20080008 Ver 1_Restoration Plan_20071228

0~-®~;Qg
•
Restoration Plan
Lewis Creek Stream Restoration
Henderson County, North Carolina
Catalog Unit 06010105
Submission Date (Draft): October 2007
Final Submission Date: December 2007
•
•
Prepared for: NCDENR-EEP
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Prepared by: Jordan, Jones, and Goulding, Inc.
9101 Southern Pine Blvd. ,Suite 160
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-527-4106 (Main Line)
704-527-4108 (Fax)
.,;
~.:.
~w~
NCDENR
~s ~'~~~
,~~y7~ ~~ yHN3
l~U~ ~ ~ ,
~~ ~~ w ~~"~L!
~~~
°~ . v:
JORDAN
JONES &
GOULDING

J ~ Jordan
Jones s
Goulding
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
i. Project Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................2
ii. Existing Amount of Streams and Wetlands .....................................................................2
iii. Amount of Streams and Wetlands Designed ..................................................................2
SECTION 1-PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
1.1 Directions to Project Site ...........................................................................................1-1
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations .................... l-1
1.3 Project Site Vicinity Map ........................................................................................... 1-1
SECTION 2 -WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
2.1 Drainage Area ............................................................................................................ 2-1
2.2 Surface Water Classification/Water Quality .............................................................. 2-2
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils .............................................................................. 2-2
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends .......................................................... 2-4
2.5 Endangered/Threatened Species ................................................................................ 2-5
2.6 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 2-16
2.7 Potential Constraints ................................................................................................2-17
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary ........................................................... 2-17
2.7.2 Site Access ................................................................................................2-17
2.7.3 Utilities ......................................................................................................2-17
2.7.4 FEMA/Hydrologic Trespass ..................................................................... 2-17
SECTION 3 -PROJECT SITE STREAMS (existing conditions)
3.1 Channel Classification ............................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Discharge (bankfull, trends) ....................................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Channel Morphology (pattern, dimension, profile) ................................................... 3-2
3.4 Channel Stability Assessment .................................................................................... 3-4
3.4.1 Channel Evolution ...................................................................................... 3-4
3.4.2 Stream Bed and Bank Stability ................................................................... 3-5
3.5 Bankfull Verification ................................................................................................. 3-6
3.6 Vegetation .................................................................................................................. 3-7
•
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

Page 2
Table of Contents
• SECTION4-REFERENCE STREAMS
4.1 Watershed Characterization .......................................................................................4-1
4.2 Channel Classification ...............................................................................................4-1
4.3 Discharge (bankfull, trends) ....................................................................................... 4-2
4.4 Channel Morphology (pattern, dimension, profile) ................................................... 4-2
4.5 Channel Stability Assessment .................................................................................... 4-2
4.6 Bankfull Verification ................................................................................................. 4-2
4.7 Vegetation .................................................................................................................. 4-4
SECTION 5 -PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN
5.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives .................................................................. 5-1
5.1.1 Designed Channel Classification ................................................................ 5-1
5.2 Sediment Transport Analysis ......................................................................... 5-4
5.2.1 Methodology ............................................................................................... 5-4
5.2.2 Calculations and Discussion ....................................................................... 5-5
5.2.3 Results ......................................................................................................... 5-5
5.3 HEC-RAS Analysis ................................................................................................... 5-5
5.3.1 No-rise, LOMR, CLOMR ........................................................................... 5-6
5.3.2 Hydrologic Trespass ...................................................................................
5.4 Stormwater Best Management Practices ................................................................... 5-6
5-6
5.4.1 Narrative of Site-Specific Stormwater Concerns ........................................ 5-7
5.4.2 Device Description and Application ........................................................... 5-7
5.5 Soil Restoration .......................................................................................................... 5-7
5.6 Natural Plant Community Restoration ....................................................................... 5-7
5.6.1 Narrative & Plant Community Restoration ................................................. 5-9
5.7 Construction Access Plan .......................................................................................... 5-9
SECTION 6 -PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
6.1 Streams ...............................................................
6.1.1 Dimension, Pattern, and Profile ..........
6.2 Stormwater Management Devices .....................
6.3 Vegetation ..........................................................
6.4 Schedule/Reporting ............................................
SECTION 7 -REFERENCES
SECTION 8 -FIGURES
SECTION 9 -DESIGN SHEETS
..................................................... 6-1
..................................................... 6-1
..................................................... 6-1
..................................................... 6-3
..................................................... 6-3
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

3
Table of Contents
•
SECTION 10 -APPENDICES
List of Tables
•
Table 1.1 Project Restoration Structure and Objectives ................................................................3
Table 2.1 Drainage Area ............................................................................................................ 2-1
Table 2.2 Land Use of the Watershed ........................................................................................ 2-5
Table 2.3 Summary of Federal-and State-Listed Species for Henderson County ..................... 2-6
Table 2.4 Species/Habitat Matrix ............................................................................................... 2-8
Table 3.1 Peak Discharges (Q) from Regression Equations ...................................................... 3-2
Table 3.2 Bankfull Discharges (Qbkf) from HEC-RAS ............................................................ 3-2
Table 3.3 Existing Morphology ................................................................................................. 3-3
Table 3.4 BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates for Project Site Stream ................................. 3-6
Table 3.5 Near Bank Stress Estimates for Project Site Stream .................................................. 3-6
Table 3.6 Existing Bankfull Discharge (Qbkf) .......................................................................... 3-6
Table 4.1 Reference Bankfull Discharge (Qbkf) ....................................................................... 4-2
Table 4.2 Reference Reach Morphology ................................................................................... 4-3
Table 5.1 Design Values for Proposed Conditions .................................................................... 5-3
Table 5.2 Entrainment Calculations ........................................................................................... 5-4
Table 5.3 Sediment Transport Validation .................................................................................. 5-5
Table 5.4 100-year Water Surface Elevations (WSE) for Existing and Proposed Conditions.. 5-6
Table 5.5 Streambank and Adjacent Riparian Planting List-Woody Species ............................ 5-8
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Project Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2.1 Project Site USGS Map, Bat Cave Quad
Figure 2.2 Project Site Watershed Map
Figure 2.3 Project Site NRCS Soils Map
Figure 3.1 Existing Vegetative Communities Map
Figure 4.1 Raccoon Creek Reference Reach Site Map
Figure 4.2 Raccoon Creek Reference Reach Watershed Map
Figure 5.1 Proposed Vegetative Communities Map
List of Designed Sheets
•
Sheets 7-8 Plan and Profile
Sheet 9 Designed Channel Alignment and Structure Table
Sheet 5 Typicals
Sheets PLT Planting Plan
Lewis Creek
Restoration Plan
Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
December 2007

4
Table of Contents
•
•
•
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Appendix 5
Appendix 6
Lewis Creek
Restoration Plan
List of Appendices
Project Site Photographs
Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Reference Site Photographs
Reference Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
HEC-RAS Analysis
Supporting Documentation
Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
December 2007

•
J ~ Jordan
Jones ~
Goulding
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
0~-~~;~ ~
•
•
Lewis Creek
Restoration Plan
Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
December 2007

•
Executive Summary
Lewis Creek is located in Henderson County, North Carolina, northeast of the City of
Hendersonville. The project area consists of approximately 1,750 linear feet of stream
Restoration within Lewis Creek, beginning at North Ridge Road and continuing downstream
1,750-feet to the project terminus. Lewis Creek generally flows from southeast to northwest.
Currently, Lewis Creek is characterized as incised, over-widened, and exhibiting bank erosion,
with an unstable channel and exposed banks. The contributing factors to the stream's worsening
condition are the channelization/straightening and berming of Lewis Creek and the activities
associated with the apple orchards upstream of the project site. Approximately 10 acres of
forested wetlands are located along the south side of Lewis Creek. This area is owned by the
Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy (CMLC) and is not being preserved by The North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). CMLC is involved in the preservation and
conservation of the wetland, and has been informed of the proposed project. A jurisdictional
determination has not been conducted on the area; however, the wetland has been previously
delineated (however not surveyed). Based on professional judgment, the wetland is clearly
jurisdictional. There will be no impacts to the existing wetlands due to the proposed project.
The EEP will acquire an easement along both banks of the stream. In areas not associated with
CMLC land, the conservation easement and proposed disturbance limits extends 30 feet from the
proposed top of bank. According to Deborah Daniel of EEP, the CMLC is flexible in granting
the easement on their side of Lewis Creek and some disturbance within CMLC land may be
necessary beyond 30 feet from the banks. All stream restoration efforts will be implemented
within the established conservation easement limits.
The stream is incised in certain segments along the project reach; however, there are sections
along the project reach that are connected with the floodplain. Representatives of CMLC and the
adjacent landowner (Mark Searles) have witnessed overbank flooding at least one to two times
per year on site. JJG's initial assessment of the site revealed signs of bank erosion, areas of
heavy sediment deposition, and indicators of sinuosity forming in the incised channel. These
three characteristics signal that lateral erosion is currently on-going and vertical erosion (i.e.
incision) is stabilizing. This phenomenon falls within typical scenarios of stream evolution as
presented by Rosgen (1996).
Refer to Table 1.1 for a summary of the proposed mitigation efforts.
•
This project is located in a local watershed planning area (LWP). The LWP was developed by
the Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council with assistance from EEP and the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Some of the goals included in the LWP that will be met by
the Lewis Creek Stream Restoration Project are to reduce nonpoint source pollution (sediment
and nutrient loading) and improve habitat degradation.
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

Page 2
Executive Summary
i. Project Goals and Objectives
The following goals have been established for the Lewis Creek Stream Restoration project.
^ Restore a natural, stable dimension, pattern and profile along Lewis Creek using natural
channel design techniques.
^ Stabilize and protect degraded or vulnerable streambanks along Lewis Creek to reduce
sediment loading and loss of land.
^ Enhance floodplain connection along Lewis Creek.
^ Establish a bankfull bench along Lewis Creek to reduce velocity and shear stress associated
with bankfull and higher storm flows.
^ Introduce a natural meander pattern along Lewis Creek.
^ Improve aquatic and riparian habitat for macroinvertebrate and fish communities.
To meet these goals, the following objectives have been established for the Lewis Creek Stream
Restoration project.
^ Restoring approximately 1,750 linear feet of Lewis Creek.
^ Restoration efforts will consist of constructing an appropriately sized channel for the existing
watershed and sediment load within a new naturally sinuous pattern.
^ The project will include establishing a floodplain at an appropriate elevation for the current
stream bed, creating bankfull benches, stabilizing streambanks, and grading back bank
slopes.
^ The streambanks and riparian zone will be replanted using native species appropriate to the
area.
ii. Existing Amount of Streams
Within the easement limits of Lewis Creek, the existing stream available for restoration consists
of the following component.
^ 1,663 linear feet along Lewis Creek.
iii. Amount of Streams Designed
Lewis Creek will be restored using natural channel design procedures. This restoration effort
will consist of returning the appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile to the degraded stream.
By creating a new bankfull bench at the existing channel elevation, floodplain connection will be
re-established, and storm flow velocities and shear stresses will be reduced. At higher flows, this
will allow the stream to spread its water onto the floodplain, decreasing the potential for bank
erosion or channel incision.
•
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

Page 3
Executive Summary
Stabilization structures such as cross-vanes and Root Wad/J-Hook Log Vane combos will be
installed to redirect the thalweg away from the streambank and toward the center of the stream,
thereby reducing in-channel erosion.
Adjacent streambanks and riparian zones of Lewis Creek will be replanted using native species
appropriate to the area. Bare root, live stakes, on-site transplants, and container plants will be
used to replant the riparian zone using native vegetation, such as river birch (Betula nigra), silky
dogwood (Corpus amomum), willow (Salix sp.), alder (Alnus serrulata), and ninebark
(Physocarpus sp.). Indigenous plant species will be planted at elevations according to their
ability to be saturated.
Refer to Table 1.1 below for a summary of project restoration structure and objectives included
within the scope of work.
Table 1.1
Project Restoration Structure and Objectives

Lewis Creek

Segment/Reach Stationing Restoration Priority Existing
Linear Footage Design Linear
Footage or
Comments
Type Approach or Acres Acres
Channel restoration,
relocation with use of
Lewis Creek 0 - 17+50 Restoration P2 16+63.05 17+50 grade control and
bank protection
structures.
•
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

J ~ Jordan
Jones s
Goulding
SECTION 1
PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
•
•
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

SECTION 1
PROJECT SITE IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
1.1 Directions to Project Site
To access the site from Interstate 26, take the US 64 East exit. Travel five miles and turn right
on Laycock Road. Continue 0.4 miles and turn left on North Ridge Road. Lewis Creek flows
between the CMLC and Ingles properties. Entrance is to the left just before North Ridge Road
crosses Lewis Creek. Refer to Figure 1.1 for a location map of the project site.
1.2 USGS Hydrologic Unit Code and NCDWQ River Basin Designations
Lewis Creek is located in Henderson County, North Carolina, east of the city of Hendersonville
and is located on the Bat Cave USGS Quadrangle Map (Figure 2.1). The stream lies within the
French Broad River Basin, Catalog Unit 06010105, DWQ Subbasin 04-03-02. Lewis Creek is a
third order tributary to Clear Creek with an approximate drainage area of four square miles at the
upstream point of the project area. The lat/long of the center point of the project site is
35°22'41" N/82°20'57" W.
1.3 Project Site Vicinity Map
Refer to Figure 1.1 for a location map of the project site.
•
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

•
•
•
J ~ Jordan
Jones ~
Goulding
Lewis Creek
Restoration Plan
SECTION 2
WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
December 2007

•
SECTION 2
WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION
2.1 Drainage Area
Lewis Creek drains approximately four square miles at the farthest downstream point of the EEP
project easement. The Lewis Creek drainage basin is situated in Henderson County, NC. In
general, Lewis Creek flows southeast to northwest through its watershed. The landscape within
the watershed is comprised of steep to strongly sloping upland ridges near headwater streams to
gently sloping to broad, flat areas along the floodplain of Lewis Creek. Elevations range
between 2,730 ft near the watershed's headwaters to approximately 2,150 ft at the farthest
downstream point of the EEP project easement. Refer to Figure 2.1, USGS Quad Map and
Figure 2.2, Project Site Watershed Map for details of the project's drainage area. Table 2.1
summarizes the drainage area for the project reach.
Table 2.1
Drainage Area
•
•
Lewis Creek
Drainage Area Drainage Area
Reach acres s uare miles
Lewis Creek (Restoration) 2560 4
Drainage to Lewis Creek within the project easement includes drainage directly from the
upstream reach of Lewis Creek and sheet/overland flow and runoff from rainfall.
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

2-2
Watershed Characterization
2.2 Surface Water Classification/Water Quality
The segment of Lewis Creek in the project reach has been classified by the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) as Class C; Trout (Tr) waters (NCDWQ, 2007). Class C waters are protected for
secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, and
agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human
body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or
incidental manner. There are no restrictions on watershed development or types of discharges
for Class C waters. In addition, these waters have also received a Tr supplemental classification
intended to protect freshwaters for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout. This
designation affects wastewater quality but not the type of discharges. There are also no
watershed development restrictions except stream buffer zone requirements of NC Division of
Land Resources (NCDWQ, 2007).
2.3 Physiography, Geology and Soils
The Lewis Creek project study area is located within the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province of
the East Flank Blue Ridge Belt in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Elevations in the Blue
Ridge range from 1,500 feet above mean sea level near its border with the Piedmont to 6,684 feet
at its highest peak at Mount Mitchell. Within the project area, elevations range from 2,155 to
2,160 feet. According to the Geologic Map of North Carolina (1991), the underlying geology
within the project area is comprised primarily of uneven-grained monzonitic to granodioritic
Henderson gneiss. These rocks are estimated to be 460 million years old and have undergone
several deformations over time resulting in folding, fracturing, crushing, and shearing. In
addition to these processes, chemical and physical weathering of these rocks has generated soil
profiles generally referred to as saprolite.
Most of the soils in the Blue Ridge Province are residual soils derived from weathering of the
underlying bedrock. They can generally be described as brown, micaceous, sandy silt near the
surface, grading downward to loose firm, red-brown and dark brown, micaceous silty medium to
coarse sand. The shallow groundwater surface in the Blue Ridge Province generally occurs
within the residual and alluvial soils. Groundwater flow in the Blue Ridge Province generally
follows the topography. Recharge occurs from infiltration of precipitation on the hill and
mountain slopes, while discharge generally occurs at the streams and springs. The Blue Ridge is
characterized by deeply dissected mountains, numerous steep mountain ridges, intermontane
basins, and trench valleys that interact at all angles and give the area its rugged mountain
character.
According to the Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina Map, the project study area is
also located within the Blue Ridge, Broad Basins (Level IV) ecoregion (Griffith et al., 2002). The
Broad Basin ecoregion is drier and has lower elevations and less relief than some of the more
mountainous Blue Ridge ecoregions. The Broad Basin ecoregion is also comprised of more saprolite
and less bouldery colluvium than surrounding regions within the Blue Ridge.
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

Page 2-3
Watershed Characterization
Although some areas of this region are mostly forested, overall it has become more pasture, cropland,
industrial land uses, and human settlement than any of the other Blue Ridge ecoregions (Griffith et
al., 2002).
The project study area resides in a Valley Type VIII. These valley types are characterized by
wide, gentle valley slopes with well-developed floodplains adjacent to river terraces. Stream
types "C" and "E", which are slightly entrenched and meandering channels that develop a
riffle/pool bedform, normally develop in the Type VIII Valley (Rosgen, 1996).
The Soil Survey of Henderson County, North Carolina (USDA, 2007) was consulted to
determine soil-mapping units within the study area. According to the soil data, two soil-mapping
units occur within the proposed project area. These soil mapping units were compared to the
USDA-NRCS Hydric Soils of the United States (http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/lists/state.html)
to determine if hydric soils are known to occur within the project study area. Two map units,
Codorus loam (Co) and Hatboro loam (Ha) appear on the USDA-NRCS Hydric Soils of the
United States and are both designated a 2B3 hydric criterion. Hydric soil unit types denoted by a
letter B indicate map units with inclusions of hydric soils or that have wet spots. In Henderson
County, Co map unit contains approximately 5% hydric inclusions. According to the USDA-
NRCS Hydric Soils of the United States, inclusions within the Co map unit consist of the
Toxaway silt loam (To), which is 80% hydric and occurs along depressional floodplain areas.
Approximately 90% of the Ha map unit is hydric consisting of wet spots found primarily along
depressional floodplain areas.
Since Co and Ha map units have a hydric B status, field observations were performed to
determine areas within the easement as having hydric conditions. Throughout the easement area,
soil samples were collected to determine the hydromorphic condition. In general, field
observations of reduced chroma and aquic moisture regime were used in determining whether a
particular area was hydric. Field observations revealed that no wetlands exist within the project
easement area and only relict hydric soils remain. This appears to be primarily due to
anthropogenic impacts (manmade levees, drainage ditches, dirt fill, and other earth movement)
which have ultimately lowered the existing water table and reduced the number of over the top-
of-bank flood events within the project area.
Field observations reveal that soils within the project area formed in sandy, loamy alluvium
inside and along the Lewis Creek levee within the project area. However, in areas along both
sides of the Lewis Creek floodplain, but outside the project easement, soils appear to have
formed in a clayey, loamy alluvium. Field observations suggest that hydric soils likely have
developed within these areas due to the poor drainage and slow permeability of clayey, loamy
alluvium. In addition, areas beyond the levees are lower in elevation and are typically ponded
during significant flood events; therefore, the upper soil pedon is saturated long enough in some
of these floodplain areas during the winter and spring for aquic conditions to develop.
The floodplain area along the north side of Lewis Creek appears to have lost much of its
connectivity with Lewis Creek during typical "out-of-bank" flooding events and therefore no
longer develops aquic conditions.
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

2-4
Watershed Characterization
• Manmade levees along the north side of an incised Lewis Creek now restrain "typical"
floodwaters, thereby reducing the amount of ponding and water storage occurring within the
floodplain depressional areas. The morphology of much of these soils, however, indicates that
some aquic conditions were present prior to anthropogenic modification of the hydrology.
Typically, the upper 12 inches of soils identified as hydric exhibited soil matrix colors of lOYR
5/2 or l OYR 3/2. Iron concentration (mottling) were typically l0yr 4/4.
Of the two mapping units which occur within the project study area, both are considered as
prime farmland soils or farmland of statewide importance. Refer to Figure 2.3 for a Soil Map of
the site. Below is a brief description of soil mapping units that occur within the project study
area.
Codorus loam (Co) -These soils are nearly level, very deep, and somewhat poorly
drained to moderately well drained soils found along floodplains. They formed in recent
alluvium have a loamy surface layer and subsoil. Permeability is moderate and shrink-
swell potential is low. Seasonal high water table is within a depth of 1.0 to 2.0 feet. These
soils are subject to frequent flooding.
^ Hatboro loam (Ha) -These soils are nearly level, very deep, and poorly drained soils
found along floodplains. They formed in alluvial deposits and have a loamy surface layer
and subsoil. Permeability is moderate and shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high
water table is within a depth of 0.5 foot. These soils are subject to frequent flooding.
In addition to the above map soil units, a brief description of the Toxaway silt loam, (To) map
unit, which is a hydric soil inclusion sometimes found within the Co mapped soil unit, is
provided below.
^ Toxaway silt loam (To) -These soils are nearly level, very deep, poorly drained and
very poorly drained soils are located along floodplains near the upland contact. These
soils formed in recent alluvium and the surface layer is thick, dark colored, and loamy.
The underlying material is stratified sand, gravel, and cobble within a depth of 40 inches.
Permeability is moderately rapid in the surface layer and rapid in the underlying material.
Shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high water table is within a depth of 1.0 foot.
These soils are subject to frequent flooding.
2.4 Historical Land Use and Development Trends
The watershed land use is dominated by agriculture land and forest. The primary agricultural
activities range from apple orchards to row crops. Forested land in the watershed is being
converted to apple orchards and sod farms. Also, many upslope areas are being developed into
residential gated communities. The majority of the site has been historically disturbed due to
past and current agricultural use and construction of man made levees on the north side of Lewis
Creek. The Henderson County land use coverage was approximated using aerial photography
taken in March 2001. Arc GIS 9.1 was used to delineate agricultural, forested, commercial,
public/institutional, and residential areas within the Lewis Creek watershed area. Aland use
summary is provided in Table 2.2. These data were obtained from
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

2-5
Watershed Characterization
http://www.hendersoncount n~g/gis/main.html.
Table 2.2
Land Use of Watershed
Land Use Acres (ac) Percents a (%)
A riculture 1,300 53
Forested 705 29
Commercial 13 0.52
Public/Institutional 38 1.5
Residential 404 16
Total 2 460 100
2.5 Endangered /Threatened Species
Under terms of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, federal agencies shall "ensure that any
action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary to be critical... " The USACE
requires protected species surveys for project sites that involve a Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act permit.
Prior to the field studies, an office review of available resources was performed to develop a list
of potential federal- and state-listed species for Henderson County, North Carolina. The
tentative list of known protected species was compiled by review of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) county database (http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/es.html, 2007).
Prior to the field survey, a letter was submitted to the North Carolina Ecological Services field
office of USFWS to obtain information regarding the listed species within Henderson County,
North Carolina. The letter requests any information of known occurrence within the vicinity of
the project area. To date (October 2007), no response has been issued from the USFWS.
The species/habitat matrix document (Table 2.4) was utilized during the field surveys to
ascertain suitable presence/absence of protected species. The field surveys established that no
protected species are likely to occur within the proposed project area; however, suitable habitat is
present for two species of concern, the Tennessee heelsplitter (Lasmigona holstonia) and Eastern
small-footed bat (Myotis leibii). However, since the project will be constructed during winter
months, occurrence of the Eastern small-footed bat is unlikely as no suitable hibernaculum exists
within the project area. Additionally, due to stringent use of BMP's implemented during project
construction, sedimentation and erosion will be minimized and therefore, this project is not likely
to affect the Tennessee heelsplitter or its preferred habitat.
Suitable habitat for forested wetland species (i.e., Diana fritillary butterfly) occurs adjacent to the
project area; however no impacts will occur to this habitat as it lies outside the proposed
disturbance boundaries. Therefore, this project is not likely to affect this species or the preferred
habitat.
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

Page 2-6
Watershed Characterization
Table 2.3 provides a summary of federal- and state-listed species for Henderson County, North
Carolina as reported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Region 4 North Carolina
Ecological Services field office website. A species/habitat matrix included in Table 2.4 provides
information on listed species and their preferred habitat. Brief descriptions of the federal and
state protected species are provided in Tables 2.3 and 2.4.
Table 2.3
Summary of Federally Listed Species for Henderson County, NC
•
•
Species Vernacular Federal Preferred Habitat Habitat
Name Rank Present
Faunal
Clemmys Bog turtle T (S/A) mountain bog wetlands and open scrub-shrub No
muhlenber II wetlands
Myotis leibii Eastern FSC usually found in buildings, towers, hollow trees, Yes
small-footed beneath the loose bark of trees, in crevices of cliffs,
bat and beneath bridges. During winter, these colonial
bats move into caves and abandoned mines
Aneides aeneus Green FSC found in damp rock crevices that remain humid and No
salamander are rotected from the sun and direct rain
Cryptobranchus Hellbender FSC found in mountain streams and rivers with large No
alleganiensis rocky substrate, snags, or woody debris.
Erimystax Mountain FSC found in medium to large clear streams in moderate No
insignis blotched current with a substrate of cobble to gravel
eristi ma chub
Desmognathus Pygmy FSC inhabits spruce-fir forests, also (in lower No
wri htii salamander abundance) hardwood forests at lower elevations
Neotoma Southern FSC occurs in high elevation forests and rock ledges No
floridana Appalachian
haematoreia eastern
woodrat
Sphyrapicus Yellow- FSC inhabits deciduous or mixed deciduous-coniferous No
varius bellied forest
a alachiensis sa sucker
Alasmidonta Appalachian E found in riffles, runs, and shallow flowing pools No
raveneliana elktoe with stable, relatively silt-free, coarse sand and
gravel substrate associated with cobble, boulders,
and/or bedrock.
Speyeria Jana Diana FSC inhabits forested or scrub-shrub wetland areas Yes
fritillary within the riparian zones of drainages, wet
butterfl meadows, or mixed deciduous forest
Cambarus French FSC inhabits moderate to high gradient headwaters of No
reburrus broad streams
cra fish
Epoiblasma Oyster E inhabits small to medium rivers in areas with No
capsaeformis mussel coarse sand to boulder substratum (rarely in mud)
and moderate to swift currents
Lasmigona Tennessee FSC occurs in the vicinity of riffles but may be in Yes
holstonia heelsplitter backwaters or pool-like habitats. It usually is found
in fine-particle substrates (e.g., sand, mud) shallow
water depths. It often occurs in headwaters and
may be the only mussel inhabiting such areas
Lewis Creek
Restoration Plan
Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
December 2007

2-7
•
•
•
Watershed Characterization
Species Vernacular Federal Preferred Habitat Habitat
Name Rank Present
Floral
Pakera Blue Ridge FSC occurs in sandy soils that form on and around No
millefolium ragwort granite outcrops. Usually in full sun in cracks or
small depressions in granite domes and ledges, but
occasionally in light shade.
Narthecium Bog C mountain bog wetlands No
americanum as hodel
Sagittaria Bunched E inhabits seep areas with very low water flow but no No
fasciculata arrowhead stagnation. Soils are sandy loams overlain by
muck 10-24 inches deep. Some shade is beneficial
for the lants rowth
Juglans Butternut FSC typically grows in rich mesophytic forests, lower No
cinera slopes, ravines, and various types of bottomland,
including banks and terraces of creeks and streams,
and flood lain forests
Carex Fort FSC inhabits moist, rich slopes in deep soils with No
communis var. Mountain adequate moisture
am lis uama sed e
Lysimachia Fraser's FSC generally found in wet areas such as alluvial No
fraseri loosestrife meadows, moist stream and river banks, flats along
streams, moist astures, and roadside.
Hexastylis French FSC inhabits deciduous forests on sandy river bluffs or No
rhombiformis broad on sandy soil in ravines
heartleaf
Lilium grayi Gray's lily FSC inhabits openings or balds in the mountains No
Marshallia Large- FSC found along the flood-scoured banks of large, high- No
grandiflora flowered gradient rivers in the central Appalachians. The
Barbara's species is also reported from rocky lake shores,
buttons creek banks, bluffs and flood lains.
Silene ovata Mountain FSC inhabit moist, rich slopes in deep soils with No
catchfl ade uate moisture
Hexastylis Mountain FSC found in acidic soils in deciduous forests, generally No
contracta heartleaf associated with kalmia and rhododendron
Sarracenia Mountain E inhabits bogs and streamsides on granite rock faces No
rubra ssp. sweet along the Blue Ridge Divide
'onesii itche lant
Juncus New Jersey FSC occurs in open to shaded streambanks, seepy pond No
caesariensis rush margins, swales, pine barren savannas, and Atlantic
white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) swamps,
fre uentl within ine barrens
Isotria Small T found in montane oak-hickory or acidic cove No
medeoloides whorled forests
0 onia
Thalistrum Small- FSC found in moist, open places throughout northern No
macrostylum leaved temperate regions
meadow-rue
Lewis Creek
Restoration Plan
Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
December 2007

2-8
•
Watershed Characterization
Species Vernacular Federal Preferred Habitat Habitat
Name Rank Present
Helonias Swamp pink T inhabits wetlands that are saturated but not flooded, No
bullata including southern Appalachian bogs and swamps.
This plant is commonly associated with some
evergreens, including white cedar, pitch pine,
American larch, and blacks ruce
Monotropsis Sweet FSC inhabits pine dominated forests and pine-oak No
odorata pinesap heaths. The species is very small and seems to
blend into the adjacent pine forest floor which is
covered with thousands of brown ine needles
Platanthera White C found in red maple-blackgum swamps, along No
integrilabia fringless sandy, damp stream margins, or seepy, rocky,
orchid thinl ve etated slo es
Sisyrinchium White E inhabits rich, basic soils probably weathered from No
dichotomum irisette amphibolites, in clearings and the edges of upland
woods where the canopy is thin and often where
down slope runoff has removed much of the deep
litter la er ordinaril resent on these sites
E =Endangered; T=threatened; FSC =Federal Species of Concern; C=Candidate species
Table 2.4
Species/Habitat Matrix
•
•
Habitat Sub-Habitat Species
Terrestrial usually found in buildings, towers, Eastern small-footed bat, Green salamander
hollow trees, beneath the loose bark
of trees, in crevices of cliffs, and
beneath brid es.
found in damp rock crevices that Green salamander
remain humid and are protected from
the sun and direct rain
inhabits spruce-fir forests, also (in Pygmy salamander
lower abundance) hardwood forests
at lower elevations
occurs in high elevation forests and Southern Appalachian Eastern woodrat
rock ledges
thin, sandy soils that form on and Mountain sweet-pitcher plant
around granite outcrops. Usually in
full sun in cracks or small
depressions in granite domes and
ledges, but occasionally in light
shade.
mountain bog wetlands Bog asphodel, Bog turtle, Mountain sweet-pitcher
lant
inhabits seep areas with very low Bunched arrowhead, New Jersey rush
water flow but no stagnation. Soils
are sandy loams overlain by muck
10-24 inches deep. Some shade is
beneficial for the lants rowth
Lewis Creek
Restoration Plan
Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
December 2007

2-9
•
•
•
Watershed Characterization
Habitat Sub-Habitat Species
typically grows in rich mesophytic Butternut, French broad heartleaf, Diana's fritillary
forests, lower slopes, ravines, and
various types of bottomland,
including banks and terraces of
creeks and streams, and floodplain
forests
generally found in wet areas such as Fraser's loosestrife, Diana's fritillary, Swamp pink,
alluvial meadows, moist stream and Small-leaved meadow rue
river banks, flats along streams,
moist astures, and roadside.
inhabits deciduous forests on sandy French broad heartleaf, Yellow-bellied sapsucker,
river bluffs or on sandy soil in Mountain heartleaf
ravines
found along the flood-scoured banks Large flowered Barbara's buttons
of large, high-gradient rivers in the
central Appalachians. The species is
also reported from rocky lake shores,
creek banks, bluffs and flood lains.
occurs in open to shaded Swamp pink, Yellow-bellied sapsucker
streambanks, seepy pond margins,
swales, pine barren savannas, and
Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis
thyoides) swamps, frequently within
ine barrens

found in montane oak-hickory or Small whorled pagonia, Yellow-bellied sapsucker,
acidic cove forests Mountain heartleaf, French broad heartleaf
found in red maple-blackgum White fringeless orchid, Yellow-bellied sapsucker,
swamps, along sandy, damp stream Diana's fi-itillary
margins, or seepy, rocky, thinly
ve etated slo es
inhabits rich, basic soils probably White irisette
weathered from amphibolites, in
clearings and the edges of upland
woods where the canopy is thin and
often where down slope runoff has
removed much of the deep litter
la er ordinaril resent on these sites
o enings and balds on mountains Gray's lily
deciduous and coniferous forests Yellow-bellied sapsucker, Diana's fritillary, Sweet
inesa
found in mountain streams and rivers Hellbender, Appalachian elktoe, Oyster mussel,
Aquatic with large rocky substrate, snags, or French broad crayfish, Mountain blotched chub
woody debris.
species occurs in the vincinity of Tennessee heelsplitter
riffles but may be in backwaters or
pool-like habitats. It usually is found
in fine-particle substrates (e.g., sand,
mud) shallow water depths. It often
occurs in headwaters and may be the
onl mussel inhabitin such areas
Lewis Creek
Restoration Plan
Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
December 2007

Page 2-10
Watershed Characterization
2.5.1 Species Description
Appalachian elktoe -Appalachian elktoe has a thin, kidney-shaped shell, reaching up to about
four inches in length. Juveniles generally have ayellowish-brown outer shell, while the outer
shell of the adults is usually dark brown to greenish-black in color. Although rays are prominent
on some shells, particularly in the posterior portion of the shell, many individuals have only
obscure greenish rays. The inside shell surface is shiny, often white to bluish-white, changing to
a salmon, pinkish, or brownish color in the central and beak cavity portions of the shell; some
specimens may be marked with irregular brownish blotches. The species has been reported from
relatively shallow, medium-sized creeks and rivers with cool, clean, well-oxygenated, moderate-
to fast-flowing water. The species is most often found in riffles, runs, and shallow flowing pools
with stable, relatively silt-free, coarse sand and gravel substrate associated with cobble, boulders,
and/or bedrock. Stability of the substrate appears to be critical to the Appalachian elktoe, and the
species is seldom found in stream reaches with accumulations of silt or shifting sand, gravel, or
cobble. The Appalachian elktoe is known only from the mountain streams of western North
Carolina and eastern Tennessee (USFWS, 2007). There is no habitat for this species within the
Lewis Creek restoration reach; therefore, it is unlikely to occur within project area. Specialized
aquatic surveys would be required to definitively determine the presence/absence of this species.
Relict mollusk shells were not observed during field surveys.
Blue Ridge ragwort -Blue Ridge ragwort can be recognized by the dissected leaves, the
divisions mostly less than 0.1 inches in width, the rachis of basal leaves not winged, and none of
the basal leaves entire. Blue Ridge ragwort inhabits thin, sandy soils that form on and around
granite outcrops in cracks or small depressions in granite domes and ledges, but generally in full
sunlight (NatureServe, 2007). There is no habitat for this species; therefore, no specimens were
observed.
Bog asphodel -Bog asphodel is a perennial herb with slender fibrillose rhizomes. The leaves
are mostly basal with perfectly shaped flowers. This plant inhabits mountain bogs (NatureServe,
2007). There is no habitat for this species; therefore, no specimens were observed.
Bog turtle -Bog turtles are easily distinguished from other turtles by the large, conspicuous
bright orange, yellow or red blotch found on each side of the head. Adult bog turtle shells are
three to five inches in length and range in color from light brown to ebony. Bog turtles inhabit
mountain bog and open scrub-shrub wetlands (USFWS, 2007). There is no habitat for this
species; therefore, no specimens were observed.
Bunched arrowhead - Bunched arrowhead is an emergent aquatic plant that grows
approximately six to thirteen inches in height with spatulate shaped leaves that grow up to twelve
inches long. This plant inhabits seep areas with very low water flow but no stagnation. Soils are
sandy loams overlain by muck at least ten inches in depth. Some shade is beneficial for the
plant's growth (USFWS, 2007). There is no habitat for this species; therefore, no specimens
were observed.
•
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

2-11
Watershed Characterization
Butternut -Butternut typically grows in rich mesophytic forests, lower slopes, ravines, and
various types of bottomland, including banks and terraces of creeks and streams, and floodplain
forests. This species achieves its best growth in well-drained bottomland and floodplain soils.
Butternut can grow up to 90 feet in height. It has grayish-brown bark with smooth ridges and
dark brown pith. Butternut generally forms leaflets of eleven to seventeen (NatureServe, 2007).
There is no habitat for this species; therefore, no specimens were observed.
Diana fritillary butterfly -The male fritillaries have atwo-tone brownish underside hindwing
with some silver along its margins with no silver spots, and solidly dark basal portion and almost
unmarked orange outer third of both wings above are diagnostic. Typically, females lack any
orange spots on the hindwing and have an extensive blue color on the hindwing. The forewings
are generally rows of white or bluish white spots. This butterfly inhabits forested or scrub-shrub
wetland areas within the riparian zones of drainages, wet meadows, or mixed deciduous forest
(NatureServe, 2007). Potential habitat for this species occurs within the wetland feature adjacent
to the project area; however, no specimens were observed during field surveys. Additionally, no
impacts are proposed to the wetland and, therefore, no impacts would occur to the species or its
preferred habitat.
Eastern small-footed bat -The eastern small-footed bat is the smallest member of the genus
Myotis in North America. Its two main distinguishing characteristics are a distinct black mask
across the face, and the tiny feet that average only approximately 0.5 inches in length. During the
summer, these bats are usually found in buildings, towers, hollow trees, beneath the loose bark of
trees, in crevices of cliffs, and beneath bridges. During winter, these colonial bats move into
caves and abandoned mines where they either hang individually or in small clusters of twenty-
five to thirty. Suitable habitat for this species does occur within the proposed project area.
However, since the project will be constructed during winter months, occurrence of the Eastern
small-footed bat is unlikely within the project area as no suitable hibernaculum exists within the
study area. As a result, this project is not likely to affect this species or its preferred habitat.
Fort Mountain sedge -Plants densely cespitose; rhizomes ascending, reddish brown to purplish
brown, 0 to 0.1 inches in size. The inflorescences usually have both staminate and pistillate
spikes. Fort Mountain sedge inhabits moist, rich slopes in deep soils with adequate moisture.
There is no habitat for this species; therefore, no specimens were observed.
Fraser's loosestrife -Fraser's loosestrife is an herbaceous perennial plant with erect stems
approximately three to five feet in height. Fraser's loosestrife has yellow terminal inflorescences
(flowers are grouped at the end of the main stem) and small leaves mixed with the flowers. The
inflorescence is made up of multiple racemes, with leaves of three to five. This plant is generally
found in wet areas such as alluvial meadows, moist stream and river banks, and flats along
streams, moist pastures, and roadside. In North Carolina, where Fraser's loosestrife is most
abundant, occurrence records are predominantly along roadsides. The plant also occurs in
wooded habitat including montane, oak-hickory forest, both with sparse and closed canopy
cover, and stream side rock outcrops (Radford et al. 1968). There is no habitat for this species;
therefore, no specimens were observed.
•
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

Page 2-12
Watershed Characterization
French Broad crayfish -The French broad crayfish is generally cylindrical in shape with
double stripes of reddish-blue down its dorsal abdomen. Its cervical spine is very strong. While
cephalic and brachiostegal spines are present, its marginal spines are absent (NatureServe, 2007).
There is no habitat for this species within the Lewis Creek restoration reach; therefore, it is
unlikely to occur within project area. Specialized aquatic surveys would be required to
definitively determine the presence/absence of this species.
French Broad heartleaf -French Broad heartleaf inhabits deciduous forests on sandy river
bluffs or on sandy soil in ravines. Common shrub and herbaceous layer associates include great
laurel (Rhododendron maximum), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), trailing arbutus (Epigaea
repens), and spotted wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata) (NatureServe, 2007). There is no
habitat for this species; therefore, no specimens were observed.
Gray's lily -Gray's lily has a stem approximately six feet in height with one to nine nodding
flowers. The leaves form whorls of five to eleven and are generally elliptic in shape. This lily
inhabits openings or balds in the mountains. There is no habitat for this species; therefore, no
specimens were observed.
Green salamander -The green salamander is a cliff dweller. This species can be found in
damp rock crevices that remain humid and are protected from the sun and direct rain
(NatureServe, 2007). There is no habitat for this species; therefore, no specimens were observed.
Hellbender -The hellbender can be found in mountain streams and rivers with large rocky
substrate, snags, or woody debris (USFWS, 2007). There is no habitat for this species within the
Lewis Creek restoration reach; therefore, it is unlikely to occur within project area. Specialized
aquatic surveys would be required to definitively determine the presence/absence of this species.
Large-flowered Barbara's buttons -This plant is found along the flood-scoured banks of
large, high-gradient streams in the central Appalachians. The species is also reported from rocky
lake shores, creek banks, bluffs and flood plains. It tends to occur in moist to wet sandy soil, in
sand/cobble alluvium or in bedrock crevices along rivers (NatureServe, 2007). There is no
habitat for this species; therefore, no specimens were observed.
Mountain blotched chub -The blotched chub can be found in medium to large clear streams in
moderate current with a substrate of cobble to gravel. There is no habitat for this species within
the Lewis Creek restoration reach; therefore, it is unlikely to occur within the project area.
Specialized aquatic surveys would be required to definitively determine the presence/absence of
this species.
Mountain catchfly -Mountain catchflies are perennial plants with creeping rhizome. The stems
are generally erect approximately twelve to sixty inches in height. The mountain catchfly is a
very distinctive species with large, ovate, acuminate, sessile, paired leaves, and very narrowly
lobed white petals. The flowers open at night and are moth-pollinated. Mountain catchflies
inhabit moist, rich slopes in deep soils with adequate moisture (NatureServe, 2007). There is no
habitat for this species; therefore, no specimens were observed.
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

Page 2-13
Watershed Characterization
Mountain heartleaf -Mountain heartleaf is a small plant found in the leaf litter of deciduous
forests with acidic soils, generally associated with mountain laurel and rhododendron. These
plants have small leathery petioled heart-shaped leaves without any hairs. There is no habitat for
this species; therefore, no specimens were observed.
Mountain sweet pitcherplant -Mountain sweet pitcherplant has hollow, tubular leaves with
heart-shaped hoods. The flower is erect, maroon in color and usually consists of one per stalk.
The plant is eight to twenty-eight inches in height. This plant inhabits bogs and streamsides on
granite rock faces along the Blue Ridge Divide (USFWS, 2007). There is no habitat for this
species; therefore, no specimens were observed.
New Jersey rush -New Jersey rush is usually found in very acidic, extremely wet spring or
seep areas with a stable source of flowing water, and without standing water. It occurs in open to
shaded streambanks, seepy pond margins, swales, pine barren savannas, and Atlantic white cedar
(Chamaecyparis thyoides) swamps, frequently within pine barrens. This plant is often associated
with sphagnum species (NatureServe, 2007). There is no habitat for this species; therefore, no
specimens were observed.
Oyster mussel -The oyster mussel is a small freshwater mussel approximately two inches in
height. Its outer shell surface has a dull to sub-shiny yellowish to green colored shell with
numerous narrow dark green rays. The shells of females are slightly inflated and quite thin and
fragile towards the shell's posterior margin. The inside shell surface is whitish to bluish-white in
color. The oyster mussel inhabits small to medium rivers in areas with coarse sand to boulder
substratum (rarely in mud) and moderate to swift currents. It is associated with water-willow
(Justicia americana) beds and in pockets of gravel between bedrock ledges in areas of swift
current (USFWS, 2007). There is no habitat for this species within the Lewis Creek restoration
reach; therefore, it is unlikely to occur within project area. Specialized aquatic surveys would be
required to definitively determine the presence/absence of this species. Relict mollusk shells
were not observed during field surveys.
Pygmy salamander -Pygmy salamander is one of the smallest salamander species and inhabits
spruce-fir forests and hardwood forests at lower elevations (in lower abundance). Hides under
moss, leaf litter, logs, bark on stumps, and rocks. The pygmy salamander spends winter in
underground seepages. Eggs are laid in underground cavities among rocks of spring seeps
(NatureServe, 2007). There is no habitat for this species; therefore, no specimens were observed.
Small whorled pogonia -Small whorled pogonia is a perennial with long, pubescent roots and a
smooth, hollow stem approximately four to ten inches in height. The leaves are elliptical and are
somewhat pointed. A flower, or occasionally two flowers, is produced at the top of the stem.
Flowering occurs from about mid-May to mid-June, with the flowers apparently lasting only a
few days to a week or so. Also, this plant doesn't necessarily flower annually. Usually only one
flower is produced per plant. This species is typically found in montane oak-hickory or acidic
cove forests. The understory structure and composition of occupied sites can be quite variable,
ranging from dense rhododendron thickets to open/sparse shrub and sub-shrub strata.
Herbaceous cover tends to be sparse, however at least two sites are characterized by fairly dense
stands of New York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis) (USFWS, 2007). There is no habitat for
this species; therefore, no specimens were observed.
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

Page 2-14
Watershed Characterization
Small-leaved meadow rue -The small-leaved meadow rue has compound leaves and clusters of
small white, yellowish, or purplish flowers. The flowers are small and apetalous (no petals), but
have numerous long stamens, often are produced in conspicuous dense inflorescences. This plant
is a tall perennial approximately seven feet in height. Meadow rues are found in moist, open
places throughout northern temperate regions; in the United States they are especially abundant
in the Northeast. There is no habitat for this species; therefore, no specimens were observed.
Southern Appalachian eastern woodrat -The southern Appalachian eastern woodrat occurs in
high elevation forests and rock ledges. This species is a subspecies of the Florida woodrat
(Neotoma floridana) and occurs less frequently. There is no habitat for this species; therefore,
no specimens were observed (NatureServe, 2007).
Swamp pink -Swamp pink has a basal rosette of leaves with ahollow-stemmed flower stalk
that can grow approximately eight to thirty-five inches in height during the flowering period. It
can also grow up to five feet in height during seed maturation. Swamp pink has small pink
flowers in a clustered of thirty to fifty at the tip of the stem. Swamp pink inhabits wetlands that
are saturated but not flooded, including southern Appalachian bogs and swamps.
This plant is commonly associated with some evergreens, including white cedar, pitch pine,
American larch, and black spruce (USFWS, 2007). There is no habitat for this species; therefore,
no specimens were observed.
Sweet pinesap -Sweet pinesap is an inconspicuous perennial saprophytic plant approximately
2.5 inches in height, nodding during early flowering and erect when mature. Its leaves and
flowers are variable in color ranging from purplish, pinkish, or brownish. Sweet pinesap inhabits
pine dominated forests and pine-oak heaths. The species is very small and seems to blend into
the adjacent pine forest floor which is covered with thousands of brown pine needles
(NatureServe, 2007). There is no habitat for this species; therefore, no specimens were observed.
Tennessee heelsplitter -The Tennessee heelsplitter occurs near riffles but may occur in
backwaters or pool-like habitats in shallow water of headwater streams with fine particle
substrates (e.g., sand, mud). This small to medium-sized freshwater mussel typically measures
less than 3.0 inches (76 mm) in length. The Tennessee heelsplitter is thin-shelled and somewhat
elongated in shape. The periostracum (outer shell surface) is a dull, greenish brown or yellow-
brown color in younger specimens and becomes dark brown with age. The outer surface of the
shell is roughened with numerous darkened lines. The nacre (internal layer of the shell) is bluish
white (GMNH, 2007). Suitable habitat for this species does occur within the proposed project
area. However, due to stringent use of BMP's implemented during construction, sedimentation
and erosion will be minimized. As a result of these practices, this project is not likely to affect
this species or its preferred habitat.
White fringeless orchid -White-fringeless orchid is a perennial herb with 2 to 3 stem leaves
along a strong central vein and distinctive white flower. White-fringeless orchid is found in red
maple-blackgum swamps along sandy, damp stream margins or seepy, rocky, thinly vegetated
slopes (USFWS, 2007). There is no habitat for this species; therefore, no specimens were
observed.
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

Page 2-15
Watershed Characterization
White irisette -White irisette grows in adichotomously-branching pattern. The plant is four to
eight inches in height and has basal leaves that are pale bluish-green in color. The flowers are
tiny and white with petals in a cluster of four to six at the ends of winged stems. The fruit is
round with approximately three to six seeds. White flowers and dichotomous branching pattern
distinguish it from similar species. This plant inhabits rich, basic soils probably weathered from
amphibolites, in clearings and the edges of upland woods where the canopy is thin and often
where down slope runoff has removed much of the deep litter layer ordinarily present on these
sites (USFWS, 2007). There is no habitat for this species; therefore, no specimens were
observed.
Yellow-bellied sapsucker -This bird inhabits deciduous or mixed deciduous-coniferous forest.
During the winter migration, these birds are also in a variety of forest and open woodland
habitats, parks, or orchards. The yellow-bellied sapsucker drills holes in coniferous and
deciduous trees and laps up sap and insects with its tongue. It also eats ants, wasps, mayflies,
moths, spruce budworms, and beetles, etc (NatureServe, 2007). There is no habitat for this
species; therefore, no specimens were observed.
2.5.2 Biological Conclusion
The proposed project consists of Restoration to Lewis Creek; therefore, all impacts associated
with this project will occur within the proposed easement. Field surveys were conducted in
January 2007 and no observations were made of any federally protected species; however,
suitable habitat occurs within the project area for two species of concern, the Tennessee
heelsplitter and the Eastern small-footed bat. However, since the project will be constructed
during winter months, occurrence of the Eastern small-footed bat is unlikely as no suitable
hibernaculum exists within the project area. Additionally, due to stringent use of BMP's
implemented during project construction, sedimentation and erosion will be minimized and
therefore, this project is not likely to affect the Tennessee heelsplitter or its preferred habitat.
Suitable habitat for forested wetland species (i.e., Diana fritillary butterfly) occurs adjacent to the
project area; however no impacts will occur to this habitat as it lies outside the proposed
disturbance boundaries. Therefore, this project is not likely to affect this species or its preferred
habitat.
2.5.3 Federal Designated Critical Habitat
2. S. 3.1 Habitat Description
The project area is not designated as Federal Critical Habitat. The project area has been
impacted from historic and current land use practices (agricultural).
2.5.3.2 Biological Conclusion
Since the project area has not been designated as Federal Critical Habitat, the project will
not have an affect on a critical habitat area.
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

Page 2-16
Watershed Characterization
2.5.4 USFWS Concurrence
Prior to the field survey, a letter was submitted to the USFWS North Carolina Ecological
Services field office requesting information regarding federally listed species with known
occurrences in Henderson County and the project vicinity. At this time, no response has been
issued from the USFWS.
2.6 Cultural Resources
Site Evaluation Methodology
A review of the National Register of Historic Places database (http://www.nr.nps.gov~ indicates
that there are no records of any historic places within the proposed project area. No known
archeological resources will be affected by the proposed project and no historic properties will be
affected. Should cultural resources be identified during construction, the USACE and State
Historic Preservation Officer would be contacted.
Field Evaluation
Potential for Historic Architectural Resources
Impacts to any historical structures are not anticipated as a result of the construction of this
M project. There is a low probability of intact architectural resources occurring within the project
area and no standing structures over 50 years old were observed during surveys.
As a result of the history of disturbance on the project reach due to channelization and
agricultural practices, it is unlikely that disturbances resulting from temporary construction
access and channel work would result in impacts to potential areas of archaeological
significance. No archeological artifacts have been observed or noted during preliminary surveys
of the site for restoration purposes.
SHPO/THPO Concurrence
A letter was submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding the cultural
resource information; and a written response was received which requested that an
archaeological survey be performed. A Phase 1 comprehensive archaeological survey was
conducted to identify and evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that could possibly
be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. EEP is currently awaiting the results from the
survey and SHPO's approval is pending. The submitted letter and response letter can be seen in
the Lewis Creek ERTR (JJG, 2007).
There are no other compliance issues known at this time.
•
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

2-17
Watershed Characterization
2.7 Potential Constraints
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with NCEEP and various state
and federal agencies, has developed environmental screening and documentation guidelines for
NCEEP projects to be processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE). The CE was prepared and
approved as a part of the Environmental Resources Technical Report (ERTR) (JJG, 2007).
The CE confirmed that the site has not been designated as Federal Critical Habitat; therefore, the
project will not have an effect on any endangered species or habitat.
In regards to the Farm Practices Protection Act (FPPA), the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (MRCS) has determined that the Lewis Creek project area contains prime farmland soils.
The USDA was contacted and a completed AD-1006 (Farmland Conversion Impact Rating)
Form was submitted to the NRCS for review. This documentation allows the project to comply
with the FPPA (JJG, 2007).
There is not expected to be any constraints due to the finding of archaeological remains on the
project site but this will not be determined until after the survey is performed. EEP has informed
JJG to proceed with the restoration design as if there weren't any issues with SHPO.
2.7.1 Property Ownership and Boundary
The parcels that the proposed Lewis Creek restoration project will occur on are owned by the
CMLC, Mark Searles, and the Ingle family. Restoration will occur within conservation easement
limits maintained by the EEP.
2.7.2 Site Access
Access will occur through an easement donated by Mark Searles off of N. Ridge Road at the
upstream end of the project. Please refer to Section 5.8 for a summary of proposed access.
2.7.3 Utilities
There are no utilities or utility easements within the project site.
2.7.4 FEMA Hydrological Trespass
A FEMA FIRM map (effective date March 1, 1982) has been obtained for the project area.
According to the FEMA 100-year floodplain, approximately all of the project conservation
easement is in the floodplain. The site is located within a FEMA Zone A. Zone A is the flood
insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1-percent annual chance floodplains that are
determined in the Flood Insurance Study by approximate methods of analysis. Because detailed
hydraulic analyses are not performed for such areas, no Base Flood Elevations or depths are
shown within this zone. A hydraulic model (HEC-RAS) has been produced to determine the
possible flooding effects due to proposed topographic changes that would be associated with
restoring the stream. The model indicates that there will not be a rise in the water surface
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

Paee 2-18
Watershed Characterization
elevation for the 100-year floodplain due to the proposed conditions. The EEP Floodplain
Checklist will be submitted to the Henderson County LFPA, EEP, and FEMA. A No-Rise
Certification will be completed if necessary to verify that the project will not increase water
surface elevations. The restoration of Lewis Creek is not anticipated to produce hydrological
trespass conditions on the project site.
•
•
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

•
J ~ Jordan
Jones e
Goulding
0~-O~t78
SECTION 3
PROJECT SITE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
•
•
Lewis Creek
Restoration Plan
Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
December 2007

SECTION 3
PROJECT SITE STREAMS (EXISTING CONDITIONS)
Existing conditions within the project reach indicate a trend toward departure from a stable
system due to various land use activities. Lewis Creek is slightly incised and appears to have
been modified or straightened in the past. The channel is no longer connected to its floodplain,
due to channel incision and levees built on the right top of bank (terrace). The reach has actively
eroding, unstable banks with areas of mass wasting, bank slumping, and sediment deposition
evident throughout the project reach. Many trees have fallen into the stream due to the
streambank erosion and instability. In some areas, excess sediment from the eroding banks has
deposited within the stream and covered the native substrate. These sediment deposits have
likely reduced in-stream habitat for fish and macroinvertebrates. In certain areas, the sediment
has formed sandbars, and these sandbars, as well as the fallen trees, tend to re-direct the stream
flow into the banks exacerbating potential erosion. The substrate throughout the project appears
to be dominated by fine sand with isolated areas of gravel and cobble substrate.
Several active beaver dams were observed throughout the project reach. Overall, the instability
of the stream is contributing to stream bank loss, increased sedimentation, and less viable
biological habitat.
3.1 Channel Classification
Lewis Creek was classified using the Rosgen stream classification system, based on surveyed
morphological measurements (Rosgen, 1996).
The existing surveyed reach of Lewis Creek was classified as an ES/C5. Typically, ES stream
types are riffle/pool systems, exhibit low channel W/D ratios and display moderate channel
sinuosities, which result in the high meander width ratio values. ES channels exhibit
predominantly sand-sized bed substrates, with channel slopes usually less than 2% (Rosgen,
1996). By and large, ES channel streambanks are composed of materials finer than that of the
dominant channel bed materials. These finer streambank materials are usually stabilized with
extensive riparian or wetland vegetation that forms densely rooted sod mats from grasses,
sedges, and rushes, as well as woody species (Rosgen, 1996). These channels are considered
hydraulically efficient maintaining a high sediment transport capacity. ES stream channels are
very stable streams but can become vulnerable to erosion if streambanks are disturbed, and/or
significant changes in sediment supply and streamflow occur. The CS designation was added to
the stream classification because the project reach of Lewis Creek has a lower sinuosity that
resembles more of a C- type channel than an E-type channel.
3.2 Discharge (bankfull, trends)
Using USGS rural regression equations for North Carolina's Blue Ridge Piedmont hydrologic
area (2001), peak flows for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50- and 100-year storms were calculated for
Lewis Creek to determine the existing discharges.
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

Page 3-2
Project Site Streams (Existing Conditions)
The peak flows for the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50- and 100-year storms were also modeled using
Hydrologic Engineering Centers River Analysis System (HEC-RAS). Table 3.1 presents the
estimated discharges calculated for Lewis Creek. Atypical cross-section for Lewis Creek was
modeled in HEC-RAS to determine bankfull discharge (the water surface at which flow reached
the bankfull indicator) (Table 3.2). Refer to Section 3.5 for information on regional curve
bankfull discharge and crest gauge results.
Table 3.1
Peak Discharges (Q) from Regression Equations
Reach Q2 (cfs) Q5 (cfs) Q10 (cfs) Q25 (cfs) Q50 (cfs) Q100 (cfs)
Lewis Creek 357 619 836 1164 1452 1772
Table 3.2
Bankfull Discharge (Qbkf) from HEC-RAS
Reach Qbkf -Calculated (cfs)
Lewis Creek 140
3.3 Channel Morphology (pattern, dimension, profile)
Existing stream morphological conditions for Lewis Creek are summarized in Table 3.3.
Additional morphological data is provided in Appendix 9. All geomorphic assessments (cross-
section, longitudinal, and pebble counts) were performed following guidelines outlined in Stream
Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994). A
topographic survey of the project site was completed by R.J. Harris. The survey consisted of
collecting detailed data for all stream and floodplain areas and the location of trees within the
established conservation easement.
Currently, Lewis Creek is deeply incised (Bank Height Ratio of 1.53 to 1.79) with highly erosive
and unstable banks. The channel has down-cut and widened over the course of time in some
areas. Lateral stability varies depending upon tree rooting and existing rocks within the soil.
There are a number of large trees along the bank that provide good bank protection and appear
stable. Channel widening and lack of stability have affected the stream pattern. The channel
pattern is slightly sinuous (1.11) within the restoration project limits. The right top of bank
significantly increases towards the middle of the project reach where a berm has been built on
the top of bank (terrace).
The cross-sectional area for Lewis Creek ranges from 51.41-55.22 ft2. The W/D ratio (8.25-
11.51) ofthe existing channel is low, which is typical for an E-type channel. The average water
surface slope of project reach is 0.0030 ft/ft. The low slope and in-stream bank failure are
factors in the high sediment deposition rate occurring within the channel. Typically, upstream
bank failure leads to downstream aggradation. These areas of aggradation are also indicating a
shift in stream bed form; some of the areas where riffles are expected are flat, filled with
sediment, and evolving into runs. Lewis Creek is characterized by a mean riffle and pool D50 of
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

Page 3-3
Project Site Streams (Existing Conditions)
0.28 millimeters (mm), indicating a channel substrate dominated by sand-sized particles. The
stream was probably once characterized by a gravel and cobble substrate before land disturbance
activities and instability of the streambanks shifted the substrate to a sandy substrate.
Table 3.3
Existin Mor holo
•
•
Main Reach
Parameter MIN MAX
General Draina a Area s mi 4
Stream T e Ros en ES/CS
Valle T e VIII
Dimension BKF Mean Veloci Vbk ft/s 2.72 2.54
Bankfull Dischar e Qb cfs 140*
Bankfull XSEC Area, Abkf s ft , n=3 51.41 55.22
Bankfull Width, Wbkf ft , n=3 21.11 25.21
Bankfull Mean De th, dbkf ft , n=3 2.12 2.56
Width to De th Ratio, W/D ft/ft , n=3 8.25 11.51
Width Flood rone Area, Wf a ft >100
Entrenchment Ratio, Wf a/Wbk ft/ft , n=6 >2.2
Max De th bkf, Dmax ft , n=3 3.55 4.58
Max De th Ratio, Dmax/dbkf, n=3 1.67 1.79
Max De th tob, Dmaxtob ft , n~ 6.34 7.2
Bank Hei ht Ratio, Dtob/Dmax ft/ft , n=3 1.53 1.79
Pool Max De th, Dmax ool ft , n=3 3.48 4.72
Pool Max De th Ratio, Dmax ool/dbkf, n=3 1.64 1.84
Pool Area, A ool ft , n=3 50.81 57.88
Pool Area Ratio, A ool/Abkf, n=3 12.26 14.6
Pool Width, W ool ft , n=3 16.73 29.52
Pool Width Ratio, W ool/Wbkf, n=3 0.79 1.17
Pool Len th, L ool ft , n=19 6.9 294.11
Pool Len th Ratio, L of/Wbkf, n=19 0.33 13.93
Pool-Pool S acin , L s ft, n=16 35.6 84.58
Pool-Pool S acin Ratio, L s/Wbkf, n=16 1.69 4.01
Pattern Meander Len th, Lm ft , n=26 43 163
Meander Len th Ratio, Lm/Wbkf, n=26 2.04 6.47
Radius of Curvature, Rc ft , n=29 14.37 69.28
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf, n=29 0.68 2.75
Belt Width, Wblt ft , n=26 22 51
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf ft , n=26 1.04 2.02
Sinuosi , K 1. 11
Profile Valle Slo e, Sval ft/ft 0.0033
Channel Slo e, Schan ft/ft 0.003
Slo e Riffle, Srif ft/ft , n=9 0 0.022
Riffle Slo e Ratio, Srif/Schan, n=9 0 7.32
Riffle Len th, Rlen th (ft , n~ 7.64 21.5
Riffle Len th Ratio, Rlen th/Wbkf, n~ 0.36 1.02
Slo e Pool, S ool (ftlft , n=19 0 0.0058
Pool Slo e Ratio, S ool/Schan, n=19 0 1.93
Slo a Run, Srun ft/ft , n=16 0 0.0094
Run Slo a Ratio, Srun/Schan, n=16 0 3.13
Substrate Ri e Pool
d 16 (mm 0.07 0.10
d35 mm 0.16 0.18
d50 mm 0.28 0.28
d84 (mm) 9.10 0.95
d95 mm 16.00 10.28
Cells noted with a * with a were calculated usin HEC-RAS, n=number of data oints.
Lewis Creek
Restoration Plan
Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
December 2007

Page 3-4
Project Site Streams (Existing Conditions)
3.4 Channel Stability Assessment
3.4.1 Channel Evolution
Any change within and around a channel typically results in a period of instability and
adjustments to re-establish a state of dynamic equilibrium with the sediment load and discharge
of the stream (Leopold et al., 1992, Simon, 1989, and Rosgen, 2004a). The sequence of
adjustments that a channel undergoes can be predicted using Simon's (1989) conceptual
evolution model. Determining the stream type evolution can be predicted using Rosgen's
(2006a) successional stages of channel evolution.
Simon's (1989) model predicts that following some type of disturbance, such as straightening or
channelization, degradation occurs, resulting in an incised channel with vertical banks. When
critical bank heights of a channel are exceeded, extensive bank failure and mass wasting occurs
beginning the widening stage of the channel evolution process (Simon, 1989). As the widening
and bank failure continue upstream, aggradation will occur downstream. The final stage of the
channel evolution process results in the development of a new channel within the alluvium
deposits downstream. The new channel is now at a lower elevation and typically has similar
dimension and pattern to that of the pre-modified channel (Simon, 1989). Rosgen (2006a)
describes nine different stream type channel evolution scenarios to assist the observer in
determining the appropriate stage and evolution direction of a stream.
i The process for a channel to naturally evolve through these stages to re-establish a state of
dynamic equilibrium typically occurs over a long period of time depending upon channel inputs
and channel substrate characteristics (10's to 1000's of years). This evolution can result in
excessive stream bank erosion rates, which is a major cause of non-point source pollution
(Rosgen, 2001). Using the stream evolution prediction models, the current trends in a disturbed
stream can be identified, and the direction in which the stream is moving can be predicted. The
current and future stage of evolution of a stream should be assessed before selecting appropriate
restoration action to undertake. For this study, both concepts were applied to Lewis Creek to
assess current conditions and provide guidance for future trends.
According to Rosgen's stream channel succession scenarios, (Rosgen, 2006b), Lewis Creek
generally falls under Scenario 1 and 5, which follows the stream type evolution from
E~C~Gc~F~C~E or E~Gc-~F~C~E, respectively. Using Simon's conceptual channel
evolution model, Lewis Creek is in two different stages within the project limits. The upper
reach, which is upstream of the drainage seep from the CMLC wetland, appears to be in the later
part of stage IV; degradation and widening. The lower reach of Lewis Creek, downstream of the
wetland drainage, appears to be approaching stage VI, where the stream is reaching a state of
dynamic equilibrium.
•
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

Page 3-5
Project Site Streams (Existing Conditions)
3.4.2 Stream Bed and Bank Stability
Stream bed and bank composition provide indicators for changes in channel form, hydraulics,
erosion rate and sediment supply (Doll et al., 2003). Streambank erosion rate (lateral erosion
rate) and sediment supply (tons/yr) is a very important variable in the river stability assessment.
One consequence of a disturbed stream is streambank erosion and associated land-loss and
sediment supply to the system. Extensive streambank erosion rates tend to create a loss of in-
stream habitats, leaving a homogenized environment due to extensive sedimentation (Waters,
1995 and Brooks et al., 2002).
Rosgen (2001) developed a channel stability assessment using the channel dimension
relationships, river profile and bed features, vertical stability (degradation/aggradation), lateral
stability, degree of confinement, degree of incision, channel enlargement, channel evolution, and
near bank velocity stresses along the channel. Two prediction methodologies are used in
Rosgen's channel stability assessment to determine the potential for bank erosion: Bank
Erodibility Hazard Index (BEHI) and Near-Bank Stress (NBS). BEHI assesses the physical
properties of the streambank to determine the possible sources of bank instability, such as
removal of vegetation, livestock access, high bank height ratios, bank angle, lack of vegetative or
rock surface protection, and poor, non-cohesive bank/soil material type. The second factor in
channel stability assessment is NBS, which assesses the bank with respect to the stress associated
with the velocity in that portion of the channel. Using these methodologies, the expected annual
sediment load produced from a stream system is estimated. The second factor in channel
stability assessment is NBS, which assesses the bank with respect to the stress associated with
the velocity in that portion of the channel. Using these methodologies, the expected annual
sediment load produced from a stream system is estimated.
Tables 3.4 and 3.5 summarize the BEHI/NBS results and sediment export estimates for Lewis
Creek within the project study area. Both the left and right sides of bank on Lewis Creek are
showing signs of instability. Visual indicators such as vertical, bare banks and the results from
the BEHI analysis indicate that areas along the right bank appear to be eroding at a much faster
rate than the left bank. This instability could be due to historic channelization and the levee that
was built along the north side of Lewis Creek. Straightening a stream channel typically results in
an increase in slope, which increases velocity resulting in potential down-cutting and incision.
Unnatural levees can inhibit the stream to spread its water onto the floodplain during flooding
events, leading to channel instability. In conclusion, Lewis Creek is contributing a large amount
of sediment from within the stream channel. Refer to Appendix 9 for BEHI/NBS raw data tables
and calculations.
•
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

Paae 3-6
Project Site Streams (Existing Conditions)
Table 3.4
BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates for Project Site Stream

Reach
Bank Linear
Foota a
Extreme
Ver Hi h
Hi h
Moderate
Low
Ver Low Sediment.
Ex ort*
ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % Tons/ r
Left 1,005 0 N/A 15 1 209 21 246 25 535 53 0 N/A 20.5
Lewis Creek Ri ht 1,018 79 8 132 13 110 11 271 26 426 42 0 N/A 113
Project Total 2,023 79 4 147 7 319 16 517 25 961 48 0 N/A 133.5
*Sediment export estimates were calculated as follows (ft'/yr): (Section Length*Bank Height*Erosion Rate (ft/yr)) and converted to tons/yeaz as follows:
ft'/ r * 1 d'/27 ft' * 1.8 tons/ d' .
Table 3.5
Near Bank Stress Estimates for Project Site Stream
•

Reach
Bank Linear
Foota a
.Extreme
Ver Hi h
Hi h
Moderate
Low
Ver Low
ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % ft
i
C
k Left 1,005 0 N/A 15 1 189 19 181 18 620 62 0 N/A
Lew
s
ree Ri ht 1,018 0 N/A 0 N/A 202 20 202 20 614 60 0 N/A
Project Total 2,023 0 NA 15 1 391 19 383 19 1,234 61 0 NA
3.5 Bankfull Verification
Visual bankfull indicators were difficult to identify in the field because the existing channel of
Lewis Creek is incised. Within the existing main channel, below the project reach, the channel
appears stable and has developed a bankfull bench within the incised channel. JJG used the
cross-sectional area from this section as a reference for determining bankfull within the project
site. Refer to Appendix 9 for the on-site reference cross-section morphological measurements.
A typical cross-section for Lewis Creek was modeled in HEC-RAS to determine bankfull
discharge (the water surface at which flow reached the bankfull indicator). The calculated
discharge was compared to the North Carolina Regional Curves for Rural Mountain streams.
The calculated bankfull discharge for Lewis Creek is lower than the regional curves associated
with the drainage area predicted. A possible reason for the calculated discharge being lower than
the predicted discharge on Lewis Creek could be due to the low gradient of the stream (0.0030
ft/ft). Table 3.6 illustrates calculated and predicted bankfull discharges for Lewis Creek.
Table 3.6
Existing Bankfull Discharge (Qbkf)
•
Reach Drainage Area (sq miles) Qbkf -Calculated (cfs) Qbkf-Regional Curve (cfs)
Lewis Creek 4 140 289
Lewis Creek
Restoration Plan
Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
December 2007

3-7
Project Site Streams (Existing Conditions)
Near the end of the project reach along the main channel of Lewis Creek acrest-gauge was
installed to record high stage during storm events. The crest-gauge was installed to assist in
verifying that a bankfull discharge or greater is occurring within the project reach. This device is
used to make a quick estimate of the highest gauge height the stream reached during a storm.
At least one recorded bankfull event occurred during the month of August with a high water
mark on the crest-gauge just above the bankfull elevation.
3.6 Vegetation
The project site appears to be located within an intermediate zone which exhibits both
characteristics of a Montane Alluvial Forest and aPiedmont /Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
community. According to Schafale and Weakly (1990) many of "these" intermediate areas exist
within the French Broad River Basin. "These" intermediate areas typically lack dominant
vegetation, such as sweet-gum (Liquidambar styracijlua), box elder (Ater negundo), green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm (Ulmus americana), and winged elm (Ulmus alata),
found in a Piedmont /Low Mountain Alluvial Forest community, and eastern hemlock (Tsuga
Canadensis) and Yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) found in a Montane Alluvial Forest. In
addition, portions of the Lewis Creek flood plain consist of Toxaway a silt loam which is more
characteristic of a Montane Alluvial Forest. However, the climate and hydrology (i.e., average
rainfall and flood frequencies) within the Lewis Creek watershed are more indicative of a
Piedmont /Low Mountain Alluvial Forest and/or communities located within the lower
elevations.
On the side of the stream not associated with CMLC land, the conservation easement extends 30
feet from the proposed top of bank. The CMLC is flexible in granting the easement on their side
of Lewis Creek and it will be a minimum of 30 feet from the proposed top of bank. The narrow
riparian area that immediately surrounds the stream consists of the following dominant species:
river birch (Betula nigra), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), black cherry (Prunus serotina),
black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), sumac (Rhus glabra), alder (Alnus glutinosa), black willow
(Salix nigra), and silky dogwood (Cornus amomum). Several invasive species including reed
canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), multiflora rose (Rosa multijlora), and Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) occur throughout the project area and are dominant in several
areas along the right streambank of Lewis Creek within the project area. The adjacent CMLC
property consists of an approximate 10-acre wetland area and a replanted riparian area.
Replanted trees have protective tubes on them, and most trees are less than 24-inches in height.
The CMLC property extends to the southwest. The Ingle's property located on the northeast side
of the stream consists of open and planted areas. There is a large planted area consisting of river
birch ranging from 4 to 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH).
•
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

J ~ Jordan
Jones ~
Goulding
SECTION 4
REFERENCE STREAMS

•
Lewis Creek
Restoration Plan
Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
December 2007

• SECTION 4
REFERENCE STREAMS
After multiple attempts searching for an ES/CS type reference stream, JJG concluded that no
local reference reaches were available. JJG assessed stream reaches within the watershed and
walked several miles of streams in the area and segments of Lewis Creek upstream and
downstream of the project reach, but none of them appeared stable for a linear footage equal to
20 bankfull widths. All the potential reference sites JJG identified were ruled out due to
incompatible parameters or instability.
JJG used collected data from a site located in Haywood County, North Carolina with similar
physiographic conditions, valley type, topography, and stream type as Lewis Creek. The site
was obtained from the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Reference Reach
Database (http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/highway/hydro/Stream/).
The following reference reach site was selected.
^ Raccoon Creek: Located in Haywood County, North Carolina is an ES stream type
(NCDOT Stream ID 42).
4.1 Watershed Characterization
Raccoon Creek is located in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province. The reference reach site
consists of steep to strongly sloping upland ridges near headwater streams to gently sloping to
broad, flat areas along the floodplain. According to the Generalized Geologic Map of North
Carolina, the Racoon Creek reference reach site is underlain by sedimentary and metamorphic
rocks of the High Mountains of the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province, respectively (NCGS,
1991).
Raccoon Creek is situated in Haywood County, North Carolina, east of the City of Waynesville.
The surveyed reference reach is located within the French Broad River Basin, USGS Hydrologic
Unit 06010106, subbasin 04-03-05. Raccoon Creek is a third order stream with an approximate
drainage area of 2.9 square miles.
Refer to Figure 4.1 for a site location map and Figure 4.2 for a watershed map of Raccoon Creek.
4.2 Channel Classification
The Raccoon Creek reference reach was classified as an ES stream type using the Rosgen stream
classification system based on surveyed morphological measurements (Rosgen, 1996).
Typically, ES stream types are riffle/pool systems, exhibit low channel W/D ratios and display
moderate channel sinuosities, which result in the high meander width ratio values. ES channels
exhibit predominantly sand-sized bed substrates, with channel slopes usually less than 2%
(Rosgen, 1996).
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

Page 4-2
Reference Streams
By and large, ES channel streambanks are composed of materials finer than that of the dominant
channel bed materials. These finer streambank materials are usually stabilized with extensive
riparian or wetland vegetation that forms densely rooted sod mats from grasses, sedges, and
rushes, as well as woody species (Rosgen, 1996). These channels are considered hydraulically
efficient maintaining a high sediment transport capacity. ES stream channels are very stable
streams but can become vulnerable to erosion if streambanks are disturbed, and/or significant
changes in sediment supply and streamflow occur.
4.3 Discharge (bankfull, trends)
The bankfull cross-sectional area and velocity were previously determined and reported in the
NCDOT Reference Reach Database. Table 4.1 presents the bankfull discharge estimated using
regional curves developed by North Carolina State University Stream Restoration Institute
(Harman, et al., 1999) and the calculated discharge from the NCDOT database.
Table 4.1
Reference Bankfull Discharge (Qbkf)
Reach Drainage Area
(sq miles) Qbkf -NCDOT (cfs) Qbkf-Regional Curve (cfs)
Raccoon Creek 2.9 131 192
4.4 Channel Mor holo attern dimension rofile
P gY~P ~ ~P )
Table 4.2 summarizes the results from the reference reach survey reported in the NCDOT
Database.
4.5 Channel Stability Assessment
Personal communication with Ronald Morris (2007) of the Waynesville USDA Service Center
who performed the survey for the NCDOT database informed JJG that the reference reach was
stable at the time of the survey and did not illustrate any signs of lateral or vertical instability.
Morris also stated that the stream bed features were stable and did not show signs of migration.
The sediment deposition appeared to be normal for the stream type; no heavy sediment
deposition or degradation was occurring.
4.6 Bankfull Verification
Bankfull cross-sectional area, discharge and velocity were previously determined and reported in
the (NCDOT) Reference Reach Database and the bankfull discharges can be seen above in Table
4.1.
•
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

4-3
Reference Streams
•
•
s
Table 4.2
Reference Reach Morphology
Raccoon Creek
Parameter MIN MAX
General Draina a Area s mi 2.9
Stream T e Ros en ES
Valle T e VIII
Dimension BKF Mean Veloci Vbk ft/s 5.5
Bankfull Dischar e Qb 131
Bankfull XSEC Area, Abkf s ft 23.74 23.76
Bankfull Width, Wbkf (ft 15.44 15.9
Bankfull Mean De th, dbkf ft 1.49 1.54
Width to De th Ratio, W/D ft/ft 10.03 10.67
Width Flood rove Area, Wf a ft 100 100
Entrenchment Ratio, Wf a/Wbk ft/ft 6.29 6.48
Max De th bkf, Dmax ft 2.40 2.7
Max De th Ratio, Dmax/dbkf 1.61 1.75
Max De th tob, Dmaxtob ft 3.00 3.38
Bank Hei ht Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft 1.25 1.25
Pool Max De th, Dmax ool ft 3.25 3.7
Pool Max De th Ratio, Dmax ool/dbkf 2.18 2.40
Pool Area, A ool s ft 29.39 31.99
Pool Area Ratio, A ool/Abkf 1.24 1.35
Pool Width, W ool ft 14.70 16.31
Pool Width Ratio, W ool/Wbkf 0.95 1.03
Pool Len th, L ool ft - -
Pool Len th Ratio, L ol/Wbkf - -
Pool-Pool S acin , L s ft 42.00 163.00
Pool-Pool S acin Ratio, L s/Wbkf 2.68 10.4
Pattern Meander Len th, Lm ft 30.00 84
Meander Len th Ratio, Lm/Wbkf 1.91 5.36
Radius of Curvature, Rc ft 8.50 15.8
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf 0.54 1.01
Belt Width, Wblt ft 52
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft 3.32
Sinuosi , K 1.3
Profile Valle Slo e, Sval ft/ft 0.014
Channel Slo e, Schan ft/ft 0.0109
Slo e Riffle, Srif ft/ft 0.019
Riffle Slo e Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.74
Riffle Len th, Rlen th ft - -
Riffle Len th Ratio, Rlen th/Wbkf - -
Slo e Pool, S ool ft1ft 0.0003 0.006
Pool Slo a Ratio, S ool/Schan 0.03 0.55
Slo e Run, Srun (ft/ft 0.036
Run Slo e Ratio, Srun/Schan 3.30
Slo e Glide, S Tide (ft/ft 0.003
Glide Slo e Ratio, S lide/Schan 0.28
Substrate Reachwide
d16 0.12
d35 0.30
d50 0.75
d84 64.00
d95 150.00
Lewis Creek
Restoration Plan
Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
December 2007

Page 4-4
Reference Streams
4.7 Vegetation
Reference vegetative communities must be established for stream restoration sites. Streambank,
riparian, and floodplain restoration should be based on reference areas found within close
proximity of the project site and should be based on initial riparian assessments of the proposed
restoration area. Reference vegetative communities are areas on which to model restoration
efforts of the restoration site in relation to soils, topography, hydrology, and vegetation.
Reference sites should represent pre-disturbed conditions and be as pristine as possible (i.e.,
undisturbed areas which are free of exotic vegetation).
Reference vegetative surveys were conducted along the existing onsite channels by JJG
ecologists. The survey was used to guide plant community restoration that is presented in
Section 5.7). In general, riparian areas along the left bank of the middle to lower reaches of the
Lewis Creek Restoration project share characteristics of both a Montane Alluvial Forest and a
Piedmont /Low Mountain Alluvial Forest community (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). These
community types display the following characteristics.
Soils: Resembles mostly that of a Montane Alluvial Forest -Likely series include
Toxaway (Cumulic Humaquept), Rosman (Fluventic Haplumbrept), and Tusquitee
(Humic Hapludult).
^ Hydrology: Resembles mostly that of a Piedm opt /Low Mountain Alluvial Forest -
Palustrine, seasonally or intermittently flooded.
Vegetation: Displays features of a Montane Alluvial Forests and aPiedmont /Low
Mountain Alluvial Forest.
Montane Alluvial Forests - Canopy a mixture of bottomland and mesophytic tree species,
usually Eastern hemlock and sycamore, but also yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis),
white oak (Quercus alba), red maple, tulip poplar, and river birch. Typical understory
species are ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), American witchhazel (Hamamelis
virginiana), and black willow. The most typical shrubs are Great Laurel (Rhododendron
maximum), alder, and fetterbush (Leucothoe fontanesiana).
Piedmont /Low Mountain Alluvial Forest - Canopy a mixture of bottomland and
mesophytic trees, including river birch, sycamore, sweet-gum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
tulip poplar, American elm (Ulmus Americana), sugar berry (Celtis laevigata), black
walnut (Juglans nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), bitternut hickory (Carya
cordiformis), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), shingle oak (Quercus imbricaria), red
maple, and in the west, white ash (Fraxinus Americana) and Carolina silverbell (Halesia
tetraptera). Understory trees include box elder (Ater negundo), Florida maple (Ater
floridanum), red maple, Pawpaw (Asimina triloba), American holly (Ilex opaca), and
ironwood. Shrubs may include spicebush (Lindera benzoin), strawberry bush (Evonymus)
americana, painted buckeye (Aesculus sylvatica), redtwig doghobble (Leucothoe
recurva), beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), and silky dogwood (Corpus amomum).
•
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

J ~ Jordan
Jones a
Goulding
SECTION 5
PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

• SECTION 5
PROJECT SITE RESTORATION PLAN
5.1 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives
The following goals have been established for the Lewis Creek Stream Restoration project and
will be met by restoring Lewis Creek.
^ Restore a natural, stable dimension, pattern and profile along Lewis Creek using natural
channel design techniques.
^ Stabilize and protect degraded or vulnerable streambanks along Lewis Creek to reduce
sediment loading and loss of land.
^ Enhance floodplain connection along Lewis Creek.
^ Establish a bankfull bench along Lewis Creek to reduce velocity and shear stress associated
with bankfull and higher storm flows.
^ Introduce a natural meander pattern along Lewis Creek.
^ Improve aquatic and riparian habitat for macroinvertebrate and fish communities.
This project is located in a local watershed planning area (LWP). The LWP was developed by
the Mud Creek Watershed Restoration Council with assistance from EEP and the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Some of the goals included in the LWP that will be met by
the Lewis Creek Stream Restoration Project are to reduce nonpoint source pollution (sediment
and nutrient loading) and improve habitat degradation.
5.1.1 Designed Channel Classification
Field observations and analysis determined that the mitigation effort will consist of Restoration.
Since the streambed elevation cannot be raised due to the existing upstream and downstream
bridges, the restoration effort will "tie-in" to the existing channel elevation at the upstream and
downstream ends of the project reach. The restoration plan for Lewis Creek includes the
following objectives:
^ Restoring approximately 1,7501inear feet of Lewis Creek.
^ Restoration efforts will consist of constructing an appropriately sized channel for the existing
watershed and sediment load within a new naturally sinuous pattern.
^ The project will include establishing a floodplain at an appropriate elevation for the current
stream bed, creating bankfull benches, stabilizing streambanks, and grading back bank
slopes.
^ The streambanks and riparian zone will be replanted using native species appropriate to the
area.
•
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

5-2
Project Site Restoration Plan
A jurisdictional determination has not been conducted on the area; however, the wetland on the
CMLC side has been previously delineated (however not surveyed). Based on professional
judgment, the wetland is clearly jurisdictional. There will be no impacts to the existing wetlands
due to the proposed project.
The mitigation effort for Lewis Creek was determined to be restoration, using a Priority Leve12
approach. Stream dimension, pattern and profile have been designed so the new stream will
maintain stability while conveying its watershed's runoff and transporting its sediment load. The
proposed stream was designed as an E/C channel, which are typically stable. Most of the design
parameters are associated with an E channel but the pattern measurements resemble a C type
stream. Anew meander pattern will be introduced into the proposed channel to mimic the
natural sinuosity pattern and establish riffle/pool sequences that occur in typical naturally stable
streams. Ratios of radius of curvature to bankfull width are designed to be 2.0 to 3.0, which
provide a moderate to very low potential for bank erosion to occur.
The meandering will also allow the stream to dissipate energy and decrease shear stress. Typical
riffle and pool cross-sections have been designed and will include a bankfull bench floodplain.
The designed channel will provide a stable bedform found in ES/CS streams with riffle, run,
pool, and glide features and will also improve in-stream habitat for macroinvertebrates. Root
Wad/Log Vane J-Hook Combo structures will be installed on the outside bends of meanders to
protect the streambanks while vegetation is established and to provide habitat. Rock cross-vanes
will be used at the upstream and downstream ends of the project to center stream flow to the
middle of the channel and to provide grade-control. The rock cross-vane at the upstream end of
the project will also be used to remove the mid-channel sand bar in the middle of the channel that
is contributing to the stream's instability. They're will be a rock cross-vane at the downstream
end of the project to smoothly transition the flow of the restored reach back into the existing
channel of Lewis Creek.
The proposed grading of the Lewis Creek project reach typically will include a 10 foot bench on
outside meander bends grading up to existing grade at a 2:1 slope. On inside meander bends, the
ground will be graded out to tie into outside meander bend grading so the water can flow down
valley during larger storm events.
All the restoration work will occur within the conservation easement limits. The streambanks
and riparian zone will be replanted using native species appropriate to the area. Some of this
material will be harvested from the existing channel. Additionally, the Ingle property contains
several large river birches (Betula nigra) that are available for transplanting.
The designed dimensions were based on a combination of the dimensionless ratios from the
reference reach Raccoon Branch, the NC Regional Curve for Rural Mountain Streams, Rosgen's
stable reference reach data ranges (Rosgen, 2004a), and existing conditions.
Refer to Design Sheets in Section 9 for a more detailed plan of the stream restoration site, and
Table 5.1 for the design values and dimensionless ratios. Components of this restoration plan
may be modified based on construction and access constraints.
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

Page 5-3
Project Site Restoration Plan
•
•
•
Table 5.1
Design Values for Proposed Conditions
F.~os ' Stream Reference Reach Des' n Stream
Parameter MIlV MAX MIN MAX MIN MAX
General Draaxa a Area s ~ 4 2.9 4
StreemT a as en E31C3 E3 E31C3
Valle T e VIII VIII VIII
Dimension BKFMeanVelocit b ffls 2.72 2.34 5.3 2.32
BanldiillDischer e b 14f1 131 140
BanldullXSEC Area, Ably s ft 31.41 33.22 2334 23.76 53.3
Bnnldtiill Width, Wbl~ ft 21.11 23.21 13.44 15.9 24.71
B ankfiill M e an D e t1~, dbl~ ft 2.12 2.36 1.49 1.34 2.23
Width to De th Ratio, WID fflft 8.23 11.31 10.D3 10.67 11
Width Flood rare Area, W n ft 60 lOD 1D0 60
Entrenchment Ratia, W efWb ftJft 2.4 6.29 6.48 2.4
MexDe th h1~;Dmax ft 3.33 4.58 2.40 2.7 3.39
Max De th Ratio, Dmaxldbl~ 1.6T 1.79 1.61 1.73 1.51
Max De th tob,Dmaxtob ft 6.34 7.2 3.D0 3.38 3.4
BankHei tRatia,DtoblDmax ft!ft 1.33 1.79 1.23 1.23 1.O D
Pool Max De th,Dm aal ft 3.48 4.72 3.25 3.7 4.90 5.39
PaolMaxDe thRatio,Dm aoUdbl~' 1.64 1.84 2.18 2.40 2.18 2.4
PaolArea,A aol s ft 30.81 37.8$ 29.39 31.99 52.84 36.93
PaolAreaRatia,A ooUAbl~ 14.bD 12.26 1.24 1.33 1.24 1.33
Pool Width, W aol ft 16.73 29.32 14.70 16.31 23.32 23.33
PaalWidthRatio,W oa]lWbl~ 0.79 1.17 0.93 1.03 0.95 1.D3
Peal Len L ool ft 6.9 294.11 - - 30.3D 123.4
PaolLen Rntia,L oollWbkf 0.33 13.93 - - 1.23 3.08
Pool-Pools acin L s ft 35.60 84.38 41.38 165.36 76.3D 172.00
Peal-Peals acin Ratio,L slWbl~ 1.59 4.01 2.68 10.4 3.D9 6.96
Patihern Meander Lan Lm ft 43.D0 163.00 30.D0 84 197.67 296.3D
Meander Len Ratio, LmlWbl~' 2.04 6.47 1.94 5.28 8.00 12.OD
Radius of Curvature, Rc ft 14.3742 69.273 8.30 13.8 49.42 76.60
Rc Ratia, RcJVVbkf 0.68 2.73 0.55 D.99 2.00 3.10
Belt Width, Wblt ft 22.00 SI.DD 52 49.42 98.83
Meander WidthRatia,Wbltff~lbkf ft 1.04 2.02 3.37 3.27 2.00 4.00
Sinuasit , K 1. 11 1.3 1.32
Profile Valle Sla e, Seal ft!ft 0.0033 0.014 0.0033
ChennelSla e,Schan ft/ft D.003D D.D109 O.D023
Sla a Riffle, Srif ftrft O.ODOD 0.0220 0.019 0.0060 0.0072
Riffle Slo a Ratio, SriflSchan D.00 7.32 1.74 2.40 2.88
Riffle Len Rlen R 7.64 21.3 - - 9.7 121.9
Riffle Len Ratia, Rlen kf 0.36 1 A2 - - D.39 4.93
Slo a Poal, S ool ft!ft O.D0D0 D.0038 O.OD03 0.006 D
Poo1S1a a Ratio, S oa]lSchan 0.00 1.93 0.03 0.33 0
Slo a Run, Snxn ft!ft O.OOOD 0.0094 0.034
RunSla a Ratio, SnuilSchan O.DO 3.13 3.30
Sla a Glide, S ~de fi/ft 0.003
Glide Sla a Ratio, S "delSchan 0.28
'Substrate Riffle Pool Reachwide
d16 0.07 D.1 0.12
d35 D.16 0.18 D.30
d5D 0.28 0.2$ 0.73
d84 9.1 0.93 64.00
d95 16 10.28 130.00
Lewis Creek
Restoration Plan
Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
December 2007

Page 5-4
Project Site Restoration Plan
5.2 Sediment Transport Analysis
A sediment transport competency analysis was conducted on Lewis Creek to ensure that the
design stream will move its sediment load without significant potential for aggradation or
degradation. Stream competency was analyzed to determine what sediment particle sizes are
typically available for mobility at bankfull flows. Characterizing the streambed sediment
stratification also provided the means to calculate and verify the channel's existing and proposed
critical dimensionless shear stress, target design slope, and the required minimum mean depth
needed for channel stability.
5.2.1 Methodology
Entrainment data was collected within Lewis Creek. A bar sample was collected at cross-section
1, and a wetted pebble count was conducted at the cross-section to calculate entrainment and
velocity. Calculated fields consisted of critical dimensionless shear stress (cdss), mean depth of
Bankfull (dBKF), and water surface/bankfull slope. Using the Shields Curve and the Rosgen
Colorado Curve, maximum grain diameter and shear stresses were determined to verify
entrainment calculations (Rosgen, 2006). The Shields Curve and the Rosgen Colorado Curve
can be used to predict two stream parameters. Shear stress can be predicted using the largest
particle size (Di) from a bar or subpavement sample, or the Di can be predicted using a
calculated shear stress. Field collection and calculations followed methods described by Rosgen
(2004 a, b), and North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute (Doll et. al., 2003).
5.2.2 Calculations and Discussion
Tables 5.2 and 5.3 summarize the results of the sediment transport analysis for Lewis Creek.
Table 5.2
Entrainment Calculations
Parameter Main Channel
Existing Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) 0.0030
Median particle size-wetted pebble count, D50 (mm) 17.65
Largest particle size from subpavement, Di (mm) 42.0
Di/D50 2.38
Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress, cdss 0.0180
Minimum Mean Bankfull Depth, dBKF (ft) 1.37
Minimum Bankfull/Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.0030
•
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

Page 5-5
Project Site Restoration Plan
•
Table 5.3
Sediment Transport Validation
P
te Main C hannel
arame
r Existin -ES/CS Desi n-ES/C5
Bankfull Shear Stress (lbs/sgft): RS 0.42 0.33
Grain Diameter (mm)* Using Bankfull Shear 22.16 18.03
Grain Diameter (mm)** Stress 79.91 66.31
Predicted Shear Stress (lbs/sgft)* Using Di 0.70 0.70
Predicted Shear Stress (lbs/sgft)** 0.20 0.20
* Results using Shields Curve, ** Results using Rosgen CO curve
Source for Curve Data from Watershed Assessment of River St~ili and Sediment Su 1 Ros en, 2006b
•
•
5.2.3 Results
Competency
^ Using Shields and Rosgen CO Curves, the largest particle available for transport is
respectively, 22.16 and 79.91 mm for the existing channel and the design.
^ The critical dimensionless shear stress required to mobilize and transport the Di is 0.018.
^ To entrain the Di, the minimum Bankfull depth and slope required for the design are 1.37
ft, and 0.0030 ft/ft, respectively.
^ The calculated existing Bankfull shear stress is 0.42 lbs/ft2 and the design Bankfull shear
stress is 0.33 lbs/ft2. Shields predicted a shear stress value of 0.701bs/ft2, which is greater
than the calculated Bankfull shear stress, and indicates a potential for aggradation.
However, the Rosgen CO Curve predicted a shear stress value of 0.2 lbs/ft ,which is
similar to the calculated value, indicating neither aggradation, nor degradation is likely to
occur.
Summary
From the sediment transport analysis of Lewis Creek, it can be assumed there is not a significant
potential for aggradation or degradation to occur within the proposed channel design.
5.3 HEC-RAS Analysis
A hydraulic model was developed for the project reach of the main channel of Lewis Creek using
HEC-RAS software to determine water surface elevations along the project reach and to identify
the extent of flooding for both the existing stream geometry and proposed stream geometry.
Peak flow rates discussed in section 3.2 were used in the model. The model was also used to
verify that the proposed restoration will not increase the water surface elevation of the FEMA
100-year floodplain. The model indicates that there will not be a rise in the water surface
elevation for the 100-year floodplain due to the proposed conditions. These results can be seen
in the following table. Refer to Table 5.4 for the 100-year water surface elevations for the
existing and proposed conditions.
Lewis Creek
Restoration Plan
Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
December 2007

Page 5-6
Project Site Restoration Plan
•
Table 5.4
100-year Water Surface Elevations (WSE) for Existing and Proposed Conditions
Cross-Section Existing Conditions
100-yr WSE
(ft) Proposed Conditions
100-yr WSE
(ft) Difference in WSE from
Existing to Proposed
(ft)
1 2158.09 2157.12 0.97
2 2158.09 2157.00 1.09
3 2157.86 2156.60 1.26
4 2157.35 2155.83 1.52
5 2155.22 2154.47 0.75
6 2154.28 2153.61 0.67
7 2152.51 2152.46 0.05
8 2152.11 2152.05 0.06
5.3.1 No-Rise, LOMR, CLOMR
A No-Rise Certification is being submitted to Henderson County to verify that the project will
not increase the water surface elevation of the 100-year floodplain. A copy of the No-Rise
Certification will be submitted to the EEP once received from the county. A LOMR will be
required if the decrease in water surface elevation is less than -0.1 ft.
5.3.2 Hydrologic Trespass
The proposed restoration project was designed to avoid hydrologic trespass. Hydrologic trespass
occurs when there is a rise in the 100-year storm floodplain (water surface elevation) when
compared to the published FEMA FIRM map. According to the FEMA FIRM map of the
project area (effective date March 1, 1982), approximately all of the project conservation
easement is in the 100-year floodplain. The HEC-RAS model of the proposed restoration reach
indicates that the 100-year floodplain elevations on adjacent properties will not increase.
5.4 Storm Water Best Management Practices
There are not any site specific storm water concerns for the Lewis Creek project site. All on-site
storm water discharges will be sheet flow or overland flow with the exception of the discharge
that comes from the North Ridge Road. There is a minimum possibility of fertilizer and nutrient
rich runoff from the residential area on the south side of the project, but the proposed riparian
buffer should provide sufficient filtering and treatment of any potential nutrients from reaching
Lewis Creek. No other significant storm water concerns are prevalent within the project limits.
•
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

Page 5-7
Project Site Restoration Plan
5.4.1 Narrative of Site-Specific Storm Water Concerns
During construction, all disturbed areas, access roads, and stock piles within the project site will
have appropriate prevention methods installed to avoid erosion and sedimentation impacts on
Lewis Creek.
5.4.2 Device Description and Application
Erosion and sedimentation control measures will consist of installing silt fencing around
disturbed areas prior to disturbance, and maintaining throughout the construction phases. All
newly constructed streambanks will be matted and staked at the end of each work day.
5.5 Soil Restoration
Typically, the soils of the Piedmont/Mountain Alluvial Forest community are prime farm and
planting soils due to their fertility and periodic flooding (Schafale and Weakely, 1990). The
existing soils within the proposed stream restoration areas consist mostly of Codorus loam which
is naturally fertile and well-suited for planting (USDA, 1980). Most of the areas within the
project easement will be heavily planted with the species shown below in Table 5.5. Soils along
the left side of the Lewis Creek easement do not appear to have been regularly plowed or
disturbed; therefore, they are unlikely to have been over utilized for agriculture purposes. Recent
disturbances and manipulation to soils along the right side of the Lewis Creek easement area
however are apparent. Top soil taken from cut areas along the stream will be reserved for the top
soil dressing in nutrient poor areas located along the right side of Lewis Creek. The soil along
the streambanks is naturally fertile due to its alluvial nature, so this top soil should be well suited
for planting. Subsequently, the remaining culms will be disked to work additional organic matter
into the soil. Disking the soil prior to planting will not only add organic manner, but also
diminish any compaction and increase the rooting volume (Clewel and Lea, 1990). In addition,
disking will ensure adequate drainage and beneficial microtopography for planting and drainage.
Prior to planting, soil analysis will be performed by the Contractor to determine what, if any, soil
amendments need to be added to establish correct soil conditions for the trees/shrubs to be
planted.
5.6 Natural Plant Community Restoration
5.6.1 Narrative & Plant Community Restoration
The stream restoration area and the areas of disturbance associated with the grading and sloping
of banks will be planted with species similar to those found in reference stream vegetation areas
located in floodplain areas and riparian areas along the left bank of the middle to lower reaches
of the Lewis Creek project reach. Selected species will be strategically planted to achieve a
Montane Alluvial Forest and Piedmont/Mountain Alluvial Forest intermediate community type
as described in Schafale and Weakely (1990). The streambanks and immediately adjacent
riparian areas associated with disturbance due to bank stabilization will be planted with species
similar to those currently found there to maintain a Montane Alluvial Forest and
Piedmont/Mountain Alluvial Forest intermediate community (Schafale and Weakely 1990).
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

Page 5-8
Project Site Restoration Plan
The species list found in Table 5.6 is developed based on on-site inventories and Schafale and
Weakley's species descriptions. Species selected for live staking are based on on-site
inventories, past experience, and results of field trials reported by Calabria et al. (2006). Refer to
Table 5.6 for a list of live staking material. A map of proposed communities is provided in
Figure 5.1.
Table 5.5
Montane Alluvial Forest - Piedmont/Mountain Alluvial Forest Intermediate Community
Streambanks and Adjacent Riparian Planting List -Woody Species
•
•
Zone(s) Common Name Scientific Name Wetl Ind. Size Spacing Quantity
Stat.
Trees/Overstory

10-feet O.C.
3 Tulip tree Liriodendron tulipifera FAC 24" or > b.r.
random 127
10-feet O.C.
3 Black Cherry Prunus serotina FACU 24" or > b.r.
random 127
3 White oak Quercus alba FACU 24" or > b.r. 10-feet O.C. 127
random
10-feet O.C.
3 American sycamore Platanus occidentalis FACW- 24" or> b.r.
random 380
10-feet O.C.
3 River birch Betula nigra FACW 24" or > b.r.
random 253
10-feet O.C.
3 Red maple Acer rubrum FAC 24" or > b.r.
random 253
Total Trees 1,267
Shrubs/Understory
6-feet O.C.
3 American holly Ilex opaca FAC- 24" or > b.r.
random 146
3/2 Alder Alnus serrulata FACW 24" or > b.r. 6-feet O.C. 76 / 146
random
2 Silky dogwood Corpus amomum FACW 24" or> b.r. 6-feet O.C. 76 / 194
random
3/2 Spicebush Lindera benzoin OBL 24" or > b.r. 6-feet O.C. 51 / 194
random
3/2 Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana FAC 24" or > b.r. 6-feet O.C. 51 / 97
random
6-feet O.C.
3 Smooth sumac Rhus glabra N/A 24" or > b.r.
random 97
Total shrubs 254 / 874
Live Stakes
3-feet O.C.
1 Black willow Salix nigra FACW 36" or > 1,586
random
Physiocarpus 3-feet O.C.
1 Ninebark o uli olius FAC- 36 or > random 1,539
1 Silky dogwood Corpus amomum FACW 36" or > 3-feet O.C. 1,539
random
Total stakes 4,664
Lewis Creek
Restoration Plan
Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
December 2007

Page 5-9
Project Site Restoration Plan
On-site Invasive Species Management
Several invasive species including reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), multiflora rose
(Rosa multijlora), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) occur throughout the project
area and are dominant in several areas along the right streambank of Lewis Creek within the
project area. Reed grass located along much of the right stream bank of Lewis Creek is
providing most of the existing stream bank stability within the project area. It is anticipated that
the above invasive species will likely persist within the project area after restoration of the
stream channel and riparian areas despite efforts to control its growth. Therefore, it is in the
opinion of JJG ecologists that along-term solution to vegetation restoration would likely prove
to be more beneficial. This long-term solution would consist of allowing the natural succession
of a riparian forest to eventually eliminate the amount of available habitat (i.e., sunlight) of the
reed grass. This long-term approach to vegetation restoration would likely result in an overall
greater success of the project, be more cost effective, and would surely prove to be more
beneficial to water quality and the overall bank stability following restoration. If invasive
species appear to be deterring growth of planted species during monitoring, the use of an
herbicide approved for use in aquatic areas will be explored.
5.8 Construction Access Plan
To access the site, a temporary construction easement will be located off a public road: North
Ridge Road. The access point from North Ridge Road shall be protected with a construction
entrance according to Details Sheets of the Construction Plans.
Communication with the CMLC and Ingle family representatives indicate that construction
access should not be hindered as access may be necessary beyond the current conservation
easement limits.
•
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

•
J ~ Jordan
Jones ~
Goulding
SECTION 6
•
•
Lewis Creek
Restoration Plan
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
December 2007

•
SECTION 6
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
6.1 Streams
To evaluate the success of the stream restoration effort on Lewis Creek, morphological and
biological monitoring should be conducted. Specific morphological and biological monitoring
requirements to evaluate the success of this project will be determined by EEP accordingly.
6.1.1 Dimension, Pattern, and Profile
An initial as-built longitudinal profile and permanent cross-sections will be established and
surveyed for Lewis Creek which will serve as base-line data for future monitoring years. Each
assessment following the initial as-built survey should include re-surveying the same
longitudinal profile and permanent cross-sections. Geomorphologic data (profile, pattern, and
dimension) will be collected and evaluated to determine whether the stream is stable or unstable.
The surveyed data collected will be assessed to determine whether the stream channel is
indicating a lateral and/or vertical migration. Reach-wide and cross-sectional pebble counts will
also be collected to monitor changes in channel substrate composition. Determining success on
the Lewis Creek project should include, but not be limited to, evaluating any significant change
in the dimension, pattern, profile, and substrate criteria, such as the following parameters:
^ Width to depth ratio
^ Cross-sectional area
^ Bank height ratio
^ Substrate composition (D50)
^ Bankfull verification (occurs at least twice within the 5-year monitoring period)
^ Sediment transport: neither aggradation nor degradation occurring
^ Survivability of planted riparian vegetation
6.2 Storm Water Management Devices
•
All storm water management devices will be removed once construction has concluded;
therefore, describing performance criteria is not necessary.
6.3 Vegetation
Vegetative success at the restoration site will be measured by survivability over afive-year
monitoring period. Success for the site will be based on the survival of at least 320 planted
woody stems per acre at the end of year three, 290 planted woody stems per acre at the end of
year four, and 260 planted woody stems per acre at the end of year five of the monitoring period.
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

6-2
Performance Criteria
In addition to the above-listed success criteria, noxious/invasive species will be identified and
controlled so that none become dominant or alter the desired community structure of the site. If
noxious plants are identified as problematic on the site, the "Monitoring Team" will develop and
implement aspecies-specific control plan. During the five-year monitoring period, the
"Monitoring Team", where necessary, will remove, treat, or otherwise manage undesirable plant
or animal species, including physical removal and use of herbicides.
Monitoring will also include photo documentation of vegetative communities within monitoring
plots. Photographs will be taken from the monument control (southwest corner of the plot). Site
specific vegetation monitoring protocol will be developed and finalized by the EEP.
6.4 Schedule/Reporting
Monitoring, scheduling, and reporting will be finalized by EEP. Typically, there is an initial as-built
monitoring survey and a monitoring plan established immediately following construction. The
establishment of monitoring features and the collection and summarization of monitoring data shall
be conducted in accordance with the most current EEP document entitled "Content, Format, and
Data Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports." Subsequently, the site will be monitored and
reported on annually for five years, or until success criteria are met, whichever occurs last.
•
•
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

•
J ~ Jordan
Jones ~
Goulding
0~-a{~0 8
SECTION 7
REFERENCES
•
•
Lewis Creek
Restoration Plan
Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
December 2007

. SECTION 7
REFERENCES
Brooks, S.S., Palmer, M.A., Cardinale, B.J., Swan, C.M., and Ribblett, S. 2002. Assessing
stream ecosystem rehabilitation: Limitations of community structure data. Restoration Ecology
10 (1): 156-168.
Calabria, J., English, W.R., LeBude, A., Bilderback, T., and Zink, J. 2006 Field Trial of Corpus
amomum and Physocarpus opulifolius for Riparian Buffer Restoration at Bent Creek, The North
Carolina Arboretum, Asheville.http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wgg/frenchbroad/
bent_creek.pdf.
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E.,
2003. Stream Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Flood Insurance Rate Map. Map Number
37025C, Panel 0050, Suffix D, Effective March 1, 1982.
Georgia Museum of Natural History (GMNH). 2007. Available:
http://dromus.nhm.uua.edu/~GMNH/gawildlife/index.php?page=speciespaaes/ai species pa~e&
key=lholstonia. Accessed November 2006.
Griffith et al. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. Reston, Virginia U.S.
Geological Survey (Map scale 1:1,500,000).
Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., Patterson, J.M., Clinton, D.R., Slate, L.O., Jessup, A.G.,
Everhart, J.R., and Smith, R.E., 1999. Bankfull hydraulic relationships for North Carolina
streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. Edited By: D.S. Olsen and J.P.
Potondy. American Water Resources Associations. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. 61 p.
Jordan, Jones, and Goulding (JJG). 2007. Environmental Resources Technical Report (Draft).
Lewis Creek Stream Restoration, Henderson County, North Carolina.
Leopold, L.B., Wolman, M.G., and Miller, J.P. 1992. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. Mineola,
New York: Dover Publications Inc.
Morris, R. 2007. Engineer at USDA Service Center in Waynesville, NC. Personal Communication.
June 2007.
National Register of Historic Places Database. 2007. Park Net (http://www.nr.nps. ov/).
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

Page 7-2
References
NatureServe. 2004. NatureServe Explorer: An online Encyclopedia of Life [web application].
Version 4.0. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
(DWQ). CSU: Surface Water Classifications. Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/swc.html .Accessed July 2007.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Hydraulics Unit. Stream Reference
Reaches 97 file version. http//www.ncdot.orb/doh/preconstruct/highwa~ydro/Stream/.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS). 1991. Generalized Geologic Map of North Carolina.
Available: http://~is.enr.state.nc.us/sid/bin/indexplx?client=zGeologic Maps&site=9AM. Accessed
March 2007.
Radford, Albert. 1968. Manual of Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 596 p.
Rosgen, D L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs,
CO.
Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A geomorphological approach to restoration of incised rivers. In Proceedings of
the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision, ed. S.S.Y. Wang, E.J.
Langendoen and F.B. Shields, Jr. Oxford, Miss.: University of Mississippi.
Rosgen, D.L. 2001. A practical method of computing streambank erosion rate. In Proceedings of
the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Vol. 2, Reno, Nevada, March 25-29.
Rosgen, D.L. 2004a. River Restoration and Natural Channel Design. Course Handbook.
Gunnison, CO. Wildland Hydrology, Inc.
Rosgen, D.L. 2004b. River Assessment and Monitoring Field Guide. Course Handbook. Meadows of
Dan, VA: Wildland Hydrology, Inc.
Rosgen, D.L. 2006a. Natural Channel Design Using a Geomorphic Approach. Wildland Hydrology
Inc.
Rosgen, D.L. 2006b. Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply (WARSSS).
Wildland Hydrology: Fort Collins, CO.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
Simon, Andrew. 1989. A model of channel responses in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth
Surface Processes and Landforms: 14, 11-26.
r USACE. 2000. Federal Register. Vol. 65, No. 47. Washington, DC.
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

Page 7-3
References
USACE. 2002. Federal Register. Vol. 65, No. 10. Washington, DC.
USACE. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACOE, USEPA, NCWRC, NCDENR-DWQ.
USACE. Mitigation Plan Development. Accessed on April 5, 2007 at
Guidelines.http://www. saw.usace. army.mil/wetlands/Mitigation/mitplan.html
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS).
2006. Plants Database. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
USDA. 2007. Soil Survey of Henderson County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC. http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/.
USDA, NRCS. Hydric Soils of the United States. Accessed on July 19, 2007 at
(http://soils.usda. gov/use/hydric/lists/state.html).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1973. The Endangered Species Act of 1973.
(USFWS). 2006. Endangered and Threatened Plants in North Carolina; Accessed at
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/plant/schwsun.html.
USFWS. North Carolina Ecological Services. Region 4. Accessed November 2006 at
(http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/es.html.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1969. Bat Cave, North Carolina, Quadrangle 7.5 Minute Series.
USGS, 2001. Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Rural Basins of North
Carolina, Revised. Raleigh, NC.
•
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

J ~ Jordan
Jones ~
Goulding 0 ~ - 0 0 0 ~
SECTION 8
FIGURES
•
•
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

•
•
•

~ PF
s
RR ;
kr~`~. ~~ tj
!{ ~ ~ ~,
` i

f~ ~~ ~ ~
~
_ _ i
~. ~ ,
f
~
m~°
~1 ~ ~~ ~.~
~
~ ~ Pp R~~~
~Rp °~ yeti '~q
, o .~
~,~
~„ 5
o .,_L~IG
~ F
'
~
g4 ~, so
~~ ti~
~`
~`--

0
o
~t

UN(~MBE
~ F,~ ~
~ ~,
~
~~ j
~a / R
•

Ks ® RIDGE RD ~ ~ a /
i a'"'`~''
.~ r"
~
o
~ E°'~ 64
f E CHESTNUT Gqp ~ ~ ~~
d QPG
~
~~ ~ ENDERSON
:..
~ 0
NVILLE
HENDE
S ` ~
' ~
R
O ~

r :~
~
~
~ ! ,
~~~
\
,~.,~
~
N ~ ,~
,
,,~
o
~~._-~
Fouc
a
o
~~
'
~;.__ ~ I
~ LEGEND
Y . .- ~
w ~
Project Area
`` _ ,:~ ~
°~ Q
~' ~,,
~ ~-~• StreamlRiver
2,500 1,250 0 2,500 ~
;~
. s
~ City Limit
Feet ~
`'
b
~ o

JORDAN Lewis Creek Stream Restoration Project Figure 1.1
JONES &
I~~,~'u~~y~~tcm Project Location Map December 2007
GOULDING
Henderson County, NC
Project No: 3060003

•
f
•

i~
~ ~ ~
~~
ti
,-.

64
~x
?~ ~
M ~
~ ~r.,~.
~ ~
ry
,~ 1
L '
~~
.~~•
_ -'r urn
~. ,r a~rif ~t
{~ ~. b
Y^^~~ .~
N
f
~~ ~.~
_ _-~-~-
~~
~~
~ ~
1~'~,
--ter
~,
~~ ~
s °
~,
~~
"` ~~
f
..

~~w
r
.~~
's
~~^ ~£
~ ~ tr~
~ ~ ~,,>
."`~.
r '' ~~ * ~' * ~~
~~l~ ~
~ ,~ ~
'`~

~ ~: ~ ~
':: ' _ ~
.
';; .
~
.'::.. ~ ~

~e 't

.'.
~1
~.. _ ..~, I ~ . _ .. _ -
~~
~ ~ .
"1S ~ ?_. P
~.
LEGEND ~ ~~
~ ProjectArea
~= Project Stream ,~
CMLC Property "`~,~.
°°I..,o..a...,t *~
wx r
~"'.' JORDAN
JONES &
L;cvsystcm GOULDING
~r,~
~~ ~

r ~
~
~
~ 'r.~, 4 ~

~;.
.9
. ~.'
a' +' ~
~ f ~~
k
4w , '
Lewis Creek Stream Restoration Project
USGS Quadrangle Location Map, Bat Cave, NC
Henderson County, NC
r
~~
zy ~'
'~~ ^i-~r
500 250 0 500
Feet
.4 ~L
~""';'~.-., ~~s ti 1 inch equals 500 feet ~.
Figure 2.1
December 2007
Proj. No: 3060003

` ~~

•
,\\` ` \` .` ~\~~~\ V /~} ~ ~ ! ~ e ~ ~ 1 `-~ ~ if 1--~.~ ~^J /~"~_.~~~T`~M~LHi 865.~A j" `v %CHT'188A,' ~ ii f~ r -0 S~.a ~y~ ~Ii ,~i/~
~ ~~ / f ~ ~' .~ ~ 10 , ~ , /
'`~ ~ ~,~ ~~ ~ ; ~. (~~~, ~~ ~J ~~,~ j,~~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ m f ,' ~ :; ~ / ~;~ ' y Mi~$~p ~~ t ~ ~ ~ Ira ~~/~ ;-' f ~ I U_~ ~~~~rf rl
~~: p r . .~ •~: -1 ag. a ~~ ~ o' ,-~ ~~ ~~'1 ~ j j j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ '~' J I / ~ o ~~~~ 1i ~( ~:~ f/~~,~ ~ 1~~ i 1,
{ 1 1 \ /; I
_ if 4
r~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~
.
9. ~ =4 s f ~ '~ .'~ _ n ~ i
• ~ v. ~ ~~ .. ~ ~ . i- 28i 37 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~V \ ~ ~~ ~( ~~~ `F~ "~~ ---~ i 1 1~ V!i ~ ~ ~ i' i ~ ~ 1 ~ r f" 1 1 1
l
u
- '~ ,-. ~Q;9 _ T 1 ~"~°.~\tt~ ~ ~``-' ~ t t / -~ --- ~_.._ ~ , '~~..aV, ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~~~ ~ 1 ~~`~ ' ,~~j ~'j"~~ l ~ /`/ :~; 'tl ,Z^'~ ~/J.~ ~~^„A.:
~ ,! ~~ ~,~ ~:~....~~h .Par~i I ~; ~ ~~ ~ I ` (y I _"" ~ ~ ~ ~ (, l,~! I ,~~r < ~~ I ~ , i ~ i1 ~ ~ ~ j ~~/!~ ~ ~ 1~-~,~ ~ ~f' I
i~
~.
,. ~~ ~~ ~;r,, l~'~~ ~ 1 ' / ~ @ ; "'~'z8 ~~b5 ~` /3„ I i ~ ~:. ~~,,4..'-- r. ~. /; ,j wry ° r i ~~...f~ ~_A~ ~ ~ ~~, 1
~-~--
5. -
! t '~
_. -
~,~
..
(" r ': r
t ~ . mhE ~ ~
~, ~ m ~~
.. i' / II ~ "~i lt•}! 6 - ~ Y~, / 6. a - --=~~ (~,1~~ ,nl~~, ~, /, ~P, i~i~ ~~1T~!.'~% I ~;;.; ~1 ~ ~`7~^)~--;~,
.... -: ~
,,~~ ~ ~;; l,; '% ~ -~ ,~ `: , d.._.Gj.y , ~ 1)11 ',.9. - Knpb ~` 15~% ,u -~ r, r~~. '' ,ll;,~!. ~ ~ . , .' ,'',. , ~,.•~~ :;
.
f
i~ . ~, ,'V -. !' Qh'" ...,, _-' ~~~ -' ~-~`, 00- ~I~ i ~ ?° iii r i1
,,,~ " t ~ /„--tf~s~ I ~y q rt .;< ~~:'~ 1712 ~~. Aw ~ .v ;T~ s .21. i~~.'~~~ Iii ,.%T- ~l s'~' ~ I~ V •~~'i ~
~ I . - a ,. ~ - s - ,a. y i ~ i.~ . ~.,a ~` 1 ~ ~ i - li
._ ~ -
_ ~ ~ ,• _
;~ < /~
~.
'~~ l-:, . ~ I `k"- ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; 1 ,. , ,,; ,'.:: i ~ '.. ~;~ ~ iy 1. ~ ':, y ~.-r-~ ~t i ~ .f..
,:. `, ..
u
i
~. > i . ~
~ ~~. r Y 1 r
'~'{Bt1i~9!'SOR ' , : ~~ ,. ~~,, ~ ~ ~,3fi ." i ~ •? ~ V - f./ C ~ ~~; ~\~~ rly~~Y; /i '~~ ~ vr: ~'~ : , `~;'' i J~ J"
,~.~ ~ k. ~ ~ ,_ ~ ; 2 32 1 r i ~! ~.:,,^,". ~C~ /,. ~ - -' . ~ -. ( ( ~':~', '~ ~ t f ''%i 1 L; . A s /, ~ !1~ _~fl.t ; r M1 ~ ,s ,/ ~ ~,/, J
- ;:. .. ,4., ,r. /~
ht / /~ --, r r : ,,~ I ~~,, , . ! ? ~ I ) I r' ..( ~y/,. ;.) `~f 1~ ~~ ('~ r~>,Jl` 1 C ' ~ .~~ r,
~) &1h ;-,-- ~ ,
_._ , _.. ~ ... ~=: _ ..... ~ ~ ~ ("' '' ~ ' ~ 4./; ~ o ~~ ~ ~, ,l r . J~TfI, . E ,lii, '~~, t c" %j- f tni ~~!~ ~ ~ ' ~~~
~ ' ~ i I~, ) 1. ~ ~~ ;~ I~,,ll "`~-~~, , }. ~,/f; ~ "~ l5~~ ~ ~:i~ r'-( +!'~L:
,. ~ ~ ' .
i ...:. .~ ,,Vu .-: . :,. i ~ _J '_ i ~:. / a "r~ 1' -~~~. 1, ~V ~,'~ 1 ''^.y:vi ly`: _."'a~:ri~, i0 f, !i A,.1 ~r s, `' ,4! :` _y-iDl ~ ~~.
~' G
~. ~ .L ,.1, •, f- '~ ~., ~ ,. r ...,~ ~~ --' ' =l .. l 1 .,' ~'/ /ONES°~Ar / ~ C:~t . ?,,. ~, ~~~~ ~.;,;- ^~~-.. ~_;,,.., ~~ .:vi/ ~ ''I a~ ~ ~N
,;r ~? ~' , .~, ~, i ~ / ~ . ~~: .-, '. ~ ,, e ~ A ~ ~ ~:~. ~ ~~ _ t it ~,>~ ~S~ ~ ~.-i .f ~~ _ ~,
.. ,.~ ~ ~ ~ , ,,; i> ,. _ ra ~ ,: .~ P.,~ ,- ~~ .' 1 c ,l q'@,J1 t '/.'" ~;. `- -„ ~",~r%` C'. ArA~~ Y~l `V~ r
.,~, a1 i ~ ~~'-v I A~ l ' ~y« 1 ~° ~ ~~ - ~,
- : _- ~( % ( 9724 ~.~ , i ~ ~ ~ d a I ~~- ~ ~ 4 ~~a ~\ h. l~ ~` ~ ~:~si ~ ~~'~ ~~ , '1 s ; r
. , : _: ;~ i (
.~.
,~.../- ~ i ~ r ,~ : , l i ~~ r~ ti 1~ ¢ ~"/ ~` ' i a.t` 1( N~:~~ ,`-1s.,~. ~;,, ~ t_., ~J ~I; / V.
~.
..
,~~, ._
.- ~/
~ /r ,
~ F,
,~ ;i~ a ,.~ . t `~
,~
,' , _ ,. :.i~ ~ F i : ~ '.
- -- = I 7
i.r~._, ~ .~ / ~ c.' ~' r~ 1 6 ~ .. A .. _ }/f..~ ^':TJ ~v ~'G"'''~N 1 ~~' 4t,'.~ _,/~ M1';~'" I ,l i' /fi'~~!'.1:. ~l
•7 i ~ ` N Vs ~ ~ 1 ~/ 4,
4~
:
t ~.~ ~ _.. i .,_. `.... .._ .--._.. / 9r - < ~ • :.~~ frosli^~..a~ `""-` 1y~ rff ~4'b.a ~ i r ~ i r~ I ~..~~ _",;1( i ~ ~~ r,~. ~ ~„ ,
,"~''~.'~ ~ ~ <~ ~' ~~. ~ r. ~ ,,. ,_. . ' +.`, l -' ~~ ~ f C~~~~ ~r ~~<;~,, - i~ 1,,is I ~ f i, '' ~•,L'' (~I~t~:~., , ;'J~``~ f r, tl,~, ~: ~ r
~ ~~.._. ..' ~ ~ ~ '~. .i. ~~/ ~,, ~.. ~ _~:-c=.__. ,. r ti ,_,~ I,. °i.. ~ - ~..,,.rt` ~ ~ ~ ,,;.B~At b11',I 1 .1 ~~, ~..?~ v 1~.,,'Y. ~.
i`.: = , ,{ ~ ,._ ~-.::., /r ~,.~,, „ ; , ~. . ,., ,;, - , ~ ;9~, r ~. r; k ~ \ '~"r'~ 1) ~P"~P/A/'~~ .:.h! ~ ~ f ~,1"•--a ~~r N
,
_'..^, ,
J ~ I i f \ ,.~~ i r,, / I G r - ~~ i ~ ~ li! `~ ~ i~P'Ri $: ,1: 1 ~ %l~l, (.1.1, i i i,/'~,1 --
.- ,
--. ~ % : ,. _ C , ~ i ;; `~ i -;Z' ~ ~'. ~' , ~ 'v n',. , , -~- - f ~ `'~ ~Gt~ ~ ~ Ir p1a yJ\ d ~ c ? ~ ~
' ,,
,. ;
' ~ •f~ ~ ~.. ~ . ~ -.:,,~,\ -'3 d.`.`. Q , J- ,n i r ,ry i'. i ~ f ,o~ \ 1a p Y.v „zr ~1 ~~ ~ ~
,. .
,.
,, ,-~
n'-., ~'' I .. ~ , > -~~1 . ~ 1 I r~ • \; .. ` i ~ A _ ~,P 1;- s ,.,,rv/ ~.!a r . ' ' ~ ~ ~~ j r .) ~ ' ,<~ ~., l-:~~, ::
~: : (' ~ ~ '. r ` ~, ,_~..~ y '__ - M i ~~'~' 0 J ~,;+,5 ~~ I I~ ~ ~ i~,~</ ~ ~.. ^~ ,-./," i ~ j.~ ~.1 \ is
,» LEGEND ;.~, ,, , ' ., , , ~~,.~~~ ,,~: ,~ r ..t ~~I~ ~ ,~ -~~o ii ,
. '~ ..
x ~:- ~i1 r. ( .~ 'w'~e~ ~~ ~' - ~nJi i 1. .C.,:.N1' ~+ ~~'1;icin". zy. r ~ i- ~/' ~ ,;I,
r
.l• "r -''~ ~4:: ~~' s; Ir ii, ~s° ~ ~ ,fir l; bvo
.~~ 1
u ;\ i . 1 ?3dR ~ r \^~' h ./,1-~ !r ;d s; i•:---~ `9' i l " { t r "~4 ~~
~~ ~, ,,~ ~! ~1~ . 1;, 'mss ~ ,„1 ,Il '.~, ' ~~ " I'll,` r` ~ 1 , ~: ;<~ -~1 ~l' :,.r,f.
~~ -S=am c'~.. ~',_ ~.~ -I'„~'tl 4 ~ :7th ,~~).~ ~~ I,! lir" ~: .3A" .~; ~,'~e ~l ,~ - 90, ~"~~. `,'
n PrOjeCtArea ~~ \. e^ (r r~-~.~ ~~ ~~~i it r,l,,,~/~, ~, ~ :.~r i ', I,/" i
1 \~f R 5 •~~' ~, ~ "•i i l/~ ~. i1 ~ i~r ~ 211 t ~',; I ~~r 1! U ~ '~ a (frl"4 ''`*a w ~ ~ !li ~?i~ r ~ 7: 2,00 ~,OQ~ Q 2,00
Pro~ectWatershed T1 _ ~z -~ ,!"; (~~~ `,.~ ~,, ,' ,-,~~ ~ ,~~1~ ~~~_; ~u i~ ~ ~~ ~; .
! (~: ,
~ ~-/ r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~`\ i ~ ~~ (i~ ~ r r ' ;t ~ f ~ is ~ 1 ~ '`.J 1 '`a. ~ ~ Y"~ r ~ ~ _ F22t
,. _ '-.- _
, ~.
I ,.I -.w ~a ~' ri, 1 la l'~..o~ i' ./ OW d/ id, ~t:~. I ~/ i' ~ r%r`,
e~ JORDAN Lewis Creek Stream Restoration Project Figure 2.2
l ;c{7s}rtitcnl JONES & Project Site Watershed Map, Bat Cave, NC December 2007
GOULDING
Henderson County, NC Proj. No: 3060003

Co
DeB
_~ .....
..... ~~
......
....
.,..
DeB ~ :.: ~ Ha --,'
~; .. w~
::::::. ~ BaB ' /
j ~:::::::;:~~. ~ ~
/ Hyc : ~ ~ ~`~, ~~~ ~ ~::::: ~s~: ~
/ ~ ~~
N ~ / i
~, ~ ~
~ ~~~ Co i
/ ;
i
LEGEND ~ ~~ `~.2so 12s o ,.~'so 500 Aso'
', Project Area Feet
Project Stream
~7 CMLC Properly 1 inch equals 250 feet
i
~'''.,~ ~oR~AN Lewis Creek Stream Restoration Project Figure 2,3
l'~~nsvsrc,,, JONES & Project Site Soils Map December 2007
GOULDING Henderson County, NC Proj. No: 3060003

~~
r
•
~ ~ ~ ~{~ ,
~ .. ~" + - sy, ~ ~,
~ ~_~ 511 t~
i ~, " ~ti 'c`wt r 't
~, ,~ ' a 'k ~, ~ w~ #` '+~+, p ' 7
i•
i
~1
2` ~. w K
~v ~ 9 .G A ' z yA'b i ~ ) .k w T e ,•
,~ ~ y1 ~ '~~ r +~ ~ ~ , j
~. ~ "~ ,~ ~ .„,i ~ ~ +~T`g ~ ~",r' a~ ~ of ~~ ~, ~, ~ i ~ ~
,,
.r,
~"~' d ,_ ~~ ;,~~ ,~.~ ~ 41" ~~", x, ~ ~ ~ ~ +. n ~ y,. ~~ ~ rte' ,~ r~°~~~~~'t~ r.~`~~g~~~k~~~~sr~~~c~~ ,t~ „ ~ , .•t~
~,
w _
r
,
.Y`~ +#, k .~ ~ ,°'~ S' ~`' u ~ ..stir;: x{ r° • y Hro as ~ 5z~ ., z~ ~q ~;~ ~ ~~
. .
pW w~ ~ ~ ~ ~' dl y~M` : °, '+y, 4 '~1 ~ 4 `` w±g~ ~ :e~ + Via; '~•
. ~ ,+ .a -
. ,
=4
4~y t
~ , ; ° ~ 'g •,~ ~ ~ `~r,`9..' ,~~ ~ a~. Ill - ~ p k ..~ t, 'r A„ ~,, n
a,
at:1 ~ s ~' "1Y s~A' ~' ^ea iii ~' u~ '~: _ °afz+,';4. n "ro ~ iµ
r
;. ~ ~~ y a, +~~ .~ .ark '~~. Y.Y m .}~ ~. .~'_ ~~ ~ t:~v ., ~.,~ ,~ J,~+~\,1~...
.:
„.
e e . . :. .
,,
e
,~ ,y ek
e, .r
.r f ~' ~ +- y ~'°° ''°';,., ~;~ .~r .. .. . ~ '~ '~' ,~~ °~`"~ ~ ~, iJ,;.~, % ~ sn ~. ~' +t'~ ,~ m. .~ : k ~ i <, t: ~, i k'.
~ _ '
~ ,iM, '~, __ •~ "r ~ k'.'~„. ,..~ ~ ',~. 'f "A ,< `~ ,,~ ~~, ~sT t'acw~'S r w ..~:.l,r, r ~`` k~1 f^
,~f!
',;# ~~ Y~ ,r M 1~~h. „a~.f ',I~~.,, '~i, ~'°',.. fi x. ~ ~. 2t 4 1 i . ~ So-°~ ; '~ ° 11
.,
'' ".. x 1 ~ ~ .' , t€ . `~, •';a . .r t1 +. 3w T'a _~7 t .~` .., ~. ~ ~ ~^~~w ` s - ~ 4 a;~' .:~ `. ".b r .~ ~., .,... y
'~'"t~{' ,r ~ _s' ' ~ a ~, ~ ;r'r ^^~ ^~ ~~"fri`` ,,~ ~. x~ a ;~~.; ~
i?,~ ~ fi. ~..' '~ n~,5eo. •+,~ q y7 qx ~yti..~"' t k~~s.. 9~n. f .g '~ ;;4'p1 ,~R,^i, ,r Y.. ,.
h
.. FFF ~ 3- '#'
'i
" s ,
.. .. ..~
f~ 1
_~ '~ v, '6
.~ ~ u_; y sus ,.
.°
«4' 'y~!- ,fly r ~ ~c ,a~ /
~` ,~~, ,F i r+~ '~ _ ;N~ °'~..v raj`: w "~,y 1 ` t 'q, N ~'~.'s~.« +q ~ d _, O ' f.~/
N r" iiYS
y~ .y yi
a
x
~ ~ ~N
~,~i ,: fi .: ~..
'Y. ~' ~ . ~
~ r
~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~* t - .~ ~„'
y, ''$`~ -~"tai *~~~ y~.." ~ i~r~+ _ e '~ .~+~*` ~~< - ~ A~~y •~4~i 3~ S ~~ *Z
t, d. ~~
' ~~ ~ ~ ~ era
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y~, ~ ~ ~i f ~ ~~ k ~ -fir ~ ~ ~
.
~ ~ ~ ry ,~ h
`~
s
Legend ~ ~ ~'" ~> ~ ~ ~~
~'
Stream _ ~° ~~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~s ~,~ -~
Transition Between Montane Alluvial Forest and a Piedmont ILow Mountain Alluvial Forest ~z ~ , ;~? ' '~ ~ ~~
Easement Boundary a,~ ~ ~~~~ 400 200 0 ~~
,• ,~ ~ ~'
° ~ ~ ~°,~ '` ~ Feet '~:
~~~ ~ ~~ ~' ;~ _ ~ ~; ~', 1" = 200' ~ °
~._~ ,
~ ~ ~ ~ ,
" . {
~~ ~ r ~. ~ ~ ~',
.°
Lewis Creek Stream Restoration Project Figure 3,1
JORDAN
r' JONES & Existing Vegetative Communities Map December 2007
I'~ciuptittm GOULDING
Henderson County, NC Project No: 3060003

r
t
~~
~, ( ---5 -...~~.
~Yside St
n
l
1
r~
l~c~us}~~cm
JORDAN
)ONES &
GOULDING
O
~ D
3 Q
~ ~
N
~ f
}C ,'...
Cove Rd
_~J
Lewis Creek Stream Restoration Project
Raccoon Creek Reference Reach Site Map
Haywood County, NC
'CE~ES1`'
SWAIN
JACKSON
Figure 4.1
December 2007
Project No; 3060003

i•
i•
i•
~ ~
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~
~° ~
tA~ kw'. ~+„~/I - fi,~ F~' ~,4 ry .~. is~ #* ~ TMS 1 ~ ~' Fyx k ~y; K 1~
~ ~i ~~•. ~i~. > ~ ~ *,+' 'r 4 ~ ~,~ 9 4~~~ y waY~ { r M A ~ $ ~ ,f'~
' ,+ y ~` ,~' ~ d
~~ ~~ ~s lM,# ,. r , i~~r. ~ . v`"#.f 4 '~z y,~;~,i ~. ~'" '~'.a~ ~~ ~'~ ~ ~~' ~`+~r~HrJ ~ +~ +
',,..
a FF ~ ~"'
~ ~ ~ ~~ i 5
~ ~ a, 'p~~'; `~p,~ ~,~`. ~., r.. 2 yn, r a~ t,..,l u..M. .~ sd M ~-~+~'~, ~~x o'',>yks ~`~.~~~~ ~~"A...~ ~~Y s. u ~ ~~.i. c,~~'`:.
~~^°k ~-. w ~~,„,~. ~'? yd 3 ~ "'x ~ ;~•3 t ~xat"~, ~c w~:; ~ .'~~'Mo. ', a. E, "~ ~'~ ~" YA~.. y ~'Y- Y ~ w
'$"'~" ~ !C, : t ~ ~ -~ % ; ,~, ~ `. ~ S' ~ J `'w rY ~ ~" erg.: ,~ ~`,p `s*~ Nor n
r, #~,
y c"~. ~ S t ~ i y y t t a + `~%' f
Maa'. ~' " Syr : ~ . Y ~y~. .' !~" . 'A
a ~ k
~. ,, a ~~
4 s. 4vY'
. .'.f ~ ti 3~~ +. i„ S ~. -~'F ~ ~} v K a~: '~'~r ~~~~ n..~ ~ ' x ~j,:;. A' ~r '!p, ~''~, ~ `~ ,,,, ,r
Y' '''S~y~• a ACi ~ t y. ''~4 ~? q ~ ~ F ~" vs 4~ v;,, ""s ~ p
+''~ ~~' ~. r 4 A ~ d «,.~ r~ ~ ..~ '~'~s`ix '~, y1 "tiv *~ ~x ,yam ~~ ++r• '~ -~ .~;~- .!
«S "7` is r; , r s "+E . F+T `:%'.~c. ~. ~.' . • ~ "~; "~ '^+, 'AAA y 1'
.,~~ ~ _ , ~l ~ ,°a c~,,,a, ~ ",~ s~ ~ ~ ^,
.~ - ..
t
' S~
~~
.dp.. '~ ,,•` r a rr, ~....' ^ .'4....~ °F w ` L r # ,s :. ~ ,. .j , a `~ rjg , -. k' ~ a'Y ',~ ,.
~.
~ ~, ,.
+~~p y~ p ,~L v :.
~! , 5 x+
, s. n
' uy , x~i!-.~ ,, wA:.;~ rte., a Y ,~ 1 ;.3
"~ar ~+
.:
„
~ «` 'c:,ua ,°.t ~ ~,. ~,. - N,,~ rye [ r w :. 4a ~4'~ ,'+4y,~
.e a.. fV ~..# k Fr' ~ ~ .# ~ fi !~ ~ 9s. '~N!e~"'~,_ ,. ~~. ` ~~~ n ;tl5 .3c,-. y ~~_~qW? ~
' ..
V i
~~ _
~s ~ r~,<
r -
,: s. ' , ;+, ~ F `,b ~ a" r. :g ~i~r'" - ~ ~ ~ .v~ .t. C''. ~, „8' d r ~`t + , l 'w w i a1
.7
,,, .. r
Xt 4
~,_ .. a ... ~ ..
.. ~i
I: y, + F.
.k ,. R ,.,. _ ,y~
a
t
r
n•
,
f.. a ~
w . ", l r .yam yjpp yy~ ..
M ~ W
.. .~ '. .. .'F.:. § '.G", y.. :,., p.;,. ~, ,...e v~ ,_ 4 T i~'` .~ •4 D'efy'. t ..~y..
` ~ -~;,,t S `3~i~ ~, ', ..1 b»~ ~ : ~. ~' p ~.a ,,~ ~•a ~, i r,`:c spa, a'r• ,~': ~ +~~ ~,,'
i ,~,:
.~ S, .~;. ~+~ ~i, ~ fi?~~.~ +~ ~~',~ r. }r +'S ~-~.. *,~~ ~ f `"' ~ Nf4 ,ten .~~~5,'~a y,+Q .,.eta ~.,.
d~ y~ tv
3~
~ - c' i
C
y ~`-~ ~'~ . ~ ~~` - '1'x`1 ~ ~ y r' r" a4 ~
~ ~ '
~.
' f ! i , ~ din . *~k fie" r1 L+' ay, ~ ~ y t ' 1'
,,y~ r
:: - ~,.: x
+, . s . r i
~, ` y
~fn ~ .~' h: e Stu ~~
~v i
.~
r i'
~ r t
F „4.
* ~ ~.
~ ~ ,~ ,+'`~ ~ t~ ~.
,:, .. _ .
. „ r _ ;
..
r t
sl y~. a' F x;t. l.~y. - t y ~T ~ f~
' $ ~
,:
., k r '"w a y.-"
r
r. { r-
.. -e
.~ r ~ a ~ ~ ~ P ,. ~ -rte ~ ~,
,„ t
_.
" ~~
- .. _.
~~
Legend ~ .~.~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~°~ ~d~`, ~"~
~ / ~ ~ ~~ . .
Stream ~ ~~ ~. ~ n ` ~ '~~~ ,~~, ~~;~~;
_ Transition Between Montane Alluvial Forest and aPiedmont /Low Mountain Alluvial Forest y~
Easement Boundary ..~~ ~ a ~ ~~ ~ ,, ~' ~ ~~.
°~ ,~ ~ ~, ~ ~, 400 200 0 ~, ~
'~ Feet
i;~~. ~ '
~:,;; ;~ .~ ~ k.
°~
~ ~ ~ _ _: ~'
~~~ to ~~~ ~,•:, .
Lewis Creek Stream Restoration Project Figure 5.1
JORDAN
~~ JONES & Proposed Vegetative Communities Map December 2007
);anv~tcm GOULDING
Henderson County, NC Project No: 3060003

•
J ~ Jordan
Jones g
Goulding

SECTION 9
DESIGN SHEETS
•
•
Lewis Creek
Restoration Plan
Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
December 2007

m
~~
CROSS VANE ~ PROP. - PE -
EASEMENT
ROOTWAD/LOC VANE LIMIT OF _
J-HOOK COM60 ~ DISTURBANCE - tw
PE
--- Pf --- PE ~ PE ~~
. ~
~ ~ PE ~ pE - PE
~'
~ ~ PE '-- Pf ~ pf ~ PE ~ ~
oc ~ ~ „n
e --
e
e GRAPHIC. SCALE
a a a w ~ ~o
. (R7 PEEP )
1 loch • 9D fL
i
3
O
E.

----
'\
(>
~~~, `, J
~X
,_ ~~
'~~
f~ vJ
cV
~Q` v

f _
ISi. .. ...
FRCP
T ~
I .

2155 WND•Ai
NTERIJNE
PR
P'
PROP. HAL 8
%IST. ..
',
2155
RAN BANK LL NTERLINE
r

215D _ / J__, ~ 2150
~ / _
-. /
/
d,
i
%.
~
-1
_
~

'_ C
\
E
_. _
~
T
T
4

,li

.
2145 I a 2145
d
~ ° _.. n
. tl i ~ " y
~
n ~.. d r
S
^¢ n
^ n" n ~ ~
A, o
f n
+ o
~ ^' ~' n d
~ - n r
... „ o .. n t
N p
+f N i
° N o
n
, p
2140 N tl n Nn N n: n tl
^N ~ n ;• M N n .
h ,, N - n ~ 1 v 1 1 1 n 1 1 2140
1• ~.. 1 l 1 i.. ~ 1 P ~ . 1 1 .... y. ~ i N
-. r >
_ N > ~ a
_. 1,
1
,„ >
,
J 1
W 1 1`-
N ~F
W ~
W 1 1
> t~
N~ r
N 1 1 t
N f
N ~
W 1 1
> f.
N J _.
W F
N ; 1
~ W W
SS 1
> W
S. ~
S S _.F S
2135 S W S ~. $ ~.. W 1 < ~ S < j S $ S ~. < ~ 4 3 - ~ 6 6 ° H 6 '. 2135
N W. 4 ti K W 4 ~ ~ 5
.. . t W '
' G R p
6 4 G R tl 6 fL .. p
213() _ 4 4 __ _ 2130
17+00
h REVIEW COORDINATOR
~ SALAM MURTADA
PROJECT MANAGER

z
~em DEBORAH DANIEL
PROJECT ENGINEER
N ~
f MATTHEW CLABAUCH, PE
~ lll~ll
L(1ll1Ct
raocwuA (704) 521-41 D6
i„n,,,,,,~,n,».,.m
16+00 15+00 14+00
LC PROFILE
HOR. SCALE 1"=30'

VER. SCALE 1"=6' 13+00 12+00
STA. 8+75 TO END 11+00 10+00 9+00
N

n6
~~
LEWIS CREEK
STREA~A RESTORATI
N PROJECT
O
]ORDAN NORTH CAROLINA ~~~~
I ~~4 P~ & PR~~
JONES & ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT ~
'
~
o
~ o~
~
GOULDING PROGRAM c
~ SCO N0: 06-06799-01
~Q DE4CNE0: MMC CNEC%ED: DATE: OCTOBER, 2001 B A
2E6PONSE TO 60X CpAMENTS
~rcrnionrw rc xHarw
DRANN: M%0
JOB N0. 03060003
SCALE: AS SHOWN
SNEET
NEV

~i
m
CROSS VANE ~ EASOEMENT - PE -
ROOTWAD/LOG VANE LIMIT OF _ _
J-HOOK COMBO ~ DISTURBANCE EW
-.~ -~ ~~
y ^ ~ ~
,~ ~
_. PE -- PE
__ PE --- ~ ~- ~
.~- PE --~ PE
'~ APE ~~
~~ PE / 4ti00
,.~ 3
~~~~'~- ~
PE -_ PE --- PE ~
Pf
\~, ~ ~~ ~
t~ Af
V ~~
---_~~ ~~

. ENtST. ROPi .

E
IS
_f EIOST.-
~GROUN
AT - PROP
BAN
lt,.
~- ~N~R T ANKaUIL
•. pR

2155 PR
e~
Kau OUNO:AT
NTERUNE '~ / CENTER INE ~ 1 ~ J T. -' : TH WEG 2155
- 1 -, , J niei ~

r 1 oP. / wEC r
ALr+EC 1 / r
_
2150 f _ ~ - .~ -- - -~.e~ ~' 2t50
~ _
~~ ~ 64t ' ,

J
._
f
A
,
7
_ , tX
I x
/
.
~
n
,» _
_.~
„
~
~
N
~
~
2145 ~ _ T
~ tl o `~ • _ ~ • n
o ~i ~ r o
o ~ ~ & a n ~ r d r; 2145
Yi n n • f NI • _-._ • h n rv-. ; ; f
pp,~ tl O » rv D ..
n _ 1 1 1 1. * 1 _..
4. _
,b
~
p
1
f
1
1
~"
>
N
>
~
W
W
,n
2140 1. + ~ 1 1. 1 ; ^ i ; ry ~ r 1 < ~ 1<- J 1 1 F J % W 1 W 2140
.. F. .. 1 1:.... * ~
... .-.
» .W i t
»
41 yl ~
W „ W :_._ ~
$
~ >
W, ~
6 w
n .. Is
a S ,
s ~
% J.
W .. S
a S
a S
a S _..
0' ~
. N S~
a
...
N < >_. N ..
S S ~ ~ r S' ~ a ~. ~ R .ry 5. ... S
S.
a . H ~. S
a ~
s ° » a W ~ S
a s a
2135 W 5 2135
s a a

2130
, __ ! __ 2130

k
0
a
z
8+00 7+00 6+00 5+00 4+00
LC PROFILE STA. 0+00 TO 8+75
HOR. SCALE 1"=30'
VER. SCALE 1"=6'
N
~ .RENEW COORDINATOR
~ SALAM MURTADA
PROJECT MANAGER

?
~~{'j~p.{l/~y~J 1~y~~~$,p}~~~~~
" "'
~
11
t DEBORAH OANIEE
PROJECT ENGINEER
MAT
EW CLABAUCH, PE
I
10E1
Cl1
eaoewM (
70) 54^-4106
___ ... ._.,,_
JORDAN
]ONES &
GOULDING
3+00
2+00
I+CIO
LEWIS CREEK
STREA~A RESTORATION PROJECT
NORTH CAROLINA ~~°c~o~'
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT `O COS ~~ 5D0 N0: 06-06 79 9-01 PLAN & PROFILE
PROGRAM ~`~
do DEAGNED: MMC aECKED: DATE: OCTOBER, 2007
DR0.YM: MxD .roe No. 03060003 scaE: A5 SHOWN
V+UI
SH E7
i
0
np
o~
RAV

W
m
STREAM ALIGNMENT DATA
LINE TABLE

lN4E
LENGiH
BEARNG START
NORTHING START
EATING ENO
NIXtMMC END
FASTING
LI 121.89 N71'4 ' 'W 608780.7940 1002324.8909 608900.0988 1002299.9332
LZ 37.75 N66 6'16"W 608950.1112 1002258.8374 608964.9587 1002224.1051
L3 70.31 N70 '1 'W 609013.4111 1002185.5656 609082.6523 1002173.2910
L4
L5 100.79
62.79 N67 3'39'W
N71' "W 609135.2870
609226.2359 10021J0.70B1
100199J.2792 609173.2147
609287.1549 1002QT1.JJ05
1001980.7104
L6 55.64 N7 ' 4"W 609340.5003 1001937.1850 609357.238b 1001880,1213
L7
LB 76.46
48.37 N '4 '4 'W
1 7'16"W 609392.7344
609497.8635 1001836.9046
1001722.8192 609459.7923
609490.3985 1001800,1139
1001615.0336
L9
L10 50.14
45.31 N1 ~ 'Ot"
76 '41"W 609539.6476
609640.2531 1001601.7488
1001505.1995 609588.4429
609629.3241 1001590.1989
1001461.2225
L11 21.52 N 9' 8"W 609670.4025 1001398.6223 609691.6306 1001J95.0702
Lit 1.01 4 ' 'W 609745.2818 1001300.5651 609744.9158 1001299.6279
U}
L14 10.40
1.00 N 744'40"W
N61'41' "W 609777.5326
609807.4791 1001212.2107
1001186.8263 609786.7328
609807.9532 1001207.3714
1001185.9459
CURVE TABLE
CURVE RAgU$ LENGTN CHORD BEARING
Cl 70.00 67.34 64.78 N39 ' 6"W
C2 65.00 64.53 61.92 9'44'
C3 70.00 70.67 67.70 N38' 8' 6"W
C4 73.00 71.79 68.93 9'4 '14"
C5 70.00 74.46 71.00 N42T)I'1 'W
C6 75.00 51.31 55.93 'OB"
C7 75.00 91.85 86.22 N6 '47'4 "W
CB 65.00 97.07 88.30 56 5' "
C9 10.00 110.74 99.54 NSB' 8'1 "W
C10 51.00 84.08 74.81 '43' "
C11 70.00 124.41 108.67 N 4' 8"W
C12 70.00 102.12 93.30 '1
C13 50.00 29.63 29.20 N44'4 '1 "W
STRUCTURE LOCATION TABLE
__
~ crecl~a cTOlrlTin[`t!V`1TIANC '
STRUCTURE TYPE STATION SIDE Ob'STREAM Wl1RIN0 UA
Cross Vane 0 Mid
Root W Vare J-Hoof: Combo 121.9 R
RootW Vane l-Hod: Combo 161.2 R
RootW Vane l-NookCada 2270 L
RootW Vare l-Had:Cmbo 266.5 L
RootW Vane 1-Hook Cadw 36LS R
RodW Vane l-Hod: Campo 407.5 R
Rod W Yore 1-Hod; Combo 573.3 L
Roo W Pane 1-Hook Camba 5801 L
RootW Vane f-Hods Combo 667.9 R
RootW Vane l-Hook Cam6o 117.3 R
Roof W Yane 1-Hook Combo 798.0 L
Rao W Pare 1-Hook Cmbo 8303 L
Roof Wa Vane 1-Hook Combo 9317 R
RooIW Vare l-Had: Combo 998.6 R
Root Wa Vane 1-Hook Combo 1W1.9 L
Root Wa Vane 1-Hook Cmbo 1144.0 L
Roo W Vane ]-Hook Combo 1219.2 R
RootW Vare l-Hook Canbo 1304.9 R
Root Wa Vane J-HookCmbo 1373.2 L
Rad Wa Vane J-Hook Combo 1434.3 L
Roof W Vane J-Hod: Campo 1480.6 R
Root W Vane J-Hook Combo 1530.6 R
Goss Vane 15802 Mid
RootW Vane l-Had: Combo 1651.8 L
Goss Yare 1123.4 Mid
i
n
0
N
Vh
Mp
O~

c
~Ij~iarin~llf
raocaAaA
RENEW COORDINATOR
SALAM MURTAOA
PROJECT MANAGER
DEBORAH DANIEL
PROJECT ENGINEER
MATTHEW CLABAUCH, PE
[phone]
OF REMSION
JORDAN
JONES &
GOULDING
NORTH CAROLINA
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM
~~ ~c~o~
~QQO G~~S~~
~l-
LEWIS CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
STREAM ALIGNMENT do STRUCTURE LOCAl10N
SCO N0: 06-06799-01
DESIGNED: MMC CHECKED: OaTE: OCTOBER, 2007 9
ORAYM: MxD Joe No. 03060003 9caLE: A$ SHOWN 9HEEr
HA

p
DETERMINING
ANTINC DEPTH
_. DF SOIL MOUND
ANO LATERALS SPREAD OUT OVER SIDE
I. SOAK ROOTS OVERNIGHT
2. CUT BROKEN ROOTS BACK TO HEALTHY (ISSUE
1. DIG A HOLE LARGE ENWCH TO ACCOMMODATE NLL
ROOT LENGTH
4. SPREAD ROOTS OUTWARD AND DOWNWARD
6. BACK-FILL SqL; WORK IN AND TAMP AROUND ROOTS
6. WATER, A.NO LET THE $qL SETTLE
1. RE-ADJUST THE TREE SO THAT R00T CROWN IS AT
GRADE IEVEI
8. FlLL THE (SST OF THE HOLE, AND TAMP SqL
9. SOAK WITH WATER
10. MULCH
BARE ROOT USING A SHOVEL
N.T.S.
EXISRNC SPEGMEN TREE
RANGE NriON SAFEtt
ENGNG 36' HT.
~TAPLE TO POSTS
NOD STAKE
'DST 2'%4'X5' 8'
LC.
%ISTINC GRADE
1N015NR8ED
TREE PROTECTION FENCING DETAIL
N.T.S.
3"
I
D
A
J
L
I
~
-1 I`
li
I
16'-36"
I
LENGTH

TRENCH IN I

FABRIC 12' I
I
45

3~ SPAGNC

ON CENTER -
FIBER (CqR)
I~ MATTING
~I
I'
AL ~
FLOW
~ I
-
.-~--~~ SECURE MATRNG
-~~ --~ W7TH SHARPENED
WOODEN STAKES
(MINIMUM t' : 2'
x 12")
TRENCH IN
FABRIC 12' ~ NOTE: ROOTED/LEAFED
CONDIRON ON THE
STAKES MALL CONSIST OF gACRAM IS NOT
SPEgES LISTED FOR REPRESENTATIVE W THE
PLANTING IN ZONE 1 STAKES AT TIME OF
INSTALLATION.
LIVE STAKING
N.T.S.
Y REVIEW COORDINATOR
~ SALAM MURTADA
PROJECT MANAGER
~~(~
/~ DEBORAH DANIEL
PROJECT ENGINEER
N ~ ,
em
f
r MATTHEW CLABAUCH, PE
~ ~
PROGRAM (7D4) 527-4106
mclaboughQjjg.com
a
JORDAN
]ONES &
GOULDING
PLANTING
DETAILS
NOT TO SCALE
ALL TREES MUST HAVE A STAKE
DRIVEN APPROK 1' TO THE
EAST. STAKE SHOULD IOENTIfY
SPEGES PLANTED.
k Xk y-- k/ /
tPARN IAN AREA / • / / /,
~ , / /
k / / /
k , / /, / •~
/~ / // /N
/ BENCH / / / ' /k
' / /, /'k
~I l •/Nk
/ / ~ ~k k .
N TREE - 10' o.c.
• SHRUB - 6' o.c
/ UYE STAKE - 3' o.c
NOTES:
1. ALL TREE PLANTINGS 10~ APART. ALL
SHRUB PLANTINGS MIN. 6' APART.
2. ALL PLANTINGS MIN. 5' FROM ZONE
EDGES.
3. SPEpES AND PLANTING ZONES ARE
IDENTIFIED ON PLAN.
4. PLANT RANDOMLY BY SPEpES AND
SPAGNO
RANDOM PLANTING DETAIL
NTS
BENCH
NORTH CAROLINA
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM
~ ~~~p~
00 ~~ 5~R G
~~
/
,-
Y 1. Insert dbble as shown and pull
- , ~~~~
I handle towards plonter
J
y
2. Remove dibble and place seedling
at correct depth
~~
}. Inert dibble at an angle 3-4
inches toward plonter tram
seeAing. Push handle of dibble
forward from planter
,y
4. So9 at this poet must be firmly
packed around the aeedling that
the seedling doesn't move when
given a fam tug. Leave the second
hde
Citation:
Prepared by. Robert Gordon and BNI Gardner,
Extension Forestry Spetidisls, North Cadna
state wirer:aY
Published by. NORTH CAROLINA COOPERATIVE
EXTENSION SERWCE
PLANTING WITH A DIBBLE
"PLANTING" BAR
N.T.S.
s
an
na
°o~
LEWIS CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
PLANTING DETAILS
SCO N0: 06-06799-01
DESIGNED: RB CHECKED: DATE: OCTOBER, 2007 p1T-O1 A
DRAWN: MXp uolt ND. 03060003 SCALE: AS SHOWN SHEET REv
ACTIVE TREE FENCE
• O
O
pRl U
TREE FENCE TO
8E PLACED OUTSIDE
PAN OF DRIPUNE.
STREAM CHANNEL
-BANK
ALLOW NO FlLL OVER CANOPY DRIP UNE
ELEVATION

PLANTING DETAILS
NOT TO SCALE
Montane Alluvial Forest- PiedmontlMountain Alluvial Forest Intermediate Community
Stream banks and Adjacent Riparian Planting List -Woody Species
Zone(s) Common Name Scienti5c Name Wed Ind
Slat Size Spacing Quantity
Trees/Overs tory
3 Tul trez Liriodendrontuli ijera FAC 24"or>b.r. 10.feet0.C.random 127
3 BlackCheny Prunusserolina FACU 24"or>b.r. 10.feet0.C.random 127
3 White oak Quercus alba FACU 24" or> b.r. ]0-feet O.C. mndom 127
3 Americans canare Platanus occidentalis FACW- 24" or> b.r. 10-feet O.C. random 380
3 RiverbQCh Berulani ra FACW 24"or>b.r. 10.feet0.C.mndom 253
3 Red maple Acerru6rum FAC 24"or>b.r. 10.feet0.C.random 253
Total Trees ' ' i 1,267
Shruhs/iTnderstory
2 Americanholl 11ezo aca FAG- 24"or>b.r. 6feetO.C.random 146
312 Alder Alnusserrnlata FACW 24"or>b.r. 6feet0.C.random 76/146
312 S do wood Cornusamomum FACW 24"or>b.r. t>feetO.C.random 76/194
312 S icebush Lindera benzoin OBL 24" or>b.r. (Meet O.C. random SI / 194
312 Ironwood Ca inuscaroliniana FAC 24"or>b.r. t}feet O.C.tandom 51197
2 Smooth sumac Rhus glabra N/A 24" or>b.r. 6feet O.C. random 97
Total shrubs Zones
3/2
,
254 / 874
Lie Stakes
1 Black willow Salix nigra FACW 36" or> 3-feet O.C. mndom 1,586
1 Nmebark Ph siocar us o ulijolius FAC- 36" or> 3-feet O.C. random 1,539
1 Silky dogwood Cornus amamum FACW 36" or> 3-feet O.C. random 1,539
Totalstakes ' 4,664
Temporary Seeding Specification
S ties Common Name Plantin Dates untains Seed Mixture Seed Ibs/acre
Secalecereale R e min Au ust IS-Ma l5 40% 30
Triticumaestivum Winter Wheat Au ust IS-Ma IS 40°/, 30
Setariairalica Getman millet Ma IS-Au ustlS 10% 10
Urachloaramosa Brownto rrtillet Ma IS-Au ustlS 10% 10
Total 100°/a 80
' Seed available fromFmst Seeds:
_ _ _
wawcemslseed.com

800-873-3321

814-336-5191(fax
__ _ ;

. _ w.. ,
_

_._ _.._

._ _ . .
Grass Seeding Speci fication -Permanent Seed Mix
S ties Common Name T 'mal Plantin Dates Seed Mixture Seed bs/acre
anicumvir arum Switch mss warmseason Dec l-A ti115 33% S
anicumclandestinum Deerton ue warmseason Decl-A n715 23% 3.5
or hastrumnutans Indian mss warmseason Dec 1-A till6 ll% 2.5
Elymus hysrrir Fastem bottkbtush gross Cool season March I -May I5, 13'/0 2
!u 15-Au . l5
uncuseffusus Soft rush wetland Decl-May IS, 13% 2
Au . IS-Oct IS
Total 100% IS
'Seed available from First Seedy.
__e __._ ___._
www.emstseed.com
800-873-3321
814-336-5191 fax
TYPICAL PLANTING DETAIL
N.i.S.
3
a
0
a'n
no
°o~
- PLANS PREPARED FOR LEWIS CREEK
M RESTORATION PROJECT
TR
Y RENEW COORDINATOR O EA
S
SALAM MURTADA JORDAN NORTH CAROLINA ~
~
~~
I ~, a~
~ PLANTING DETAILS
PROJECT MANAGER ~ IONES & ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT 4
q4
~
DEBORAH DANIEL ~~
~~
ry~
P
OJECT ENGINEER
~OS
m
e
GOULDING
PROGRAM G
R SCO N0: 06-06799-OI
`
~;,
~
ry
/11 ~!~
1
MATh
(p] ry
0
A
PE ~~ DE9CNED: R6 eNECI(ED: DAtE: OCTOBER, 2007 pLT
02
7
~
W~I~l.lll
04) $27
-
4106 A 12-1J-07. RESPONSE TO 60x COMMENI$ _ A
P•kocRAN mclabcughOjjg.com ND. GATE DESpdPT10N O< RENSION
ORAMN: MXO
JDB N0. 03060003
SGtLE: A$ SHOWN
SNEEi
REV

m ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ZONE 3
t
N
O
a
z
0
Z
N

Q
~ `
Q
_ E%IST. ROP:
- E>aST. PROP
-

~ CROUNO
C&NTERU T ANICFIAL ~
.
p E IST.
OUNOAT '. ~ CENTER INE BANK LL ._ ~ '. . _ -~ TH WEC 2155
2155 R
BA KFULL TERUNE '~ /
_'
"
J ` -'
..
:. .. ~ ~ ~ ~ PROP.
THAIWEC 1
l .>/ _.
` _/ Op • ~
i ALWec 1 / i , _ ' \ . ,_ ~ _ ` _ ~, 2150
1 _ ~
2150 ~ _ _ ,

~
, ~
_
. •
;
,
,
l'~
4 ~
~~ ~
.1_
~
o
:
~.
n I
1 .
:.
n
~.
a°,
n:_
n
~i-
~i-

__.

.

._.
.. 7 1 ; _
~ . . ... N tl
. _.
. .. ° tl
0 0 Oi H P: p
P Y tl :' 2145
2145 ~ ~ ' ' C ~ N b 1

~ N W
n N
1 tl
I
1
~ y 1 1
W N
W_..
r ~.
~ N
1..
.
f.
WJ.., (
~
W.
1 W
~
2140
1 N T I 1.. 1 ~ N ( J I I ( J h 1 .
21~ + W ' ^
1 ' ~ W V7
,. W ,.
' ;.. S 5 M J. . S. 5.... 4. 4.. F 4. ,..
X 1 1 (
~ .
W F.
N W F
~ W y
j W M~ 6 ~ ~ G LL
' d Q „ W 6 „
-
'
_
.
4J
S
,.
M1
4'
. N _
R,
g ....
G
y
6.
~ ~ .
6:
~
6
`
S
. ~
n a.
u . 2135
2135 n H W ~ S
4 LL 6 _
213(1
2130
8+00 7+00 6+UU ~*W ~~°~ -•-
LC PROFILE STA. 0+00 TO 8+75
HOR. SCALE 1"=30'
VER. SCALE 1"=6'
~ RENEW COORDINATOR
~ SALAM MURTAOA
PROJECT MANAGER

~
"
l
F DEBORAH DANIEL
z i ~{,f~~~~~~(~~~/\~(~~J~~[[f/~~'Jf~~(J(Jp~~~
~
1_-~
~jj~-'
r~~
~ PROJECT ENGINEER
MATTHEW CLABAUCH, PE
€
~ 1 JL111CtLtWI110Ii
PROGRAM [phone]
~I~An~iMtD~n mm
i
n
0
no
o~
LEWIS CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
1 (]ORDAN NORTH CAROLINA 4~~,4 ~9 °~ p~AN11NG PLAN
]ONES 8~ ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT
GOULDING PROGRAM ~° c°`'~ SCO N0: 06-06799-Ot
~~ oESiWEO: MMC CHECKED: DATE: DCTOBER, 2007 pLT-03 A
i60x COUMENTS
OF REVISION DRAYM: M%O JOB N0. 03060003 SCALE: A$ SHOWN SHEET REV

mi
u
O
Z
A
N
~~
ZONE i
_.. E
~ ST.
W
...
. .. . ~ PROP I :...
2155 ~ IERUNE PR THAL G
' PROP.
~ LOST.
' 2155
. .. _
- ~.
~ '. BANH E LL ..
- BANI(F LL
TERUNE
f
~ `.-
-
~ J~ _, ~_ _ ~ ~ / r..
2150 / _ . J . ~ 2150
- . ~ ° ` ~ . -
`
/
.
`
.61
2145 -1. ~ % x
_ ~
- - e . 1 ~ t
° ' . i 1 ~
.
. 1 ~ ~ , . 214 5
tl
f_
.. _ - tl
~ ~ +

2140 h
N d..
b ~
~ ,r,+
IV" <
H ry
*..
. n
A +
tl o n
A 4
• i
_ •
N f
N p
p. +
h Y
„ 4
~ q
f O
., ~
N
N O
Y1
N ~
(V . p
^.
.. .
01 t ..
1
> ~ •
N_
_I 1
'1
~~11
'.
. .
tli
N 'N
to
n
N '
1 ^
1_
.>
_
r n
N
> ^
N ~
N
> 1
>._ f
N 1
>

. 1 I
~

J _ n

1,

I

..
,.. I

.N l

.

;.

2140
W 1 ~- H
N Y1F,
N W. 1. 1 t0
yl. ry 1 1 .-
M F.
N W _. 1 1 ~ t
M ~ h
N -. Y 1 ... W W /
> W ~ W
2135 S W S S 1 < ~ S ~ S S < W a ~ ~ n i d H 4
N W a o. N o. > h 2135

LL_
.
6
G
N W ,
W..
S
6
:
~
~
6
~
6
q
-
d
-
d
.
0.
2130 a " ' _
.. .__ _ _ _ 2130
17+00
Y REVIEW COORDINATOR
SALAM MURTADA
PROJECT MANAGER

m ~~'1,Uj~~~1_7{flj~./(~]J~'r( ry L

~~
11~
1I DEBORAH DANIEL
PROJECT ENGINEER
MATTHEW CIABAUGH, PE
z 1J1ll1U1
C
PROGRAM (7D4) 527-4106
~Inl...ii~l. ®::..,....
•v. vv IJTW 11TW
LC PROFILE

HOR. SCALE 1"=30'
VER. SCALE 1"=6' IJtW 1Z}00
STA. 8+75 TO END 11}~ 10}~ 9}~

0
00

LEWIS CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT
]ORDAN NORTH C ~
~
1 '
J AROLINA ~
~~~

JONES &
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT ~
4
~
4 PLANI~N~ P~nN
,~
S
c
`'
°
GOULDING PROGRAM c~
~ SCO N0: 06-06799-01
~
ESPONSE TO 60% COMMENTS
DESGNEO. MMC
p1ECKEO:
DATE: OCTOBER, 2007
pLT-04
A
ESCRIP110N OF RENSION ORARN: M%D JO6 N0. 03060003 SCALE: A$ SHOWN SHEET REY
- . C _. vun. a .. nuu -
s . o t r rn :.., .
{rore~1
1 inch • 00 R -

J ~ Jordan
Jones ~
Goulding
SECTION 10
Oc3-0008
Appendix 1-Project Site Photos
Appendix 2 -Project Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix 3 -Reference Site Photos
Appendix 4 -Reference Site NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Appendix 5 - HEC-RAS Analysis
Appendix 6 -Supporting Documentation
•
•
APPENDICES
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

• APPENDIXI
PROJECT SITE PHOTOS
•

Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

• • •

kA h

r ~
,. ~
{q z
~~ _ 4:'i
~ .3~~. ~ A ~R .
n

i 4

~ ~'.
v

~
~'
~~
J
7»
s „y5
~ ~.
:°~A ~ j• S

3. Typical Beaver Dam
7.3.2007
2. Vertical, Bare Bank
7.3.2007

i 4* , :.
. ~ ~~ r 4~;~ r t '4 ~~ j ~i

~` }
d
i ,.
~ y 6r ~ ° ~~ ~

'' '~ ° ~.
~
~y, ~
~. 0. ~r
~
4 +~
e bAi 'tlS' ~ , ,~ ~
,ry
.
»~
' M
~
~
~w
4m
~ ~ ~.~ ~~,~
fi .
i':
~+ ~{
.r~
~r . ~PA h e ~R-
•. \.
~_ ¢
A
~
4. Wetland Ditch
7.3.2007
Prepared For: Lewis Creek
Date: December 2007
Restoration Plan
Jordan
A endix 1. Pro ect Site Photos Janes s
pp ~ Goulding
1. Main Channel Bank Erosion
7.3.2007

•

4 ~ ~ ~~, ~ ~__
~'sG y~ > ya 'k9.
W '( y
A - ~ I
~~ y~ .

/
_ / / .~~,
,. "
j
,.n ~ - ..
~ ,.
1
1
~
6. Sediment Deposition
7.3.2007
• •
7. Crest Gauge Looking Downstream
7.3.2007
Prepared For: Lewis Creek
Date: December 2007
Restoration Plan
~~ Jordan
Appendix 1. Project Site Photos Goulding
5. Mid-Channel Bar at RD Bridge
7.3.2007

• • •
~: - ,
~, ~.:
. _,~ ~r

8. Main Channel Typical Riffle Cross-Section
Looking Upstream 7.3.2007
~~~,
'~"
9. Main Channel Typical Riffle Cross-Section
Looking Downstream 7.3.2007
10. Main Channel Typical Run Cross-Section 11. Main Channel Typical Run Cross-Section
Looking Upstream 7.3.2007 Looking Downstream 7.3.2007
Prepared For: Lewis Creek
Date: December 2007
Restoration Plan
Jordan
i c„4+~~,1~• Appendix 1. Project Site Photos Qou ding

• • •

_, : P
.f~., ~e
k ',y
y~~

~ ` F
~ ~l ik ~ ~~ ~ ~ e
~
° ~ ~
Y~y
n
~ ~
j
~
~
~
r. ~ T ~ a ` m,~
v ~ c ~` °'
Y
~-~ iC
'~A"°
'
~ ~~~
~
~3 .~ ~
er xk
~~
aa
.
a~' ~,
,F : ~
_

12. Mai n Channel Typical Pool Cross-Section 13. Main Channel Typical Pool Cross-Section
Looking Upstream 7.3.2007 Looking Downstream 7.3.2007
Prepared For: Lewis Creek
Date: ~
December ..007
Restoration Plan

Jordan
+~ ~ ~~ ~~+~~<~°.1 ~ Appendix 1. Project Site Photos Goulding

•
APPENDIX 2
PROJECT SITE NCDWQ STREAM CLASSIFICATION
FORMS
t
•
Lewis Creek
Restoration Plan
Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
December 2007

hTCDWQ 5tre~tm Classrficati©n Form
I' 'ect Nance: ~.~~'YJS Ck~F~~..,. River Basin: ~'f?~-t~t~.ti L~#;'C~/1~~ County: N~~~:~` ~u~~ Lva(uatbr: ~ iZ `'`~
Project Number. Nearest Named Sirc.am•, L ~~~'t ~ Latitude: ~3~` ~.,~' ~ ~~ `" ~iltnaiure: ,~~"z~-'~~'""""
e: f ~~~{~`~'2~~'~ USGS QUAD: $~` C'~fiu~" Longitude: 3~~ :::a,~ t , l.ncation/Direction:
~P`L~~S~ ~~T ~: If evaluator arut landowner agree Chat lhe,~eature ~€.~ a manmade ditch. then ,use of this form ix not nec~rssrrr4~.
also, iflrr the best professionat~udgc~me~t of the evaluator, the~'~ature is c~ man-mpde ditch tztrdnot a ntodi~ed ,rci~t~rral stre~tt~~thfs
rating ~t=stem should not be used``
PrrmaJwY Field IJ~dicators: (Circle t)ne 1~1~mber Per Line)
~,., ~u~
t Js ! here tt KJI Je-k'ooJ t U ~ S
~~ Ts The USDA Texture In Streamed
9} Xs a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 4 (!~ 2 3
~~
l Q) Is a 2~ {Jrder 4c Greate!' ~nel {As Indicated ~,.....--._.,,
AfiA1~I~GE+DMt?;RP'1~'F~~t1~~'.;~VDIGA7~"~F'OI1V'~"S.. r3
I. ~drt~t Absent Weak Moderate ~tron
1 ~ Is There ~ Groun~~=ater
Flnw/f7icclyaro~ Prrcr~i? n ~ ? 1
FRI142'ARYHYDRt1LLIGYINDI~AT+DR J'(~INTS;,~_,~,
Secondary Ft~a~ Indicator. ~Clrcle one i~~umber Per Line
3} Does Topography
irate A
FRI1t1ARYBIDLO'GYINDIC:'AT'UR F()INTS ¢
.~~C+~7NDA~tY +~.~'f,~~If3RFIICILOGY' INDIA TC~R` .PDIIVTS: ~
•drola Absent "i~'eak N~aderate .Strop
~TFtiC 1~t ar'c (Clr f act ~'a~ar'c'i 1 Pe:Aittar

• •
~~ E~; Vlr'~~i~r Ire ~h~:nnel .~ncl ~~#~ hrs. SinG~e
~~~~t ;f~`~t~~-~ ~~~, , ~` ~'ti~ ~ ~' ~ ndr - tad
-~~.1~ There ~'~ater In Channel During ~Zy Q
•
.5 ~ ~~~
Betc»~~*
~ . ~ f

~ t'N~
~)~
~~.}I.~~
~'~ ~1'~ ~I~
4'
S ~
~~.I"f' ~'~ {~I"I
~
r
G
~~CL
~
~ _T
~'` = .~,
f~~'t s ~}
*i
~
,,
~
~
~r~
*
!~~
+~/~
~g
L
,
#
~~~, 1~olQ ~ Absent ~'Veak l~~d~t~ete S~r~sn~
i ~) ~ re F~s~ Pre~t~ ~ 1 l .
?' aA1 re ~1.~n hhia.~ts Present? ~ 1 ~ _~'
~.
~~ ~~r~ v~~h Pres~"~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
1 ~ rat 11,~fi ~r=rnhrSt~tthnc Pr~-c~mt'~ n _~ ~ ~ .
r I~ Film~c~ntalxs Al ae Prey ~`? U ~ ~.
~~ 1~re ~,~lrtl~nd Plants In Strewbed? S~'"~ l'~`~t~stt~ ~~, lti'ostfi~r FACV~ l~Iostly FAC Mc~s#ly P~+CU
N[ost1~R UPI,,
r• N~T,~: I~'~"r~xal ,~iht,~rree C.?,f~~lll Al~r~rts lr~ Str~czrrrbe~l ~ l .7$ .~ {~
,F~s ;'~i~~ccf .~~t'~c~~~c ,~Ici ?"his ~~~ LJ1YL:S SA~~ Fr~,sent'
~' ~"~L ~~~ ~"rtnur~ ~- ~ec~nd~ry,~ = :~? {I,f remoter ~Ir~n ~r ,~~rurrl ~"o I ~ I'~rair~ts Ali
S~rerr~n Is ,fit Least ~n~'erx~xx'ttent

• APPENDIX 3
REFERENCE SITE PHOTOS
•
•
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

• •
1. Raccoon Creek Typical Riffle Cross-Section
7.12.2007
s ;*~
l
~ atro
~OpM1 ,.k
y~, ~

7
~~ k ~a ~4 w yyy~~~...
...
5y 4. ~
, . ~
i
~
~
K ~
~ ~
~A
~.. ~' ~' 4.Y v ^•4
a ~~~ t.. ~ +. ~ r,
.~
1, , ~~
~ d "~73+'~, ~,
! r

2. Raccoon Creek Typical Pool Cross-Section
7.12.2007
3. Raccoon Creek Typical Pool Cross-Section 4. Raccoon Creek Typical Run Cross-Section
7.12.2007 7.12.2007
Prepared For: Lewis Creek
Date: December 2007
Restoration Plan
"'~ Jardan
-~ ~~ Appendix 3. Reference Site Photos Goulding

APPENDIX 4
REFERENCE SITE NCDWQ STREAM
CLASSIFICATION FORMS
•
•
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

fi7C;D~'4'Q St~~earn C'l~ssifir~ttiort Fc~rt~~
l'~c~jert Nanic: ~:,'J~C't ~'~~~,--.~ ~~~=~'x:-12i~fer E3a5in:*~~'z~~i'vC f{ ` "~,~~~ Counts: ¢{;*yLu~R~~ F~valuatar` i ~Yt`f
t,~ I'r~ject Nu~t~bc.r: dearest Nxrn~ai Stream: {~~~ t ~~r~: Latitude: > ~ .~~`~~~ Si~natt~re: ~~~t~~~~~:,,.-~
~:~J~tt,-~"2.~"~;'~ USGS f,~UAi~: 4v~~r~t;~-~~iL~t- t,c~ngitude: - ~ 4. •,t~ 4t,-. t.QCation%I~irefitions:
*PLE~ISE hd~'r: if c~valuatnr acrd tanrinwner agree that thefeature is a mart,mnde tiilch, them use of this farm is Wert ncz°escar-~.
.~i.ro~ if ire ~rhe ~rofessiaaal; f udgrntera~t of tl~e es~aluatr~rr the fEaiure is a morn-ntacfe ditch at~d rrr~t a modified natural stream--~-thr`s
rating s~stera shnuid root lre ucc~d*
~'rin~arY Fie]c~ ~ndi~ata~~: ~C.`irclc Qne Number e'er Line
~. Ccamarrihala~y Absent ti~'cak l4'[oderatc Strang
2~ is The USDA 'Texture in Streambed
4 I I u ~ 0 I
~~ Is Them An Active (Oc Relic}
9} is ~ C;c+nfinuaus Bed ~ Bank Nresent? 0 !
~~~
~4) Is a 2'~ Qr~cr £kGreatec channel BAs indicaEed
Chi Tntaa l~at~ ~~dltJr an Meld) Fre~t'~ Yer3 ~'a~l _ _ _ _
~Y c~o~roiePHO~a~~ t~le,~ r~oR Por~TS: ~
I} is There A Groctttd~~°ater
.~€~`DROI~I~~'INIIIC`ATOR P(11NTS:
~~ tr PP-rir~hr,rr~rt Are~ccayt? C- 1
-. ~~~;.~~~~~~, ,.~ a ~.
.~'",~ZIMr4RY'.~'1`U,+~+QG.Y INI)ICA~'"Gil{ I'+t~fNTS: l ~
Secondary Field Ind~eatnrs. (Circle Q~e Number Per Line)
I'tiar's (Gr La.~t `t e~r's~ Lcai€itter
In Strcam~cd'? _ 1.
Went ~~n I'lams i~)r [)et~ris~ Present? Ct
3~ T}oc;s Topogaphy Indicate A
Nato 1 Drairta -c Way'? ~ .5 2 I.5
S~GQIVDAR)F' GE(~MURPH4LQG ~x 114'DIC`~ 7'OR PDI1~rTS:
~~~'rirala~v Absc;t~f ~4~`eak ~'t~crder~tc Strom -- _

• •
t
--=AA"~
~~ ;; ~'~~~t~r ~~ channel .~r~d X48 H`rs. Since U .~ 1 .~ 'd
I ~~ ,ttfJ'1~~1~- ~a'n~ ~"~° f~~ ~'r~df~~~ ~ ~ ## ft ~~Ski ~s ~' ;brut ~~ ~~ ~` ~~~»,.~~.~.-
~ is `I"l~erc mater T~ Channel ~urin~ ~z~ ~ .5 ~ ~~~
~'~r~cliti~~~s fir' ~~~ n ea~an ? `~.`~.
t~ ~'~re I~udric ~c~l t ~n fides ~ I ~eadcut'~ ~'~~~y.S tY©-~~ ,?:
~~~~~~.~~' ~' l~~~i .~~L+t~~' 11"~~'?1+~.~ fit?. .~"(?l~~"~`
...rte • ~a~_ ~F_ ~.t._ L~'~~
III. I~olo ~ ~,~scn vv+~-a.~ ~.~~ ~ ~~ ~..-~, .~..
~.~
~) ,~trc Fish .Present`'
1.5
2 rare ~~~ hi~rian~ l~t~ ~
;~ ~ 4 [' id~i~ltiC: ~lEt,71.~~ ~.~ ac:~ [ ~ c.~~. r
~} ~.rc wetland Plants In Streamt~d'~ ~~~' ~iastly UB~, Most] FACW Mastiy FA+C Mostly Ft~CU
Mt~stt~f UPL
~`* ~'vCIT~: tJ`~'~t~l A~sr~~ U~'dll ~lrsnts Irr Stretzmbed 2 l ,~5
.~3 s ~ti°f~~~n~a thc~~e Ski his to tl~Y~~~,~Sft ~ ~'r~s~rtt'"
~~~L ~~~~ ~'rirn~rY -~ ~eccrn~~ _ ~ £~~"~Greater ~'Irnn ~~~ Ec~~rnrl T'r~ ~'9 .~'nin~s Tlr
~It~tes

• APPENDIX 5
HEC-RAS ANALYSIS
•
t
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

• •
. #,r~~ _ ~:-s4 .~` a`,~ ~~~ .y,~~~k~ri.; 5aa •+ ~ ~k. ~p ~ aa~ "r ~:. `^+E i ~.r
14*c 4 r
y~~y a ~~~' * '' *~*'p~[ - ~R~ai.~~` ~ ~ ."~ r ~','J a° y ~ l Fwr. ~~a ~eF ~ ,'~,s nr r
- Y L ~J?"i , ''i ~f b- ~. ~+`~ .y A" ~ .h Y F M Y' F ,y ~
' t r.~ ~r ',4~.. ~ Rik 4 t ~r ~ ~ H t a 'F ~, F k s "~ ~K~ ? ~ r ' .9"
~ ~' ] y
f.
a ~t ° ~
n~ "'~ ~.• ~ L Zs ~~ ~ ~ .±iM ~+M.^l {#+,~ ~ A~~~°~tl ~ a.:~, ! ~ `d'A~~ x '` ~y~ i:f'as ~
« .. ., a ,a+x _. .~~ ~•. 'a N Tr ~5~.!~° ~ '~ h" n~.~ ~`Y '•~ ~f ~ a.~ ; .r. ~ F ¢'. ~'w ~k
~ ':. ~ ~y u ,~ ask 2 r~yc, 6 ~ n ~ .3r d K ~ td . ~ t « ~t ~ u '~ x ~ +
~a,,p1~ i• a ~~ q 7 c ` a ~ ~ 'ky,y ,9 .i"'''~ *~ _ xy~- +F *r P v ~ y w . ~ r
~ "?~_. S ~, ~ "': ' j c a(',h'. 1F a 7 r'~j ~ "';k a.~e yht ~" FJ, i .f, i ~
~ 8
x Ny ~ ''~ r+.a'~~ ~ ~ 9 °a, g ~ir x ~~ ~ v~ y ~ •ti ti,~~ may, ~ • ~ >~ ~~ ~~. ~~ .~~ ~ •.~ ~ -..
at.!?.: a. a~ ~ `~' ^ ~ ti. M t J,~ /.i~ `'!y k '9.. o; _ p ~, '~;i , ky!i~~r
D 01 , .~ ,~ ~ ~ '~` ~. `v w M r ~. y
~ + ~ o tie g ~` ~.-*~~4 „~ jy~' ,"y ~t ~ ~ ' f
d '4 A ~:. ,~+~ ,,' !7y yrs... ~ ~~ ^ f Z yea ,
..r ,~. ~ < ~. a _ ~- f~+« -.~, .. v.- ,1 ?apt '~:e t~.•
~.:.
1x39 i 9~"" 7~ t+ ~ `~~ ~ r ~' ~ ti ~~ ~~ ~ ca ?a ` ~wr
~' Y. <, r ~ ~,~,
~4~a *. a. ,y, ~, yP 'U 4/~.~,yy. F 1 4 t~ - tr • {~ `
~~ =y #ct4~~' ,,. ~ ~ d3 _ ~ Fa4 0'5&'+x« , 'f 1
a~ ~ t A } ~' 'rt '4F"~* A~ " ~+ '+ ' ',P > ~ v~_ ~ -~ '1} q• ~{ « y+ J ~~7ri! ~p„ ~- 1 ~ `'. ^,r.~-Y
~c`'' ~ ~# r °'-~^' s Y s° ,~^i .._, ~ •Walw '`i~'c < ~ Y¢ a„ °. ,M ~`~ ~ S~+S"'r,.y r, a •
w ,u~~er k~ m^' .~ }""s'~v `'f~+ jr y •a ~ y? df a•t n' °~~ ~~< , `e < .~ ~# i },' ,I!
.r ~ krt i.. ~ ~~ ~+., c~ ..fix ~y fr M y a 9
w
~~,~
'~ ~r ~ r ti ' y ~ ~+" ~. rtii M ~ r ~ 4
~? ~ ''fi`r ~ "~ y 4 .,•.+~ '~ /~,'r
a a ~~ ~ 4 ~ ,~" ~v, - i
r ~ ~t'~ ",~yy 1 1_JV.67 f° ,; ~l .~~1 rq '~
.' ! RAP"- .
^~ .. .C
«' f
+~ - ...
~~
t ..
.:
a
i."~' ~~. ,'`Y`~ f, 4r~r ,, Hs js•~°~r'••a`~'} 44 'ddk `..a~'~{p:'r~ V~ m '
r
~ ~~'• ~. ~ '154286 3 ~~ ~~
,~ ;_.~ '' r -f , a 1691 34 ` ~~. ~ Jl . ~ r
Lewis Creek Existing HECRAS Geometry and Cross-Section Stations

• • •
-~Ts» Y.~ s r'r'~ -.- .tS~~r ,F ,~ §~t s "'r '" yi,~w~'° '. ~o. ~ Y ~ 'ir`e
~ „t # r r ^ ; ~ a ~
P d ,~ 4' ky ? .~d ~ ~ Y / } ~t.P~,
.~~. n .i yY'~+t ~ ~+ •T Y e t r ,. ' ~ s; ~ ,i y~ '~ ~A 4, ~,r ~Y yt,. .ryt<~5r
r ~„ ~ ! 4 . 4 U {f f w. j
y -` ~ .~"~ .dlil t• ~;a x.r. ~' .+ Y..rc ri ~r ~P x t ~~ a ° a ~ t , ~ .'.~~ ~ s¢ r. ~" ~ r . y ,~ , i ~ .a'- '~. a ~`
a ~a, ~ S e- ~ yr t~~A ~ try ~ vy v~, ~ .r # b -,>r z~~ ~ ~1t'`` r , r.
~fe'~M'h~` 1+y~~p .A F ~~t. ;~ Y KY.. Y?~ 4 f ! rl r n¢ nd fie; .t A,r ~ ~~A ... ~ ~, .. ~.~ ,w
,~~.~ 1+ d & G ~ rvy i A "} 4~ N "b 5
~ ~ ~ q'SrRl"i~~T ,, ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ '.~A ~r zy, a > t fi a wa k ae ~ba. ;. '9 e y,.e; ~ t ae_x ~ ~ rt.
S. ~1
~. °' ~ '1~It„~, ~X_ tk~~a~=~i»A f: w~ ~ r A~~. i 3 ~{ ~ ~^d rY 2 .x~ '
~ 'S '"
`r ~. {~ -k
.;J,, ,. ~: ~ .. .
~ ~.. ~ •K ~! ~ y ~-. '`¢ x F".''4 Ar ~"7•wr z~ 4 ` p a .+r ~ ~rA ` '" r ~ ,i~J"
~. ~~, •+. y~.it ...iice~ w ~<, " ~ ,+~ 1 .f ~, >.4 ~ #.. ~
a ~ s VY ~' 1 ti "!"°' ~#~, ~ w~'s # "3 .i ~ u ' _~ f ~< ~Pa x .
a`~ ~ 3i e 1 T
`b ~~ ~ ~ i ~~ak ~`c,, s,~s ~`°~ 7 '~1~ ~^t~t ,eS ~.yaMM~ ` ~~~ ~ w i r,~ rs ~ i~~ ~yA ~ ;, ~ rr:~ k #~~ [ ~ di
w4.~ s k ~. `~ ~riA6,~ pt r, r t ~ ~'~a ~ ~ 'ctr ~ ,x * d"~~ ~ ~ p
1' ~ ~ r ° r '- ~ ~ .? ~ ".'f ~ ' F~1^ ud'~, ~3,a ~ a y 4 ~w s t • ~
~r (~.:ti .`` Tx ,7 ~, ~~ i. •~ :t~ ,rH fi '~ -,~ °... . i"" ~' air. ..~~ `As
e
'~ .. ' ' .-'d'ry' , ~ ~ ~z ~'~ a y y~ ~
~ -... *. a e z i ~ iR '~ -. +•• ~ a; ''+~ v ! 1r ~ c
{ Lh :~ ~ a ~ ~ _ ti 4 9 `%+ ~ { xtrh; y.. $"> t ~ i5~ ~' ~` } f a:~ msg. ~d;- '~1~.~,P
i ~ '~ ~ ~ g
.,rte ~' ~f r "ty - ~ ~.,. !. ~ ,~ ';'~`A45~. a ~,.~ J.~ 0~ "rrF ~~a ~,
r L^
~, Orr. \ "~ L ~ ~ e4~ y ~ - Ai P ~,r .- l`r
£ ~ .hay \ : h An. ~ " ~' 6 ',[:. h T p J "a 'i ~ ~ ~
1
",.. ~; ~ 1 c `}~ ;_" ,.- ~ ~+i•, ~, '~ a ~.;'a ~ a~aV ~"~} ~.aR.y ~ ~~ar ~e r f; F -•
i
.~ y "~r+ t '#. shy ' syn.. . ar ~ :r, aP~ r .,~" <"'#
_'~a .
..
f ~. ~ ~ .... .}... ~ .. `~'?; '.... ~ ~ ,y4 yea ..:"~_ .. ~¢ ~ ,~~~ W~ V
' ~ g ~ ~
e' '- s
,iii ~,~ •(( ~ ~ , ~,{ o" r ..~ ~~r ~ ~. t °ie,3 ~
(.4 Y•^} ~ ,# e~+,:~}'.J ws9r, G ~a rr4taQ ~ J "{.' ~f. ._ ~ ~'~
.ter : t,d~~C Gw~+" _, _: ~:~ ~... ` +.ti ~ tia -ia - .. . 1 . b.
x~ n. ~`4 r 5 '~yy J
R. -' a. ~IJY 1'' a ~~ s fir # *. ;
,~ ~ .~ r ~~ .. ]f ~~ ~' t ~ A ~ ~ ^ .~. f . w `Y o ~ +.5 Yea Y e1 ',S < al4x. r+~,~ • t
~~+tyc '~ .~~ ,Y' C ~ V.~ .':~~` '~ ` ~ y,~ ~ Y` ''~ rt.E~,ri~;~d!,ax ~lwe i .. r ~; 4... >
..
~t .d UppEY ' , .ry ,~~' "~ fs. ~'r i i ._ ~ "R,A!`~ i"'. ~ { s+l'itir ~rt•';' +r1 4G°. `
h
~,
vv~~JJ _ 1..µ .. , _- ~ /ice
~y'~~r J
~; ,_, ~ :. ~ ~.e
a ..; .. .y .Y, ~ " ,
y h~ ! ~ <
;t1= - ~ k
~, a
33 4 'per :!, I• m." \
r ~ ~ .,cur ~ i° •~' .: ~` A4 YA ~ ~ ~~ . ~. Q
.,;,.
'"% ~,aa f ~` t r. 4. ~:. ~ tea„ 5+ ~r 4. ~~•~° ~, !ec
.~ rt.
' 1
i'-, Mate
"
hf C • ~; it Y.. ~ ~ °~~ Y' ~ ~ .. ~M1,
,~y~ _ A ~A ` 1lFt M1~
W`P. ,. ~~. ,.iii - ~"' -'r. ~~ .. ~ 1 t_~ '~. ~~',•
Lewis Creek Proposed HECRAS Geometry and Cross-Section Stations

•
•
•
HEC-RAS Plan: lewis River: Lewis Creek Reach: wooer
Reach: River Sta Profile Q Total .Min Ch El W.S. Elev Vel Chh( Top Width SheafChan
(cfs} (ft) (ft) (WS) (ft) ' (Iblsq ft)
upper 0.01 - 2 Yrs 357.00 2145.73 2150.53 2.79 53.60 0.40
.upper `- 0.01 ' 5 Yrs , 619.00 2145.73 2149.38 8.10 36.84 3.66
upper ~ . 0.01 • 10 Yrs 836.00 2145.73 2149.95 8.36 46.25 3.85
upper 0.01 - 25 Yrs 1164.00 2145.73 2151.56 3.43 456.86 0.55
:upper 0.01 50 Yrs 1452.00 2145.73 2151.83 3.59 578.42 0.59
upper 0.01 - 100 Yrs ' 1772.00 2145.73 2152.11 3.76 602.64 0.63
[upper 0.01-- (1.5Yrs) = __.98.00 ---2145.73- --2448.53 2 03 ----29.61 ---0-25
.upper 0.01 ' BKFL 140.00 2145.73 2148.99 2.23 33.46 0.29

upper 189.19 2 Yrs 357.00 2145.98 2151.11 3.12 49.81 0.54
''..upper 189.19 5 Yrs 619.00 2145.98 2152.00 3.87 52.12 0.76
upper 189.19 _ 10 Yrs 836.00 2145.98 2152.46 3.82 201.56 0.72
up er 189.19 25 Yrs 1164.00 2145.98 2151.98 7.35 52.05 2.75
.upper 189.19 50 Yrs 1452.00 2145.98 2152.05 8.95 52.23 4.06
'upper ' - 189.19 100 Yrs 1772.00 2145.98 2152.51 7.94 202.32 3.07
Upper " 189.19. (1:5 Yrs) 98.00 2145.98 2149.02 2.37 18.06 0.33
!upper (89.19 BKFL 140.00 2145.98 2149.55 2.71 24.38 0.43

'upper 45253 2 Yrs : - 357.00 2145.74 2152.23 3.48 53.08 0.64
upper 457.53. 5 Yrs 619.00 2145.74 2153.07 3.54 225.12 0.60
upper 457:53 10 Yrs 836.00 2145.74 2153.43 4.05 229.66 0.77
;upper 457.53 25 Yrs 1164.00 2145.74 2153.88 2.27 613.60 0.23
'upper
~ 457.53 50 Yrs 1452.00 2145.74 2154.18 2.44 627.30 0.27
upper 457.53 100 Yrs 1772.00 2145.74 2154.28 2.85 631.61 0.36
:upper- 457.53 (1.5Yrs) 98.00 2145.74 2149.72 2.31 13.49 0.29
upper 457.53 BKFL 140.00 2145.74 2150.48 2.57 19.98 0.37

upper 887.10 2 Yrs 357.00 2147.77 2153.81 3.38 31.46 0.57
upper 887.10 5 Yrs 619.00 2147.77 2154.52 4.32 184.25 0.89
upper e$7-1Q _ 10 Yrs 836.00 2147.77 2155.02 4.74 202.99 1.03
upper 887..10 25 Yrs 1164.00 2147.77 2153.95 10.54 32.12 5.50
upper 887,10 50 Yrs 1452.00 2147.77 2154.88 8.72 197.73 3.52
u ` r 88710
~ 10D Yrs 1772.00 2147.77 2155.22 9.30 210.42 3.90
upper 887:10
- (1:5 Yrs) 98.00 2147.77 2151.00 2.83 16.37 0.47
_
up''per 887.10 BKFL 140.00 2147.77 2151.88 2.68 23.91 0.42
T
upper 1138.67 2 Yrs _ 357.00 2148.40 2154.66 3.82 26.01 0.72
upper ~ 1138 67 5 Yrs 619.00 2148.40 2155.69 5.05 37.44 1.21
upper 1138.67 10 Yrs 836.00 2148.40 2155.97 3.12 298.84 0.45
upper 1138.67 1 25 Yrs 1164.00 2148.40 2156.76 2.97 316.34 0.39
upper 1138.67 50 Yrs 1452.00 2148.40 2156.93 3.47 319.86 0.52
upper 1138.67 100 Yrs 1772.00 2148.40 2157.35 3.62 329.97 0.55
upper ', 1138.67 (1.5 Yrs); 98.00 2148.40 2151.97 2.70 15.11 0.41
upper 1138.$7. ~ $KFL 140.00 2148.40 2152.74 2.85 18.55 0.44

upper -'' 1420.41 2 Yrs 357.00 2148.17 2155.55 2.59 41.39 0.34
upper ! 1420.41 5 Yrs 619.00 2148.17 2156.92 1.74 310.34 0.14
upper '' 1420.41 10 Yrs 836.00 2148.17 2156.63 4.48 49.28 0.96
upper 1420.41 ' 25 Yrs 1164.00 2148.17 2157.19 2.91 318.32 0.39
upper 1420.41 50 Yrs 1452.00 2148.17 2157.45 3.25 325.96 0.48
upper 1420.41 100 Yrs - 1772.00 2148.17 2157.86 3.40 337.53 0.51

•
•
HEC-RAS Plan: lewis River. Lewis Creek Reach: upper (Continued)
Reach' River Sta 'Profile '' Q Total Min Ch EF W.S. Elev VeI Chnl' Top Width Shear Chan
(cfs) (ft) (ft) ,. (ft/s) (ft) (Ib/sq ft)
upper 1420.41 (1.5 Yrs) 98.00 2148.17 2152.63 1.85 18.40 0.19
upper ' 1420:41 " BKFL 140.00 2148.17 2153.42 2.01 24.24 0.22

upper 1547:86 2 Yrs 357.00 2149.92 2155.78 2.58 40.00 0.32
upper . - 1542:86 5 Yrs 619.00 2149.92 2156.96 3.30 42.73 0.49
upper 1542,.&6 1b Yrs 836.00 2149.92 2157.14 4.28 43.07 0.82
:upper > _ 1542:86 75 Yrs__L'- __ 1164.00- _____21-49.92 -_-2-157.24- ------5.83. --- ---43.39. ------1.51_
;upper 1542:86 50 Yrs 1452.00 2149.92 2157.70 3.99 294.09 0.70
,upper 154286 .100 Yrs ' 1772.00 2149.92 2158.09 2.72 496.80 0.32
'.upper 1542.86 (1.5 Yrs) 98.00 2149.92 2152.88 2.51 23.61 0.39
upper 1542.86 BKFL 140.00 2149.92 2153.66 2.30 31.38 0.31

upper 1691.34 2 Yrs 357.00 2149.48 2156.00 1.83 46.69 0.15
upper _ 1691.34 5 Yrs 619.00 2149.48 2157.27 2.40 52.11 0.24
upper 1.691.34 10 Yrs 836.00 2149.48 2157.64 3.01 53.69 0.38
upper. 1691.34 25 Yrs 1164.00 2149.48 2158.13 3.83 56.46 0.60
upper 1691:34 50 Yrs 1452.00 2149.48 2158.02 4.87 55.33 0.98
upper 1691..,34 a40 Yrs _ 1772.00 2149.48 2158.09 5.87 55.90 1.42
'upper 1691.:34 (1.5 Yrs) 98.00 2149.48 2153.18 1.22 34.65 0.08
ppper 1691:34 t3KFL 140.00 2149.48 2153.90 1.31 37.73 0.09
•

HEC-RAS Plan: Lewis Prop. River: Lewis Creek Reach: upper
•

Reach River Sta Profile ' Q Total ,Min Ch El W.S. Elev Vel Chnl Top Width SheacChan
(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft!s) ' (ft) Qb/sq ft)
.upper 0.01 2 Yrs 357.00 2145.87 2150.25 2.47 364.21 0.34
upper 0.01 5 Yrs 619.00 2145.87 2150.76 2.78 396.38 0.40
:upper 0.01 10 Yrs 836.00 2145.87 2151.09 2.92 418.62 0.43
hipper 0.01 25 Yrs 1164.00 2145.87 2151.50 3.09 446.34 0.47
upper ` 0.01 ;, 50 Yrs 1452.00 2145.87 2151.80 3.21 467.14 0.50
upper 0.01 ' 100 Yrs :. 1772.00 2145.87 2152.05 3.32 626.67 0.52
-upper OA1 _ ~1 5 Yrs) _!_ ___ 98.00 2145_87 _ 2148.32 _ ___2.24 ___ 22.81_ ____._ 0.29_
uppet 0.01 BKFL 140.00 2145.87 2149.23 1.85 54.12 0.22

upper ~ 18.16 2Yrs 357.00 2145.10 2150.63 2.37 60.86 0.30
'upper ,~` .168:16 5 Yrs 619.00 2145.10 2151.19 3.32 66.05 0.56
'upper 168.16 10 Yrs I 836.00 2145.10 2151.52 3.91 165.68 0.75
'u °r 168.16 25Y_rs _ 1164.00 2145.10 2151.92 4.61 200.08 1.02
'upper 168.16. 50,Yrs 1452.00 2145.10 2152.21 5.12 412.77 1.24
-tipper 168.16 100 Yrs - 1772.00 2145.10 2152.46 5.47 418.83 1.39
upper 168.16 ~, (15Yrs) 98.00 2145.10 2148.66 1.82 23.75 0.18
'upper 168.16 BKFL 140.00 2145.10 2149.55 1.54 50.81 0.14

u~ ' `T r 464.12 2 Yrs 357.00 2144.57 2151.17 2.19 79.30 0.25
,upper. 464.12 5 Y[s 619.00 2144.57 2151.98 2.76 311.33 0.37
hipper 464.12 fi0 Yrs 836.00 2144.57 2152.45 2.89 391.12 0.39
upper 464.12 25 Y[s_ 1164.00 2144.57 2152.98 3.00 408.75 0.41
upper 464.12 ' S0 Yrs 1452.00 2144.57 2153.32 2.89 590.75 0.37
upper 464.]2 100 Yrs 1772.00 2144.57 2153.61 3.07 601.86 0.41
upper 464.12
~ (1.5 Yrs) 98.00 2144.57 2149.04 1.70 23.43 0.16
upper 464.1 BKFL 140.00 2144.57 2149.93 1.50 50.62 0.13
~
upper 912.30 2Yrs 357.00 2146.05 2151.98 2.57 53.11 0.35
upper 9.]2.30 5 Yrs __ 619.00 2146.05 2152.94 3.23 57.99 0.50
upper 942,30 10 Yrs 836.00 2146.05 2153.42 3.79 60.43 0.67
upper 912:30 25Y~s 1164.00 2146.05 2153.85 4.55 145.22 0.94
upper 912:30 50 Yrs _ 1452.00 2146.05 2154.17 5.33 174.82 1.28
upper 912:30 104,_Yrs 1772.00 2146.05 2154.47 5.97 186.20 1.57
upper _ 91230 _ (1.5 Yrs) 98.00 2146.05 2149.71 2.15 21.49 0.26
upper 912.30 BKFL 140.00 2146.05 2150.66 1.92 46.18 0.23

upper ~'; 1180.15 2 Yrs 357.00 2146.00 2152.62 2.59 56.62 0.36
upper 1180.15 5 Yrs 619.00 2146.00 2153.65 3.09 64.95 0.47
upper 118¢.15 10 Yrs 836.00 2146.00 2154.26 3.46 78.65 0.57
upper 1180.15 25 Yrs 1164.00 2146.00 2154.95 3.65 263.18 0.61
_
upper _ __
1180.15
50 Yrs
1452.00
2146.00
2155.39
3.83
281.19
0.65
upper 1180.15 10p Yrs 1772.00 2146.00 2155.83 3.95 292.01 0.68
upper 1180.15 (1.5 Yrs):: 98.00 2146.00 2150.24 2.15 17.65 0.25
upper 1180.15 'BKFL 140.00 2146.00 2151.19 2.14 24.71 0.25

upper 1472.86 2 Yrs 357.00 2148.25 2153.47 2.93 55.44 0.47
upper 1472.86 S Yrs 619.00 2148.25 2154.49 3.38 64.21 0.58
upper 1472.86 10 Yrs 836.00 2148.25 2155.15 3.68 106.44 0.66
upper 1472 86 25 Yrs ' 1164.00 2148.25 2155.77 3.86 276.59 0.69
upper - 1472.86 50 Yrs 1452.00 2148.25 2156.19 3.99 283.87 0.72
upper: 1472`86 100 Yrs 1772.00 2148.25 2156.60 4.12 295.37 0.75

HEC-RAS Plan: Lewis Prop. River: Lewis Creek Reach: upper (Continued)

Reach'
River Sfa
Profile =
Q Total
Min Cfi El
W.S: Elev
; Vel Chnl ' __
lop 1Nidth
iShear Chan
(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft) (Ib/sq_ft)
:upper 1472:$6 (1.5 Yrs) ' 98.00 2148.25 2151.04 2.89 19.70 0.50
upper 1472:86 BKFL 140.00 2148.25 2151.83 2.75 23.18 0.42

:upper 1602.68 2 Yrs 357.00 2147.90 2153.89 2.77 49.43 0.40
upper 1602:68 5 Yrs 619.00 2147.90 2154.90 3.44 52.21 0.57
.upper 1602.68 10 Yrs 836.00 2147.90 2155.55 3.89 54.02 0.70
u r 1602:68 25 Yrs 1164.00 2147.90 2156.13 4.72 55.62 0.99
upper 1602:68 50 Yrs 1452.00 2147.90 2156.51 5.42 56.64 1.28
upper 1602.68 100 Yrs 1772.00 2147.90 2157.00 3.65 447.19 0.57
upper 1602.68 (1.5Yrs) 9$.00 2147.90 2151.55 2.33 19.78 0.31
upper
- 1602;68 BKFL 140.00 2147.90 2152.23 2.47 23.52 0.33
I
~uppgr 1743:37 2Yrs 357.00 2150.30 2154.37 3.32 50.41 0.61
upper 1749.37 S.Yrs_ 619.00 2150.30 2155.37 3.86 54.84 0.75
.upper 1749:37 ' tOYs 836.00 2150.30 2156.05 4.22 57.80 0.85
.upper 1749':37 2~Yrs 1164.00 2150.30 2156.74 4.86 60.87 1.08
'.upper 17.49:37 ¢QYr's i 1452.00 2150.30 2157.24 5.37 63.07 1.28
'upper- 1749.37 1:00 Yrs.. ' I 1772.00 2150.30 2157.12 6.73 62.55 2.02
'.upper 1749:37 ~ (1.5 Yrs). 98.00 2150.30 2152.11 3.33 20.10 0.70
:upper 1749.37 BKFL 140.00 2150.30 2152.70 3.33 22.47 0.65
•
•

• APPENDIX6
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
1. Typical Riffle and Pool Cross-Section and Pebble Count Plots for Lewis Creek.
2. Entrainment Plots for Lewis Creek.
3. BEHI Raw Data Table for Lewis Creek.
•
•
Lewis Creek Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Restoration Plan December 2007

• • •
Lewis Creek
Typical Riffle Cross-Section
2007

2153

2152
..~/~~
2151
2
0
15
..
a
2149
d
W

2148

2147
2146

2145
35 55 75 95 115 135 155
Station (ft)
°'~°0."'Water Surface Elevation ~~Bankfull Elevation ~~

• •
•
Lewis Creek
Typical Pool Cross-Section
2007
2159 _
4
2158

2157

2156

21SS

~;
a
2154

w
2153

2152

2151

2150

2149

20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Station (ft)
Water Surface Elevation ~~Banl~nll Elevation

• • •
Lewis Creek
Typical Riffle Substrate Composition
2007
100
...,
ae
d
LL
a+
C
C!
10
a
a~
«.
co
E
v
1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Particle Size Class (mm)

• a
•
Lewis Creek
Typical Pool Substrate Composition
2007
100
~_
L
LL
a+
C
d 10
a
d
:~
co
E
U
1
0, 01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size Class (mm)

• •
Lewis Creek
Bar Sediment Sample
0
100
60.0 .
90.0

50.0
80.0
~~ .
Y-
'70.0
40
0 -
+'~
----
Individual % Sub Pavement-Wet
.
D Individual % Sub Pavement-Dry

,~ ~ '
°
~~-
Cumulative /o Sub Pavement-Wet 60.0 w

~
~ ' ~Ar-Cumulative % Sub Pavement-Dry

30 0
~
-
- - - - --._ _-_ --
---- ----- -----_ _ - -. _ -- - -- -- - -
- ----
50.0 U

a
a i
.

U - - 40.0 ~

20.0 - - -- -- - --- -- ----- -- -- _ ----- - ----- _--- -- - U
~~ 30.0
i
20.0
10.0 -..- - - ----__- - __
~!
i ~ 10.0

~ ,;;
-- -
----
---
0
0

- -
0.0 Y
t
t---
.
2 2.1 4.75 9. ~ 16 31. ~ 75
Particle Size (mm)

• • •
Lewis Creek
Bar Sediment Sample
Wetted Pebble Count
loo

,.
0
..
..
to
a
d

t~

1
0,01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 10000.00 100000.00
Particle Sfze Class (mm)
2007

• •
•
Lewis Creek
Bar Sediment Sample
Wetted Pebble Count
30

25
i~
20

U
a
IS

10

5

0

Oobti o,~ti~ otih ~h ti ti a ~~ ~ ~~b ~b ~tib ~ti ah ~` ~~ titi`~ ~~o fhb ,~b`ti ytiti ~otia ~b
Particle Size Bass (mm)
^ 2007 ~ ~~

• •
Stream Name: Lewis Creek
Date: 7.3.2007
Field Crew: K. Young, R. Baggett
LEFT BANK
Section Length
ft Bank Height
ft Bank Erosion
Potential Neer Bank
Stress Erosion Rate
r Total Stream Bank
Erosion ft3 r
15 7 Hi h Low 0.1 10.5
44 7 Hi h Moderate 0.15 46.2
45 7 Hi h Low 0.1 31.5
22 7 Hi h Low 0.1 15.4
28 7 Hi h Low 0.1 19.6
25 7 Hi h Hi 0.2 35
20 7 Low Low 0 0
SO 7 Low Low 0 0
20 7 Moderate Moderate 0.03 4.2
65 7 Low Low 0 0
20 7 Moderate Moderate 0.03 4.2
15 7 Moderate Hi h 0.1 10.5
50 7 Low Low 0 0
30 7 Hi Hi h 0.2 42
20 7 Moderate Low 0.02 2.8
25 7 Moderate Low 0.02 3.5
60 7 Low Low 0 0
34 7 Moderate Hi 0.1 23.8
30 6.25 Low Moderate 0 0
45 8 Moderate Moderate 0.03 10.8
l0 8 Low Moderate 0 0
50 8 Low Low 0 0
40 8 Low Low 0 0
30 8 Low Hi h 0 0
30 8 Low Low 0 0
30 8 Low Low 0 0
70 8 Low Low 0 0
55 8 Moderate Hi 0.1 44
12 8 Moderate Moderate 0.03 2.88
15 8 V Hi h V Hi h 0
Lett Bank Total ft3 r 306.88
•
RIGHT BANK
Section
Len h ft Bank Height
ft Bank Erosion
Potential Near Bank
Streaa Erosion Rate
f r Total Stream Bank
Erosion ft3 r
42 Low Low 0 0
35 7.25 V Hi h Low 0.5 126.875
53 8 Extreme Law 1 424
20 8 V Hi h Low 0.5 80
14 8 Extreme Low 1 112
12 8 Extreme Moderate 1.25 120
25 8 V Hi h Hi 0.9 180
20 8 Low Low 0 0
50 8 Moderate Low 0.02 8
15 8 Moderate Moderate 0.03 3.6
50 8 Low Law 0 0
35 8 Hi h Moderate O.15 42
15 8 Hi h Hi h 0.2 24
50 8 Moderate Low 0.02 8
30 ]0 Low Low 0 0
26 10 Moderate Low 0.02 5.2
60 10 Low Low 0 0
30 10 Moderate Moderate 0.03 9
14 10 V Hi h Hi 0.9 126
50 8 Moderate Hi h 0.1 40
54 8 Low Low 0 0
50 8 Moderate Moderate 0.03 12
40 8 Low Low 0 0
38 8 V Hi h Hi 0.9 273.6
30 8 Low Low 0 0
30 8 Low Moderate 0 0
30 8 Low Moderate 0 0
30 8 Low Low 0 0
10 8 Low Low 0 0
60 8 Hi h Hi h 0.2 96
Ri h[ Bsnk Total ft3/ r 1690.27.5