft)
31.6
13.1
Max riffle depth, dmbkf (ft)
2.3
1.5
Max riffle depth ratio, [dmbkf /dbkf
1.3
1.4
Pool width, Wbkfp (ft)
28.6
20.0
77
Pool width ratio, [Wbkfp/Wbkfl
1.6
1.6
Pool cross - section area, Abkfp (sq ft)
44.5
31.2
Pool area ratio, [Abkfp /Abkfl
1.4
2.4
Max pool depth, dmbkfp (ft)
3.5
2.5
7
Max pool depth ratio, [dmbkfp /dbkfJ
2.0
2.4
Low bank height, LBH (ft)
3.1
1.5
Low bank height ratio, [LBH /dmbkf
1.4
1.0
Width flood -prone area, Wfpa (ft)
100.0
28
77
Entrenchment ratio, ER [Wfpa/Wbkfl
5.5
2.2
Valley length, VL (ft)
722
722
Stream length, SL (ft)
868
868
Valley Elevation Change, VE (ft)
15.3
15.3
Stream Elevation Change, SE (ft)
14.78
14.78
Valley slope, VS (ft/ft)
0.0212
0.0212
Average water surface slope, S (ft/ft)
0.0170
0.0170
Sinuosity, k = SL/VL (ft/ft)
1.20
1.20
Mannings bankfull discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
197.5
59.2
Mannings bkf velocity, Ubkf = Q/A (ft/s)
6.25
4.52
D50 bar (mm)
23
23
D100 bar (mm)
105
105

Silage Trib Thalweg Profile
1280 - - - --
1260
1240 AX
Thalweg
Water Surface
$ 1220
f XS1.1
0
o - 04-XS1.2
1200 - - - -- - - --
W �f�XS1.3
1180
- * -XS1.4
—
XS1.5
XS1.6
1160
1140
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Station (ft)

1,
1
O
C 1
O
W
1
1
Sillage XS 1.1
o Ground Points • Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 5 49 Dbkf = 1 03 Abkf = 5 64
0 10 20 30 40
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Silage XS 1.2
o Ground Points • Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 7.58 Dbkf = .89 Abkf =
12wn
12
C
O
CU 12
N
W
12
12
6 75
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Silage XS
o Ground Points • Bankfull
Indicators
Wbkf = 6.72 Dbkf
1223
1222
.-1
1222
O
CU 1221
N
w 1221
1220
1220
1.3
• Water Surface
Points
.84 Abkf =
5.61
0 5 10 15
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Silage XS
o Ground Points • Bankfull
Indicators
Wbkf = 8 1 Dbkf =
122
122
O
CU 122
O
W
122
122
1.4
• Water Surface
Points
.99 Abkf =
M.I
0 5 10 15
Horizontal Distance (ft)

?. 9
C
O
(U
O
W
11
11
11
11
11
11
o Ground P
Wbkf
Silage
Pc • Bankfull
Indicators
18.2 Dbkf
XS 1.5
• Water Surface
Points
1.74 Abkf =
31 6
0 50 100 150
Horizontal Distance (ft)

11
.-ft*%
11
C
O
O
O
W 11
11
Silage XS 1.6
o Ground Points • Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
wbkf = 28 6 Dbkf = 1 55 Abkf = 44 5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Horizontal Distance (ft)

River Name
Reach Name
Sample Name
Survey Date
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
Moores Fork
Silage Trib
Silage Trib
04/19/2011
SIEVE (mm) NET WT
- bar sample NR pool xsl 2
31 5
52 7
16
582 8
8
889 2
4
526 1
2
383 2
PAN
1872 6
D16 (mm)
0
D 3 5 (mm)
0
D50 (mm)
3 81
D84 (mm)
17 55
D95 (mm)
30 54
D100 (mm)
63
Silt /Clay ( %)
0
sand ( %)
42 18
Gravel ( %)
57 82
Cobble ( %)
0
Boulder ( %)
0
Bedrock ( %)
0
Total weight = 4439 8000
Largest surface Particles
Size(mm) weight
Particle 1 63
75
Particle 2 56
58 2

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name Moores Fork
Reach Name Silage Trib
Sample Name Silage Trib Bar D/S XS1 6
Survey Date 04/19/2011
SIEVE (mm) NET WT
31 5
1517 6
16
1329 4
8
643 8
4
264 8
2
155 9
PAN
1132 2
D16 (mm)
0
D35 (mm)
12
72
D50 (mm)
22
58
D84 (mm)
72
47
D95 (mm)
94
83
D100 (mm)
105
Silt /Clay ( %)
0
Sand ( %)
20
5
Gravel ( %)
64
63
Cobble ( %)
14
86
Boulder ( %)
0
Bedrock ( %)
0
Total weight =
5522
4000
Largest Surface
Particles
Size(mm)
weight
Particle 1
105
286
7
Particle 2
87
192

Existing, Design and Reference Morphology Parameters
Parameter
Existing Stream
Design Stream
Reference Stream
Min
Median Max
Min Median Max
Min
I Median I Max
Stream name
Barn Trib
Barn Trib
Barn Trib Preservation Rch
Stream type
G4
E4b
B4
Drainage area, DA (sq mi)
0.01
0.01
0.08
Mean riffle depth, dbkf (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.7
Riffle width, Wbkf (ft)
1.6
6.0
7.0
Width -to -depth ratio, [WbkPdbkfl
2.9
11.3
10.6
Riffle cross - section area, Abkf (sq ft)
0.9
3.2
4.6
Max riffle depth, dmbkf (ft)
0.8
0.8
1.1
/
Max riffle depth ratio, [dmbk fdbkf]
1.4
1.5
1.6
Mean pool depth, dbkfp (ft)
0.6
0.76
Mean pool depth ratio, [dbkfp/dbkfl
1.2
1.2
Pool width, Wbkfp (ft,)
9.0
6.37
Pool width ratio, n n bkf^kfl
1.5
0.9
Pool cross - section ar ea, Abkfp (sq ft)
5.5
4.85
Pool area ratio, [Abkf /Abkfl
1.7
1.1
Max pool depth, dmbkfp (ft)
1.0
1.15
Max pool depth ratio, [dmbkfp/dbkfl
1.9
1.7
Low bank height, LBH (ft)
6.17
0.8
1.66
Low bank height ratio, [LBH /dmbkfl
7.6
1.0
1.6
Width flood -prone area, WfPa (ft)
4
1
19
9.9
Entrenchment ratio, ER [Wfpa/Wbkfl
2.5
3.2
1.4
Valley length, VL (ft)
622
622
622
Stream length, SL (ft)
250
250
84
Valley Elevation Change, VE (ft)
20
20
20
Stream Elevation Change, SE (ft)
5.14
5.14
1.77
Valley slope, VS (ft/ft)
0.0322
0.0322
0.0322
Average water surface slope, S (ft/ft)
0.0206
0.0206
0.0211
Sinuosity, k = VS /S
1.56
1.56
1.53
Mannings bankfull discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
2.5
10.6
17.7
Mannings bkf velocity, ubkf = Q/A (ft/s)
2.70
3.31
3.84
DSO bar (mm)
sampling not feasible
46
D 00 bar (mm)
66

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

?9
C
O
CO
N
W
Barn Trib. Pool
o Ground Points • Bankfull
Indicators
Wbkf = 10 8 Dbkf =
115
115
114
114
D/S End
• Water Surface
Points
1.1 Abkf = 12
0 10 20 30 40
Horizontal Distance (ft)

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

1
i
C
O
CO
N
W
Barn Trib. Ref Riffle
o Ground Points • Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 6 98 Dbkf = 66 Abkf = 4.6
0 5 10 15 20
Horizontal Distance (ft)

1
1
O
N
["I
Barn Trib. Ref pool
o Ground Points • Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 6 37 Dbkf = .76 Abkf = 4 85
2 4 6 8 10 12
Horizontal Distance (ft)

1
C
O
Cu
N
W
Barn Trib. Ref Reach
0 20 40 60 80 100
Distance along stream (ft)
• CH
WS
• BKF
• P1
o P2
+ P3
X P4

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name Moores Fork
Reach Name Barn Trib
sample Name bar sample ref reach
Survey Date 01/16/2012
SIEVE (mm) NET WT
45
192
16
92 5
8
233 6
4
193 9
2
91 4
PAN
255 8
D16 (mm)
0
D35 (mm)
6
12
D50 (mm)
11
48
D84 (mm)
55
16
D95 (mm)
61
93
D100 (mm)
65
Silt /Clay ( %)
0
Sand ( %)
19
9
Gravel ( %)
78
73
cobble ( %)
1
37
Boulder ( %)
0
Bedrock ( %)
0
Total weight = 1285
2000
Largest surface Particles
Size(mm)
weight
Particle 1 65
192
Particle 2 24
34

Existing, Design and Reference Morphology Parameters
Parameter
Existing Stream
Design Stream
Reference Stream
Min Median F Max
Min Median Max
Min I Median I Max
Stream name
Corn Trib
Corn Trib
Corn Trib Preservation Rch
Stream type
G4
B4
E4b
Drainage area, DA (sq mi)
0.05
0.05
0.05
Mean riffle depth, dbkf (ft)
0.5
0.4
0.4
Riffle width, Wbkf (ft)
4.6
6.6
4.1
Width -to -depth ratio, l"•bkddbkfl
8.9
15.1
11.2
Riffle cross - section area, Abkf (sq ft)
2.4
2.9
1.5
Max riffle depth, dmbkf (ft)
0.7
0.6
0.5
1
Max riffle depth ratio, [dmbddbkfl
1.4
1.4
1.3
Mean pool depth, dbkfp (ft)
0.7
0.7
Mean pool depth ratio, [dbkfp/dbkfl 7
1.5
Pool cross - section ar ea, Abkfp (sq ft)
1.8
6.0
Pool area ratio, [Abkf /Abkfl
2.1
Max pool depth, dmbkfp (ft)
0.8
1.0
Max pool depth ratio, [dmbkfp/dbkfl
2.3
Low bank height, LBH (ft)
2.82
0.6
0.82
1
Low bank height ratio, [LBH /dmbkfl
3.8
1.0
1.7
Width flood -prone area, Wfpa (ft)
7.8
20
13.7
Entrenchment ratio, ER [WfpaMbkfl
1.7
3.0
3.3
Valley length, VL (ft)
84
84
Stream length, SL (ft)
97
97
28
Valley Elevation Change, VE (ft)
3.3
3.3
Stream Elevation Change, SE (ft)
5.5
5.5
0.68
Valley slope, VS (ft/ft)
0.0393
0.0393
Average water surface slope, S ( ft/ft)
0.0567
0.0567
0.0243
Sinuosity
1.15
1.15
Mannings bankfull discharge, Qbkf (cfS)
12.0
13.5
4.0
Mannings bkf velocity, ubkf - C/A (ft/s)
5.01
4.70
2.67
D5o bar (mm)
sampling not feasible
46
Dfoo bar (mm)
66

11
11
O
4-0 11
O
W
11
11
xS C1.1
o Ground Points • Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 4 61 Dbkf = .52 Abkf = 2 4
0 10 20 30 40 50
Horizontal Distance (ft)

11
11
C
O
CU 11
N
W
11
11
XS C1.2
o Ground Points • Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 2.68 Dbkf = 65 Abkf = 1 75
0 10 20 30 40 50
Horizontal Distance (ft)

E
?. 9
C
O
t6
N
W
corn trib. ref riffle
o Ground Points • Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 4 11 Dbkf = .37 Abkf = 1.51
0 5 10 15 20 25
Horizontal Distance (ft)

River Name
Reach Name
Sample Name
Survey Date
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
Moores Fork
Corn Trib
bar sample us farm road
01/20/2012
SIEVE (mm) NET WT
63
182
4
45
893
2
31 5
48
D95 (mm)
16
729
66
8
307
Sand ( %)
4
173
9
2
110
9
PAN
311
9
D16 (mm)
7 01
D35 (mm)
22 54
D50 (mm)
46
D84 (mm)
62 62
D95 (mm)
62 2
D100 (mm)
66
Silt /Clay ( %)
0
Sand ( %)
9 01
Gravel ( %)
90 99
Cobble ( %)
0
Boulder ( %)
0
Bedrock ( %)
0
Total weight =
3460 2000
Largest surface
Particles
Size(mm)
weight
Particle 1
62 521 5
Particle 2
66 182 4

NO
O
cc
N
W
Cow Trib 2 Riffle
o Ground Points • Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 7 89 Dbkf = 69 Abkf = 5.45
0 20 40 60 80
Horizontal Distance (ft)

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name Moores Fork
Reach Name Cow Trib 2
Sample Name Bar sample D/S riffle XS-Cow Tribl 1
Survey Date 04/19/2011
SIEVE (mm) NET WT
16
296
D35 (mm)
8
391
3
4
281
1
2
206
2
PAN
886
8
D16 (mm)
0
D35 (mm)
0
D50 (mm)
4 54
D84 (mm)
33 34
D95 (mm)
65 42
D100 (mm)
80
Silt /Clay ( %)
0
sand ( %)
39 21
Gravel ( %)
57 75
cobble ( %)
3 04
Boulder ( %)
0
Bedrock ( %)
0
Total weight =
2261 7000
Largest Surface
Particles
Size(mm)
weight
Particle 1
80 154 5
Particle 2
55 45 8

Existing , Design and Reference Morphology Parameters
Parameter
Existing Stream
Design Stream
Reference Stream
Min
I Median
I Max
Min
Median
Max
Min
I Median
Max
Stream name
Pond Trib
Pond Trib
Barn Trib Preservation Rch
Stream type
C4b (trampled)
C4b
E4b
Drainage area, DA (sq mi)
0.04
0.04
0.08
Mean riffle depth, dbkf (ft)
1.5
0.7
0.7
Riffle width, Wbkf (ft)
16.3
8.0
7.0
Width -to -depth ratio, [WbkWdbkf)
10.9
11.6
10.6
Riffle cross - section area, Abkf (sq ft)
24.4
5.5
4.6
Max riffle depth, dmbkf (ft)
2.6
1.0
1.1
11
Max riffle depth ratio, [dmbkWdbkfl
1.8
1.5
1.6
Mean pool depth, dbkfp (ft)
0.9
0.76
77
Mean pool depth ratio, [dbkfp/dbkfl
1.4
1.2
Pool width, Wbkfpn(ft)
12.0
6.37
Pool width ratio, bkfMbkfl
[
1.5
0.9
Pool cross - section area, Abkfp (sq ft)
11.3
4.85
Pool area ratio, [Abkfp/Abkf
21
1.1
Max pool depth, dmbkfp (ft)
1.5
1.15
11
Max pool depth ratio, [dmbkfp/dbkfl
2.2
1.7
Low bank height, LBH (ft)
2.95
1.0
1.66
Low bank height ratio, [LBH /dmbkf
11
1.0
1.6
Width flood -prone area, Wfpa (ft)
50
25
9.9
Entrenchment ratio, ER [Wfpa/Wbkf]
3.1
3.1
1.4
Valley length, VL (ft)
187
187
622
Stream length, SL (ft)
194
243
84
Valley Elevation Change, VE (ft)
7
7
20
Stream Elevation Change, SE (ft)
5.63
5.5
1.77
Valley slope, VS (ft/ft)
0.0374
0.0374
0.0322
Average water surface slope, S (ft/ft)
0.0290
0.0226
0.0211
Sinuosity, k = VS /S
1.29
1.65
1.53
Mannings bankfull discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
181.4
21.6
16.8
Mannings bkf velocity, Ubkf = Q/A (ft/s)
7.43
3.93
3.65
D50 bar (mm)
sampling not feasible
D100 bar (mm)

11
11
� 11
O
CU 11
_N
w 11
11
11
Pond xsl extracted from TIN
o Ground Points • Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 19 6 Dbkf = 1 44 Abkf = 28 3
0 20 40 60 80
Horizontal Distance (ft)

11
11
O
-1--j 11
N
W
11
11
Pond xs2 extracted from TIN
o Ground Points • Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 16.3 Dbkf = 1.5 Abkf = 24.4
0 10 20 30 40
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Hand Auger Boring Summary
Moores Fork Mitigation
HA 1 left floodplam Moores Fork
003 Topsoil
03 40 Tan silty sand moist to wet
40 47 Gray silty sand gw at 4 05
47 Refusal on gravel
N 1008973 98
E 1493995 67
Z 1147 229
HA 2 left floodplam Moores Fork
004 Topsoil
04 20 Tan and gray clayey sand moist
20 39 Mottled gray and tan sandy clay wood debris and gw at 2 5
39 Refusal on gravel
N 1008815 35
E 1493810 43
Z 1148 637
HA 3 left floodplam Moores Fork
003 Topsoil
04 22 Red brown silty sand moist
22 30 Red brown and gray silt sandy moist
30 37 Red brown and gray coarse sand and gravel wet
37 Refusal on gravel
N 1008678 56
E 1493574 92
Z 1152 159
HA-4 right floodplam Moores Fork near 59 +00
0 3 5 Brown to tan silty fine sand moist
35 44 Tan and light gray silty fine sand wet
44 Refusal on gravel or rock
Max depth at adjacent channel - 6 8
HA 5
right floodplam Moores Fork near 60 +80
0 01
topsoil
01 38
Brown to tan silty fine sand moist
38 50
Tan and light gray silty fine sand moist
50
HA terminated
HA 6 right floodplam Moores Fork near 61 +50
0 2 6 Tan silty fine sand /sandy silt moist
26 37 Tan and light gray silty fine sand /sandy silt moist
37 41 Gray sandy medium gravel rounded wet
41 Refusal on gravel
Max depth at adjacent channel — 6 5

C
O
CU
O
W
Mill Creek XS1 (riffle)
o Ground Points • Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 33 6 Dbkf = 2 15 Abkf = 72 4
0 20 40 60 80 100
Horizontal Distance (ft)

?9
C
O
.6-.
CU
O
W
5
P,
5
5
2
0
Mill Creek XS2 (pool)
• Water Surface
Points
2 56 Abkf =
o Ground Points • Bankfull
Indicators
Wbkf = 20.1 Dbkf =
51.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Horizontal Distance (ft)

O
O
O
W
Mill Creek XS3 (riffle)
o Ground Points • Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
Wbkf = 27.2 Dbkf = 1 87 Abkf =
0 20 40 60 80
Horizontal Distance (ft)

?. 9
O
+_0
_N
W
Mill Creek XS4 (pool)
o Ground Points • Bankfull • Water Surface
Indicators Points
wbkf = 24 4 Dbkf = 2 27 Abkf = 55 4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Horizontal Distance (ft)

?.9
C
O
O
N
W
Mill Creek
0 100 200 300 400
Distance along stream (ft)
• CH
WS
• BKF
• LB
. I S-
+ LEW
X REW

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name
Mill Creek
Reach Name
Reach 1
Sample Name
subpavement - riffle 1
Survey Date
04/19/2011
SIEVE (mm) NET WT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
31 5
1581
16
17144
8
839 1
4
4247
2
331 6
PAN
11202
D16 (mm)
0
D35 (mm)
1137
D50 (mm)
2025
D84 (mm)
61 19
D95 (mm)
8375
D100 (mm)
94
Silt/Clay ( %)
0
Sand ( %)
1758
Gravel ( %)
71 7
Cobble ( %)
1072
Boulder ( %)
0
Bedrock ( %)
0
Total Weight = 6372 1000
Largest Surface Particles
Size(mm) Weight
Particle 1 94 220 1
Particle 2 80 141
file / / /WI/Projects/Hogan %20Creek/ Assessment / Geomorphic% 20Summary%20Data /mill %20creek %20bar txt[IO /4/2011 2 47 57 PM]

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
River Name Mill Creek
Reach Name Reach 1
Sample Name Zigzag riffle at bar sample 1
Survey Date 04/19/2011
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Size (mm) TOT # ITEM % CUM %
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0 -0062
0 000
000
0062-0 125
0 000
000
0125 -025
6 545
545
025 -050
1 091
636
050- 10
0 000
636
10 -20
1 091
727
20 -40
0 000
727
40 -57
0 000
727
57 -80
3 273
1000
80- 113
3 273
1273
11 3- 160
6 545
18 18
160 -226
11 1000
2818
226 -320
16 1455
4273
32-45
13 11 82
5455
45-64
16 1455
6909
64-90
17 1545
8455
90- 128
11 1000
9455
128- 180
5 455
9909
180-256
1 091
10000
256-362
0 000
10000
362-512
0 000
10000
512- 1024
0 000
10000
1024- 2048
0 000
10000
Bedrock
0 000
10000
D16 (mm)
1412
D35 (mm)
2701
D50 (mm)
40
D84 (mm)
8908
D95 (mm)
133 15
D100 (mm)
25599
Silt/Clay ( %)
0
Sand ( %)
727
Gravel ( %)
61 82
Cobble ( %)
3091
Boulder ( %)
0
Bedrock ( %)
0
Total Particles = 110
file / / /WI/Projects/ Hogan %20Creek / Assessment / Geomorphic% 20Summary%20Data /mill %20creek %20zigzag txt[10 /4/2011 2 47 57 PM]

MOORES FORD'
POND TRIBUTARY
LEGEND
SIGNIFICANT BANK EROSION
DEBRIS JAM OR TREE FALL
MID - CHANNEL OR LATERAL BAR
t
GULLY EROSION
\ I
CORN TRIBUTARY /
I
�\ MOORES FORK
I IN
BARN TRIBUTARY \
� t ,
� II `
1 60 ®20
I
I
\
a-
(Z
Q
Q
C//
z
z O
d W
LLJ
U
0
Al
W
O
U
o
Z�
r- Ln
Ln u
b
W
� Ln Z
� N
c
Lu co I
� W
<z
Lu
v
7
Z .2 -r- o
0
w a
U
C) U
O
<z
0
C) U
Cn
S
\�
DATE MARCH 2012
SCALE 1 = 240
-
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
INVENTORY
SHEET 1 OF 2
f

d
r', I \9, !� Q
/ LEGEND II 1 Q
o un
SIGNIFICANT BANK EROSION J / O
J / —
j , DEBRIS JAM OR TREE FALL / pZ (n
cz MID - CHANNEL OR LATERAL BAR / L>
GULLY EROSION V)
w
Q m U
\ I �
Q
04 lz
1 / COW TRIBUTARY 1 Lu a°Do
1 `l U m a=
Z to
�2nc+
1 SILAGE TRIBUTARY COW TRIBUTARY 2
W t N u
BARN TRIBUTARY LL Z D��D o °D
O W c u
Qj
r
U t
7 ♦ % a 1
V /
I '
SILAGE TRIBUTARY
r
/
]
O
L - -- O U
� �D
^ - DATE MARCH 2012
SCALE 1 = 240
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
INVENTORY
SHEET 2 OF 2

HYDRAULIC ANALYSES

Moores Fork Plan: existing conditions 3/13/2012
Legend
6100.000
�
6010
WS bankfull
5900.000
WS
600.000
Ground
5800.000
Bank St,
5500.000
+
Ineff
5400.000
5300.000
5200.000
5000.000
4900.000
4600.000
4200.000
4100.000
4000.000
3800.000
3700.000
3600.000
3500.000
3300.000
3)=tY11g1
3100.000
2900.000
2763
0.000
19U.880
0.000
�0 0.0 �
2
1 . 00
9 .000
400.000
1300.000
1200.000
1179
1103
1100.000

Moores Fork Plan: design bankfull 3/13/2012
Legend
6100.000
WS bankfull
6000.000
�M
5900.000
WS 2 Qbkf
5800.000
Ground
5700.000
Bank Sta
5600.000
Ineff
5500.000
5400.000
5300.000
5200.000
5100.000
5000.000
4900.000
4700.000
4600.000
4500.000
0.000
4100.000
0.000
3800.000
3700.000
3600.000
3500.000
3400.000
3200.000
3100.000
3000.000
2900.000
2800.000
2700.000
2600.000
2400.000
2300.000
2200.000
2100.000
2000.000
1900. 0400.000
01400.000
1300.000
1200.000
1100.000

Moores Fork Plan: existing conditions 3/13/2012
RS = 2400.000 Design Station 39+80
.08 —.042 .08
1150-
Legend
-
------- ----- X ---------
EG 2 Qbkf
............. P...... - - - - --
EG USGS 5 yr
11484
WS 2 Qbkf
Crit 2 Qbkf
1146-
WS U6GS 5 yr
Crit USGS 5 yr
----------------------------
EG bankfull
1144-
---- -------- A -------------
EG USGS 2yr
Crit bankfull
WS bankfull
1142-
•
Crit USGS 2yr
C
WS USGS 2yr
w
1140-
Ground
Ineff
•
Bank Sta
1138-
----------- ---- ...... ......... — — -------
....... . .
11361
1134-
1132
0 50 100 150 260 250 360 350
400
Station (ft)

Moores Fork Plan: design bankfull 3/13/2012
RS = 2400.000 Design Station 39 +80
08 +— .042 .08
1150
Legend
- - -- - k- -- -- - - ----
EG 2 Qbkf
EG USGS 5yr
1148
WS 2 Qbkf
WS U9GS 5yr
1146
----------------- --------
EG bankfull
x-
Crit 2 Qbkf
WS bankfull
1144
Crit USGS 5yr
------- _ --- - & ------------
EG USGS 2yr
•
WS USGS 2yr
1142
t
Ground
o
•
Bank Sta
>
0)
w
1140
1138
1136
1134
1132
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
400
Station (ft)

Moores Fork Plan: existing conditions
3/13/2012
RS = 4300.000 Design Station 18 +80
.08 - -
.042 .08
--�
1158
Legend
•-- -- - - -- - --
EG 2 Qbkf
WS 2 Qbkf
1158
EG USGS 5 yr
WS U— S
—EG bankfull
WS bankfull
1154
- ...... - -A. —_—
EG USGS 2yr
•
WS USGS 2yr
t
Ground
1152
Bank Sta
i
c
0
W
1150
1148
1146
1144
0 50 100 150
200 250
300
Station (ft)

Moores Fork Plan: design bankfull 3/13/2012
RS = 4300.000 Design Station 18+80
.08 —.042 .08
+
1158-
Legend
--- - -------- X -------------
EG 2 Qbkf
WS iQbkf
1156-
------------- V -------------
EG USGS 5yr
-
WS UdGS 5yr
---------------------------
EG bankfull
-
WS bankfull
1154-
------------- & --- - -------
EG USGS 2yr
WS USGS 2yr
■
Ground
1152-
Bank Sta
c
.2
- - - - - - ---------- - - ---- - -- - - ---------- x ------------- - -
- --------- ------ - --- ---- - --
LLJ
1150-
- — — ------------- — - - --------
1148-
1146-
1144-
0 so 160 150 200 250
300
Station (ft)

Moores Fork Plan: existing conditions 3/13/2012
RS = 5000.000 Design Station 11 +70
08 .042 .08
1175
Legend
------------ * -------------
EG 2 Qbkf
WS 2 Qbkf
— ---------- . -------------
EG USGS 5 yr
WS USGS
1170
- --------------------------
EG bankfull
WS bankfull
-- -------- A- - -----
EG USGS 2yr
WS USGS 2yr
Ground
1165
0
Bank Sta
C
0
d
W
1180
1155
--------------------------------
1150
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
400
Station (ft)

Moores Fork Plan: design bankfull 3/13/2012
RS = 5000.000 Design Station 11 +70
.08 -.042 .08
1175
Legend
EG 2 Qbkf
EG USGS 5yr
WS2Q kb f
1170
WS USGS 5yr
EG bankfull _
WS bankfull
--- - -------- -- -------
EG USGS 2yr
1185
WS USGS 2yr
Ground
•
Bank Sta
x
c
-
1160
cu
w
1155
1150
1145
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
400
Station (ft)

SECTION DESIGN AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT

Moores Fork - Stage vs. Shear
2.5 ,—
2
w
1.5
0
d
r
N
eo 1
V
C
3
m
W
0 +
0
R1 BKF
/
/
/
s
/
/
/
/ // or
sW.0 //
s
// R2 BKF
♦
1 2 3
Stage (feet)
4 5 6
– – – Supply
Reach 1 Design
– Reach 2 Design
- - – Existing XS1.1
– – – Existing XS1.5
Moores Fork - Stage vs. Unit Stream Power
25 -r- - -
20 -
i
� 1
i� l
� 1
15 R2 BKF
R1 BKF
E
5
0 . -g
0 1 2 3 4 5
Stage (feet)
6
– – – Supply
Reach 1 Design
— Reach 2 Design
- -- ExistingXS1.1
– – – Existing XS1.5

20
18
16
a, 14
12
a
10
8
�
E 6
d
4
C
2
0
0
Moores Fork - Discharge vs. Shear
200 400 600
Discharge (cfs)
800 1000
supply 63
— — — Supply 375
Reach 1 Design
R1 RC Design
Reach 2 Design
— — — Existing XS1.1 (stable)
- -- Existing XS1.3(impacted)
- -- Existing XS1.5(overwide)
— — — Existing XS1.10 (stable)
Moores Fork - Discharge vs. Unit Stream Power
2
1.8
i
1.6
1.4
h
i
1.2
d
N
1
I r
V
0.8
5
m°
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
20
18
16
a, 14
12
a
10
8
�
E 6
d
4
C
2
0
0
Moores Fork - Discharge vs. Shear
200 400 600
Discharge (cfs)
800 1000
supply 63
— — — Supply 375
Reach 1 Design
R1 RC Design
Reach 2 Design
— — — Existing XS1.1 (stable)
- -- Existing XS1.3(impacted)
- -- Existing XS1.5(overwide)
— — — Existing XS1.10 (stable)
Moores Fork - Discharge vs. Unit Stream Power
200 400 600 800 1000
Discharge (cfs)
supply 63
— — — Supply 375
Reach 1 Design
RI RC Design
Reach 2 Design
— — — Existing XS1.1 (stable)
— — — Existing XS1.3 (impacted)
— — — Existing XS1.5 (overwide)
Existing XS1.10 (stable)
i
i
200 400 600 800 1000
Discharge (cfs)
supply 63
— — — Supply 375
Reach 1 Design
RI RC Design
Reach 2 Design
— — — Existing XS1.1 (stable)
— — — Existing XS1.3 (impacted)
— — — Existing XS1.5 (overwide)
Existing XS1.10 (stable)

Andrews (1984) and Andrews and Nankervis (1995)
tci* = 0.0834(di /d'50) -0.872 applies if di /d'50 ranges from 3 to 7
tci* = 0.0384(di /d'50) -0.887 if di /d'SO is 1.3 to 3.0
di = d50 of riffle pavement (from zigzag), mm
d'S0 = d50 of sub - pavement (bar sample), mm
d = tci * ((rsand -rh 20) /rh 20) * Di )/s
d =mean bankfull depth of water (ft) needed to move largest particle
rsand = 2.65g/cc specific gravity of sand
rh20 = 1.00 g/cc specific gravity of water
Di = largest particle found in bar or subpavement sample (ft)
S = average (bankfull) water surface slope
MOORES FORK REACHES 1 AND 2
For supply reach samples loc. 1(bar) For sample near 30 +00 (bar)
di 29 mm di 29 mm
d'50 23 mm d'50 12 mm
di /d'50 1.26087 di /d'50 2.416667
tci* = 0.031263 tci* = 0.017556
Di 52 mm = 0.17 ft
s 0.0113 ft/ft
d = 0.78 ft
For supply reach samples loc. 2 (bar)
di 36 mm
d'S0 27 mm
di /d'50 1.333333
tci* = 0.029752
Di 78 mm = 0.26 ft
s 0.0113 ft/ft
d = 1.11 ft
from stage report in RM w/ dbM = d, q,, — 101 cfs
us xs
Di 55 mm = 0.18 ft
s 0.0064 ft/ft
d = 0.82 ft
For sample near 30 +00 (subpavement)
di 29 mm
d'50 23 mm
di /d'50 1.26087
tci* = 0.031263
Di 123 mm = 0.40 ft
s 0.0064 ft/ft
d = 3.25 ft
from stage report in RM w/ dbe = d, qe, — 732 cfs xs1.1

Bathurst et al (1987)
q.D50 = (0 15905D5oi 5) /(s, 12) D in ft
q. = q.D5o(D /D5o)b
b = 1 5(Ds4/Die) 1
MOORES FORK REACHES 1 AND 2
Moores 1 Pebble Count
D5o =
0 029 m 0 09512 ft
Deo =
0 067 m 0 21976 ft
Die =
0 011 m 0 03608 ft
S =
00064
gCD50 =
7 153283 cfs
b =
0246269
qc, =
8 791593 cfs/ft
Active
Channel
Section Width (ft) qa (cfs) _
M1 1 21 63 190
M1 3 21 185
Moores Supply Pebble Count 1
Moores Supply Pebble Count 2
D, =
0 029 m 0 09512 ft
Dm =
0 036 m 0 11808 ft
Dea =
0 054 m 0 17712 ft
DB4 =
0 076 m 0 24928 ft
Die =
0 015 m 0 0492 ft
Die =
0 015 m 0 0492 ft
s=
00113
s=
00113
gcD5 =
3784244 cfs
gcD50 =
5234026 cfs
b =
0416667
b =
0296053
qp =
4903174 Cfs/ft
qG =
6529925 cfs/ft
Active
Active
Channel
Channel
Section
Width (ft) qG (cfs) =
Section
Width (ft) qa (cfs) _
us xs
173 152
ds xs
172 151

Check discharge for initiation of Phase 2 transport using Bathurst (2007) equations
qc2 = 0 0513 g °' D.' S S' 2 units of cros D (m) of the surface material from pebble count
q,�2 = 0 0133 g °' D,,,1 5 5 1 23 g= 9 81 m /s`
MOORES FORK REACHES 1 AND 2
From Moores Supply Reach loc 1
D50 = 0 029 m
D84 = 0 054 m
S = 00113
Bottom Width (active channel) = 17 3 ft
qc2 D50 = 0 172 m3 /s /m 0 052 cros/ft = 1 852 cfs /ft 32 cfs
qc2 D84 = 0 130 m3 /s /m 0 040 cros /ft = 1 396 cfs /ft 24 cfs
From Moores Supply Reach loc 2
D50 = 0 036 m
D84 = 0 076 m
S = 00113
Bottom Width (active channel) = 17 2 ft
qc2 D50 = 0238073736 m3 /s /m 0 0725835 cros/ft = 2 561292 cfs /ft 44 cfs
qc2 D84 = 0216580847 m3 /s /m 0 0660307 cros /ft = 2 330063 cfs /ft 40 cfs
From Moores M1 1
D5o = 0 029 m
D84 = 0 067 m
S = 000640
Bottom Width (active channel) =
21 63 ft
qc2 D50 = 0 340512373 m3 /s /m
0 1038147 cros /ft =
3 663368 cfs /ft
79 cfs
qc2 D84 = 0 360742226 m' /s /m
0 1099824 cros /ft =
3 881009 cfs /ft
84 cfs
From Moores M1 3
D50 = 0 029 m
D84 = 0 067 m
S = 000640
Bottom Width (active channel) =
21 ft
qc2 D50 = 0 340512373 m' /s /m
0 1038147 cros /ft =
3 663368 cfs /ft
77 cfs
qc2 D84 = 0 360742226 m3 /s /m
0 1099824 cros /ft =
3 881009 cfs /ft
82 cfs

Andrews (1984) and Andrews and Nankervis (1995)
tci* = 0 0834(di /d'50) -0 872
tci* = 0 0384(di /d'50) -0 887
applies if di /d'50 ranges from 3 to 7
if di /d'50 is 13 to 3 0
di = d50 of riffle pavement (from zigzag), mm
d'50 = d50 of sub - pavement (bar sample), mm
MOORES FORK REACH 3
d = tci *((rsand- rh20) /rh20) *Di) /s
d = mean bankfull depth of water (ft) needed to move largest particle
rsand = 2 65 g/cc specific gravity of sand
rh20 = 100 g/cc specific gravity of water
Di = largest particle found in bar or subpavement sample (ft)
S = average (bankfull) water surface slope
For sample location near 48 +00
di 298 mm
d'50 144 mm
di /d'50 2069444
tci* = 0020145
Di 84 mm =
s 0 0064 ft/ft
d = 1431322 ft
from stage report in RM w/ dbkf = d q,
0 275591 ft
56 cfs xs 1 6
56 xs1 10

Bathurst et al (1987)
gm50 = (0 15g0SD5o, s) /(s1 12) Din ft
qa = gcoso(D✓D5o)b
b = 1 5(D84/D1e) 1
MOORES FORK REACH 3
Moores Pebble Count near 48 +00
D5o =
003 m 0 0984 ft
D84 =
0 043 m 0 14104 ft
Die =
0 016 m 0 05248 ft
S =
00064
gcDw =
7 526452 cfs
b =
055814
qa =
9 201398 cfs/ft
Active
Channel
Section Width (ft) qa (cfs) _
M1 6 201 185
M1 10 185 170
Sample near 48 +00 Moores Supply Pebble Count 2
D5o =
0 029 m 0 09512 ft
D5o =
0 036 m 0 11808 ft
D84 =
0 054 m 0 17712 ft
De4 =
0 076 m 0 24928 ft
Die =
0 015 m 0 0492 ft
Die =
0 015 m 0 0492 ft
s=
00113
s=
00113
gcD50 =
3784244 cfs
gcDSO =
5234026 cfs
b =
0416667
b =
0296053
qa =
4903174 cfs/ft
qa =
6529925 cfs/ft
Active
Active
Channel
Channel
Section
Width (ft) qa (cfs) =
Section
Width (ft) qa (cfs) _
us xs
173 159
ds xs
172 158

6
5
4
a
eo
r
3
M
eo
v
c 2
0
m
1
0
0
Silage Trib - Stage vs. Shear
60
50
% 40
30
d
3
CL 20
E
�o
a
10
'c
D
0
0
1 2 3 4
Stage (feet)
5
Silage Trib - Stage vs. Unit Stream Power
1 2 3 4
Stage (feet)
5
Existing XS1.2
Reach 1 Design
Existing XS1.5
-- -Reach 2 Design
Existing XS1.2
Reach 1 Design
Existing XS1.5
Reach 2 Design

Area Calculation
Right Bank Slope x 1
Left Bank Slope x 1
Max Depth (ft)
Bottom Width (ft)
Area
Bankfull Width (ft)
Bankfull Depth (ft)
W/D ratio
Ave Width (ft) _
SILAGETRIBUTARY REACH 1
point
3 LTER
3 LTOETER
0 8 JOB
4 LTOE
5 12 TW
8 8 RTOE
0 581818 RTOB
15 125 RTOETER
RTER
Discharge Calculation overall reach
Q = 149/n R2/3 s1 /2 A
WP (ft)
9059644
R (ft)
0565144
design slope
0 035
Channel n
004
Q (cfs)
2434314
W (power)
6041526
gRs = 1234274 psf
largest particle from Shields "
x coord
0
0
0
24
44
64
88
88
88
V coord
100
100
100
992
992
992
100
100
100
x(m) y(m)
0 304878
0 304878
0 304878
0731707 302439
1341463 302439
195122 302439
2682927 304878
2682927 304878
2682927 304878
180 mm Rosgen Data
7 inches
pool
Right Bank Slope x 1
3
Left Bank Slope x 1
3
width ratio = 1409091
Max Depth (ft)
14
depth ratio = 240625
Bottom Width (ft)
4
area ratio = 2242198
Area
1148
14
Bankfull Width (ft)
124
10
pt bar tob o/s
62
outside bank tob o/s
62
Regional Curve Estimate Silage Trib Rch 1
DA (sq mi ) 007
NC Mountains (area) 3651426
NC Mountains (discharge) 1379533
NC rural Piedmont (area) 3621011
NC rural Piedmont (discharge) 1355095
USGS 2 year discharge
NC Hydro Area 1 2895127
SW Appalachian (area) 5194893
SW Appalachian (discharge) 2111035
bar sample 1
d84 = 18 mm
d100 = 63 mm
d50 = 4 mm

Area Calculation
Right Bank Slope x 1
Left Bank Slope x 1
Max Depth (ft)
Bottom Width (ft)
Area
Bankfull Width (ft)
Bankfull Depth (ft)
W/D ratio
Ave Width (ft) _
SILAGE TRIBUTARY REACH 2
point
25 LTER
25 LTOETER
15 LTOB
5 LTOE
13 125 TIN
12 5 RTOE
105 RTOB
1190476 RTOETER
RTER
Discharge Calculation overall reach
Q = 1 49/n R2/3 s1 /2 A
WP (ft)
1307775
R (ft)
1003613
design slope
0 016
Channeln
004
Q (cfs)
6199191
W (power)
4951418
gRs =
1002007 psf
largest particle from Shields'
on line pool
Right Bank Slope x 1
35
Left Bank Slope x 1
25
Max Depth (ft)
25
Bottom Width (ft)
5
Area
3125
Bankfull Width (ft)
20
pt bar tob o/s
11 25
outside bank tob o/s
875
x coord y coord x (m) y (m)
0 100 0 304878
0 100 0 304878
0 100 0 304878
375 985 1143293 3003049
625 985 1905498 3003049
875 985 2667683 3003049
125 100 3810976 304878
125 100 3810976 304878
125 100 3810976 304878
design tw slope =
150 mm Rosgen Data
width ratio = 16
depth ratio = 2380952
area ratio = 2380952
14
10
Regional Curve Estimate silage tnb reach 2
DA (sq mi )
024
NC Mountains (area)
8291025
NC Mountains (discharge)
3449669
NC rural Piedmont (area)
8221966
NC rural Piedmont (discharge)
322998
USGS 2 year discharge
NC Hydro Area 1
6332532
SW Appalachian (area) 1209821
SW Appalachian (discharge) 5215588
0 016
bar sample 2
d84 = 72 mm
d100= 105 mm
d50 = 23 mm

SILAGE TRIBUTARY - REACH 1
Rock Sizing Formulae
Corps(1994)for
D30 = 1 9550555 q 67/g 33
q = Qnkf/b
Qbkf =
24 cfs
b=
Oft
q =
6 cfs /ft
flow
concentration
factor
125
g =
32 2 ft/s2
S=
0035
D30 = 0 372 ft
4 466 inches Class B min = 5 inches
D8s/Dis <= 2
Robinson et al (1998)
q = 0 52D501 89 so is for So <0 10
q = highest stable unit discharge
angular riprap with t = 2D50
try D50 = 0 67 ft Class B d50 = 8 inches
So = 0 035
q = 37 25484 cfs /ft q = 149 cfs
So, while formulae do not produce same stable discharge, Class B
nprap works for both Boulder and log steps considerably larger

2.5
2
i<
CL
1.5
m
d
r
N
to 1
V
e
2
0
m
d
N
d
3
0
a°
E
�o
d
M
H
.0
D
0.5
0
0 1 2 3
Stage (feet)
Pond Trib - Stage vs. Shear
18
16 -
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 c
0
Pond Trib - Stage vs. Unit Stre;
4
Existing
Design

Barn Trib - Stage vs. Shear
2.5
2
w
N
°' 1.5
M
d
r
M 1
V
C
0
m
M
Barn Trib - Stage vs. Unit Stream Power
14
12
10
v
d
8
3 6
0
0
a 4
E
d
vi 2
'c
0
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Stage (feet)
3
Existing
Design
- --- Reference Riffle

Moores Fork Riparian Tree & Shrub Planting
Common Name
Scientific Name
Stratum
Indicator
Status
ZONE 1- Upper Streambank
Elderberry
Sambucus canadens►s
Understory
FACW -
Silky Dogwood
Cornus amomum
Understory
FACW+
Black Willow
Sal►x n►gra
Midstory
OBL
Silky Willow
Sal►x ser►cea
Understory
OBL
ZONE 2 - Floodplain
Tulip Poplar
L►r►odendron tul►p►fera
Canopy
FAC
Sycamore
Platanus occ►dental►s
Overstory
FACW -
Eastern Redbud
Cerc►s candaens►s
Sub-
FACU
Canopy
Silky Dogwood
Cornus amomum
Understory
FACW+
Hophornbeam
Ostrya v►rg►n►ana
Sub-
FACU-
Canopy
Pawpaw
As►m►na tr►loba
Sub-
FAC
Canopy
American
Call►carpa amer►cana
Tall Shrub
FACU-
Beautyberry
ZONE 3 - Floodplain & Terrace
White Oak
Quercus alba
Canopy
FACU
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus m►chaux►►
Canopy
FACW+
Blackgum
Nyssa sylvat ►ca Marsh
Canopy
FAC
Winged Elm
Ulmus alata
Sub-
FACU+
Canopy
Persimmon
Diosypros v►rg►nana
Tall Shrub
FAC
Witch Hazel
Hamamelis v►rg►n►ana
Understory
FACU
Ironwood
Carp►nus carohn►ana
Midstory
FAC
Black Haw
Viburnum prun►fol►um
Understory
FACU

Check of In stream structure particle mobility
3/27/2012
Reach
Discharge
Shear
(psf) •
Particle Diam
Shield s Curve
Rosgen data (mm)
Particle Diam
Shield s Curve
Rosgen data (in)
Constructed
Riffle DSO (in)
Rock Vane /Step
Median Boulder
Size (in)
Moores
bankfull
087
160
63
8
24
R 1 &2
2xbankfull
089
160
63
Moores
bankfull
085
150
59
R 3
2xbankfull
093
160
63
III
•
PAW
,
-
. II
■■
onII�IC■I
��
ME
N/A
Silage RS
bankfull
122
180
71
2xbankfull
165
220
87
.
C
li■■
Silage R2
bankfull
087
160
63
2xbankfull
125
180
71
8
MOM
M
Pond
bankfull
085
150
59
2xbankfull
081
140
55
■ From stage shear calcs (RAS and RIVERMorph)
loco
100-
E
� 10-
C
10
R
01 —
0 001
001 01 1 10
Critical Shear Stress pbs /sq ft)
A Rospen %Date Colorado US&
prml-bed streams
o Shields Data misc labarotory and
field sources
• Shields Curve for Threshold of Motion
:a
■OCR
��
III
•
PAW
,
-
. II
■■
onII�IC■I
��
ME
.
:.
.
C
li■■
�
111
MOM
M
no
on on
-12--hall
mmmmmill�C
■
ii
■
lI
t!
'�■
■Ciii
Oi%
-��
�
I�v�r
iii
■iiiiii
.�
��.
°..::
-•
a�
= -
=5
-
= =M1
MEice
=
==
:HE
.
0�
I
�
�
Cod
••
•� �...
�0
I
C
■1111
MINIM=
1"EMEM11111
•
� �
■C�I�lli
■
■
■�1�111
■■C��1111
■�
•��II
��■
■1111111
■
■1111111■■IIUII
01 —
0 001
001 01 1 10
Critical Shear Stress pbs /sq ft)
A Rospen %Date Colorado US&
prml-bed streams
o Shields Data misc labarotory and
field sources
• Shields Curve for Threshold of Motion

v�
0
a
ti
V
0
W
w
Vi l L
NOT TO SCALE
INDEX OF SHEETS
TI: TITLE
T2: NOTESAND SYMBOLS
T3: SHEET INDEX
PI -PI1: STREAM PLANS
P12: EASEMENT MARKING PLAN
P13: CONSTRUCTION ACCESS PLAN
TSI -TS2: TYPICAL SECTIONS
DI -D7: DETAILS
GRAPHIC SCALES
80 40 0 80 160
PLAN (EXCEPT AS NOTED)
80 40 0 80 160
PROFILE (HORZ.)
8 4 0 8 16
PROFILE (VERT.)
PRELIMINARY PLANS
MOORES FORK MITIGATION PROJECT
STREAM NAMES: MOORES FORK AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARIES
LOCATION: SURRYCOUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
ORN TRIB (Eli)
POND TRIB
(EI/R) MOORES 3 (EI)
MOORES 1 (El
MOORES ) UTB(P) UT10(P)
UTS (P)
UT9 (P)
(P)
1
V
TRB12 (EO)
UTS (P) UT3 (P)
BARN TRIB 2 (E
TRIB 1 (Ell)
u (P)
1 (Ell) SILAGE TRI (RIEI)
BARN TRIB 1 (R)
Prepared By:
CONFLUENCE
ENGINEERING, PC
16 Broad Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Phone: [phone]
confluence-eng.com
PROJECTED START DATE:
COMPLETION DATE:
DESIGN
APPROVAL
PROJECT ENGINEER
SIGNATURE
EEP PROJECT NO. SHEET TOTAL
94709 T1 1 25
A CONCEPT PLANS 512011
B PRELIMINARY PLANS 1/2012
C DRAFT FINAL MP 3/2012
D
E
crw macuma an ueamTn
REVISIONS
PRELIMINARY PLANS
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
Prepared for:
r Is
cm1
rlsQ�e�ul

CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
Phase 1 Mobilization and General Site Preparation
1 Mobilize equipment and materials to the site Locate limits of disturbance
2 Establish construction entrances /exits and staging areas as shown on the plans Access to the site
will be via Horton Road and existing farm paths Existing stream crossings (culverts and bridge) shall be
used during construction Install additional temporary stream crossings on Moores Fork as needed
to access work areas
3 Establish construction haul routes using existing farm paths to the extent feasible Minimize
disturbance beyond immediate haul routes and grading limits Stabilize haul route surfaces with
stone and filter fabric as necessary
4 Hardwood trees 12 inches dbh and larger that require removal per the plans shall be salvaged for
on-site use as in stream structures Attention shall be paid to the specified trunk lengths of log and
root wad structures shown on the plans
5 The stems and root masses of exotic invasive species (multi flora rose Chinese privet etc )
generated during grading operations shall be burned on site or disposed in approved off site
locations
6 Any stockpiled materials not used for backfdl within 30 days of excavation shall be stabilized with
temporary seed and straw mulch
Phase 2 Off -Une Channel Construction
1 Perform sod mat cutting within grading limits and stockpile separate from backfill sod for later use
on stream banks and planting areas Limit stripping to those areas that will be graded within 3 days
to minimize softening and degradation of subgrade soils under construction traffic
2 When excavating new offlme channel lea�eplugs of existing bank material in place atupstream
and downstream ends Base flow shall be maintained in the existing channel until new channel is
fully stabilized with sod mats seeding and structures riffles
3 Complete in-stream structure installation and bank stabilization on the new channel Transplant sod
mats Seed and mat banks where sod mat transplanting is not feasible Stockpile excavated sods
between new channel and existing channel for later backfiilling Silt fence shall be installed on the
creek side of all stockpiles
4 Working from the top of the existing stream banks excavate gravel and cobble bar sediment and
stockpile separately for use in constructed riffles and other structures
5 Once thenew channel is stabilized complete tie ins from existing to new channel taking
precautions to limit introduction of soil to live stream Diverting water into the new channel shall
proceed according to the following steps
a Remove plug at downstream end of new off line channel
b Setup pump around operation above upstream tie-in
c Grade online stream channel to proper dimensions and profile and tie in to new offhne
channel
d Backfill abandoned channel upstream to downstream using stockpiled soil compacted in
lifts not to exceed 12 inches in thickness Stabilize with straw mulch temporary and
permanent seed
Phase 3 On-Line Channel Construction
1 Base flow shall be diverted per the plans using a single diversion setup if feasible Install temporary
sand bag coffer dams upstream and downstream of work area Install pump suction and discharge
lines and divert flow around tie in area Install dewatenng pump as necessary and discharge
through silt bag
2 Perform earthwork in stream structure installation geo Gifts seeding mulching and matting per the
plans Salvage gravel and cobble sediment for use in constructed riffles and other structures
2 Permanently dispose of excavated material in approved upland or off site area Silt fence shall be
installed on the creek side of all temporary stockpiles
3 Temporarily dismantle flow diversion prior to flood event that exceeds capacity of diversion
ensuring that work areas are fully stabilized
4 Once restored channel is fully stabilized dismantle pumps discharge lines and coffer dams and
return flow to restored channel
Phase 4 Demobilization
1 Upon completion of stream and floociplam grading operations silt fences shall be removed
construction entrances /exits shall be removed and the construction haul routes shall be graded
seeded and mulched as needed to restore them to their pre project conditions
2 Upon demobilization of equipment and materials the staging areas shall be restored to their pre
project conditions
Phase 4a Planting
1 Site planting including live stakes and bare root trees and shrubs shall be completed after grading
and in-stream structure operations are complete and during the dormant season (November to
April)
LEGEND
n
n
Q
w
o U)
Z
O
O U)
IZ W
(Y �
U
w
0
e i -I
p" 41 O
^ PLO
W c
OD
QD
Z d m °
U m E
Lri
u
r " C in v
W Z in C
N
LU 1�7p Go
LL Z O O 0Np (u
ZmZa,
l7'O c, 4 c
0 Z ° c
a u
U w C
O
�z
C7
O
�U
i-4
DATE MARCH 2012
SCALE NTS
NOTES AND
SYMBOLS
EXISTING
PROPOSED
MAJOR CONTOUR
(10)
STREAM ALIGNMENT
10-00
.- T--�
MINOR CONTOUR
(2) -- - - -_
TOP OF BANK
PARCEL
BANKFULL BENCH
'
FENCE
CONS EASEMENT
BEDROCK
GEOLIFT
MATURE TREE
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
� �
J -HOOK VANE
CROSS VANE
LOG VANE
STEP STRUCTURE
ROOT WAD CLUSTER
LEVEL SPREADER
SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING
n
n
Q
w
o U)
Z
O
O U)
IZ W
(Y �
U
w
0
e i -I
p" 41 O
^ PLO
W c
OD
QD
Z d m °
U m E
Lri
u
r " C in v
W Z in C
N
LU 1�7p Go
LL Z O O 0Np (u
ZmZa,
l7'O c, 4 c
0 Z ° c
a u
U w C
O
�z
C7
O
�U
i-4
DATE MARCH 2012
SCALE NTS
NOTES AND
SYMBOLS

i
1 1 1
HET p � I
— — I
LHEE
UT6
CORN TRIB
POND TRIB
�-,MOORES FORiZ
i
l \
MOORES FORK
Jt I loe
/
/
y1-
UT8
s %A
I
I
— UT7
msU))
ti\
I
q
��
1
I
UT9
UT10
COW IB 2 IN
�F\TA N. _ SNEET p IO 1
^��7 �t
�,
COW TB 1 \ / \ UT3I
UT2
/
cAll
\ UT1
/ SILAGE TRIB _
Q
W
D
z
0
o Cn
W
V)
0
C
fV,�1^fJ.y 7
N 04
YI-
W o OD
U
z �„CLn0 LA W
u
W Z H L
rx -a 'N
wBtor aj
Z oZ cam'
O a,00
— t � CL
U w c
O
�z
u
O
OU
>4
v�
DATE MARCH 2012
SCALE 1 = 500
SHEET INDEX
SHEET T3 OF 25

O g J I
O I
m I
m I �\
I
O
T� i 1 • I
T 0 +89
O PROPERTY LINE • .� • B GI REACH-1
r, 1 •/
m
1 I ,
OD • 1 . 1 /
C)
g j m • // : /
X
N m•
I
O • • �� I
7 r-• i • `
•
I /
' / 1
• • / / I
g I ,
,
X••
m • fm \
U
•J/ /
i z� / O /
m 'n f x /
�0 / • /
Z
m •/ i '�/
s � / m
0 co
m
X y /
/ F/
I }
s m \
z
0 \ �
co 'IV
o
I \
g r I \ \
m
j,
X
l
��j� • r'
tA
MATCHLVN /P /• '
VA X 2
n D A R 1 /R2 BREAK 0712 AB
Ci 0 m �N I Z/ B
m z `� m MOORES FORK MITIGATION CONFLUENCE � Fy C
R° � ENGINEERING PC l
Cn SURRY COUNTY, NC 16 Broad Street
0 %d u N Asheville North Carolina 28801 y
O O OD ° Phone [phone] �� cc� 1�U DESCRIPTION DATE APP
°i � �7 ^' confluence -eng com �G
� x STA 9 +89 TO 21 +00 �4V DAV0 �S REVISIONS

O
m
c /
0 8 MATCHLIN
F 2x
OD
8 f �� /' �/ / • I /
-1
1 ,
I
Z
oil
I I
m
s
C m� •/
Z X
T ;u Z
O Z D
cn
v ! • / \
I �
�/ % ( oi��
8 J I • � `I 1 \ �� 1 \\
S' i • �� III � — ,� �� \ v ,v ��
I
S
I
ti
I
8 'I j � `��x • �\
I I \ \
N 1
J •
cn v A R1 /R2 BREAK 0712 AB
ry" 0 > A ��` �0<
m z p m m MOORES FORK MITIGATION CONFLUENCE FE �qt, � C
R° c ENGINEERING PC `�
N � U, SURRY COUNTY, NC 16 Broad Street L
O 'jd N Asheville North Carolina 28801 y 2
cTNn I o N Phone [phone] c�V� ' DESCRIPTION DATE APP
confluence-eng com 'Q,p_ \ O ` V
m 21+00 ►7� DAV S REVISIONS
STA TO 32 +00

\ COR
BANKFULL B CHES --
=� Al
I
1160
1/1 b,
��
N cj
/i
•e
I
M
• • I' \ aoVQ LU
+�cr-
33 00
wm
\
IS e \
i
1155 EXISTING GROUND AT
DESIGN CENTERLINE
1150
I 1
1 I
1 I
r \ I I
� I I
1145 AL, �
1140 — ' --
1135
I
I
I
1130 32 +00 32 +50 33 +00 33 +50 34+00 34 +50
MOORES FORK PROFILE 1 80
e
ova&..
— � r
U
z Jf \ \
U
Q
UT8 (PRESERVATION)
I
-------------------
PROPOSED THALWEG
35+00 35 +50 36+00 36 +50 37 +00 37 +50 38 +00 38 +50 39 +00 39 +50 40+00 40+50 41 +00 41 +50 42 +00 42 +50 43 +00
Q
F--
o un
z�
O
o v� �
W
U
0
co
F.
G
W
G
V
�m E
z«. C N 0.
W Z b� c
LU
� N
O 000 W
Z Z00zv=
W O C
O W as, a o
U
MOORES FORK
PLAN & PROFILE
SHEET P3 OF 25
Q
�,
O
O
�z
H
OI--1
O
O
U
O
(O�
(N
I
Q
1
gU)
u
1%1
cnI
DATE MARCH 2012
SCALE 1" = 80
MOORES FORK
PLAN & PROFILE
SHEET P3 OF 25

1145
1140
1135
1130
1125
1120
43 +00
` fl
UT8 (PRESERVATION)
i
------------ - EXISTING GROUND AT
�\ DESIGN CENTERLINE
i
43 +50 44+00
I
i
44 +50
MOORES FORK PROFILE 1 80
� v
PROPOSED THALWEG
45 +00 45 +50 46+00 46 +50 47+00 47 +50 48+00 48 +50 49+00 49+50
o/
1 6
�yLn j
i�
�
�
O
O
O
Pz
It
�
Q
C7
Ln
H
W
\
�D
O
O
Q
+
w>-4
�
S
u�
DATE MARCH 2012
SCALE 1 = 80'
u�
'v
z
O
z
o
cn
\
>
w
J�J
�
1
0
/ ,/j c'J
4kp
i
f
— - — — - -- - - - --
50 +00 50 +50 51 +00 51 +50 52 +00 52 +50 53+00 53 +50 54 +00
W c QD
z
°� Lno
Q �oNo,
W
z �Nc
� N
ALL mom 00 U
cu
Z
ZmZv
l7' -°v0c
O Z °°
L
V w c
z
O
O
O
Pz
It
C7
Ln
H
O
�D
O
O
Q
+
w>-4
�
S
u�
DATE MARCH 2012
SCALE 1 = 80'
MOORES FORK
PLAN & PROFILE
SHEET P4 OF 25

� I 1
/ / 1
i
s •J I 1
I 1
1
1
T i\
I 1
1
1
1
I '
1
1
1
\ 1 1
/
/ x
11 � \ - 5.3-+;00 - \ , _ • � ``y� i � %, � � \ / � \
\ \ 1 \ I \
co
1145
1140
1135 EXISTING GROUND AT
DESIGN CENTERLINE —
•
1
/ � 1
I 1
1 \
\ 1
1
,I a �
1130 -
i
I
I
i
i
•
a_
a-
a
w
F--
o cn
Z
O
o c/}
n W
U
w
0
� J
PN
/ LLJ o
U "m E
j =tea} W Z �+ 2 Ln u
_ Z b3N
v
ILL Zm`000ai
Z Z v 3
/ Z L O
W y0- u
U
1125 - - -- -�
PROPOSED THALWEG
1120
54 +00 54 +50 55+00 55 +50 56 +00 56 +50 57 +00 57 +50 58+00 58 +50 59 +00 59 +50 60 +00 60+50 61 +00 61 +50 62 +00 62 +50 63 +00 63 +50 64 +00
MOORES FORK PROFILE 1 80
O
+
�z
u
H�
o
O
o
o
+
w
L
Lo
8
DATE MARCH 2012
SCALE 1"= 80
MOORES FORK
PLAN & PROFILE
SHEET P5 OF 25

REMOVE REMAINS
<
�\ - - - -- /� /
\ s� J r
r —�� /
OF DAM
cn
z
O
(n
Z
O
w
LLJ
Zt
%
—
NDT RIB
\ i / / �,_ -
//
_ _ SUPPLEMENTAL BUFFER PLANTI
- - - - RIGHT BANK
-�
_ Q
' 11 x
ri MOORES FK �°/
\
1 / ��, ,/ _•• //
Lu
U
z
o
a r°n E
u, o
l7 8 o m u
Wco u
LL
z Fn
0
a u
W
O
P U
Z
EXISTING GROUND AT
EXISTING GROUND AT
DESIGN CENTERLINE
DESIGN CENTERLINE
1160 1160
1255 1255
,
H
1250 1250
O
1155 \ 1155
\
U
w
1150 1150
1245 1245
10.00 10 +50 1,+Oo 11 +50 12 +00 12 +50
PROPOSED THALWEG
1240 1240
'
PROPOSED THALWEG
10+00 10 +50 11 +00 11+50 12 +00 12 +50
DATE MARCH 2012
SCALE 1"= 80
POND AND BARN
TRIBS PLAN &
POND TRIB PROFILE 180
BARN TRIB PROFILE 1 80
PROFILE
SHEET P6 OF 25

\x xpp INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL
u BOTH BANKS
BARN TRIB ��x 22 +00
pp ---_
16 *00 17 +00 18 +00 x0�
_ 79 *pp
SUPPLEMENTAL BUFFER
RIGHT BANK
2r
20 ®0
'px°---------------
- CORN TRIB
\ \'sb° -�- BANKFULL BENCHES, hw
—THA�WEG FOLLOWS EXISTING
\, +00 -y -_ 17ro0_ CORN TRIB
�e +00 19+00 -
INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL
BOTH BANKS 22 +00 -hoc
_
?0 23+
_
_
1
�J
�f
II
1'
7
lei
C
w
F--
Q
z
0
F=-
U
V)
W
C)
z
O
w
ry
�j C,
J
0
LLI aD
U
Za Lno
N u
W LU�p
o 000 W
z ZmZai
OG o
W 2 u
U L
0
�z
O
U
O�
c1)
U)
S
DATE MARCH 2012 1
SCALE 1 =80 1
BARN AND
CORN TRIBS
PLAN
SHEET P7 OF 25

1255
fs
W
Z
J
POSED THALWEG =
U
1250
\
Q
g
ti
1245
\
EXISTING GROUND AT
` �-
1240
DESIGN CENTERLINE
10 +00 10 +50 11 +00 11 +50 12 +00
12 +50
SILAGE TRIB PROFILE 1 80
1245 1
1240
Q
w
ocn
z
0
o
Li
U
0
J
0
\\1 2�2�<
i
W
Z
Lu
0
J
LL
O
U
o
co
U m E
�o
�p N di
UN
Z m 0 Go v
zv3
cu
W C S
L
N
rrcvrLJ,-lpcu i nN►wvw
� O Ln
1235 Z � [� U +
�z
a H 0
1230 EXISTING GROUND AT� ~
DESIGN CENTERLINE O 00
- -�
`\ Q U +
1225 -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - '� ,\ -- -- — - - -- - -- FTy }4 0
\\` l Q
1220 - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - -- - - - -- - -
DATE MARCH 2012
1216
SCALE 1"= 80
SILAGE TRIB
1210
12+00 12 +50 13 +00 13 +50 14 +00 14 +50 15 +00 15+50 16 +00 16 +50 17 +00 17 +50 18 +00 18 +50 19+00 19 +50 PLAN & PROFILE
SHEET P8 OF 25

w
COW TRIB 1 i a_ w
,PLE -BUFFER PLANTING LK
Ld
�•�� �/ �_ �- _-- // /SILAGE —TRIQ
cn
=.��t
INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL
BOTH BANKS
L u is
U 0- N °m E
Ln
c Lu z ZmZc
p Z r $
\ W w(L
1210 U
I L
1205 z O
0 Liz
PROPOSED THALWEG Z +
O
1200
H O
O
1195 \ L \ Lf)
1190 EXISTING GROUND AT J Q
DESIGN CENTERLINE I O V)
1165
I
DATE MARCH 2012
SCALE 1"= 80
116o
SILAGE TRIB
PLAN & PROFILE
19+50 20+00 20 +50 21 +00 21 +50 22 +00 22 +50 23+00 23 +50 24 +00 24 +50 25 +00 25 +50 26 +00 26 +50 27 +00 27 +50 28 +00 28 +50 29 +00 29 +50 30+00 30 +50
SILAGE TRIB PROFILE 1 80 SHEET P9 OF 25

I1 I
J/
1180
1175
1170
1165
1160
amp
1150
30 +50 31+00 31 +50 32 +00
SILAGE TRIB PROFILE 1 80
1 \\
-1�
PROPOSED
I
EXISTING GROUND AT
DESIGN CENTERLINE
I
I
I
32 +50 33 +00 33 +50 34 +00 34 +50 35 +00
mX
�\
ILA- TRIBE
I
I
I
I
35 +50 36 +00 36 +50 37+00
37 +50 38 +00 38 +50
,
I
I
I
I
I
P �-
e
OD
a_
a
w
Z
O
o _
cn
F-
a- >
w
or-
U
Vl
w
0
3 m
3to
o
J
W _ Q
— - O Ln
O
I
W
c co
U
a �' °m E
O
Z
5 `" u
Z
LU
b2NC1
M "'°N
UN
�p
W
O "o, d
Z O°z v�
Z
v C
U
Z 0
W c a u
py
4e
— - O Ln
O
I
O
O
Ln
�U
+
DESIGN FOLLOWS
py
EXISTING THALWEG
P4
9
Q
D/S OF 35 +00
U
cn
- - - - - -
--
— — - - - - -- — -
-
I
DATE MARCH 2012
` -
SCALE 1" = 80'
I
SILAGE TRIB
PLAN & PROFILE
39 +00 39+50 40 +00
40 +50 41 +00 41 +50
SHEET P10 OF 25

m
/ a a
COW TRIB 1 / / Q
�� / o o cn
GULLY STAB U/S OF STA 12 +19 z
DIVERSION L % zo O
z
— — — — — i ° w
/ r
INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL �� >
� / / � • ,, AND SUPPLEMENTAL BUFFER PLANTING
I / / / l/ �% %� / j; ' ; • '/ / BOTH BANKS
/ ♦ x •� /
0 11+00
�\ INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL ••• , \ ^ —
\\ AND SUPPLEMENTAL BUFFER PLANTING �♦
— — — — — — — — —\ —BOTH BANKS GULLY STABILIZATION Q-
/ U/S OF STA 10 +00
DIVERSION 1 1 1 1 r rr // i1 f W Go
u N
a m E
Ln
W Z tip t�11
�� • / Lu m 0 G
5a0 °—'0o
u
U w t
GULLY S BILIZATION — — — — — _COW TRIB 2
— — — —
INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL
\ '�\ AND SUPPLEMENTAL BUFFER PLANTING \ • — — _ _ _ / / j�� Z
BOTH BANKS - x
/ ,� \� \\\ \ \ \ \. / „'! jam' • ♦ • _ • \ \\ \•` — • _\��_ l �3t ii
DIVERSION ` \ \• \�� /
\ \ \' - •
� ate`+ \ \ \ ` �\ , / , • ' \ t / •
\ \°'"� >`4 \ \� `, \ \ \ // • ' • ♦ i DATE JULY 2012
/ �♦SCALE 1"= 80
COW TRIBS 1& 2,
UT1
�------- - - - - -- ��q�`4�\- - - - - -- - -
_ ___ -__/ �% /�,, /,�•' , }D,� j j � PLAN
' - r
SHEET P11 OF 25

0-
a-
Q
LEGEND Ld
o (n
PROPERTY BOUNDARY _ _ CONSERVATION EASEMENT z
(117 6 ACRES) z O
o
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION of
EASEMENT (65 0 ACRES)
I �
NOTE CE AND TCE LINES ARE Q m
COINCIDENT IN SEVERAL
\ LOCATIONS
MOORES FORK /
U w C.4 - 0
V.
MOORES FORK
4kF PLO
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
0
LLI CD
1 1 �
a v a rn E
Z - L,
N
4 v w 1
w o� v
Z L9 .p , C
/ O Z =g o
W 50- u
aj
1 V
z
0
�z
y O
OPT SILAGE TRIB
/ O � O
BARN TRIB O
un
DATE MARCH 2012
SCALE 1 =600
Q
0 EASEMENT
BOUNDARY
MARKING PLAN
SHEET P12 OF 25

a
a
w
o un
z
O_
-1 o (J�
PROPERTY BOUNDARY L>
V)
\ V
I w
D
EXIST CULVERT Q m V
� J
MOORES FORK — Q
EXIST CULVERT Y~�
MOORES FORK Q�
STAGING
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
0
TAGING EXIST BRIDGE W V N o
0
z d Ln o
ue Ln u
W z t. 2 Ln c
� N
p L
W O O co c cu
LL Z ACCESS 3 Z Z o v o
4w ZiE
1 STAGING u L
z
0
�z
H
OPO SILAGE TRIB
ACCESS 2 Q
O
BARN TRIB 0>
S
y
0O J�Op� DATE MARCH 2012
ACCESS oQ�Q� SCALE 1 = 600
Q� CONSTRUCTION
ACCESS PLAN
MAIN ACCESS TO SITE
HORTON ROAD OFF PINE RIDGE ROAD
SHEET P13 OF 25

EXCAVATE BANKFULL
BENCH 3 LOCA
NO DISTURBANCE
RIGHT BANK
34 a
y �
DEBRIS REMOVAL SEE PLANS
NOTES
a
a
a
w
o
1 BANKS OF ON -LINE REACHES SHALL BE ROUGHENED
Z
PERPENDICULAR TO SLOPE COVERED WITH 2" LAYER OF TOPSOIL
O
SEEDED MULCHED AND MATTED WITH 780 G /SM COIR FIBER MATTING
z
o
(n
2 BANKS OF OFF -LINE REACHES SHALL BE ROUGHENED
�_
>
PERPENDICULAR TO SLOPE AND COVERED WITH SOD MATS
w
3 TERRACE SLOPES TO BE ROUGHENED PERPENDICULAR TO SLOPE
w
SEEDED AND MULCHED
o
rl__ TYPICAL SECTION
TS1 MOORES FORK REACH 1 \�P
� 4 —o
PARTIALLY BACKFILL
PARTIALLY BACKFILL Q-
,�, P�
29 0' 3 4' ABANDONED CHANNEL ABANDONED CHANNEL
10 1 (TYP) 31 40 0' 31
(NP) 10 1 (TYP) rt (TYP) o
- - - - -- - - -- - -- -- - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- Lu o
-- -'�� / - -- --- U N p
- -- 2 4 /-///- CL
- - - -- �1 1� - - -- - - - W Z ° Ln c
251 (TYP) ��
120' 50' w v
Lu
100' z mZ c cz
2 TYPICAL RIFFLE SECTION c
3 TYPICAL POOL SECTION O W
TS1 MOORES FORK REACH 2 TS 1 MOORES FORK REACH 2
10 1 (TYP)
2 5 1 (TYP)
31 0'
q
12 0'
3 8' ------------
4 TYPICAL RIFFLE SECTION
TS1 MOORES FORK REACH 3
43 0'
10 1 (TYP)
55
100,
5 TYPICAL POOL SECTION
�slMOORES FORK REACH 3
-31
-----------
)
LEGEND
EXISTING - - --
PROPOSED
z
O
F-4z
H
~z
40
O U
Our)
O
DATE MARCH 2012
SCALE 1" = 20'
TYPICAL
SECTIONS
SHEET TS1 OF 25

88
\\\�� 3 1 (TYP)
VARI
PROTECT EXISTING
UPLAND VEGETATION
BOTH BANKS 51 (TYP) _ _ f -
12 4'-
0 8' -
31 (TYP)
C
VARIES 1-4'
COMPACTED CLAY FILL
rl_'
TYPICAL RIFFLE SECTION
TS2 SILAGE TRIG REACH 1
PROTECT EXISTING
UPLAND VEGETATION
a_
n
Q
Ld
Q
BOTH BANKS
°
51 (TYP) _ -
z
0
14'
0
COMPACTED CLAY FILL
2 TYPICAL POOL SECTION
TS2 SILAGE TRIB REACH 1
z
_O
cn
Li
c
Qa�
V N
(t 10 1 (TYP) BACKFILL (i BACKFILL
8 0' ABANDONED 12 0' ABANDONED c
2 5 1 (TYP) ��,P) CHANNEL 351- 2 5 1 �,P CHANNEL W v N c
( ) U �o
- - - -- - - - - - -- - -- - - -- - - - - -- - z
3 0 1011 10 1 (TYP) 1 5' J °N°
3 0' L L w °D C
ZZmZQ,3
Z�° —',c
3 TYPICAL RIFFLE SECTION 4 TYPICAL POOL SECTION u W c a u
TS2 POND TRIG TS2 POND TRIB
z
Ct 51 (TYP)
6 0' 2 1 6 6' 10 1 (TYP)
31 � z
2 5 1 (TYP) i -- (TYP) 3 1 (TYP) (TYP) E \
2 0' BENCH L BANK
0 8' AS SPACE ALLOWS 3 0' L 06 O u
5 TYPICAL SECTION 6 TYPICAL SECTION (w
TS2 BARN TRIB TS2 CORN TRIB
S
NOTES
LEGEND 1 BANKS OF ON -LINE REACHES SHALL BE ROUGHENED PERPENDICULAR TO SLOPE
COVERED WITH 2" LAYER OF TOPSOIL SEEDED MULCHED AND MATTED WITH 780 G /SM DATE MARCH 2012
EXISTING = - -- COIR FIBER MATTING SCALE 1" = 20'
2 BANKS OF OFF -LINE REACHES SHALL BE ROUGHENED PERPENDICULAR TO SLOPE
PROPOSED AND COVERED WITH SOD MATS TYPICAL
3 TERRACE SLOPES TO BE ROUGHENED PERPENDICULAR TO SLOPE, SEEDED AND SECTIONS
MULCHED
SHEET TS2 OF 25

TOP MATTING LAYER
ANCHORED IN 6" TRENCH
LEVEL SPREADER
SEE DETAIL
COMPACTED SOIL
WITH 3 -5% ORGANICS
- FORM GEOLIFTS WITH COIR MATTING
LIVE BRUSH CUTTINGS @ 12' O C
SEE VEG DETAILS FOR SPECIES
1, DESIGN BED ti
U
MATTING EXTENDS 2' INTO BANK V MIN
101-
CLASS 1 RIPRAP MIXED WITH 4 i.�v
NOTES
ON -SITE GRAVEL AND COBBLE 4�
1 GEOLIFTS TO BE INSTALLED WITH PLYWOOD FORMS
AND STEEL BRACES OR APPROVED ALTERNATE METHOD
2 COIR MATTING SHALL BE 980 GRAMS /SQ METER
TOpO 6gNk
Oe
POOH' sew
-0
0
t
n213 OF ARC LENGTH TO MAX POOL
O I I MAX POOL DEPTH
n
n
Q
w
o v)
z
z
O_
o v)
j
a w
w
0
�j I
1 GEOLIFT DETAIL
D1 NTS SMOOTH TRANSITION FROM U Lu co
a « , N o
PER PROFILE �- POOL TO RIFFLE SECTIONS `Z � N
N u
Zm
00 u
Z zv
l5 2 v o n
- _- �i�u O W d u
U
DI A KI
12" MIN
SECTION A —A'
AIXTURE OF ON -SITE GRAVEL
kND CLASS B RIPRAP
3 CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
D1 NTS
2 RIFFLE —POOL TRANSITIONS
D1 NTS
MOORES FORK STRUCTURES
STRUCTURE
STATION
ELEVATION
J HOOK
18 +40
11539
CROSS VANE
21 +90
11500
RIFFLE
24 +90
11480
RIFFLE
26 +15
11472
RIFFLE
28 +66
11460
RIFFLE
31 +14
11445
RIFFLE
33 +80
11429
CROSS VANE
35 +36
11415
CROSS VANE
38 +30
11396
CROSS VANE
39+50
11390
RIFFLE
42 +40
11378
RIFFLE
44 +05
11369
MOORES FORK STRUCTURES
STRUCTURE
U/S STATION
ELEVATION
CROSS VANE
47 +25
11348
J HOOK
49 +50
11332
J HOOK
53 +55
11299
CROSS VANE
61 +20
11252
SILAGE TRIBUTARY STRUCTURES
STEP
10 +00 34 +50
SEE PROFILE
POND TRIBUTARY STRUCTURES
RIFFLES
10 +30 11 +70
SEE PROFILE
STEPS
12 +00 12 +30
SEE PROFILE
BARN AND COW TRIBUTARIES STRUCTURES
STEPS
SEE PROFILES
z
O
�z
u
0,
O
W* U
�-
V7
S
DATE MARCH 2012
SCALE NTS
STRUCTURE
DETAILS
SHEET D1 OF 25

l �
\0
O
'9 23°' \
\ �2
\
18' -22' \ \ 11
A
"a
O
�Z
BACKFILL UPSTREAM SIDE WITH ON -SITE
COBBLE NAIL FILTER FABRIC ON
UPSTREAM FACE OF LOG AND LAY
BENEATH BACKFILL
18" MIN DIAM
HARDWOOD LOG
LEAVE ROOT WAD ON LOG
IF AVAILABLE
r9' F- EXISTING BED
PLAN (AT HEAD OF POOL
STEP STRUCTURE NOTES
MATTING AND LIVE STAKES
TOP OF BANK
COMPACTED
BACKFILL
10 EMBEDMENT
EMBED 10' MIN
TOP OF BANK ROOT WAD M
7% SLOPE -- PLACED FLUSH WITF
PROFILE A -A'
1 LOG VANE
D2 NTS
8' MIN U/S & D/S
HEADER LOG
1' IN
16" MAX
FILTER FABRIC
NAILED TO UPSTREAM
FACE OF HEADERS
4' MIN
1 TRENCH LOGS MINIMUM 2' INTO SECTION
BANK ON BOTH SIDES AND
BACKFILL WITH COMPACTED
ON -SITE SOIL MINIMIZE
DISTURBANCE TO BANKS
BEYOND STRUCTURE LIMITS
2 BOULDERS MUST HAVE MINIMUM
DIMENSIONS OF 1 5'X2'X3'
1 5' -� 12" MIN DIAM COVER LOC
NO GAPS BETWEEN
ROOT WAD MASSES
CREEK BED SEE PROFILE
12" THICK LAYER
CLASS B RIPRAP
BOULDER BUTTRESS
FOOTER LOGS 18" MIN
DIAM HARDWOOD
3 LOG STEP
p2 NTS
12" MIN HARDWOOD TRUNK
WITH INTACT ROOT MASS
BASEFLOW W S
V MIN J
c1:r_TlnAI
T MIN -
PLAN
FLOW
,
,
,
KFILL TRENCH W/
IPACTED ON -SITE
. (TYP)
ROOT WAD INSTALLATION NOTES
1 DRIVEN ROOT WADS
ATTEMPT TO PUSH SHARPENED
TRUNK INTO BANK WITHOUT
DAMAGE TO ROOT MASS
2 TRENCHED ROOT WADS
IF THE ROOTWAD CANNOT BE
DRIVEN INTO THE BANK
EXCAVATE NARROW TRENCH
PLACE ROOT WAD AND TRUNK
AND BACKFILL WITH COMPACTED
ON -SITE SOIL
r2'
ROOT WADS
D2 NTS
HEADER LOG
MIN 2' MEDIAN AXIS
BOULDER BUTTRESS
PLAN
( RIPRAP NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY)
ELEVATION POINT IN STRUCTURE TABLE
n
n
Ld
Q
o cn
Z
0 0
j
U
w
0
U
Vol
N
P�
0
W °D
U u `° °
z m m E
17•• Lnu
WZt; Em- c
�+ N
LL Z ��QD v
Z ?mZcv-
O �0c
Z
CL U
U
z
O
�
z
u
H
O
OU
>-4
cn
OUri
O
DATE MARCH 2012
SCALE NTS
STRUCTURE
DETAILS
SHEET D2 OF 25

FLOW
-3' GAP
HOOK BOULDERS FLUSH
WITH BASEFLOW W S �% {
FOOTER
BOULDER
BACKFILL WITH ON -SITE
GRAVEL AND COBBLE
3 MEDIAN AXIS
BOULDER (TYP)
A
OA
I7
220
21 t
0 � \
PLAN
rl_,
BOULDER J -HOOK VANE
D3 NTS
a
0
O
03
7
FLOW -4
O
m
O
220 Z
INVERT BOULDERS FLUSH
WITH BASEFLOW W S �� 8'
1 I
6
=DOTER 21'
3OULDER
MEDIAN AXIS
)ULDER (TYP)
M1 AAI
r2'
BOULDER CROSS VANE
D3 NTS
8' MIN U/S & D/S HEADER BOULDER
-� CREEK BED SEE PROFILE
`L �` 16" MAX
FILTER FABRIC 4 r12"THICK ANCHORED UPSTREAM ____OF HEADERS
4' MIN LAYER
CLASS B RIPRAP
SECTION
FOOTER BOUDLERS
r3_
BOULDER STEP
D3 NTS
O EXISTING BED
-o
� TOP OF BANK !�
_ 70/,O SLOP���y -�_ 1 5'
FOOTER BOULDER
PROFILE A -A'
HEADER BOULDER
FILTER FABRIC
1' MIN
BACKFILL W/ ON -SITE 1' MIN
GRAVEL AND COBBLE CREEK BED
4' MIN �-
FOOTER BOULDER
TOE OF BANK (TYP)
FLOW TOP OF BANK (TYP)
j 1 12" MEDIAN AXIS COBBLE
CHINKING BETWEEN BOULDERS
2' MIN -y Imo -
I
HEADER BOULDER
MIN 2' MEDIAN AXIS
FOOTER BOULDER
PLAN
( RIPRAP NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY)
SECTION B -B'
ELEVATION POINT IN STRUCTURE TABLE
n
n
Q
w
o (f)
z
O
z —
o u/
j
a w
� w
U
U)
w
0
N Q
W c
L)
L O
ur L u
W Z�2N co
Vf N
Wo co N ac i
Z?mZ°''
O� 0C
W =.c u
U
z
o_
HU
�Z
H \
0
0 U
cn
DATE MARCH 2012
SCALE NTS
STRUCTURE
DETAILS
SHEET D3 OF 25

ROAD /DRIVEWAY
ROAD /DRIVEWAY
6' MIN THICKNESS
2" TO 3" STONE
FILTER FABRIC (SOIL
SUBGRADE ONLY)
rl—'
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE /EXIT
D4 NTS
6' MAX
STEEL T -POST
18" MIN
L FILTER FABRIC
PROFILE
STEEL T -POST
SILT FENCE FABRIC
COMPACTED FILL
FLOW 1 CREEK SIDE
1 SILT FENCE SHALL BE PLACED ON STREAM
SIDE OF ALL STOCKPILES
2 SILT FENCE SHALL BE REMOVED UPON
COMPLETION OF EARTHWORK
3 SILT FENCE
D4 NTS
24" ml
8"
4"
SECTION
n
m m
a Q
N W
0
GRADED FLAT, SEED /PLANT O
PER BUFFER PLANTING SPECS z
o vn
o n
2' MIN 0 w
w cn
> w
0
R(/ 2' MIN 2 (TYP) 0 Q m v
1 �12-MIN, REEBOA RD
- - - ----- - - - - -- - - -- - - -- -
COMPACTED SOIL
V N 0
2 DIVERSION
D4 NTS
0
w OD
u
a���o
DEWATERING PUMP AS Z l7 „ c N rn
W z 2 L1-1 c
SAND BAG COFFER NEEDED w 00 ,
DAM W/ PLASTIC SILT BAG ON CLASS B u- Z m Z v 4)
SHEETING (TYP) RIPRAP PAD Z v o c
0
V DEEP U w z a u
SETTLING POOL
f J C
� WORK AREA
I
I�{ TOE OF BANK (TYP)
VX,
J
DIVERSION PUMP MIN
250 GPM CAPACITY
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
VARIES
4 FLOW DIVERSION
D4 NTS
CLASS B RIPRAP
SPLASH PAD
O
�z
H
~z
O
U
W�
L� U
S
DATE JULY 2012
SCALE NTS
E &S
DETAILS
SHEET D4 OF 25

FINISHED GRADE
CONFORM TO ADJACENT AT THALWEG
TERRACE SLOPE (TYP) SEE PROFILE
15 (TYP) BOTTOM WIDTH
-� 5 (TYP)
12' CLASS B RIPRAP
24' CLASS 1 RIPRAP
Dmax I
NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
FORD CROSSING
D5 NTS
ZI A_1'kNVAI��JI
-BACKFILL
4'
ABANDONED CHANNEL
SEE TYP SECTIONS 15' MIN
FOR SLOPE AND DIMENSIONS
VARIES
LASS B RIPRAP NEW CHANNEL BED
1' MAX A
LASS B RIPRAP
/-C BACKFILL 5' KEYWAY 2
SPLASH PAD
L 1
V DEEP 5 0' A SECTION A -A'
STILLING BASIN " DIAM PVC ORIFICE
Wbkf 1' 2 CHANNEL PLUG
TOP OF BANK D5 NTS
��J 111 I I I I I L. IL! 1 11-x'
EXIST BANK TIMBER MAT(S) SHALL
MATERIAL Wbfk -2' EW CHANNEL 5 (NP) FULLY SPAN CHANNEL
EXCAVATION 1
SECTION A -A'
[�C/'TIr1Al
3 DRAWDOWN STRUCTURE
D5 NTS
4 TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
D5 NTS
BACKFILL
n
Q
w
o (n
z
0
o v�
0-
� j
w
U
w
0
eN 0
4
0
W
u E
z 2N°
Lu Lu Zbo c
I
w o v
Z ZmZv3
0c
Ow 4) a o
U
z
O
�z
H�
o
o
C
O
DATE MARCH 2012
SCALE NTS
E &S
DETAILS
SHEET D5 OF 25

TOP OF BANK
V MIN
SMOOTH SURFACE REMOVE
ALL DEBRIS AND SEED /MULCH
BEFORE PLACING MATTING
MATTING PLACED FLUSH WITH BANK SURFACE LAP
OVER DOWN STREAM / DOWN SLOPE SEAMS
12" WOOD STAKE PLACED IN
3'0 C DIAMOND PATTERN
SECTION
MATTING ANCHORED 1
BELOW STREAM BED
NOTE
1 MATTING SHALL BE COIR FIBER 780 GRAMS /SO
METER WITH NOMINAL 0 50 INCH OPENING SIZE
1 EROSION CONTROL MATTING
D6 NTS
PERMANENT SEED MIX *
* APPLIED AT 0 5 LB /1 000 SF TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percentage
Switchgrass
Parncum virgatum
30
Virginia Wild Rye
Elymus virgirncus
30
Deer Tongue
Parncum clandestinum
15
Golden Tickseed
Coreopsis tinctona
5
Showy Tickseed
Bidens anstosa
5
Ironweed
Vemorna gigantea
5
Fox Sedge
Carex vulpinoidea
10
TOTAL
100
TEMPORARY SEED MIX
APPLIED WITH PERMANENT MIX)
Application Dates
Common Name
Rate (lb /1 000 s�
August 15 to May 1
Rye Grain
10
May 1 to August 15
Browntop Millet
03
MIN 2 NODES ABOVE GRADE
LIVE STAKE
4' IN DIAMOND PATTERN
HARD SOIL OR STONE MAY
BE PRESENT SEE NOTE 1
r 2' TO FIRST ROW
2' MIN
BASEFLOW W S
SECTION
NOTES
1 FORM PILOT HOLE THROUGH HARD SOIL OR STONE TO
PREVENT DAMAGE TO STAKE
2 LIVE STAKE MIX TO INCLUDE AT LEAST TWO OF THE
FOLLOWING SPECIES SILKY DOGWOOD, SILKY WILLOW
ELDERBERRY BUTTONBUSH
i
MIN 1/2 BANK HT
0
2 LIVE STAKING
D6 NTS
XT
T"" °
CUT AT 15
Iffil
si
W
w
Q
0
z
0
a
v
w
0
Cn
z
O_
U/
w
BUDS POINTED
UPWARD
Ova 41 O
Z' TO 2" 1 0 0
Pad
4
SASE CUT
kT 45 DEG
LIVE STAKE DETAIL
MIN BASE WIDTH= 4'
SECTION CHECK DAM CLASS 1 RIPRAP,
CRUSHED CONCRETE OR
COMPACTED BRUSH PILE
TOP OF LOWER CHECK
NO LOWER THAN BASE OF
UPSTREAM CHECK
TO
A
OF
� � B
q
"Am N
PROFILE
3 GULLY STABILIZATION
D6 NTS
NOTES
1 BRUSH MAY NOT BE FROM
NON - NATIVE SPECIES
2 AT LEAST EVERY THIRD
CHECK DAM SHALL BE RIPRAP
0
LLJ
�8
z'Lnn E a
V. un u
W Z b N N c
LL W 00 v
Z ?ODzv=
O��"°C
way
U r
z
O
F-4z
0
O
U
c1�
g�
DATE MARCH 2012
SCALE NTS
E &S
DETAILS
SHEET D6 OF 25

TOP OF BANK [--EROSION CONTROL
MATTING W/ MATTING STAKES
NATUI
TOP OF BANK
TOE OF BANK
EDGE OF T
3" TOPSOIL
CUTTINGS
STAKE) TWIN
SECTION
PLAN
BRUSH MATTRESS
D7 NTS
N -SITE COBBLE AND /OR
CLASS 1 RIPRAP
STREAM BED
12" MIN 4" NOTCH FACES
UPHILL
18"
2"
T TYP
STAKE DETAIL
-LIVE CUTTINGS SLIGHT CRISS -CROSS
PATTERN MIN 20 STEMS PER SQUARE YARD
NOTES
1 EXCAVATE 12" DEEP TRENCH AT TOE OF BANK
2 LAY LIVE CUTTINGS OVER SUBGRADE AS SHOWN
3 DRIVE STAKES HALFWAY INTO BANK BETWEEN CUTTINGS
WRAP TWINE AROUND STAKES AND OVER CUTTINGS TIGHTLY
DRIVE STAKES FURTHER TO TIGHTEN TWINE AND SECURE
CUTTINGS TO SLOPE
4 FILL VOIDS BETWEEN CUTTINGS WITH LOOSE TOPSOIL
5 INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING OVER TOPSOIL
USING 18" LONG MATTING STAKES
6 PLACE STONE TOE OVER END OF MATTRESS AND MATTING
n
n
Q
w
o cn
Z
z
O_
o u/
F= j
� w
w
0
2 SOD MAT TRANSPLANT z
O
D7 NTS Z
H�
OU
�
DATE MARCH 2012
SCALE NTS
DETAILS
SHEET D7 OF 25
1)
O
LIVE STAKE AT
4'0 C SEE DETAIL
U N 0
TOP OF BANK
18" WOODEN STAKE PLACED IN 3'0 C
P�
Q
DIAMOND PATTERN LEAVE 3"
=1111 ITT PROJECTING ABOVE SURFACE
_
-1 11 =1 I I _I 11 =1 I I -111 — _
— III — 1 =1 I I— III —III —I VER- EXCAVATE 6'
V
z
co
a o
„ C u^�i o
i —111 =1 I I —I I- 111 —I -y /
- �— III - 111 -111 -111 _I r-
w
tD o �,
z� 2 �, 2 0,
N
— III =III =1 I- I I- I IJ' BASEFLOW W S
::)
M-
—1 I— i— III —II I i` —n
y l I1 =1 1 —I i —I I �11d
—i
W B z co u
z m` v ;
REMOVE DEBRIS, SCARIFY =11 iilll�iillliiilllift
z
z°
l7 v `o c
AND SATURATE SURFACE
O
w �
BEFORE PLACING SOD
r
SECTION
2 SOD MAT TRANSPLANT z
O
D7 NTS Z
H�
OU
�
DATE MARCH 2012
SCALE NTS
DETAILS
SHEET D7 OF 25

02.:
F'4
Ply?;
43L.
gr
ly.
�ul