The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20201654 Ver 3_SoWE Stream Restoration Technical Plan_20230531TECHNICAL PLAN School of Wholeness and Enlightenment Stream Restoration/Enhancement Madison County, NC May 11, 2023 French Broad River Basin HUC 060101051103 USACE Action ID No. 2020-00632 PREPARED BY: TECHNICAL PLAN School of Wholeness and Enlightenment Stream Enhancement / Restoration Madison County, NC DWR Project No. 2020-1654v2 French Broad River Basin HUC 06010105 USACE Action ID No. 2020-00632 a WILDLANDS -i',11117 F NC Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 167-B Haywood Rd, Asheville, NC 28806 Phone: (828) 774-5547 Contributing Staff: Jacob Wiseman, PE, CFM Project Manager Julie Bernstorf, PE Project Engineer TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Summary..................................................................................................................................1 2.0 Introduction..............................................................................................................................1 3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions...............................................................................................1 3.1 Watershed Conditions.................................................................................................................. 1 3.2 Landscape Characteristics............................................................................................................ 2 3.3 Project Resources......................................................................................................................... 3 3.3.1 Existing Streams........................................................................................................................ 3 3.3.2 Existing Riparian Buffers............................................................................................................8 4.0 Design Approach and Work Plan............................................................................................... 8 4.1 Stream Design Approach Overview.............................................................................................. 8 4.2 Reference Streams........................................................................................................................ 9 4.3 Design Discharge Analysis........................................................................................................... 10 4.4 Design Channel Morphological Parameters............................................................................... 10 4.5 Stream Design Implementation.................................................................................................. 15 4.5.1 UT1..........................................................................................................................................15 4.5.2 UT2..........................................................................................................................................15 4.5.3 UT3..........................................................................................................................................16 4.5.4 UT4..........................................................................................................................................16 4.5.5 Thomas Branch........................................................................................................................ 16 4.6 Planting Plan and Invasive Species Management ...................................................................... 16 TABLES Table 1: Project Attribute Table.................................................................................................................... 1 Table2: Project Watershed.......................................................................................................................... 2 Table3: Project Soil Types............................................................................................................................ 3 Table 4: Thomas Branch Attribute Table...................................................................................................... 4 Table5: UT1 Attribute Table.......................................................................................................................... 5 Table6: UT2 Attribute Table......................................................................................................................... 7 Table7: UT3 Attribute Table......................................................................................................................... 8 Table 8: Stream Stressors and Restoration Approach.................................................................................. 9 Table 9: Stream Reference Data Used in Development of Design Parameters............................................9 Table 10: Summary of Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis.........................................................................10 Table 11: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for UT1...............................................................11 Table 12: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for UT2...............................................................12 Table 13: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for UT3...............................................................13 Table 14: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Thomas Branch.............................................14 APPENDICES Appendix 1 Existing Stream Data Appendix 2 Supplementary Design Information Appendix 3 90% Permitting Plans 1.0 Summary A stream restoration and enhancement project is proposed at the School of Wholeness and Enlightenment (SoWE or Site) in Madison County, NC. The proposed stream work is part of a larger site design for an educational retreat center. Site work for the project has been previously permitted by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, Action ID SAW-2020-00632) and NC Division of Water Resources (NC DWR, DWR # 20201654v2). This technical plan and attached plans for the stream work represent a proposed modification to those previous permits. Approximately 1,400 LF of small headwater streams will be enhanced or restored at the Site. Major goals for the stream work includes stabilizing existing eroding areas of the streams, ensuring long-term stability, and improved aquatic and riparian habitats at the Site. Vernal pools adjacent to the streams will also be included to provide more habitat and to increase water infiltration at the Site. Four (4) existing culverts will be removed (3 of these culvert removals were included with previous permitting iterations) and functioning stream bed restored as part of the work. One (1) additional permanent impact to a small pocket wetland is also associated with the proposed work. No tree removal will be needed to complete the project. 2.0 Introduction The School of Wholeness and Enlightenment is located in Madison County, NC on Upper Thomas Branch Road just off US-25, approximately 6 miles north of Marshall, NC. The project is located within the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 060101051103 and is in the French Broad River Basin Catalog Unit 06010105. The project includes restoration and enhancement of ditched, culverted, and realigned (previously) agricultural streams, as well as several vernal pools, with the goal of providing ecological and water quality enhancements within the French Broad River Basin while realizing these same benefits at the Site level by improving stream and riparian functions. The Site will be used as an educational retreat center and appreciated by visitors for years to come. Table 1: Project Attribute Table Project Information Project Name SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement County French Broad River Basin Project Area (acres) 2.3 Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 35.861354,-82.725558 Planted Acreage 0.48 3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions 3.1 Watershed Conditions The Site watershed is in the northeastern portion of the French Broad 05 river basin. It is situated in the rural mountain countryside in Madison County near Marshall, NC. The following sections describe the existing conditions of the Site, watershed, and watershed processes. The Site topography is a mix of steep slopes and broad to confined valleys with moderate slopes. Historical watershed land use was a mix of agriculture and forest, with evidence of agriculture land uses dating back to the 1930s. Future land use of the Site is as an education retreat center. SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement Technical Plan Page 1 May 2023 The land use was calculated using the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) for 2011. The watershed areas and current land uses are summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Project Watershed Project Watershed Summary Information Physiographic Province Blue Ridge Ecoregion Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains River Basin French Broad River USGS HUC (8-digit, 14-digit) 06010105, 06010105100030 NCDWR Sub -basin 04-03-04 NCDWR Water Quality Classification C Stream Thermal Regime Cool UT1 UT2 UT3 Thomas Branch Drainage Area (acres) 64 121.6 57.6 262.4 Drainage Area (sq. miles) 0.10 0.19 0.09 0.41 2011 NLCD Land Use Classification Agricultural 42.2% 1.9% 2.6% 16.7% Developed 2.1% 0.8% 0.0% 1.1% Forest 45.0% 94.6% 79.2% 73.2% Grassland 5.0% 2.7% 18.1% 7.6% Shrubland 5.8% 0.0% 0.0°% 1.4% Open Water 0.0% 0.0% 0.0°% 0.0% Impervious 0.10/0 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% Wetlands 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Barren 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Notes: Land Use Source - National Land Cover Database 2011 (NLCD 2011) provided by USGS 3.2 Landscape Characteristics The Site is located in the Blue Ridge Belt of the Blue Ridge physiographic province. The Blue Ridge Province is characterized as a mountainous area with steep ridges and valleys and elevations ranging from 1,500 to over 6,000 feet above sea level. The Blue Ridge Belt contains a combination of igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks that have been repeatedly heated and deformed through such processes as folding, faulting, and fracturing. The underlying geology of the Site is mapped as middle Proterozoic age (1.2 billion years in age) migmatitic biotite-hornblende gneisses (Ymg). The unit is described as layered biotite-granite gneiss, biotite- hornblende gneiss, amphibolite, and calc-silicate rock that locally contains relict granulite facies rock (NCGS, 1985). The proposed project is mapped by the Web Soil Survey for Madison County. The predominant floodplain soils on site are described in Table 3 below. Tate loam soil is mapped as the primary soil group in the floodplains of project streams. SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement Technical Plan Page 2 May 2023 Table 3: Project Soil Types Soil Name Description Tate loam is typically found in drainageways or at toe of slopes. Typical slopes Tate Loam (TaD) are between 15 and 30 percent. The soil unit is not frequently flooded, is well drained, and has a high runoff potential. The upper 7 inches is loam and below is clay loam and cobby loam until bedrock with a depth of more than 6 feet. Source: Soil Survey of Madison County, North Carolina, USDA-NRCS, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 3.3 Project Resources 3.3.1 Existing Streams Wildlands investigated onsite jurisdictional waters of the United States (US) within the proposed project area. Thomas Branch, UT1, UT2, UT3 and UT4 were identified as perennial within the project limits. Geomorphic surveys were conducted on Site streams to characterize their existing condition. Reach specific cross sections and geomorphic summaries are provided in Appendix 1. Below are brief descriptions of each of the project streams. UT4 was not included in existing conditions assessments due to the very limited work that is proposed on the stream. Thomas Branch Thomas Branch forms at the confluence of UT1 and UT2, adjacent to Upper Thomas Branch Road. The channel meanders slightly for 325 feet between the road on the right bank and a steep valley wall on the left bank at a moderate slope of 1.5%. Thomas Branch was likely relocated toward the left valley wall to facilitate the construction of Upper Thomas Branch Road within the narrow valley. The steep valley wall is vegetated in mature trees that provide shade and stability for the left stream bank, however, floodplain access on this side of the stream is intermittent or nonexistent. The right floodplain contains fewer trees, but floodplain access is generally much better. Where the stream meanders into the road embankment, it is causing areas of vertical banks and active erosion, which are creating unstable conditions (See Appendix 1, Cross Section 1). This portion of the stream displays good riffle -pool sequence with a consistent pool to pool spacing between 10 feet and 30 feet and includes well -formed meander pools (See Appendix 1, Cross Section 2). After the initial 325 feet, the stream passes through a constriction created by very large boulders on the left bank and the road embankment on the right bank. The stream then steepens significantly (5.7%) while flowing another 185' into a 60" corrugated metal pipe under Orion Reach Road. Thomas Branch is characterized by steep valley walls on both banks, larger substrate, and a cascading riffle pattern. SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement Technical Plan Page 3 May 2023 Table 4: Thomas Branch Attribute Table Reach Summary Information Parameters Thomas Branch Length of Reach (linear feet) 510 Valley confinement (confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Moderately confined Drainage area (acres) 262 NCDWR Water Quality Classification C Width to Depth Ratio (ft/ft) 7.4-10.1 Bank Height Ratio (ft/ft) 1.0-3.6 Gradient (ft/ft) 0.016 Reachwide dS0 (mm) 4.75 (Very Fine Gravel) Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) B4c 4 B4c Evolutionary Trend IV FEMA Zone Classification Zone X UT1 UT1 flows from a large pond located at the top of the project area. The stream channel receives water from a riser pipe that provides baseflow to the stream. The channel also receives water from pond overflows during large storm events. Attempts have been made to stabilize the initial section of stream with large boulders and some rip rap. Despite this material, areas of erosion along the stream banks were identified and the immediate outlet of the pond was noted as the least stable section of UT1. The stream continues for 325 feet down a confined valley between the "Sanctuary" buildings that are being constructed as part of the Center with a channel slope of 2.8%. A majority of this reach was stable; however, locations of lateral bank erosion were identified (See Appendix 1, Cross Section 6). Fescue and other pasture grasses form a majority of the bank vegetation while mature trees lining the stream provide shade. Some riffle -pool sequence was identified; however, pool habitat areas were small and infrequent. The stream enters a 117 LF, 36" corrugated metal pipe and passes under Upper Thomas Branch Road. The entrance and exit of the culvert were found to be slightly buried, but stable, during the assessment. The stream parallels Upper Thomas Branch Road for 215 feet at a slope of 2.6% before SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement Technical Plan Page 4 May 2023 the confluence with Thomas Branch. This portion of the stream is overly wide and deep, as it has been maintained as a roadside ditch (See Appendix 1, Cross Section 5). Areas of bank erosion were noted along this reach and the streambed was buried in fine sediment inputs from the parallel road. Table 5: UT1 Attribute Table Reach Summary Information Parameters UT1 Length of Reach (linear feet) 64 Valley confinement (confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Unconfined Drainage area (acres) 64 NCDWR Water Quality Classification Not Classified Width to Depth Ratio (ft/ft) 4.2-8.0 Bank Height Ratio (ft/ft) 1.0-1.7 Gradient (ft/ft) 0.027 Reachwide d50 (mm) Sand Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) B4 --) 134c Evolutionary Trend II FEMA Zone Classification Zone X SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement Technical Plan Page 5 May 2023 UT2 UT2 enters the project area from a 20 LF, 24" corrugated plastic pipe into the "Core" area of the Site. The "Core" area has been heavily manipulated overtime both when it was utilized as an agricultural field and currently during construction. Generally, this area is a wide unconfined valley. Vegetation consists of a mix of herbaceous plants, including a significant amount of fescue and other pasture grasses. The first 215 feet of the stream from the culvert to the confluence with UT3 has a very small, steep (3.8%) channel which can be difficult to locate under the dense herbaceous cover. Portions of the stream in this section also use short subsurface flow paths before daylighting again downstream. After the confluence with UT3 the channel is more defined and exhibits a riffle -pool sequence. It flows another 210 feet to the confluence with UT1 at a more moderate 2.2% slope. UT2 was plausibly realigned toward the edge of the "Core" field rather than continuing down valley toward the confluence with UT1. This has positioned UT2 along the toe of the valley and adjacent to proposed structures (See Appendix 1, Cross Section 3). The primary stressors to UT2 are confinement from previous realignment and current construction. UT2: Adjacent to existing dirt road SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement Technical Plan Page 6 May 2023 Table 6: UT2 Attribute Table Reach Summary Information Parameters UT2 Length of Reach (linear feet) 41S Valley confinement (confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Unconfined Drainage area (acres) 122 NCDWR Water Quality Classification Not Classified Width to Depth Ratio (ft/ft) 4.4-6.3 Bank Height Ratio (ft/ft) 1.0-1.4 Gradient (ft/ft) 0.031 Reachwide d50 (mm) Sand Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) B4 --) B4 Evolutionary Trend II FEMA Zone Classification Zone X UT3 UT3 flows into the "Core" project area from a 24" corrugated plastic pipe. The stream continues 23S feet down valley toward the confluence with UT2 at a steep slope of 4.7%. The channel and vegetation are similar to the upper part of UT2 described above. Similar problems were encountered with identifying the main flow channel and stream pattern was non-existent. The main stressor to UT3 is valley confinement derived from an unnatural drainage location at the toe of slope. SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement Technical Plan Page 7 May 2023 Table 7: UT3 Attribute Table Reach Summary Information Parameters UT3 Length of Reach (linear feet) 235 Valley confinement (confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Unconfined Drainage area (acres) 58 NCDWR Water Quality Classification Not Classified Width to Depth Ratio (ft/ft) 6.8 Bank Height Ratio (ft/ft) 1.0 Gradient (ft/ft) 0.044 Reachwide d50 (mm) Sand Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) B4a � B4a Evolutionary Trend II FEMA Zone Classification Zone X 3.3.2 Existing Riparian Buffers The riparian buffer along the project streams varies but is typically narrow or nonexistant along one or both banks. Vegetation primarily consists of a mix of herbaceous plants, including a significant amount of fescue and other pasture grasses. Trees are sparse. The primary invasive that will be removed, when encountered, during the stream work will be multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). The plant species selected for the Site target natural communities in undisturbed systems in the same ecoregion and are well suited for the restored ecosystem. 4.0 Design Approach and Work Plan 4.1 Stream Design Approach Overview The project streams planned for restoration will be reconstructed with stable dimension, pattern, and profile that will transport the water and sediment delivered to the system. Stream channel banks and the immediately adjacent floodplains will be seeded and vegetated to ensure long-term stability. Instream structures will be built in the channels to help maintain stable channel morphology and improve aquatic habitat. The design approach for this Site utilizes a combination of analog and analytical approaches for stream restoration and relies on empirical data and prior experiences and observations. Reference reaches were identified to serve as an acceptable range for design parameters. Channels were sized based on design discharge hydrologic analysis which uses a combination of empirical and analytical data as described within this report. These design approaches have been used on many successful Mountain and Piedmont restoration projects and are appropriate for the goals and objectives for this Site. Table 8 summarizes the primary stressors, restoration approach and activities for the project reaches. UT4 was not included in all design analyses due to the limited work proposed for this stream and the very small drainage area which makes locating stream references very difficult. SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement Technical Plan Page 8 May 2023 Table S: Stream Stressors and Restoration Approach Project Reach Primary Stressors/Impairments Approach Restoration Activities Thomas Branch bank erosion, low bedform E Install habitat structures, grade eroding bank and diversity establish native vegetation on graded banks. lack of or sparse buffers, Remove 1 culvert (117 LF). Restore appropriate UT1 incision, low bedform R dimension, pattern, and profile. Install habitat diversity structures, bankfull floodplain benching, and stabilize with native vegetation. lack of or sparse buffers, Remove 1 culvert (20 LF). Restore appropriate UT2 invasive vegetation, low R dimension, pattern, and profile. Install habitat bedform diversity structures, and stabilize with native vegetation. lack of or sparse buffers, Remove 1 culvert (20 LF). Restore appropriate UT3 invasive vegetation, low R dimension, pattern, and profile. Install habitat bedform diversity structures, stabilize with native vegetation. Remove 1 culvert (29 LF). Restore appropriate UT4 Stream in culvert R dimension. Install habitat structures, stabilize with native vegetation 4.2 Reference Streams Reference streams provide geomorphic parameters of a stable system, which can be used to inform design of stable channels of similar stream types in similar landscapes and watersheds. Five reference reaches were identified for this Site and used to support the design of the tributaries of Thomas Branch. These reference reaches were chosen because of their similarities to the Site streams including drainage area, valley slope, morphology, and bed material. The references to be used for the specific streams are shown in Table 9 along with a description of each reference reach. Table 9: Stream Reference Data Used in Development of Design Parameters Reference Stream Landscape Position Chosen For Used For Used on Reach Type streams Drainage area, step -pool UT1, UT2, UT to Kelly B4/134a Small, steep, channel, Blue Ridge Q, Dimension, UT3, Branch headwater channel Physiographic Province Pattern, Profile Thomas Branch Small, forested Drainage area, bedform UT1, UT2, UT to Austin headwater stream diversity, habitat diversity, Q, Dimension, UT3, Branch US A4/B4a that drains into the step -pool channel, stable Pattern, Profile Thomas French Broad banks Blue Ridge Branch Physiographic Province Drainage area, bedform Flat, broad, diversity, well developed UT1, UT2, UT to Austin A4/134a unconfined valley pools and riffles, habitat Q, Dimension, UT3, Branch DS type diversity, Blue Ridge Pattern, Profile Thomas Physiographic Province Branch Reedy Creek UT1, UT2, Nature 134c Headwater stream Drainage area, bedform Q, Dimension, UT3, Preserve — diversity Pattern, Profile Thomas South Fork Branch Magnolia Confined valley Drainage area, bedform Q, Dimension, Thomas Tributary B4c type, alluvial diversity, slope Pattern, Profile Branch stream SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement Technical Plan Page 9 May 2023 4.3 Design Discharge Analysis Multiple methods were used to estimate bankfull discharges for restoration reaches including regional curve data (Harman et al. 2000, Jennings 2017, and Zink et al 2012), a regional flood frequency analysis using U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gage sites, and reference reach data. The methods were compared, and a design discharge was selected based on the results of the different methods. For this analysis, emphasis was placed on the results from the regional flood frequency (1.2-year event) and the piedmont regional curve in selecting a design discharge. Results of each method and the final design discharges are shown in Table 10. Table 10: Summary of Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis Thomas Discharge sm Branch UT1 UT2 UT3 Estimate Method NC Mountain 51 17 29 16 Regional Curve (cfs) NC & TN Mountain Regional Curve 46 15 25 14 TN Blue Ridge Curve 46 15 25 14 Southern App Curve 73 28 43 26 Regional Flood 1.2- year event 40 14 23 13 Frequency Analysis (cfs) 1.5-year event 58 21 33 19 Reference Reach Regional Curve (cfs) 38 13 21 12 Final Design Q (cfs) 50 7* 26 15 *From Blue Earth Analysis of Full Riser Pipe (from Reflecting Pond) flow 4.4 Design Channel Morphological Parameters Reference reach data and designer experience were used to develop design morphologic parameters for each of the restoration reaches. Key morphological parameters are summarized in Tables 11-14. SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement Technical Plan Page 10 May 2023 D Gl fD OD F-� A v � N 3 Q 3 Oo ui v v 3 3 n do n 2 m O M n n n O v S [D Cro v -0 N H M S Mn S Ol L1 3 M O rt O S C rD z M n 3 rt S (�D o4 _ rD D �' dq m m.+ ni .ter O O 00 CA D S a n DJ rt N .. rt C mi e, 3 � N I� A O N O W y X 2Ni * O N * V Ol V W C X C F, W V N to O. n f�.. M 1 V O O w W d0 * P O 0 N U'i V . W \ In O w m (n V Q U W � W F-� � S .0 0 CA C D OU rt Ln N N N O N V W O \ V n O dl O co I-- L. in In V co4� S> CD v h CD N 3 (D 7 W C n m D or rt obi L, N00 P O i- . . . � m W O DO I I I 30 fl] LA N 3 rt 41 z I i0 F-` N I--` 00 rt rD N C O W Cn Lnn O IliN O N ' p7 I' C M O_ rt < coN N N N � V . W � V N N O 61 � F� O V W N O In m m C N O O Lnn O N W al CT A A eDD N — N N rD rp Z OQ D n v v v v � 3 v On N LA '_^. 7 Ul 3 S M v 3 OQ 3 3 r3D e_r m 3 art 3 C4 3 vi n v v DO 3 m 2 e O w onn m O °� M m v sn Lh A S 0, n S Ol C1 3 (D 61 � Cq p S C m - m f7 7 el .� .+ z S (�D cc m m C �+ M m h m m fu m� m O D m G L D m O _ '+ n m a n O S S m-r M � . h N .. rt M C 3 a, e, `^ m N p Yl O- cu m * O A * N 00 �I p7 .�-r• 6, W N Cn Ln A m W N d4 CA H C N p W W W n Cni O V W F X m Lrl � S � C D D (nl N F j O N -.J W O 41 � V n O D m a) o i� rn Lo a) in v W s v \ rt to 3 m 3 n m C D v v v O J o e, w W O 00 ON W N� V N� V S rhD a) .ter CA 3 z z F� F� Ql N 91 F" O OO N m U i v In O N N -,I N m O m O m Q W n �I PiF"� T M N W W I� N m m X- m 0�1 � O N O Cn Cn O M M M C -a N Cn O N lD O N m N m N I W m L Q H D (D (D w m I k f c \ w m � 2 / ƒ / v en 0 3 UQ 7 E E \ k � % / 7 2 = = ) § t ]$ I l 9} 2 Q mi m $ M = m a§ g 2 < m 2 2 1 i» k k ID eD ? 2 2 m 2 2 2m � § 2 m ` ® » / ` w o 2 a § / b« t b¥« w CD — ■_ e g 0 _ aj ` / \ \ \ / \ 2 \ / o e > 7 e w e% g am w o e �« $» e s a oo w a-)w a a%_# k M § _ � \ > \ co p / � \ / \ / \ ƒ \ / Ln � t Q� L \ ƒ � w e \ \ « 7 w \ f ' @ r-j M - _ ® 2 M ® w h e w«®® n « w tA w Q w 2 2 { � al / \ \ \ G W 2 / / / \ 2 $ 2 aj ° � b Q ? m q � EA D \ rn CA 2 ] rD 0 \ § rn / ) ] g 2 g 2 m I k f % \ w m / \ / / / 7 7 7 7 \ \ k E 7 = = n $ D 9 2 § o / / \ k k 7 / e, } - ,a § §} 2 7 u g 2§§§ M k i 7 « � - � - <» ® g E m k E u g ¢ 0 E ■ e, » @ > § M\ x E w e _ g/ _ $ w = Q o & ® ® ® G / ` % 2 � �� /® &w/ 2 w w cc W �m Ln\ CD NJ _® 2 M C » w M m w & G ; 2 2 I 2 F" e e o e @ e e = w 2 14 m ® E / / \ \ 6 / 2 $ E G < E $ e e g = fu 7 t/% 0 \ P f� 7 k° 2 t G o � 5 w ] 2 Q Q ; M CL ni � C ] ] \ / � g I 0 0 5 § ; ] E 0 0 ] ; � � 4.5 Stream Design Implementation Proposed stream work has been designed to create stable, functional stream channels based on reference reach parameters and design discharge analysis. Dimension, pattern, and profile have been designed for all restoration reaches to provide a cross -sectional area sized for frequent overbank flows, a stable bed with variable bedforms, and well -vegetated bank slopes. Improved vertical and lateral stability will reduce stream channel erosion. Diverse bedforms will be established using in -stream structures appropriate for the geomorphic settings. These structures will provide grade control to prevent incision and serve as habitat features. Pools will have varied depths to increase habitat diversity and mimic natural streams. In -stream structures for all reaches will include constructed rock sills (curved) and stone toe. Constructed riffles will be built from rock excavated onsite when possible. Quarry stone may be used if an onsite source cannot be found. Some constructed riffles will incorporate woody material, which will provide varied pore spaces within the riffles and benefit hyporheic exchange processes and habitat formation. The diverse range of constructed riffle types will provide grade control, habitat diversity, and create varied flow vectors. At select outer meander bends, the channel banks will be constructed with planted stone toe revetments to reduce erosion potential, encourage pool maintenance, and provide varied pool habitat. Sod harvested onsite and/or coir fiber matting will be used to provide bank protection. Detailed discussions for each restoration and enhancement design reach are provided below. 4.5.1 UT1 The steep and eroding outfall of the pond that marks the start of UT1 will be re -graded with existing boulders and rip rap into five rock sills and a cascading riffle. Grading along the existing banks of the stream will be required to tie the rock sills into the banks, accommodate pools downstream of each rock sill, and to stabilize existing slopes. Multiflora Rose on the existing slopes will also be removed during construction. All graded areas will be stabilized with erosion control matting or sod mats. The cascading riffle at the end of the structure sequence will tie UT1 back into the existing streambed with no additional work or disturbance planned immediately downstream. Stream work will continue 127 LF downstream of the pond outfall stabilization area. An existing 117 LF of corrugated metal pipe will be permanently removed (not previously permitted) and stream channel restored adjacent to the existing pipe alignment. The stream was categorized as a B-type stream and features a low sinuosity channel and moderate slopes. The proposed stream channel will utilize varied riffle types and sills to produce a stable riffle -pool sequence that ties into the existing UT1 channel where the pipe once terminated. An enhancement approach will then be used on the remaining section of stream to include constructing varied riffles in the existing channel to improve aquatic habitat diversity in the reach and benching along the right side of the channel to improve floodplain access in the reach. Benching will cut into an existing road that parallels this reach of UT1 and is a source of fine sediment and contributes to incision in the reach. The road is proposed to be moved to another location at the Site. 4.5.2 UT2 UT2 stream work starts with removal of approximately 20 LF of corrugated plastic pipe that was previously permitted. A B-type stream channel will be constructed in the old pipe bed and restoration will continue along the existing alignment of the stream. The restoration continues on-line with the existing stream channel with varied riffle types and a couple rock sills to create a stable riffle -pool sequence in the stream while also enhancing aquatic habitats in the stream. The stream profile will be raised and banks on both sides of the existing channel will be graded to achieve the UT2 riffle and pool typical sections. A new SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement Technical Plan Page 15 May 2023 confluence with UT3 will be constructed with a rock sill and plunge pool downstream to provide grade control. After the confluence with UT3, the UT2 alignment proceeds off-line from the existing channel for 153 LF. This re -alignment moves UT2 away from flowing directly adjacent to the existing valley toe and allows the stream to proceed directly downgradient in the valley before it ties into the existing UT2 channel. This off- line section of restoration continues the riffle -pool sequence albeit with more rock sills to increase grade control in this steeper section of the stream. UT2 ties to its existing channel for the final 100 LF of stream before the confluence with UT1 with additional riffles and rock sills and bank grading to ensure stability. 4.5.3 UT3 At the top of the UT3 project reach a small roadside ditch that flows into UT3 will be re -graded and stabilized with erosion control matting or sod mats. Grade control at the bottom of the ditch will be provided by a small riffle. Just downstream of the roadside ditch stabilization, 20 LF of corrugated plastic pipe will be removed (previously permitted) with new stream channel constructed in its place. A series of riffles and rock sills will be constructed on-line with the existing stream channel to raise the stream profile and create stable riffle and pool habitat as a B-type stream. UT3 departs from the existing alignment about halfway down the reach to move the stream away from the existing valley toe located along the existing left bank. UT3 ends in a confluence with UT2 which will also be re -located away from the valley toe position. 4.5.4 UT4 The existing 29 LF culvert under Upper Thomas Branch Road that connects UT4 with UT1 will be removed. Stream channel will be built in place of the pipe that mimics the dimensions of the existing channel that is upstream of the pipe removal while the profile of the proposed stream will closely match the slope of the removed pipe. Floodplain grading in the vicinity of UT4 will be incorporated into the floodplain benching proposed along the right bank of the UT1 enhancement reach. Two small, short riffles will be constructed to further stabilize the newly constructed channel and to improve habitat. Disturbance upstream of the UT4 culvert removal will be minimal. 4.5.5 Thomas Branch Major stream work on Thomas Branch will consist of grading and stabilizing the steep right bank of the stream, especially where the stream is actively eroding the bank into the existing road. A 3:1 slope will be attempted (may be less in some locations due to infrastructure conflicts) along the bank and it will be stabilized with erosion control matting, riparian seed mix, and a combination of livestakes and herbaceous plugs. Three riffles will be enhanced to provide improved habitat in the reach. 4.6 Planting Plan and Invasive Species Management Riparian corridors will be planted with native vegetation chosen to develop a diverse and stable system. The specific species composition was selected based on the community type, observation of occurrence of species in riparian buffers adjacent to the Site, and best professional judgement on species establishment and anticipated Site conditions in the early years following project implementation. Streambanks will be planted with live stakes, and the channel toe will be planted with multiple herbaceous species. Permanent herbaceous seed will be spread on streambanks, floodplain areas, and vernal pools. Existing invasive plant populations on the site include Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora). When encountered along restoration and enhancement reaches, invasives will be mechanically removed during construction. It is recommended that any invasive species that re -sprout following construction be treated as a part of general Site maintenance by SoWE. SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement Technical Plan Page 16 May 2023 References Harman, W.H. et. al. 2000. Bankfull Regional Curves for North Carolina Mountain Streams. NC Mountain Curve. Proc. AWRA Conf. Water Resources in Extreme Environments, Anchorage, AK. Pp. 185-190. Jennings Environmental, LLC. 2017. Tennessee Reference Stream Morphology and Large Woody Debris Assessment — Report and Guidebook. Prepared for Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation.https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/environment/water/natural-resources- unit/wr nru tennessee-ref-stream-morphology.pdf Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2011. Web Soil Survey. http://websoiIsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2011. Surface Water Classifications. http://Portal.ncdenr.org/web/wa/ps/csu/classifications North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina 1:500,000 scale. Compiled by Philip M. Brown at el. Raleigh, NC, NCGS. httl)s://ncdenr. mans. arcpis. com/asps/MapSeries/index. html?annid=a828lcbd24b84239b29cd2ca79 Sd4a10 North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 2015. The Terranes and Major Geologic Elements of North Carolina. httos://ncdenr. maps. arcpis. com/asps/MapSeries/index. htm/?aphid=Oo7ccd9394734ff6002434d252 8dd 12 Rosgen, D.L. 2001. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Conference, Reno, NV, March 2001. Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 14(1):11-26. Weaver, J.C., Feaster, T.D., and Gotvald, A.J., 2009, Magnitude and frequency of rural floods in the Southeastern United States, through 2006—Volume 2, North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5158, 111 p. Zink, J. M., G. D. Jennings, G. A. Price, 2012. Morphology characteristics of southern Appalachian wilderness streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA), 48: 762-773. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2012.00647.x SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement Technical Plan Page 17 May 2023 APPENDIX 1— Existing Stream Data 2 a Elevation A \ co 00 q 7 2 2 $ <Ln } \ j § \ \ ° / Ln a / f ] & ` 3 g EL\ 03 \ / \ ! rD $ ] § / p � � 2 ƒ G 2 - .. \ — � — >�� ¥ — ƒ °— _� Lu n 0 m coo' N 3 Ln 7 CO l0 N W A In W N C S _O C 3 m EL v (D EL v s � " 03 w � � v � v N �i Elevation (frD ao t O O m X 3 n n 0 7 3 W C 0 A O W ) F� O o X 3 OLf n 0 Q 0 a 3 W v c O N ) W A U1 . M= AM M=MM= MWAMM= _,-___ �Omm= Y SOMEONE■ _ NIEMEN ■��■ram■ r$ /� IS ME■ ■��■■■ h Ait� , 44 y y z,7 _ y 1 17 ■ ■MON milmm SOMEONE ■��■■■ sue- � r. N .r SOMEONE■ vation EleLn - - .may Ln c ƒ a ¥ } � A n 0 Elevation (ft Ln m � 0 3 � A Ul N V O C G O N Q N �- W r n x n a m S d 1 S 0 aSi m -0 ( o v r-r o I' ) N W A V1 Ol N O X N N 3 APPENDIX 2 — Supplementary Design Information Table 1: Thomas Branch Notation Units Designed Conditions min I max design streani type B4c drainage area DA sq mi 0.41 bankfull design discharge Qbkf CA 50.0 Cross -Section Features bankfull cross -sectional area Abkf SF 10.7 average velocity during bankfull event vbkr fps 4.3 width at bankfull wbk feet 12.5 mean depth at bankfull dbkf feet 0.9 bankfull width to depth ratio wbkfVdbkf 15 maximum depth at bankfull dmLa feet 1.0 1.2 max depth ratio dmax/dbkt 1.2 1.4 1.4 bank height ratio BHR 1.0 1.1 floodprone area width w{Pa feet 18 28 entrenchment ratio ER 1.4 2.2 Slope valley slope svalley feet/ foot 0.0180 channel slope Seba1111el feet/ foot 0.0150 0.0164 0.0171 Riffle Features riffle slope Sr;rrie feet/ foot 0.0165 0.0295 riffle slope ratio S,ife/Seha1111ei 1.1 1.8 Pool Features pool slope Spool feet/ foot 0.0000 0.0065 pool slope ratio Spool/S.h„„1el 0.00 0.40 pool -to -pool spacing Lp_p feet 19 63 pool spacing ratio Lp_p/wbkf 1.5 5.0 maximum pool depth at bankfull dpooi feet 1.7 3.0 pool depth ratio dpooi/dbkf 2.0 3.5 pool width at bankfull wpool feet 13.8 18.8 pool width ratio wpooi/wbkp 1.1 1.5 pool cross -sectional area at bankfull Apooi SF 24.6 37.4 pool area ratio Apooi/Abkf 2.3 3.5 Table 1: UT1 Notation Units Designed Conditions min I max design streani type B4 drainage area DA sq mi 0.10 bankfull design discharge Qbkf CA 7.0 Cross -Section Features bankfull cross -sectional area Abkf SF 2.3 average velocity during bankfull event vbkf fps 3.2 width at bankfull wbkf feet 5.6 mean depth at bankfull dbkf feet 0.4 bankfull width to depth ratio wbkfVdbkf 14 maximum depth at bankfull dmLa feet 0.5 0.6 max depth ratio dmax/dbkf 1.2 1.5 1.5 bank height ratio BHR 1.0 1.0 floodprone area width wfpa feet 8 12 entrenchment ratio ER 1.4 2.2 Slope valley slope svalley feet/ foot 0.0290 channel slope Scha1111el feet/ foot 0.0242 0.0264 0.0252 Riffle Features riffle slope Sr;frie feet/ foot 0.0266 0.0475 riffle slope ratio S,ife/Seba1111ei 1.1 1.8 Pool Features pool slope Sp«i feet/ foot 0.0000 0.0105 pool slope ratio Sp..1/S.h„„1el 0.00 0.40 pool -to -pool spacing Lp_p feet 8 28 pool spacing ratio Lp_p/wbkf 1.5 5.0 maximum pool depth at bankfull dp..i feet 0.8 1.4 pool depth ratio dfooi/dbkf 2.0 3.5 pool width at bankfull wp.ol feet 6.2 8.4 pool width ratio wfooi/wbkf 1.1 1.5 pool cross -sectional area at bankfull Apo.i SF 5.2 8.0 pool area ratio Afoot/Abkf 2.3 3.5 Table 1: UT2 Notation Units Designed Conditions min I max design streani type B4 drainage area DA sq mi 0.19 bankfull design discharge Qbkf CA 26.0 Cross -Section Features bankfull cross -sectional area Abkf SF 5.2 average velocity during bankfull event vbkf fps 5.1 width at bankfull wbkf feet 8.0 mean depth at bankfull dbkf feet 0.6 bankfull width to depth ratio wbkf/dbkf 12 maximum depth at bankfull dmLa feet 0.8 0.9 max depth ratio dmax/dbkt 1.2 1.4 1.3 bank height ratio BHR 1.0 1.1 floodprone area width wfpa feet 11 18 entrenchment ratio ER 1.4 2.2 Slope valley slope svatley feet/ foot 0.0360 channel slope Scba1111el feet/ foot 0.0300 0.0327 0.0353 Riffle Features riffle slope Sr;rrie feet/ foot 0.0330 0.0589 riffle slope ratio S,ife/Seha1111ei 1.1 1.8 Pool Features pool slope Sp«i feet/ foot 0.0000 0.0131 pool slope ratio Sp..1/Seh„„1el 0.00 0.40 pool -to -pool spacing Lp_p feet 12 40 pool spacing ratio Lp_p/wbkp 1.5 5.0 maximum pool depth at bankfull dp.oi feet 1.3 2.3 pool depth ratio drool/dbkf 2.0 3.5 pool width at bankfull wp.ol feet 8.8 12.0 pool width ratio wkooi/wbkf 1.1 1.5 pool cross -sectional area at bankfull Apo.i SF 11.9 18.1 pool area ratio Akooi/Abkf 2.3 3.5 Table 1: UT3 Notation Units Designed Conditions min I max design streani type 134a drainage area DA sq mi 0.09 bankfull design discharge Qbkf CA 15.0 Cross -Section Features bankfull cross -sectional area Abkf SF 3.2 average velocity during bankfull event vbkr fps 4.4 width at bankfull wbk feet 6.7 mean depth at bankfull dbkf feet 0.5 bankfull width to depth ratio wbkfVdbkf 14 maximum depth at bankfull dmLa feet 0.6 0.7 max depth ratio dmax/dbkt 1.2 1.5 1.5 bank height ratio BHR 1.0 1.1 floodprone area width w{Pa feet 9 15 entrenchment ratio ER 1.4 2.2 Slope valley slope svatley feet/ foot 0.0480 channel slope Scha1111el feet/ foot 0.0400 0.0436 0.0380 Riffle Features riffle slope Sr;rrie feet/ foot 0.0440 0.0785 riffle slope ratio S,ife/Seba1111ei 1.1 1.8 Pool Features pool slope Spool feet/ foot 0.0000 0.0175 pool slope ratio Spool/S.h„„1el 0.0 0.4 pool -to -pool spacing Lp_p feet 10 34 pool spacing ratio Lp_p/wbkf 1.5 5.0 maximum pool depth at bankfull dpooi feet 1.0 1.7 pool depth ratio dpooi/dbkf 2.0 3.5 pool width at bankfull wpool feet 7.4 10.1 pool width ratio wpooi/wbkp 1.1 1.5 pool cross -sectional area at bankfull Apooi SF 7.4 11.3 pool area ratio Apooi/Abkf 2.3 3.5 K N !J1 N 0 N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Finer N ca 4�1 cn rn � 00 co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C y C N� CD CD vo`� A. =°3 C r* O 133 Z APPENDIX 3 — 90% Permitting Plans +I r� s�mo pAo V � o O � a n r* c mrD O D C!] � z o v �^ I'j w Z Cn — n Op � V N w D •-m5 a. /�� V ry 0. m rt 3 n ft C r Ul S [9 rt d el C X �x n s g e p" a SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement Madison County, North Carolina Y z� o oa"r �� WILD LANDS 0.1 Title \ \ 101, 000 c �v SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement r�r Madison County, North Carolina �� Loorrr WIryDLANDS 2 Overview��?�� '�' i 1 i LJ I �I tg I -3 0 p SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement Madison County, North Carolina z L orjhr �SpF�UTy�} W WIE GDLANDS 0 3 Notes and Symbols �� I/ i I � N zo m'n 0 I \ _ _ I I na I � � I o M yz� I I a � ro i ! ! ! _ SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement z� Madison County, North Carolina Y o oa'f WILD LANDS Typical Sectioivs�� U711 0 om _ za-mz �0 1------2014--., 9 m k' \ O pOQ zgi' i7 � rYl\D I I 1 1� 1 MATCH LIN / i l+i \ I- <y � - STA =100+19 ELE\I = —5.64 - _ STA=100+34-E ELEV - 2-14 STA-100-49 ST ELEV a p o j ELEV - 2002 14 / STA=lODt69 ELEV= 2001.55 D chi / Gt AO / l \I� \ \ R srA =too+u ELEV= 2006.53 STA=100+26 = 2.4.94 A=100+41 = 2003 44 N SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement z Madison County, North Carolina L Qorjhr W ems. sH, '�,y WI LDLANDS Yr� • • �\ flan and Profile � L U1I O� 1 I STA=103+ ELEV 1996 �I -ELEV= ELEV= i STA=103+3 19955 STA=103+9 19955 STA=103+61 1 �I ' 1 ELEV 1999 25 STA=103+J3 ELEV-1996.25 STA=103+82 ELEV= 199491 STA=103+95 ELE\r= 199491 STA=104+p9 ELEV- 9944 0o w d � 1 / STA= 104+22 ELEV= 199440 STA=104+39 ELEV = 199394 � STA=104+4� 27 MA1CH L1NE _5TP �° n 777"J .`'I 4 zbo -__- \9 \\\hhh..JJJQGA ; 1005- } v\ `q \ z o _ --I \ / � Gp J / , 1g9p z a n ry yc , 1 m �m 1 0 SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement z Madison County, North Carolina L orjhr W WI LDLANDS Yr� • • r�\ Plan and Profile �- L L U 1 I o� All �I � I x I A`{\ _ MATCH I'\ i 8 _ 4-� 8 STA - 200+41 ELEV- 199897 STA = 200+61 N ELEV= 199E 17 STA-111+72 ELEV= 199867 O � STA=200+92 / ELEV- 1995 35 — Fin N n I ti P STA =gal+os ELEV=1998,35 201-21 ELEV= 199797 STA - 201+35 ELEV- 1997.97 \ N STA = 201+51 ELEV- 199165 D / STA = 201+66 ELEV = 1997 39 STA = 201+29 - ELEV= 199712 STA = 201+92 / / ELEV = 1997 12 STA = 2-3 ELEV= 1996168 y IT = 202+15 ELEV- 1996.2] �y STA = 202+24 ELEV = 1995.75 --- STA = 202+35 ELEV= 1995.75 STA = 202+53 ELEV= 1994.62 A=22+69 = 19. 12 S _ ELEV W STA - 202+88 ELEV- ELEV= 1992.88 STA - 202+97 1992.50 SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement z Madison County, North Carolina L orjhr W WI LDLANDS Plan Yr� • r�L• �\ and Profile L UT2 �� _ ns + z f` °po MATCH LII Y \ ,,111s \ -1995 \ 1 6 L\ \ G'5, I O ` xF oo� —-- n ,i W O \ En �1 STAI-204 2 ELEV= 1986 JO STA = 204 54 ELEV= 1986.J0 3T> = 204-6J ELE = 1936.30 STA = 204+�30 EV = 1985 ]0 = 1985.20 3T4 - 203+OJ ELEV= 1991.85 5TA=203+1J LEV= 1991.44 A - 203+28 SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement z Madison County, North Carolina L orjhr W WI LDLANDS Plan a Yr� • r�L• r�L \ and Profile L UT2 �� F_9 wg om m o m� =o �w J _ ? N __ 2000 1 \\\ 1 3TA = 30C ELEV- 200: g o STA - 300+38 ELEV- 2002.33 / STA = 300+48 d ELEV- 2002.33 m ELEV= 200183 G� D STA 3004]2 / ELEV= 2001.44 STA = 300+82 ELEV=2000.91 I STA = 300+92 ELEV= 2000.41 301+07 I ELEV 199950 DSTA 301+17 >Y ELEV = 1999 D0 STA =3I1+32 ELEV- 1993.10 STA-301+42 ELEV 19 AO =301+53 'TA ELEV- 1996.90 STi=301+6] ELEV= 199690 STA=301+81 ELEV= 199657 z 51A=301+94 9 0 ELEV= 1996.21 O / I O1 STA� 0 STA- 04 992+ 596 � 1 STA 302+16 ELEV 199559 b I ST,4 = 302+2] EEV=1995.39 88 m STA=302+43 = 1995.39 n / ELEV u STA = 302+60 199526 ELEV= 8 SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement z Madison County, North Carolina L orjhr W WI LDLANDS Plan Yr�•�•�\ and Profile L U 13 N _ -1z T w m _ m _ n s F, 3 3 oz _ m - - 3 _ m - - 3 N N 7 3 ti - 3 8 a a ae 3 9 3 N > 'c \ \ \\ )\ {({(« i« G) G) \{ S s w£stem Restoration/Enhancement w Madison County, Carolina c a d x WILDLANDS J.2 ^ Core w* ,\, ® < Dm \\ ao O n o�Dm A m TOP OF BANK(T P) � I1 TOE OF SLOPE(WP) N j - O oo / s 3'pz m - m m ma 3z m�z Ao - m xi n0 o � � zoM eg46K /,] y %X/m \ \\ x \ SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement z� Madison County, North Carolina Y o oa'f WILD LANDS 4.2 Detailsb� 1, 111 7111` IF�FI I.CIICI oio �n o n� _A oA mooz ��oo�� `//\`// DD ��_o(1oazzzniso m" \/ O __ j/\ n z \\ o - � uo o�HD�Do n m � //\ m ~O \\ mw �/ I — y F a \j`\` O T �O o0A ro m p nyr�A zna m �4Ix a o Vv m i o m _ �o m� u - o zz mon n _ - _I 5. CONTAINER DEPTH - rR Ilv r ry Ilo xX o - \\�/\� \ n o � -� �T�`vv`vv`°`°`v a 2' TO 3' LIVE STOKE _- TAPEREDATBOTTOM SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement Madison County, North Carolina Y o z� oa"r WILD LANDS 4.3 Detailsb� 1, 111 7111` � \ \\ \\ {/ ` \ - _ o 2 § \ /( \§ - « ; _ _ 888888888888. � > ��_ �� -` IN� }_ \ r�" � r \ ] /.\\��\�\ _ \§ -- - n§; _ -� \ « \ , \::::: y ?e:::: ?::::: b : @ : ( ° :_ ~^ } 91 ` yw£sem�mm£n anew Madison C_ty, North Carolina w �w wo. � 4.4 Details > � \ 72 - A,y _ mmm �o x'� x�x_ a DA zo�g o° az - 5 D x O z j v = v0- m NO - C 7� �z� I I - } i 3a c o 2-1 � � m v2? m �o� oa_ MIN.2' FPOM -1,-4 x �zz 3 CHAN N EL BOTTOMm IE �m mDD C;e' ':E o��GF a - z z� o O. rrr III os09m ^ " - "� A m�oc 00 - o22 o A SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement z� Madison County, North Carolina Y o oa'f ors, sH,ti'Ir� WILDLANDS 4.5 Detailsb� 1, 111 7111` r• o � N Aa —_ _ — � 3na �,q3 �Ll �$a.o.�aA Nn -6z m2 3 2 9 hl Q l z e s- z� NF = DO ZI y aka= 3d> y 33z ^ m 3 a yr d N V ^ 3 a 3 _ _ 2 ET n ^ -a 3? 3 w .p - - - =7 3'R%� a- n3 a33aod ITI 9 3 - yI� 3 3�5 -- - q �33r° man ==a 3�n_- a€Z SoWE Stream Restoration/Enhancement Y z� Madison County, North Carolina{rb o oa'f WILD LANDS 4.6 Details��?�� U ` 3. 7751 n� � z n � 3 3 ........ . Z� Q A 5 5 P 2 R 2: 2 R! 2 E i Z 1 K > z L 2 T F�3 P L 7 -7 M P ov L M N 23 �J W LI 2 2 2 L F - R R .5 93 El 1FR9 ft �P 0; EL 3 A —3 SoWF Stream Restoration/EnhancementMadison County, North Carolina WILDLANDS 4.7 Details 1,1 7,11 7751